Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling

+5
othershoe1030
Floridatexan
Sal
Hospital Bob
boards of FL
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:I don't know what those right-wing teabagging reactionaries are caterwalling about.
Paul Krugman is a nobel prize winning economist and he says we need more debt,  not less.   I wish those know-nothings would listen to him.

WOW, a SOCIALIST, PAUL KRUGMAN, GIVEN AN AWARD BY A...SOCIALIST COUNTRY.

I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

Why should I listen to a SOCIALIST when AMERICA is not a SOCIALIST COUNTRY?

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling - Page 2 Democrat%20Socialists_zpsemly56b9

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Here's a possible explanation for that graph,  bds.  I'm guessing it defines "manufacturing jobs" as applying only to the people who were employed directly inside a manufacturing facility.

First of all,  that won't tell the overall story because it doesn't take into account the fact that a thriving manufacturing sector itself will serve to pull up all the other sectors of the economy.  It formed the basis of an overall economy which included all the jobs that spun off from it.

That early decline in the actual number of jobs engaged directly in manufacturing is probably due an increase in productivity.  Increasing automation would also probably be a factor.  And who knows what else.
But regardless of the explanation,  our economy was continuing to thrive and
it was based primarily on our world leadership as a manufacturing country.
I was there and I saw it with my own eyes.  And so was everybody else reading this who is my age.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

bds,

Here's some history for you.

It's hard to believe now,  but when we boomers were young,  "made in japan" meant what "made in china" means today.  It meant inferior quality.
During our youth,  virtually everything anyone wanted to own was made in America.

It wasn't until about 1960 when we first began to accept imported products of any kind (other than European cars which were imported much earlier but that was just a niche market). 
It started off slowly with the import of Japanese pocket transistor radios.
And then later on Japanese motorcycles.
And then over time Japanese products became more available and began to take a significant share of the market.
But that didn't really happen until the 70's and 80's.
Prior to that American manfacturing ruled.
And even after that it still provided us an economic base.

And then along came China.  But not in 1945.  lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

And since you only believe what college professors tell you,  just ask one who's my age and he'll confirm this.  lol

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:About that graph and this notion of yours that our manufacturing jobs began to steadily decline in 1945.  When during my entire youth the country was experiencing the greatest economic boom in history and my old man and everybody else's old man was able to get a good job with good benefits because we were the world's manufacturing "superpower" during that time.
Fuck, I wasn't even born until 1949 and it was already going full bore.  And continued to do so for a long time afterwards.
That graph,  or more accurately what you're trying to infer from it,  is the best example I've seen yet for what Mark Twain said about statistics.  lol

Later on when the corporate power brokers colluded with both political parties to take advantage of an unbelievably cheap and unlimited source of labor in China,  that's when we started to transition from a manufacturing to a service economy. 
Not in 1945.  That's so fucking absurd that it makes me wonder if you actually have been taught anything of value in school.



So tell me if I'm understanding you correctly. I just showed you that manufacturing jobs as a percent of the workforce - which you say is the chief cause of our national debt - have been on the decline for 70 years; and your response there is to basically say "I don't believe you because my old man worked in manufacturing"?

To clarify, you're saying that you simply don't believe in the manufacturing jobs graph?


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I misspoke.  What I should have said is this.

For decades following World War 2,  our country was thriving because our economy was based on our being a world leader in manufacturing goods.
And slowly and over time,  other parts of the world began to compete with us  (chiefly Japan,  Hong Kong and Taiwan). 
BUT, it wasn't until later on when our industrial and business leaders discovered the unlimited supply of dirt cheap labor China provided,  that everything really started to change.
If you want to better pinpoint the time,  find out what year it was when Sam Walton took down all those Donald Trump-sized signs in his stores which said "WE SELL PRODUCTS MADE IN THE USA".

That's when the downward spiral began.  And that's what led to the "rust belts" and not just in Michigan and Ohio and that part of the country.  It was shortly after that that the textile plant closed in Elkin NC where my first cousin had operated a car dealership very successfully for ten years.
And when that plant closed and the jobs went to China,  it took most of the jobs in town with it and his car dealership went bankrupt.
That story was repeated over and over in all of the manufacturing regions of the country. 
Because 50 cent/hr labor with no benefits looked a whole lot better to the business magnates than American union wages with benefits.
And the public went along with it because it let them buy products a lot cheaper than could be made with American union labor.

