Just a reminder

[j_b]

Ireland's problems derive almost entirely from their president's idiotic promise to back-stop the banks by guaranteeing all their loans. Should have just let 'em swing in the wind. Hard to do, politically, but it's not like the government are exactly being hailed as heros for taking the easy route. When you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't, you might as well be damned for taking the least ruinous path available to you.

 

Exacty.

 

Should have scrolled down a few more posts before posting.

 

Actually, you did scroll down or you wouldn’t have answered my second post in lieu of the first one.

 

Libertarians display a full-blown case of schizophrenia regarding bailouts. They claim to want to let it burn even though you won’t find one who supported Argentina when it told the IMF and creditors to take a hike (what do you think libertarians usually say when people tell global capital their usury rates won't do?). Despite their posturing they are almost all for enforcing the neoliberal order of submitting to market dictated debt restructuring. I doubt that JayB’s position is fundamentally different from orthodoxy when push come to shove.

 

 

[j_b]

What are we going to do with all these damned people?

 

err, the brute will pretend to crack a joke about 55 y.o. professionals or some other having to pick up a mop to not earn a living?

 

I ask again who'd want to tie in with the fucker?

[Fairweather]

So picking up a mop to earn a living is beneath you & yours? Interesting. Again, I ask: when was the last time you tied in at all?

[j_b]

Yep folks, dimwitted commentary is the nature of the beast.

 

"Picking up a mop to not earn a living is the way of the future irrespective of your experience and education, so you better start enjoying it if you aren't already like all good Christians"

[j_b]

Mopping floors is such a worthy activity that Fairweather uses the image to disparage his opponents, then he later innocently asks: "So picking up a mop to earn a living is beneath you & yours? Interesting".

 

Like always it is unclear whether it is intentional that internet Brutus turns out to be a clown.

[Jim]

Here's how I see it. While the financial wizards and lack of government oversight caused the meltdown - it really doesn't matter for the states what the cause was - they have to deal with the results, and that is significantly less revenue. What do you do when revenue falls? You cut back outlays because you are mandated to have a balanced budget.

 

WA for example, needs to cut back 18%, in addition to the existing cuts, from their coming 2 yr budget cycle. And that doesn't include the 1.8 billion (yes a B) that the pension task force is recommending the legislature add to shore up the pension system (which is in better shape than most states). So if you're not going to consider things such as having state employee's pay for health care on par with the private system and cancel automatic yearly pay raises (not COLA - that's something else) then there will be even more drastic cuts to services. Not much choice on the state level.

 

On the federal level there is more room to move. Unemployment needs to be extended - what's the choice? And a second stimulus is needed - a public works program would be the best to address our ailing infrastructure. And the Bush tax cuts, all of them, need to expire. What? We can fight two wars for free or something? This would be a start, the larger structural changes are more challenging and likely will be ignored. Unfortunately I'm not optimistic that the Republicans will even consider the modest steps for fiscal sanity as they are too busy posturing for 2012.

[prole]

IIRC the financial sector was at least as large relative to GDP in Iceland, if not significantly larger, and the Icleandic government, by way of the voters - wisely and correctly told the retards that extended them way too much credit that they weren't going to repay debts that they could never hope to repay under any circumstances.

 

Funny how the conservative press (and let's face it, when it comes to economic issues, "they're alll neoliberals now") was saying how commendable the Irish people were for bailing out the banks, taking all this laying down, stiff upper lip, "doing what needs to be done", and all. That was before the details of the depth of the cornholing regular shmoes were going to take on behalf of the billionaires and the protests erupted. Anyway we do have you two shitheels' personal take on the kind of democratic actions at least one of you miraculously now finds commendable.

 

I'm coming home to watch the activists in "Anti-hegemonic Counter-Narrative Installations" in the "the temporary autonomous zones of street parties and convergence centres liberated in cities during summit protest" use a combination of interactive tofu sculptures and interpretive dance to illustrate the manner in which futures contracts for US No. 2 yellow corn have the potential to fatally undermine the global anticapitalist movement. Let me know if you'll be dressed as "the organic carrot of indeterminate gender" or the "reconceptualized counter-mascot" in the above.

 

Icelanders like to renege of their debts too. Great place for Prole and j_b!

 

 

[JayB]

Greece went under because of debts that originated in the public sector that exceeded their capacity to repay them under any terms, so people stopped loaning them money. Ireland went under because the retards running the show there turned private sector debts that originated in Irish banks and transferred the liabilities for them to the public sector. Since these debts exceed Ireland's capacity to repay them under any terms, people stopped loaning them money.

 

Jay isn’t actually answering the post of mine he cited. He is answering the next post I wrote in which I briefly compare neoliberal propaganda regarding Greece versus Ireland and their tries to draw a parallel with our situation to target everything public, continue their war against the commons and dismiss all attempts at controlling a financial sector gone rogue.

