U.S. Budget problem

^ Computer jobs are loaded to the gills with requirements for experience right now. (I've been looking for 2 months and absolutely nothing has a no-experience-required clause. I have my degree already so it begs the question how do you get experience to enter a job market where experience is needed as a prerequisite?) Flooding the job market with computer degrees at this point is a no-go.

Not that I'm against education but really you gotta think these things through. New degrees for the next few years are going to be the last things hired and we should not promote an entitlement mindset that everyone should go to college regardless. Not everyone can make it in college nor should everyone go.

^^ Actually, being a low level lawyer is much less profitable than it used to be. They got hit by the recession too this time.

In light of that response, Tom, I'm EXTREMELY curious as to how you can possible defend a 'there are enough jobs for everyone' mindset. Why don't you practice what you preach and go work at Mc Donalds? ;)

It depends where you got your computer science degree, different university different reputation. Simply having a degree is hardly good enough.

The problems are many fold in America and you should not write off any way of solving them over ideological reasons. I don't understand your "we can't cut the budget" but we should "cut the budget". It doesn't make any sense.

You stated yourself, America is pitted in three military operations. Don't you think, perhaps, you should probably not pit yourself in so many wars? Justifying military spending by going to war more is ridiculous. You don't HAVE TO go to war. I really don't care what cockamamie explanation you got for why America needs to invade three countries at once, the point is, you don't have the money. You don't have a choice anymore. Unless you want to stop building roads, powerplants and hospitals, just pull out.

• Grab taxes owed to the government by the rich by closing loopholes. Bam 300 billion.
• Cut useless R&D programs from the military. Bam 100 billion.
• Cut a bunch of stuff suggested by CBO. Bam several hundred billion.
• Pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan and so on completely and no private military contractors. The only wars you fight are ones sanctioned by the UNSC. Bam 100 billion dollars.
• Start paying down the debt instead of taking in Chinese RMB. Save 100s of billions in interest across several years.
• Universal healthcare is expected to flat line healthcare costs across 10 years. Hopefully this will save 100s of billions across those years.

There I just got a trillion dollars. That leaves maybe a trillion in debt that is expected to go away due to economic growth in 5 years.

I may have to. It's better than being on welfare and I don't feel the job is "beneath me".

The last war sanctioned by the UNSC for any purpose was the Korean War. They didn't authorize the use of force in the Gulf War but were not opposed to military action against Saddam.

Face it, the UNSC is never going to live up to its standards and authorize a conflict no matter how justified one side is. And its not going to stop wars either. There have been 120+ conflicts worldwide since 1950 and the number is only rising.

It authorized use of force in Libya.

It authorized a no-fly-zone not a bombing campaign against Gaddafi's military no matter where they are or what they're doing.

It authorized measures necessary to protect civilians.

Which can be interpreted as we can make an amphibious landing in Tripoli all in the name of "protecting civilians".

edited 19th Apr '11 10:42:29 AM by MajorTom

No it can't. It doesn't allow ground forces, nor does it allow supplying the rebels with weapons.

You can't just make shit up Tom.

UNSC resolution 1973 explicitly banned invasion by ground forces in Libya. It mandated a no-fly zone and any action (except ground forces) necessary to prevent civilian casualties, which includes bombing.

The arms embargo was also a UN resolution, and it includes no loophole to allow arming the rebels (as it bans all weapon exports to Libya), at least with actual weapons, so some countries are giving them all kinds of equipment except weapons.

breadloaf: Remember, the CBO report has some options that are mutually exclusive (or so says their report). I have no clue which ones those are, though.

Still, even if say, you trim only a mere (...mere?) 800 billion off of the annual budget, that's still a significant reduction.

Tom, the biggest problem is Tax-expenditures, IE Loopholes, not entitlements. They cost more than any other single factor.

From a personal standpoint, let me put it to you this way: My mother pays 38% tax. The hedge fund managers, who made more in one hour than a middle class family does in 44 years, pay 25% tax due to lowered tax rates and loopholes they have exploited. "Soaking the rich" Will not admittedly solve all the problems, but it will be much needed.