And this graph of yours correlates pretty well to the timeline of it...

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling - Page 2 Historyofnationaldebt

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:I misspoke.  What I should have said is this.

For decades following World War 2,  our country was thriving because our economy was based on our being a world leader in manufacturing goods.
And slowly and over time,  other parts of the world began to compete with us  (chiefly Japan,  Hong Kong and Taiwan). 
BUT, it wasn't until later on when our industrial leaders discovered the unlimited supply of dirt cheap labor China provided,  that everything really started to change.
If you want to better pinpoint the time,  find out what year it was when Sam Walton took down all those Donald Trump-sized signs in his stores which said "WE SELL PRODUCTS MADE IN THE USA".

That's when the downward spiral began.  And that's what led to the "rust belts" and not just in Michigan and Ohio and that part of the country.  It was shortly after that that the textile plant closed in Elkin NC where my first cousin had operated a car dealership very successfully for ten years.
And when that plant closed and the jobs went to China,  it took most of the jobs in town with it and his car dealership went bankrupt.
That story was repeated over and over in all of the manufacturing regions of the country. 
Because 50 cent/hr labor with no benefits looked a whole lot better to the business magnates than American union wages with benefits.
And the public went along with it because it let them buy products a lot cheaper than could be made with American union labor.

And this graph of yours correlates pretty well to the timeline of it...

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling - Page 2 Historyofnationaldebt



This new explanation doesn't fit with reality either.  Manufacturing jobs have been steadily converted into other types of jobs since 1945.  Debt didn't begin to explode until the 70s/80s.  Therefore, we can exclude your theory by simply looking at the 50s and 60s - an era when manufacturing jobs were steadily transitioning to other types of jobs and also when debt was not exploding, as you say it should have been.

Bob, do you think it be due to tax rates?

I will give you this, however;  as more and more manufacturing moved overseas, incomes of top tier earners likely increased.  If we look at income growth over the the last 30 years or so for various income tiers, we see that the vast majority of income gains have gone to top tier earners.  Put another way, the share of income has been skewed so that more and more goes to the upper tiers and less and less goes to the lower tiers. Perhaps the decline in manufacturing jobs is at play there, among other things.  If we combine that fact with the fact that tax rates on top tier earners have plummeted over that same time period...well...


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I think both you and Sal have asked me "don't you watch the news?" today.

Yes I do.  And the news over the last decade has been that those replacement jobs have not provided the wages and benefits we enjoyed with the jobs before.  It's been in all the papers.  And on the tv.  And on the internet.  lol

And that decline in income has led to a decline in government revenues from taxation. 
And,  as I already said,  even though it's experienced declining revenues,  our government has tried to maintain spending levels.   And it's done that with borrowing and debt.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

I will give you this, however;  as more and more manufacturing moved overseas, incomes of top tier earners likely increased.  If we look at income growth over the the last 30 years or so for various income tiers, we see that the vast majority of income gains have gone to top tier earners.  Put another way, the share of income has been skewed so that more and more goes to the upper tiers and less and less goes to the lower tiers.  Perhaps the decline in manufacturing jobs is at play there, among other things.  If we combine that fact with the fact that tax rates on top tier earners have plummeted over that same time period...well...

You edited your post and added this paragraph while I was replying to the first part of your post.

I don't disagree with this.  And yes the thing can be explained with a combination of factors.
It's just that before,  you were ignoring one of the big ones.  lol

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

I will give you this, however;  as more and more manufacturing moved overseas, incomes of top tier earners likely increased.  If we look at income growth over the the last 30 years or so for various income tiers, we see that the vast majority of income gains have gone to top tier earners.  Put another way, the share of income has been skewed so that more and more goes to the upper tiers and less and less goes to the lower tiers.  Perhaps the decline in manufacturing jobs is at play there, among other things.  If we combine that fact with the fact that tax rates on top tier earners have plummeted over that same time period...well...

You edited your post and added this paragraph while I was replying to the first part of your post.