 

Jay isn’t directly answering my comment because what I said cannot be denied. Government budget shortfall that regressives wring their hands in despair about is almost all due to speculation in the financial sector, the market crash that ensued, its effect on the real economy and resulting decreasing capacity to raise revenue (not entirely new thanks to their long-term war against government). Regressives only offer solutions meant to decrease public spending as if there were a relation between the medicine they suggest and our economic health but they have shown no such relation and they haven’t shown any benefit for OUR economy; on the contrary, cutting spending like wages, unemployment benefits, job programs, etc will surely deepen the crisis as shown by Ireland and others.

 

Vastly different paths to the same destination - insolvency.

 

Perhaps, but not for the reason you mentioned, Greece’s debt arose because of a culture of systemic corruption and failure to raise revenue (remember: retirees paid more taxes than attorneys and doctors, and public funds were hijacked for private profit). Public spending is bound to translate into public debt when private interests capture the revenue stream irrespective of the need for reform. Insolvency follows when financial speculators smell blood and cause the interest on the debt to balloon to unsustainable levels.

 

 

It has less to do with smelling blood than it does with someone at CalPers or its equivalent looking at the yield on a Greek note, considering the risk, and then asking themselves - "Is it a good idea to loan country X billions of dollars that might not be repaid?" If the answer is no - up goes the yield, if there are any buyers at all.

 

It certainly wasn't commendable or wise for the Argentinian public sector to borrow more than they could possibly repay under any terms - but the ultimate responsibility for evaluating the soundness of a loan lies with the person doing the lending. Argentian hasn't exactly been the model of fiscal probity for the last century or so, and anyone lending them money was taking a significant risk. When those risks manifested themselves in a default - they weren't entitled to a bailout. Neither is anyone that lent money to Irish banks to finance a ludicrous property bubble.

 

The lesson here isn't that you should should use public money to cover unpayable private debts, or that the public sector should overspend until the state is hopelessly in the hole and stick it to the creditors who were dumb enough to lend you money. It's that you shouldn't go down either path if you can help it.

 

At the moment we *are* following the folks in Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc down the path to ruin - but we have a bit more breathing room for a variety of reasons. For now.

[JayB]

IIRC the financial sector was at least as large relative to GDP in Iceland, if not significantly larger, and the Icleandic government, by way of the voters - wisely and correctly told the retards that extended them way too much credit that they weren't going to repay debts that they could never hope to repay under any circumstances.

 

Funny how the conservative press (and let's face it, when it comes to economic issues, "they're alll neoliberals now") was saying how commendable the Irish people were for bailing out the banks, taking all this laying down, stiff upper lip, "doing what needs to be done", and all. That was before the details of the depth of the cornholing regular shmoes were going to take on behalf of the billionaires and the protests erupted. Anyway we do have you two shitheels' personal take on the kind of democratic actions at least one of you miraculously now finds commendable.

 

I'm coming home to watch the activists in "Anti-hegemonic Counter-Narrative Installations" in the "the temporary autonomous zones of street parties and convergence centres liberated in cities during summit protest" use a combination of interactive tofu sculptures and interpretive dance to illustrate the manner in which futures contracts for US No. 2 yellow corn have the potential to fatally undermine the global anticapitalist movement. Let me know if you'll be dressed as "the organic carrot of indeterminate gender" or the "reconceptualized counter-mascot" in the above.

 

Icelanders like to renege of their debts too. Great place for Prole and j_b!

 

 

You're confusing identifying the best of two dismal options with praise.

 

Reforming spending to a level that can be financed by the national economic output instead of racking up massive and unpayable debts that eventually bankrupt the country is wise and commendable, because the alternative to doing so is so stupid and ruinous. The fact that this counts as "austerity" these days is quite telling.

 

Irish tax revenues were bound to take a massive hit in the wake of the property bubble collapsing, even without the government making the disastrous decision to try to cover the private tab for all of the busted luxury condo complexes and million dollar shacks.

 

[prole]

Reforming spending to a level that can be financed by the national economic output instead of racking up massive and unpayable debts that eventually bankrupt the country is wise and commendable, because the alternative to doing so is so stupid and ruinous. The fact that this counts as "austerity" these days is quite telling.

 

Irish tax revenues were bound to take a massive hit in the wake of the property bubble collapsing, even without the government making the disastrous decision to try to cover the private tab for all of the busted luxury condo complexes and million dollar shacks.

 

Amazing how utterly fixated to the point of monomania you are with government spending to the complete detriment of any analysis that includes the "let markets rip" ideological framework that gave us the bubbles and the "too big to fail" institutions that got us here. Ditto for the massive wealth transfer to the top that necessitated government borrowing so citizens could pretend they were actually participating in the boom. Do they have shrinks for economists?

[prole]

"Never mind the fact that they are actually real people walking out the back door with real money! Nothing to see here. It's all about bringing inputs into line with outputs. Look here at the chart." Jay, it gives me great comfort knowing that the time you spend in here is time you're not spending doing real damage in the world.

[Nitrox]

 

err, the brute...

 

You are just embarrassingly limp wristed. Nothing would be more amusing than to see FW slap you like an out of pocket hooker.

 

 

[j_b]

your ass' still hurting, jackass?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So picking up a mop to earn a living is beneath you & yours? Interesting. Again, I ask: when was the last time you tied in at all?

 

He's too busy saving the world to tie in.

[j_b]

Here's how I see it. While the financial wizards and lack of government oversight caused the meltdown - it really doesn't matter for the states what the cause was - they have to deal with the results, and that is significantly less revenue. What do you do when revenue falls? You cut back outlays because you are mandated to have a balanced budget.

 

The solutions you propose ought to necessarily depend on the nature of the systemic failure. For example, you are not suggesting to gut or privatize SS like the nutjobs do because SS is mostly sound (among the most successful program ever).

 

You are free to try to make neat little divisions between federal and state levels but count me out because state finances are strongly dependent on federal programs and subsidies, especially during economic hard times. We'll have to cut outlay in the immediate future but no permanent restructuring should occur without the tax structure (including tax evasion) and the military budget also being on the line.

[j_b]

The lesson here isn't that you should should use public money to cover unpayable private debts,

 

You are posturing. You never supported anybody who told creditors or the IMF to take a hike. In fact, you are more likely to argue that contracts are sacrosanct.

 

or that the public sector should overspend until the state is hopelessly in the hole and stick it to the creditors who were dumb enough to lend you money. It's that you shouldn't go down either path if you can help it.

 

stop waging war on government and we'll rein you in to a comfortable level.

 

At the moment we *are* following the folks in Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc down the path to ruin - but we have a bit more breathing room for a variety of reasons. For now.

 

wow, wow Jay where is the efficiently self-regulating bullshit today?

[Jim]

Here's how I see it. While the financial wizards and lack of government oversight caused the meltdown - it really doesn't matter for the states what the cause was - they have to deal with the results, and that is significantly less revenue. What do you do when revenue falls? You cut back outlays because you are mandated to have a balanced budget.

 

The solutions you propose ought to necessarily depend on the nature of the systemic failure. For example, you are not suggesting to gut or privatize SS like the nutjobs do because SS is mostly sound (among the most successful program ever).

 

You are free to try to make neat little divisions between federal and state levels but count me out because state finances are strongly dependent on federal programs and subsidies, especially during economic hard times. We'll have to cut outlay in the immediate future but no permanent restructuring should occur without the tax structure (including tax evasion) and the military budget also being on the line.

 

You may not want to make distinctions between the feds and the state - but reality will do that for you. The states cannot operate with a deficit, the feds have that luxury, or curse, depending on your viewpoint.

 

I agree that the tax structure and scaling back on our military budget, way back, is needed if we are going to address our pressing needs. I'm about as confident that this will happen anytime soon as I am that state and local governments will make similar changes to structurally unsustainable fiscal pracitices.

[prole]

I agree that the tax structure and scaling back on our military budget, way back, is needed if we are going to address our pressing needs. I'm about as confident that this will happen anytime soon as I am that state and local governments will make similar changes to structurally unsustainable fiscal pracitices.

 

Bloated bus driver salaries strike again!!!

 

More bad news for poor people: State stops grants for comm. health clinics

 

By VANESSA HO

SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

 

In another blow to poor people, the state announced Wednesday it will suspend grants to 36 community health groups in a budget-saving move.

 

State officials were scheduled to give $10.7 million to the Community Health Services program through June, but said it will suspend half the amount in January, to help make up a $385 million deficit in the current fiscal year.

 

The program helps fund more than 200 medical and dental clinics that serve 900,000 low-income people a year statewide.

 

Jim Stevenson, a spokesman for the Health Care Authority, said he didn't know if the suspension is expected to lead to any clinic closures. But he said officials are interested in talking to clinics to discuss other funding options, such as federal and private money.

 

In the Seattle area, groups that rely on the state grants include Country Doctor Community Health Centers, Sea Mar Community Health Center, and the Seattle Indian Health Board.

 

The announcement followed a proposal last week by Gov. Chris Gregoire to eliminate the state's health insurance for the poor, end the state food assistance program, and delay grant payments that help low-income students go to college. Those proposals were to help the state close its $5.7 billion budget shortfall for the next fiscal cycle of 2011-13.

 

And they call this "austerity"?!

Edited December 1, 2010 by prole

[Jim]

Oh come on already. Here's a couple of specific examples. Changes to pension plans: WA is better than most states but their pension plan is still underfunded. These rising costs will eventually cut into services including environmental, health, and social services - I'd rather see the structural issues dealt with then see these services cut. How about you? Just go along merrily and pretend we do not have under funded obligations with unfunded COLA passed recently without any revenue behind it?

Move towards 401k employee funded programs and get out of the pension business.

 

Second- do away with annual step pay increases, but keep COLAs. Most state and local jobs have annual salary increases, on top of COLA. Why is this? You get more pay for just hanging around? These annual pay increases are in addition to merit pay increases. They should be eliminated.

 

Third - increase requirements for employee contributions to their medical plans. Look at King County's plan - employees pay a minimal amount - this needs to be brought up to private sector rates. Yea, our medical system sucks - but while we're waiting around for universal care why should the public be on the hook, especially in economic times like now, for providing for more generous plans than they can get themselves. It's an issue of equity.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Move towards 401k employee funded programs and get out of the pension business.

 

You must be a regressive corporate shill!! You and your ilk's risky Monte Carlo schemes!

 

[Jim]

Move towards 401k employee funded programs and get out of the pension business.

 

You must be a regressive corporate shill!! You and your ilk's risky Monte Carlo schemes!

 

 

While I agree that the cause of the recent downturn was due to the financial sector waving their arms around and stuffing their pockets while we suffered; we still have to deal with the outfall on the state and local scale. And I would much rather see structural changes made than having services cut back. Prole's example is a good one - how about we make some of the structural changes rather than cut the legs off of the underprivileged by eliminating their health care?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Move towards 401k employee funded programs and get out of the pension business.

 

You must be a regressive corporate shill!! You and your ilk's risky Monte Carlo schemes!

 

 

While I agree with that the cause of the recent downturn was due to the financial sector waving their arms around and stuffing their pockets while we suffered; we still have to deal with the outfall on the state and local scale. And I would much rather see structural changes made than having services cut back. Prole's example is a good one - how about we make some of the structural changes rather than cut the legs off of the underprivileged by eliminating their health care?

 

You sound too reasonable. :-)

[prole]

The "structural changes" you're advocating for are not going to save programs for the underpriviledged. The people with whom you're jumping into bed with on the "revenues to outlays calculus" have been trying to bust unions, privatize pension plans and SS, AND cut programs like the ones I cited above for years. In good times and bad times, rain or shine. Facilitating a race to the bottom by making everyone's health plans shitty, bringing wages down, weakening the ability to bargain collectively is not the way we're going to get out of this mess. Pretending this is a local issue while fiscal crises of the state metastasize daily at the global level is not going to get us out of this mess. Ignoring how the crises originated in favor of a state or municipal level shake-and-bake plan that exacerbates our already mounting health and welfare crisis is not going to get us out of this mess.

[Jim]

The fical crisis has exacerbated some existing fiscal unsustainable issues with state and local governments. Shit - if your pension plans were not funded properly in flush times they ain't going to be during this cycle. Sorry, but the basic concept of not spending more than you have, and actually planning for it is preferable, and more sustainable for all services than burying your head in the sand and making believe it will go away if we only complain more about the plurocrats, oligarcy, or the Masons.

 

Given that the voters have turned down and repealed recent tax proposals - what are you suggesting?

[JayB]

The "structural changes" you're advocating for are not going to save programs for the underpriviledged. The people with whom you're jumping into bed with on the "revenues to outlays calculus" have been trying to bust unions, privatize pension plans and SS, AND cut programs like the ones I cited above for years. In good times and bad times, rain or shine. Facilitating a race to the bottom by making everyone's health plans shitty, bringing wages down, weakening the ability to bargain collectively is not the way we're going to get out of this mess. Pretending this is a local issue while fiscal crises of the state metastasize daily at the global level is not going to get us out of this mess. Ignoring how the crises originated in favor of a state or municipal level shake-and-bake plan that exacerbates our already mounting health and welfare crisis is not going to get us out of this mess.

 

There are two things that are going to get us out of this mess.

 

The first is bringing debts down to a level that we can actually repay. This will happen with a combination of structural reforms and bondholder/creditor haircuts.

 

The second is liquidating the cumulative malinvestment in real-estate and other sectors and letting employment shift to sectors that are producing things that people still want to buy.

 

Demand for luxury condos, CDOs, and Escalades is never going to come back. Reality has changed, the composition of demand has changed along with it, and patterns of production and exchange have to change in response to reality. Pumping a gajillion dollars into busted sectors will prevent the expansion of those sectors of the economy where the unemployed might be able to find new jobs. The sooner we accept this fact - the better.