Further, corporations are posting profits not seen since 2007, but the unemployment rate is still staggering, with the low end of "Average" At 500,000 jobless per state, and yet the corporations still ask for pay-cuts and reduction of benefits. Teachers in Michigan are payed so little that they have to use food stamps to stay alive. If we don't spend more on education, then the US will have a nation of people who have to take manual labor jobs because they aren't qualified for anything else.

EDIT: Also, I will look at anything proposed by the GOP 'very skeptically due to the fact that John Boehner is trying to spend tax-payer money to push the Defense of Marriage act, and the CBO has stated that "Obamacare" will save billions over the next decade.

edited 19th Apr '11 1:31:22 PM by Enkufka

Like I said, corporations know they hold all the cards and they'll keep digging until there's no ground beneath their feet because they can afford the fallout while no one else can.

Pvtnum:

Yup and that much less expenditure is also less interest to be paid on debt. Unfortunately, it'll be some time before the US is out of the hole and can start paying down the debt and thus begin to stabilise interest payments to something more manageable.

Hopping back here:

More and more I am becoming convinced that changing the taxes so that the rich and corporations are taxed more would go a long way to fixing the economy.

Point A (For Raising taxes): Back in the 50s, when taxes were much higher on the rich, close to 90%, the economy was flourishing and the middle class with it. while things hav changed, one thing remains true: Those with higher incomes were encouraged by the high tax rate to reinvest that money into businesses which would pay back out. People working for said company benefited from higher wages caused by unions fighting for their rights as well as corporations trying to get out of paying more taxes. as a result, people could live off of manufacturing jobs.

Point B (Both For raising taxes and Against Lowering taxes): Jobs are not created in response to a consumer desire directly for jobs, nor for a desire to pay people. Its created in response for a higher demand for a product from the consumer and a higher demand for profit from the producer. While the producer will take a hit in profits from the hiring of another person, they will recoup that loss in the form of greater productivity. By not taxing the corporations as much, they don't have to work as hard to create a better product for the public, and productivity suffers. By raising taxes, they must get their profits from else where, such as better products and more productivity.

Point C (For Unions): Unions are still a vital part of the economic world and human rights world. More and more, companies are able to, and do, force their workers to either resign, take pay-cuts, or take cuts to their benefits. its gotten to the point where GE Pays no taxes altogether and gets tax credits from the government, yet is asking 15,000 workers to take pay cuts. All over the country, companies are posting profits not seen since before the bubble burst, yet there are still millions unemployed. Unions fight for decent wages and keep corporations honest and from exploiting their workers, whose rights are being attacked by both corporations and Conservatives in congress who are slashing regulations and oversight.

Point D (Against lowering taxes): Trickle down economics has been thoroughly debunked. It doesn't work. While the Laffer curve has sound reasoning behind it, we are NOWHERE NEAR the effective point.

I'd very much like someone to examine this for problems. Thank you.

Back in the 50s we didn't have a generation of welfare moms and welfare rats. We didn't have expensive ass regulated healthcare and the culture for pinning every single detail or issue as malpractice and suing the pants off of doctors. We also didn't have to compete globally, everywhere else that had industrial capacity was either bombed back into the Stone Ages not 15 years earlier and still trying to recover or was on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.

A dollar also went much farther back then as many things didn't cost as much such as a home or car or going to college.

Yeah they'll get their profits elsewhere, by either axing jobs, outsourcing, or generally cutting costs by any means necessary usually at the cost of employees. It's easier to do that than foster more productivity from an accounting point of view.

You want to end the travesty that is GE getting away with paying zero taxes, fix the tax code (as in remove the loopholes, simplify it and whatnot) not just hike the rate and expect things to be fine. Fix the code and if we're still short then you can have an honest questioning of why don't we raise taxes but the tax code must come first.

Hahahahaha! Right and Cuba is a democratic paradise. Unions have never advocated for human rights unless it was politically expedient/advantageous to do so. The AFL-CIO didn't give a damn about civil rights until the movement was large enough for them to find suckers. (And they aren't advocating human or civil rights today.)

Unions are a relic of the 19th century hopelessly living in the past. Between globalization, the march of technology and the fact corporate culture itself has changed radically from the days of John D Rockefeller speaks volumes of the union's obsolescence. UAW bankrupted Detroit and every politician in the state was on their side as they did so.

I am also saying that the tax code needs to be fixed. For instance, close the loophole involving "Small businesses," because currently multi-billionaires (The Koch brothers) qualify.

As for outsourcing, regulate it. make it harder our prohibitively expensive to outsource. I don't know how to go about doing that, seeing as how I do not have an understanding of what fiscal/economic procedure is involved.

Unions are still needed, as I previously stated. I would point out that Ford kept its unions and its company despite others going under, mainly because they delivered a better product. The thing about what happened in Detroit is that A) They were honoring a contract previously negotiated upon before any crisis occurred, and B) the involved corporations delivered substandard product. As for "Never having advocated human rights"... 40 hour workweek, safer working conditions, a liveable wage, end of child labour, cronyism, and nepotism; and lastly the right to benefits. All of which have helped contribute to a healthy middle class.

And to say that the poorer people, who barely have the ability to sustain themselves, are "welfare rats"... I ask: What about the welfare Fat cats, who constantly benefit from the wages of the people that work for them and the taxes that they don't pay?

Also, Welfare queens/rats are an utter myth. Up to $300 per month is barely enough to live on, and people on welfare are well below the poverty line. 2/3rd of the people who benefit from welfare are children, and 2/3rds of the parents of said children are disabled. Welfare accounts for about 4% of the budget:

edited 4th May '11 8:07:05 PM by Enkufka

I'm still laughing at the idea of regulations being the cost for healthcare. That's like claiming R&D is expensive to the pharma companies with marketing actually being their biggest expenditure.

R&D is expensive, it's just not the pharmaceuticals' biggest expense.

And yet it is treated as if it were the driving force, the only thing that mattered. It's not.

And in fact, a certain senator investigated the pharma market back in the fifties. He concluded that they spent excess money on marketing, presented less effective drugs as miracle cures just to get new patents and otherwise behaved like a bunch of schmucks.

edited 21st Apr '11 5:51:49 PM by blueharp

Also, the heyday of unions was the 50s, and barely a gleam in anyones eyes during the 19th century.

Okay so let me summarise in my most comedic fashion.

• Raise taxes on the rich and cut loopholes for corporations to get around 200-300 billion per year

"No! Everything will leave America then! There will be outsourcing, pay cuts, jobs axed which is totally not happening as we speak with our super low taxes. We must coddle our corporations with effective subsidies and let everything slide! But I want to balance the budget. Also I blame democrats"

• Reduce military spending, cut military R&D in half, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely. Save around 200 billion per year.

"No! China will invade with their magical army of death robots with laser eye beams held aboard their super stealth submarine transports! You can't cut a dime from the military or else America will be defeated in these future wars that you predict must happen. Plus we need supersonic stealth fighters that can drop nukes on distant cities across the ocean to defeat rag-tag terrorist groups that have 50-year old ak-47s. I also want to balance the budget and cut spending. Also I blame the democrats."

• Public option in healthcare. No money saved immediately. Expected to flatline healthcare costs for the next 10-20 years, which will help to balance the budget in the future.

"No! It will magically fail in America because it's different here whereas all other countries in the rest of the world are totally the same and despite the fact public healthcare worked in all those same but different countries, it won't work in America. It works in UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea... but not USA! I also want to balance the budget by cutting spending which means more money shovelled into private healthcare corporations."

• I don't even know why unions are even an issue.

"Dur."

• Welfare. I'm hard pressed to find that budget item in the Federal budget.

"Rawr, it too high. Whatever the heck value it is."

sorry, I brought up unions because there have been budgets (IE wisconsin's) fought over the rights of unions to bargain, mainly to do with pensions and benefits.