I don't disagree with this.  And yes the thing can be explained with a combination of factors.
It's just that before,  you were ignoring one of the big ones.  lol



It's not that I'm ignoring your claim that our debt is due to manufacturing jobs being lost, it's that that claim is simply wrong. That claims is neither a "big one" or even a "one". It is a "wrong".


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

It's not just the manufacturing jobs.  It's the manufacturing jobs and all the other jobs that the manufacturing jobs supported. 

Think of it this way.  If Eglin and Hurlburt and NAS Pensacola and Whiting and Saufley all shut down because all those jobs went to China,  what do you think would happen to the panhandle economy?  Do you think all the rest of the jobs around here would remain? 
And when all those jobs are lost,  and they're replaced by hamburger flipping and walmart clerking,  do you think local tax revenues would stay the same?  lol

Are you actually convinced the Bush tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit?  And if we just take back those tax cuts we won't have a deficit any longer?  Do you truly believe that?  lol

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:It's not just the manufacturing jobs.  It's the manufacturing jobs and all the other jobs that the manufacturing jobs supported. 

Think of it this way.  If Eglin and Hurlburt and NAS Pensacola and Whiting and Saufley all shut down because all those jobs went to China,  what do you think would happen to the panhandle economy?  Do you think all the rest of the jobs around here would remain? 
And when all those jobs are lost,  and they're replaced by hamburger flipping and walmart clerking,  do you think local tax revenues would stay the same?  lol

Are you actually convinced the Bush tax cuts are the only reason we have a deficit?  And if we just take back those tax cuts we won't have a deficit any longer?  Do you truly believe that?  lol



I'm convinced that one of the chief reasons we have a deficit today is the Bush tax cuts.  It's a combination of the Bush tax cuts, the two wars, and the Great Recession.  Those are the three "big ones", as you would say.  Prior to all of that, we had a steady surplus.  Lurking behind all of that is a gross redistribution of income which by some stretch of the imagination could be what you're trying to say here in this thread.

Regarding the rest of your post and your continuous rehashing of the same argument (our debt comes from the loss of manufacturing jobs), imagine a public water fountain with a slight leak.  You notice it every day when you walk past on your way to wherever.  You see the leak every day for an entire decade.  Then one day you're on your usual walk and you notice that the street is completely flooded.  There is a fire hydrant in view that is clearly open up and spewing water everywhere.  Someone else approaches you - who doesn't yet see the hydrant - and asks "Whoa!  What is going on here!"

Bob:  It's the leaky water fountain.  lol  I seen it every day for ten years on my walk.  lol.  

Other person:  But if you've seen it every day for ten years and it's been doing the same thing that entire time why would we just now being seeing this effect?

Bob:  Oh, I guess you told me.  The leaky fountain that has leaked for ten years couldn't possible flood the street. lol.


I can't argue with logic like that.


And note that regardless of our thoughts on the deficit and how it came to be, that still doesn't address the underlying subject of this thread - which is the debt limit.  We should pay our bills.  Have you anything to say on the actual subject matter of the thread beyond an extreme conversation between a married couple?  Which is the more optimal path forward:  Paying our bills or default?



Last edited by boards of FL on 10/28/2015, 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Well my answer to that last question all depends.

If shutting down the government means my social security and medicare benefits get shut down with it,  then by all means I say pay the bill.

But if it doesn't,  I say shut her down. 

I am,  of course, a member of the worst generation ever.  Just ask Sal.  lol

gatorfan



Of course the ultimate solution would be for Congress to create and stick with a budget that is less than expected revenue. What a concept, I believe Bill Clinton advocated for something like that and it worked pretty well as I recall.

Guest


Guest

Dems love DEBT

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Obamasucks wrote:Dems love DEBT

Republicans also love debt, so long as they can spend the money on big defense projects and hand it out as corporate welfare to contractors, etc. They also like military interventions and spend debt money lavishly on those. Republicans love government spending in every area except perhaps welfare/entitlements.

It was Ronald Reagan (a Republican) who instituted the largest ever peacetime deficit in our country's history back in 1981. It was Dick Cheney (a Republican) who uttered back around 2001: "...Reagan proved that deficits don't matter..."

