j_b

Wrong anaology. Greece is what lies at the bottom of the grave that the western entitlement state has dug for itself. There is no escape for Greece. I'm merely suggesting that we might want to stop digging before we join them there. Greece with 40% of its GDP generated in the parallel/underground economy is a western entitlement state? I'd say that Greece is more like the neoliberal nations that have most of their economies in the parallel casino economy (you know, as in dubious swaps and bets not traded publicly))

It could effectively kill your fax machine if it isn't the latest model, so beware.

After perpetual war, privatization and deregulation of everything, they want to follow through with Hooverism:

First, I certainly don't take anything coming out of the free-marketeering Tax Foundation at face value, so any analysis coming from them is suspect. Second, the budget shortfall is mainly due to tax revenues being down more than 20% since the financial crash (data not shown at your link). Note that is down 21% for a national average. Nobody can absorb a 21% cut in revenue without incurring a large budget deficit. Third, the proof is in the pudding so to speak: the state of Texas has cut all social spending for years yet it has essentially the same budget deficit as California. Texas has nothing more to cut except for the prison budget. Is that because of social spending too?

looters are neoliberals or dead-enders (I prefer that later one) who under the guise of restructuring for efficiency a) plunder the public coffers (bailouts, corporate welfare, free loans from the FED, ..) and tell us there is no money for social programs, wages and pensions, b) plunder natural resources and tell us there is no problem with destroying the environment, c) loot the resources of developing nations while they claim to reduce their debt, etc ... In my mind, the Capital One commercial with the vikings asking you what's in your wallet epitomizes the modern looter.

"The Manhattan Institute concerns itself with such things as 'welfare reform' (dismantling social programs), 'faith-based initiatives' (blurring the distinction between church and state), and 'education reform' (destroying public education)," http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research go figure, a Reaganite telling us that Unions and labor costs are responsible for budget shortfall

Murdoch is a juicy example but there is widespread tax evasion. For example, and that's just the tip of the iceberg: "Worldwide, financial centres with bank secrecy laws are blamed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which represents 30 developed economies, for hiding some 5 to 7 trillion dollars offshore so the profits they produce evade taxes." http://thekomisarscoop.com/2009/07/qa-tax-havens-bank-secrecy-and-tricks/ Murdoch was indeed a major player in propagandizing the justifications for wars through FOX but also the rest of his holdings. I can't recall the exact number but out of 250 publications he owns worldwide, all of them shamelessly pushed for attacking Iraq. I am saying that if he and many others like him had paid their taxes and not enforced neoliberal restructuring (code talk for enabling the Wall Street casino through deregulation, slashing the social safety net and sending jobs overseas), there would be money to finance social programs and billions worth of pensions wouldn't have disappeared overnight.

Undoubtedly, but he is unfortunately more likely to have the new poodles in charge at 10 Downing street cut the BBC budget because it is too much competition for his worthless rags. All in the name of market orthodoxy of course, and especially because the BBC shows them every day that public broadcasting beats the crap out of corporate infotainment.

here comes KKK to elevate the debate ...

well, if the looters tell us there is no money for pensions and benefits while they stuff their pockets and quasi systematically avoid paying taxes, it's effectively our money or at least the money we will never see to pay for our retirements. Especially since regressive taxation has gone up by a fair amount and it has gone toward paying for their wars and corporate welfare.

the reality of corporate taxation and the media that tells us we had it too good and it's about to change: Tax dodging helps Murdoch buy the Journal By Lucy Komisar Aug 1, 2007 Where did Rupert Murdoch get $5 billion to buy up the Wall St. Journal? Beyond normal profits, his coffers were stuffed by dodging taxes in the U.S. and elsewhere. Some of that is your money! The Economist, in 1999, investigated Murdoch’s corporate tax affairs and discovered that a collection of 800 offshore companies help him cut corporate taxes to 6%! [..] The Economist wrote, “Finding out the specifics of News Corporation’s tax affairs is difficult because of the company’s complex structure. In its latest accounts, the group lists roughly 800 subsidiaries, including some 60 incorporated in such tax havens as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Netherlands Antilles and the British Virgin Islands. “This structure, dictated by Murdoch’s elaborate tax planning, has some bizarre consequences. The most profitable of News Corporation’s British operations in the 1990s was not the Sunday Times, or its successful satellite television business, BSkyB. It was News Publishers, a company incorporated in Bermuda. News Publishers has, in the seven years to June 30th 1996, made around £1.6 billion in net profits. This is a remarkable feat for a company that seems not to have any employees, nor any obvious source of income from outside Murdoch’s companies. “British taxpayers have been forced to pick up a particularly large slice of Murdoch’s tax bill: since June 1987, The Economist reported, the group made £1.4 billion in profits yet paid no net British corporation tax at all. [..] http://thekomisarscoop.com/2007/08/tax-dodging-helps-murdoch-buy-the-journal/#comment-10946

I agree but he is probably the type who thinks that living in fortified compounds is desirable.

IMO it's because he knows that neoliberals are winning and he is dancing on our collective grave (he has no problem with that kind of collectivism).

In the meantime ... Wall Street's Victory Lap by Simon Johnson MIT Professor and co-author of 13 Bankers Posted: May 26, 2010 08:56 AM By now you have probably realized -- correctly -- that "financial reform" has turned into a victory lap for Wall Street. When they saved the big banks, with massive unconditional support (both explicit and implicit) over a year ago, top administration officials promised they would be back later to fix the underlying problems. This they -- and Congress -- manifestly have failed to do. Our banking structure remains unchanged, the rules will be tweaked at the margins, and the incentive and belief system that lies behind reckless risk-taking has only become more dangerous. (The back story, if you can still stomach it, is in 13 Bankers). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/wall-streets-victory-lap_b_590044.html

the substance of JayB's rant is "but they're broker" and it's a hell of a lot better to be broke in Europe. and that's the entire reason for rhetoric like that found in the article that JayB posted. The entire world except for Europe has already gone through the neoliberal looting of the safety net and the commons. That's what is about to change if Europeans do not do something drastic like polish their pitchforks.

spare us the propaganda. Effective taxation rates on capital are a fraction of what they used to be, even under Reagan btw. Why do you think the market crashed a couple of days ago even though they got the austerity commitment they wanted from Europe? because they themselves realized that cutting public spending during a depression is suicidal and will prevent any economic rebound for years to come. Oh, and don't forget that we can also cut the exorbitant military spending (50% of the budget) too. Have you heard of transfer pricing? "optimal transfer pricing with optimal defined as transfer pricing that maximizes overall firm profits in a non-realistic world with no taxes, no capital risk, no development risk, no externalities or any other frictions which exist in the real world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing do you know that at least one corporation in 5 doesn't pay any taxes in any given year and many consider their tax department a revenue source?

check out Bill doing his best pooddle impersonation. Don't ask him for any substance though.

what drivel. As if anyone in developed nations had been saving significantly. The real criminals are those who 1) bankrupted our economies by pursuing the race to the bottom labor cost and destroyed our tax base in the process, 2) pushed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy that we couldn't afford, 3) prevented effective anti-tax heaven policies notably the banning of transfer pricing, 4) committed trillions we didn't have to pursue foreign wars to control diminishing resources, 5) protected the growth of the giant financial casino to the point where financial speculation dwarfs real economic activity, 6) etc ..

the substance of JayB's rant is "but they're broker" He is wrong about that too. First, China isn't bankrolling Europe and there are the same fears of insolvency about the US (essentially, the entire OECD is at risk). The perceived difference is also moot as shown by their slashing the public sector here too. Just consider what's going on in California: the major causes of the crisis are the same as Greece (revenue shortfall due to regressive tax policies/widespread tax evasion and deficits made a lot worse by the recession/depression) and the solutions are the same (cutting wages and public sector jobs), but especially no more taxes for the wealthy.

So what's your explanation for Euro countries with the most aggressive neoliberal policies (Ireland, Iceland, UK, Baltic countries, Spain, ...) being among the most exposed to the debt crisis? Whereas Northern Europe and Germany that have generous welfare states in comparison are among the least threatened? That picture doesn't jive at all with your favorite rhetoric according to which social safety nets and public sectors are responsible for the debt. What are you going to do about it? My guess is you'll just ignore that inconvenient truth.

