G-20

[av8torntn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html

A counterpoint to the fear mongering in your article. It was written years ago but you could almost use it as a rebuttal.

Deflation

 

[wkmac]

Were Toronto police really Agent Provocatuers?

 

[diesel96]

Diesel we can find plenty of economist that believe that all the governmental spending will lead to a deflationary recession. A fairly mainstream belief is that large debt contributes to your deflationary recession/depression. In our country they can point directly to the actions of the Fed and the central government to make their case. Many, many economists believe just the opposite of what you are trying to sell. There is one truth in all this. When the governments try to influence the natural cycles of the markets they often get unintended results.

In the most basic terms there are many that believe that printing money does not prevent a crash it only changes who pays for it. In a way to oversimplify this we may be facing a period where wages do not rise or rise very slowly. If we have a "normal" period where government promotes low inflation by borrowing (printing) more money thereby forcing the costs of goods and services to rise this will put a serious squeeze on the middle class.

I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm just showing you there are multiple ways to view what is going on.

A counterpoint to the fear mongering in your article. It was written years ago but you could almost use it as a rebuttal.

Deflation

It is sad to see that the U.S. Congress( mostly the guys with the (R) in front of their name) is having trouble passing just $24 billion for unemployment insurance at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. This shows the power of right-wing ideology in this country: even the simplest, smallest and most obvious steps to relieve economic misery can be held back.
It seems that the right has made headway in convincing some politicians, and a good part of the media, to take seriously their message that government spending is the problem rather than a solution for our economic ills. However, the public is far from convinced....the latest Gallup poll finds that Americans favor "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy" by a huge margin of 60 percent to 38 percent.

Americans Back More Stimulus Spending to Create Jobs

The majority view is supported by basic economic logic. It was the collapse of private demand....consumption and investment brought on by the bursting of an $8 trillion housing bubble that put us in this mess. Since our trade deficit is growing again that leaves only government spending to give the economy a boost until private spending is sufficient to bring us back to full employment.

Right-wing politicians argue that the last 16 months of stimulus have not worked, since unemployment remains at 9.7 percent. This is nonsense. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the president's initial stimulus created between 1.2 million and 2.8 million jobs, and private estimates... from across the political spectrum...are in the same range.

The choice is simple, really.... more stimulus spending or more unemployment with more poverty and more people losing their homes and health insurance.

The problem with the stimulus is simply that it has not been big enough....it has replaced perhaps one-tenth of the loss of private demand.

Were Toronto police really Agent Provocatuers?

Your on to something here wkmac.....we (especially Canada) need to police the police now-a-days......Is the Gov't of Az pushing their LEO's down that road ?

[video=youtube;gAfzUOx53Rg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg&feature=related[/video]

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

It is sad to see that the U.S. Congress( mostly the guys with the (R) in front of their name) is having trouble passing just $24 billion for unemployment insurance at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. This shows the power of right-wing ideology in this country: even the simplest, smallest and most obvious steps to relieve economic misery can be held back.

Keep in mind that Congress was being asked to extend unemployment insurance beyond the current 99 weeks. That is nearly 2 years. At what point do you say enough is enough? I guess for Congress that point has arrived and I wholeheartedly agree.

Let me give you a reall life example. As many of you know, I flew down to NC last weekend to help my daughter and her fiance move back to NY. She has a cousin (my former nephew) who lives nearby with his family. He has been out of work for some time and collecting unemployment. Now, you would think that he would be spending his days poring over the classifieds and pounding the pavement looking for work. That is not the case---he has spent the time building a deck. Is this really how we want our taxpayer money spent?

Yes, the economy is still in the crapper and, yes, he may not be able to find a job comparable to the one that he had, but there are jobs out there.

 

[moreluck]

99 weeks is why we have generations living off the gov't. Every job is "beneath them". You need to start somewhere......work your way up. Don't pass programs and fund programs that cripple people and makes them totally dependent.

 

[tieguy]

It is sad to see that the U.S. Congress( mostly the guys with the (R) in front of their name) is having trouble passing just $24 billion for unemployment insurance at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. ]

how else do you put pressure on the democrats to stop killing the economy with more big government programs? Everytime we turn around Obama and the democrats create more big government programs and regulations that choke the economy and act as a disincentive to hiring.

 

[av8torntn]

The choice is simple, really.... more stimulus spending or more unemployment with more poverty and more people losing their homes and health insurance.

The problem with the stimulus is simply that it has not been big enough....it has replaced perhaps one-tenth of the loss of private demand.

To me that seems like an odd view. Most people who want the government to spend more of our money try to argue that it has worked. You are taking a different and I have to admit unique approach by admitting that it hasn't worked and you offer the false assumption that the government does not spend enough money. You are trying to argue for a complete takeover by government even though that has failed time and time again.

Some things for you to consider as I'm off to the lake for the holiday. Unsecured personal debt has dropped 18 straight months. Secured non mortgage debt has also declined. Delinquent credit card debt has declined. Delinquent automobile debt has declined. Government debt has increased. Seems to be something wrong there but I'm sure you can find a way to blame Bush. As you know I'm not a big believer in polls as you can frame the questions to get the answer you want so I'll just leave you with the thought that if the American people think debt is such a great idea why have they been reducing their debt? Or if you think the problem is that enough money is not being spent why not allow the people to spend their money as they choose?

The choice really is simple. More government spending and more poverty or more private spending and more prosperity.

 

[Lue C Fur]

Laid off worker says: "I was making 8 bux and hr working 40hrs a week which is 320 bux a week and i got laid off. I now get unemployment insurance of 400 bux a week and Obama keeps extending the benifits...why should i look for work? Being laid off is great!!!!"

 

[klein]

DS, will the HST replace or be in addition to the GST and PST?

Here, so you know what will await you, if you visit Ontario anytime soon. (and maybe the future of a Vat tax in the US ) ???

Let them eat cake: The wacky world of the Harmonized Sales Tax

VICTORIA - If you're at a wedding some time after the harmonized sales tax kicks in on July 1, don't complain if you get cake for dinner and dessert. You're saving the bride and groom some money.

When the HST takes effect in Ontario and British Columbia this week, wedding cake will be exempt from the levy but not catered meals.

And if the wine is a bit salty, grin and drink up, because cooking wine is HST-free.

The exemption for cakes and cooking wine are just two of the quirks that come with the controversial tax that will take the place of the provincial sales tax and the federal Goods and Services Tax in the two provinces later this week.

more : http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100628/business/hst_looms_tax_quirks

 

[trplnkl]

Who knows, by day 2, the cops were so fed up, they arressted everyone that even came near. Even TV reporters !
But, yeah, looks like it was that group from Quebec that caused all the damage.
I opoligize.

Apology accepted. TY

 

[trplnkl]

Laid off worker says: "I was making 8 bux and hr working 40hrs a week which is 320 bux a week and i got laid off. I now get unemployment insurance of 400 bux a week and Obama keeps extending the benifits...why should i look for work? Being laid off is great!!!!"

hmmmm, wonder if that 400 bux are tax free?

 

[trplnkl]

how else do you put pressure on the democrats to stop killing the economy with more big government programs? Everytime we turn around Obama and the democrats create more big government programs and regulations that choke the economy and act as a disincentive to hiring.

But Tie, don't you see that is the government's goal ? To make the majority of the populace dependent on the government.

 

[klein]

Laid off worker says: "I was making 8 bux and hr working 40hrs a week which is 320 bux a week and i got laid off. I now get unemployment insurance of 400 bux a week and Obama keeps extending the benifits...why should i look for work? Being laid off is great!!!!"

How can you even write something like that ?
When even laid off drivers on here, only get $200 per week ? Which made much more then 8 bux an hr !

I don't know how unemployment works there, but European countries and Canada, they go by a percentage of past earnings.
Here, it's 55%, and yes, taxable, and to a maximum of $444 per week.

So, if someone only earned $320 a week, his unemployment would be no more the $170 per week, minus taxes.

 

[Lue C Fur]

How can you even write something like that ?
That is what goes on here in the good ole USA...that is why i wrote it...got a problem with that? Regardless how much someone gets is not the issue... there is no incentive to get off the govt teet if you keep extending benifits.
When even laid off drivers on here, only get $200 per week ? Which made much more then 8 bux an hr !
Its Canada...who cares.
I don't know how unemployment works there, (thats a shock that you dont know...i thought you knew it all) but European countries and Canada, they go by a percentage of past earnings.
Here, it's 55%, and yes, taxable, and to a maximum of $444 per week.
Who cares...
So, if someone only earned $320 a week, his unemployment would be no more the $170 per week, minus taxes.
Just think about it...you could buy 170 bux worth of "Likor" a week courtesy of the tax payers.

 

[klein]

I should have specified that. Laid off or fired US drivers, that get $200 per week !

 

[diesel96]

I'm all about serious job creation (not this entry level minimum wage crap).....Now, In order to make the spending cuts as your side suggest, it would not only lead to more job loss, but Obama would have to raise taxes on the middleclass/poor, and cut social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Or he could cut the war budget. Yeah I said it... “war budget”...because it is not to be confused with a defense budget. Cities and states across the country are facing devastating budget crises. Pensions are being wiped out. Foreclosures are continuing at record levels. A true slimmed defense budget would shore up our schools, our roads, our towns, our social safety net. The U.S. House of Representatives is under pressure to pass a $33 billion Afghan War supplemental this week.
We can’t afford war in this reccession.....

 

[trplnkl]

The cities and states that are so strapped for money need to cut back on their spending as well. The "so called" ISD here has so many Administration staff they are needing a new larger building to office them all. There is no way to convince me they need that many department directors( salaries in the low 6 figure), assistant directors( high 5 figures) and assistant director's assistants(mid 5 figures) to run a school system.
I'm sure most governmental agencies, on every level, have way more high paid positions than they really need. Spending can be cut without hurting people that really need the assistance, yet that is the first place everyone turns to for cutting budgets. The reason for that direction is to pull at the heart strings of the public to encourage us to go along with tax increases. There are many places our fed gov spends billions of dollars that could well be put on hold until times are more productive.

 

[wkmac]

The cities and states that are so strapped for money need to cut back on their spending as well. The "so called" ISD here has so many Administration staff they are needing a new larger building to office them all. There is no way to convince me they need that many department directors( salaries in the low 6 figure), assistant directors( high 5 figures) and assistant director's assistants(mid 5 figures) to run a school system.
I'm sure most governmental agencies, on every level, have way more high paid positions than they really need. Spending can be cut without hurting people that really need the assistance, yet that is the first place everyone turns to for cutting budgets. The reason for that direction is to pull at the heart strings of the public to encourage us to go along with tax increases. There are many places our fed gov spends billions of dollars that could well be put on hold until times are more productive.

Government at all levels have become the primary growth engine for jobs over the last 50 years. As various industrial based jobs died out and went away (a strong middle class with it) gov't along with FIRE industry jobs have been the growers to keep the economy sustained. In all of this no commodity or product is produced but legal fictions of state priviledge are, those growing the state even further.

I completely agree the need to cut the size of gov't and spending with it but because through most of the 20th century with gov't becoming such a primary employer, either directly or via contractor, the effects of such actions you'd better be transparent about and prepared to accept.

The fear to re-consider the regulatory arm of the state is very strong in light of the economic faliures and the recent BP spill but in order to crank up the production engine, especailly the small business apparatus that is the lynchpin of a strong middle class, the strength is needed to look hard at the regulatory arm of gov't to see where big corporatism and moneyed interests have used regulatory capture to close off real competition and a real true free market. Once we realize where public policy has been used to kill small business and benefit larger, centralized, monopoly industries and cartels, changes in regulatory policy that have no risk to so-called public safety can be made and a return to a strong economic America can truly begin.

Here's just one example of gov't growth to consider from over the last century through 2002' and I can only imagine since 2002' how these numbers have exploded even more!

The Corporatist State have rigged the game so that if you cut gov't as we should, the ill effects built in will cause the public to fall prey to their own fear and then we'll clammer for gov't to then fix it. The BP spill is a prefect example in before the spill gov't was inept, incapable and just screwed things up. Now even those who did scream for less gov't are now screaming at gov't for not doing enough!

"Fear is the mind killer!"

 

[tieguy]

those canadians really know how to throw a tea party