Republicans are famous for cutting taxes, growing the government anyway, and running a deficit to cover the tax shortfall. See Reagan and Bush Junior.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Obamasucks wrote:Dems love DEBT

Republicans also love debt, so long as they can spend the money on big defense projects and hand it out as corporate welfare to contractors, etc. They also like military interventions and spend debt money lavishly on those. Republicans love government spending in every area except perhaps welfare/entitlements.

It was Ronald Reagan (a Republican) who instituted the largest ever peacetime deficit in our country's history back in 1981. It was Dick Cheney (a Republican) who uttered back around 2001: "...Reagan proved that deficits don't matter..."

Republicans are famous for cutting taxes, growing the government anyway, and running a deficit to cover the tax shortfall. See Reagan and Bush Junior.


At least the GOP was creating something other than minimum wage jobs. The Defense industry pays far more than burger flipping. Those working in the Defense industry aren't sucking off the system. They don't need SNAP or other programs. They buy new cars and homes that actually contribute to the tax base of an area. They can afford the homes they buy due to having a good paying job.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Clinton and the congress,  with the leadership of the House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, not only balanced the budget but created a budget surplus.

But that was before our economy went into decline and before the Bush tax cuts (with deference to bds) and before a lot of other stuff.
Now the growing entitlements,  military spending and all the rest has made it virtually impossible to ever balance the budget without throwing the economy into recession because so much of the economy is now tied to federal spending (our own Congressional District a prime example).
And the caliber of elected officials we have now mirrors the dumbed down society as a whole.  So the chances of ever being able to balance the budget again are virtually nil.
So we will keep paying the interest on the debt while at the same time actually adding more to the balance owed each year.  In 2015,  we will pay $215 billion in interest.  That could be paying for a lot of stuff.  Heck,  it could cancel out all the medicare premiums I have to pay and double my social security check.  lol

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:I am sick and tired of these republicans and conservatives wanting to spend all this money.
If only they would be more like the liberals and democrats.  Those are the true fiscal conservatives.
Bernie Sanders is more fiscally conservative than anybody. If we elect him he'll cut out all this spending and balance the budget.



Let's try a different approach.  

Bob, should the US pay its bills or default?  Note that I'm not asking you whether or not we should incur new bills.  I'm asking you whether or not we should pay the bills that we have already incurred.  What do you think?



Well, I'll answer from a citizen's point of view. No one gives me the choice to pay or not pay a bill.

Why does the US get a choice?

Explain that one Boards?



Markle

Markle

Salinsky wrote:[How many times do we have to go through this exercise before people comprehend that raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more government spending?

Raising the debt ceiling simply allows the United States to pay its bills on time for money already spent.

As you know, we have plenty of money to pay those bills, the military, SS, Medicare everything else we need for the government to run.

In my opinion, we should eliminate the debt ceiling.

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:Absolutely.  When will these reactionaries and teabaggers get it through their thick skulls that raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with debt.
I am sick and tired of these numbskulls bitching about debt.  Debt is a good thing.

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling - Page 2 LOL_zpsrc5py0ql

REASONABLE DEBT is not debilitating.

Otherwise see Greece.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:You still don't seem to understand the underlying subject, Bob.

Should the US pay its bills or default?  Which would be more sound fiscal advice?  What should we do?  Pay or default?

As you know well, but Progressives can only make their arguments seem reasonable, the question is not either, or.

We have plenty of money to pay all necessary expenses.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Being it the case that these jobs have been on the decline - steadily - for 70 years, we can't really say that the relatively recent increase in debt is due to that decline, can we? 

I mean, simply saying "We should pay our bills" is nothing but out-to-lunch, loony bullshit in the same vein as Markle, right, Bob? 

Well what can I say.  With this you've destroyed my argument.

We started losing all our manufacturing jobs in 1945 so that has no relevance to what happened.

And the idea that we should pay our bills is loony bullshit.

You've convinced me.


Bob, if the national debt is a function of manufacturing jobs - as you just tried to say that it is - shouldn't we see a correlation between the national debt and manufacturing jobs?

Here is national debt from 1940 to present:

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling - Page 2 Historyofnationaldebt


Notice how - in spite of the fact that we were steadily losing manufacturing jobs - the national debt remains relatively low through the 40s, 50s, and 60s.  Then notice how things obviously begin to change in the 70s.   Now, if we are to believe what you just asserted - debt is a function of manufacturing jobs - should we have seen debt increase relative to the decrease in manufacturing jobs throughout the 40s, 50s, and 60s?  Do we see that?  No.  We don't.