Don't tell us you are surprised that the corporate media, including the New York Times, is pushing the neoliberal narrative about debt and austerity. I have been telling you for years that the NYT wasn't liberal on issues that really mattered like the economy and foreign policy. "Librul media" my ass. Anyway, the Canadian author of the following article described last Fall what you guys would be telling us today. It's about Canada but it could be said about every OECD nations today, like it was said for all countries that were raided by neoliberal looters during the 80's (Latin America, Asia, Africa, ..): Parting Shots: The Coming Austerity November 2, 2009 Neoliberalism isn’t dead - it’s just resting By Simon Enoch With the Financial Times lamenting the “end of the era of liberalization” and the “death of global free-market capitalism” and Newsweek declaring “we are all Socialists now,” one could be forgiven for believing that the worst excesses of neoliberalism have been relegated to the dustbin of history. But for all the talk of resurgent Keynesianism, reports of the death of neoliberalism - the pathological fear of all things public and the idolatrous worship of the market - are greatly exaggerated. While the advocates of free-market orthodoxy have remained uncharacteristically quiet during the current economic crisis, neoliberalism has merely gone underground, biding its time until it can resurface with renewed ferocity. It would seem that the neoliberal resurgence is already upon us, as governments around the world begin to deploy the all-too-familiar rhetoric of deficit and debt crises to prepare their citizens for the inevitable attack on what remains of the public sector. In the morbidly ironic words of Queensland Premier Anna Bligh - who has initiated a sweeping public-sector wage freeze and benefit clawback, coupled with the sale of over $15 billion in state assets - “public services have to come first in the dire global economic crisis.” Canadians have seen this before. During the supposed “debt crisis” of the 1990s, the common refrain was that Canada would face outright bankruptcy and International-Monetary-Fund-imposed austerity unless it pursued a vigorous gutting of all things public. Paul Martin’s infamous 1995 budget did just that, sacrificing 45,000 civil service jobs, privatizing CN Rail and Petro-Canada, slashing federal transfers to the provinces and transforming unemployment insurance into the woefully inadequate program it is today. Progressive economist Jim Stanford argues that much of this belt-tightening was not only unneces­sary, but ultimately damaging to the Canadian economy. As Stanford documents, Canada could have reached its deficit reduction targets through economic growth alone, without having to endure the draconian cuts to our social programs. Stanford concludes that the $50 billion in public programs and assets that were sacrificed to the deficit gods would have “made an incredible difference to the concrete quality of Canadians’ lives” had they remained invested in public services and assets. What Stanford and others emphasize is that the gutting of our public services was not an economic necessity, but rather an ideologically driven political gambit. We would be wise to remember this when the inevitable calls for belt-tightening and self-sacrifice in the name of fiscal responsibility once again rear their heads. Though the current deficit is smaller (relative to GDP) than what we faced in the 1990s, we are already hearing the early warning signs of the coming austerity from the Harper Conservatives. Despite Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s past insistence that the deficit can be resolved without cuts to programs or tax increases - a position from which he appears to be retreating day by day - the Tories have already shown their preference for the public sector to bear the brunt of fiscal austerity through their attempts at eliminating pay equity and the right-to-strike in the public service. Couple this with the Tories’ Crown asset review, wherein any public asset not deemed self-sustaining could face the auction block, and the writing is on the wall. Due to their minority status, the Tories have had to move carefully on these fronts, but rest assured that when it comes to a choice between reversing their ill-conceived and ill-timed tax cuts or cutting public sector jobs and social programs, the public sector will lose. Those who would use the deficit to resurrect neoliberalism will deploy the same shopworn rhetoric of the past. We will be exhorted to “do it for the children,” lest we leave them our bills to pay, while simultaneously being praised for our courage as we are asked to sacrifice for the good of the nation. The gutting of the public sector is one choice among many; there is always an alternative. In many ways, the deficit crisis of the 1990s locked Canada into the straitjacket of neoliberal policy, destroying what was left of the fragile post-war social contract that had held sway for close to 50 years. The 1995 deficit-busting budget inaugurated Canada’s wholesale embrace of neoliberalism; the current deficit must not be used to revive that same failed ideology. http://briarpatchmagazine.com/the-coming-austerity/

I expect deficit hawks to rush to support Grayson's "war is making you poor act", don't you?

Extremists? Do you mean those who claim we are at "war with terror" to justify causing the death of millions of people while controlling the flow of resources and funneling untold billions to the military industrial complex? Those extremists? btw your Afghanistan number is off, not only the US military death toll has passed a 1000 but it doesn't include contractors and mercenaries who outnumber the military in Afghanistan.

[video:youtube]t0_TtYQEDTo “What George Orwell wrote about in 1984 has come true. What Eisenhower warned us about concerning the ‘military-industrial complex’ has come true,” the congressman argues. “War is a permanent feature of our societal landscape, so much so that no one notices it anymore.” Grayson proposes to change this circumstance with a bill he has introduced: “The War Is Making You Poor Act.” “The purpose of this bill is to connect the dots, and to show people in a real and concrete way the cost of these endless wars,” he explains. To make the cost of war real for working Americans, Grayson performs a simple calculus: “Next year's budget allocates $159,000,000,000 to perpetuate the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. That's enough money to eliminate federal income taxes for the first $35,000 of every American's income. Beyond that, (it) leaves over $15 billion to cut the deficit. “And that's what this bill does. It eliminates separate funding for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and eliminates federal income taxes for everyone's first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for couples). Plus it pays down the national debt.” The congressman is betting – with good reason –that the key to opening up a real debate about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to make real the cost of these occupations to American families. “The costs of the war have been rendered invisible. There's no draft. Instead, we take the most vulnerable elements of our population, and give them a choice between unemployment and missile fodder. Government deficits conceal the need to pay in cash for the war,” explains Grayson, with a reference to the mounting trade deficit with China. “We put the cost of both guns and butter on our Chinese credit card. In fact, we don't even put these wars on budget; they are still passed using 'emergency supplemental'. A nine-year 'emergency.’ http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/25-3