Also, since there is an obvious uptick in debt in the 70s, shouldn't we see a corresponding downtick in the rate of manufacturing job loss?  Do we see that?  No.

So can't we confidently assert - as you have - that our debt is the result of manufacturing job loss?  Not likely.  Manufacturing job less is almost perfectly linear whereas debt appears to be exponential.

But here again, if only there things we could look to to truly explain that.  If only our federal budgets consisted of clearly defined streams of revenue and clear outflows, perhaps we could look at those.  Alas.


Anyways, in unrelated news, I just found this neat little picture and I'm trying to figure out what it is.  Looks kinda like a pointy mountain next to a fat mountain.  Kinda weird how the right side of the mountain begins to slope downward between the numbers 1960 and 1970, and steadily downward thereafter.  I wonder what all of those line thingies mean?

Can someone explain this picture to me as if it were an argument between a married couple?  I want to feel smart.

Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling - Page 2 24417

Why do you take such pride in posting far outdated information and what purpose does that serve considering this is 2015.

Amusingly, your first chart only goes as far as $9 TRILLION when today's debt is OVER $18 TRILLION.

It really is highly offensive to you to be honest is it not?

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:About that graph and this notion of yours that our manufacturing jobs began to steadily decline in 1945.  When during my entire youth the country was experiencing the greatest economic boom in history and my old man and everybody else's old man was able to get a good job with good benefits because we were the world's manufacturing "superpower" during that time.
Fuck, I wasn't even born until 1949 and it was already going full bore.  And continued to do so for a long time afterwards.
That graph,  or more accurately what you're trying to infer from it,  is the best example I've seen yet for what Mark Twain said about statistics.  lol

Later on when the corporate power brokers colluded with both political parties to take advantage of an unbelievably cheap and unlimited source of labor in China,  that's when we started to transition from a manufacturing to a service economy. 
Not in 1945.  That's so fucking absurd that it makes me wonder if you actually have been taught anything of value in school.

So tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.  I just showed you that manufacturing jobs as a percent of the workforce - which you say is the chief cause of our national debt - have been on the decline for 70 years; and your response there is to basically say "I don't believe you because my old man worked in manufacturing"?

To clarify, you're saying that you simply don't believe in the manufacturing jobs graph?

Manufacturing will continue to decrease until the COST of manufacturing decreases.

Since you, among the other Progressives keep demanding that wages increase for all workers, even those who have no experience, education, work ethic or any other skills.

Then, to further prove your feigned ignorance for being able to put 2 and 2 together and get four. You feign outrage that companies who can no longer afford to pay those wages, shut down their plants here and manufacture in other countries.

Now who could see that coming!

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

A government "shut down" with this crowd isn't going to do anything to curb the borrowing or the debt.
It's pure theatrics like everything you're seeing on the stage tonight.
The whole thing is a show. 
The first act was the beat down between kasich and trump with carson guarding the passer.  That had steam for a while until like a movie it slowed down and then it REALLY slowed down when one of them started talking over the heads of the audience with that wall street and financial jargon.  Came almost to a standstill at the end of that.   With some hillary bashing going on to fill the time.
And then it goes to a commercial er I mean intermission and comes back for the 2nd half.  And the coach musta got on their asses in the locker room and told them,  fuck this shit,  fuck hillary,  fuck fighting amongst yourselves,  it's time to go after the REAL enemy,  the drive-by media.
And boy did they take that ball and run with it.  And "the crowd went wild".  And the whole time it was happening all I could think about is listening to the next 300 hours of fox news bashing the media.  Especially hannity and o'reilly cause it's like the hatfields and the mccoys to them.  The only thing that matches their hatred for the drive-by media is the drive-by media's hatred for them.
And then the show was over.  And if you had it on fox news,  you saw chris christie being interviewed from the venue floor.  And there was Donald Trump's face over his shoulder in the background looking at a television monitor so he could place himself perfectly in the camera shot over christie's shoulder.  And that aint easy cause christie is still eating the italian pasta.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Congress risks "manufacturing crisis" by prevaricating over raising the debt ceiling

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum