Merry Christmish

[prole]

Merry Christmas Happy Holidays suckkaz; I'm a state emplooyeee!

 

There's more where this came from!

 

[video:youtube]

[tvashtarkatena]

...a bunch of politically connected insiders who are way better off?

 

You're such a fucking douche!

 

 

 

Yes. Tee-hee. Particularly funny to the folks on the wrong end of the cuts to Medicaid, the disability lifeline, mental health services, etc, etc, etc, etc

 

Nice.

Except for one thing: That's not the trade off, liar.

 

Tax the rich. It's not hard.

[billcoe]

Tax the rich. It's not hard.

 

Yes...yes ....it is. http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/993794/The_Obama_Tax_cuts_for_the_ric#Post993794

 

Anyone see them reframing the inheritance tax by calling it a "death tax" and suspending it for a while?

[j_b]

[video:youtube]dEOO3pPhPkw

[Jim]

[video:youtube]dEOO3pPhPkw

 

Well this guy, and you, obviously didn't watch or pay attention to the 60 Minutes segment. The backbone of the reporting was on unfunded pensions. The increasing urgency of the ponzi scheme of state and local pensions was not created by the current financial crisis. But the veil of illusion was pulled out because of it. No matter what the tax revenues were, or are, these programs are not sustainable. Really, please do the math.

[JayB]

...a bunch of politically connected insiders who are way better off?

 

You're such a fucking douche!

 

 

 

Yes. Tee-hee. Particularly funny to the folks on the wrong end of the cuts to Medicaid, the disability lifeline, mental health services, etc, etc, etc, etc

 

Nice.

Except for one thing: That's not the trade off, liar.

 

Tax the rich. It's not hard.

 

Which state has that actually worked in? New York? New Jersey? California? Illinois? Maryland?

 

 

[JayB]

[video:youtube]dEOO3pPhPkw

 

Well this guy, and you, obviously didn't watch or pay attention to the 60 Minutes segment. The backbone of the reporting was on unfunded pensions. The increasing urgency of the ponzi scheme of state and local pensions was not created by the current financial crisis. But the veil of illusion was pulled out because of it. No matter what the tax revenues were, or are, these programs are not sustainable. Really, please do the math.

 

Regressive = Progressive that can do math?

 

 

[j_b]

Well this guy, and you, obviously didn't watch or pay attention to the 60 Minutes segment. The backbone of the reporting was on unfunded pensions. The increasing urgency of the ponzi scheme of state and local pensions was not created by the current financial crisis. But the veil of illusion was pulled out because of it. No matter what the tax revenues were, or are, these programs are not sustainable. Really, please do the math.

 

False. As Baker says before the looters crashed the economy there wasn't a large state budgets shortfall. It doesn't mean that it was sustainable, just that there was NOT an urgent problem contrarily to your gratuitous assertion. Did you actually do the math yourself? I didn't think so. Why don't you take your own advice?

 

That guy, Dean Baker, was already discussing the real estate bubble in 2005: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2005/07/dr-baker-housing-bubble-fact-sheet.html

[j_b]

Regressive = Progressive that can do math?

 

 

is it really all that you have to say to Mr Baker who blew your specious arguments out of the water?

[j_b]

Comments by Nicholas Johnson of CBPP on the 60 minutes program:

 

State Budgets

 

Nicholas Johnson of the CBPP sets the record straight on state finances:

 

Some Right, Some Wrong in “60 Minutes” Story on State Budgets, CBPP: Last night’s CBS "60 Minutes" piece on state budgets made some important points but also — through some big mistakes and omissions — gave a deeply misleading impression of the state budget situation.

 

Here’s what it got right:

 

* As correspondent Steve oft put it, “The ‘great recession’ wrecked [states’] economies and shriveled their income.” State revenues are about 12 percent below pre-recession levels, after adjusting for inflation, yet the cost of basic services like education and health care — the two largest areas of state and local spending — is rising.

* The real pain from states’ current fiscal problems has been visited on the most vulnerable people, from low-income families needing medical care in Arizona to recipients of mental-health assistance in Illinois. That’s because states are required to balance their budgets — they cannot borrow to cover operating expenses. States have responded to the loss of revenues, in part, by cutting health care services and payments to nonprofits that serve the needy.

* Fiscal year 2012 (which will begin next July 1 in most states) will be the most challenging year yet for state budgets. States have largely drawn down their reserves, revenues are still depressed, and emergency aid from the federal government (hardly the “bailout” CBS suggested, but rather a way to keep more people working and protect a fragile economic recovery) is expiring.

 

Here’s what "60 Minutes" got wrong:

 

* Contrary to Kroft’s claim, states aren’t guilty of “reckless spending.” Total state and local spending, not including federal grants, is no larger now as a share of the economy than it was 20 years ago, according to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data. (Federal grants to states have grown over this period to cover rising state Medicaid costs that result from health care inflation and a rising number of families without private health insurance.) State general fund spending in 2011 will be 6 percent lower than it was in 2008, without adjusting for inflation...

* Underfunding of state and local pension funds did not cause states’ current fiscal problems and is not an immediate crisis. To be sure, some states have failed to make required pension contributions, including New Jersey (which in past years chose instead to cut taxes) and Illinois (which has a chronic revenue shortage due to political gridlock over modernizing its tax system). Nevertheless, the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that states and localities could restore pension systems to health by raising their contributions moderately once their revenues recover from the recession and/or by adjusting benefits, retirement ages, and similar policies. Many states are already starting to do both.

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/12/state-budgets.html

Edited December 28, 2010 by j_b

[j_b]

and the Baker piece on the topic where he develops a little more what he touches on in the interview above:

 

The piece also told viewers at the onset:

"There is also a trillion dollar hole iln their public pension funds."

 

In fact, this shortfall is overwhelmingly attributable to the plunge in the stock market that followed in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble. According to Federal Reserve Board data (Table L.119) if pension fund assets had increased at just a 5 percent nominal rate since the 4th quarter of 2007, they would have $935 billion more money at the end of the third quarter than is currently reported. "

[Fairweather]

 

 

 

 

Dude, you really have issues.

[j_b]

........................./´¯/)

......................,/¯..//

...................../..../ /

............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸

........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\

........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')

.........\.................\/..../

..........''...\.......... _.·´

............\..............(

..............\.............\

 

[JayB]

If the underlying economy grows at rate X^n, and the cost of government grows at rate X^n+1, then the cost of government will eventually exceed the economy's capacity to finance it.

 

A boom in asset prices can delay, but not prevent the day of reckoning when the cost of government increases more rapidly than the underlying economy.

 

I started worrying about a housing bubble in 2002, and posting about it here in 2004. Big deal. There's a few million of us in that camp. Then, as now - the content of the analysis mattered more than the specific prediction. There's nothing in Dean Baker's analysis that suggests he is correct about the cost of government being able to spiral upwards to infinity without being constrained by the rate of real economic growth sooner or later.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

 

 

 

Dude, you really have issues.

 

It's the TTK self-reply syndrome

[Fairweather]

 

 

 

 

Dude, you really have issues.

 

It's the TTK self-reply syndrome

 

It's...bizarre.

[j_b]

If the underlying economy grows at rate X^n, and the cost of government grows at rate X^n+1, then the cost of government will eventually exceed the economy's capacity to finance it.

 

A boom in asset prices can delay, but not prevent the day of reckoning when the cost of government increases more rapidly than the underlying economy.

 

I started worrying about a housing bubble in 2002, and posting about it here in 2004. Big deal. There's a few million of us in that camp. Then, as now - the content of the analysis mattered more than the specific prediction. There's nothing in Dean Baker's analysis that suggests he is correct about the cost of government being able to spiral upwards to infinity without being constrained by the rate of real economic growth sooner or later.

 

except that Baker doesn't make shit up as he goes along the way you do. Both Baker and Johnson explicitly say that level of states spending didn't grow faster than the economy, but here you go again pretending the opposite.

[tvashtarkatena]

Got everything I wanted for Christmas.

 

Must suck to watch the libtards have way more fun. Oh well, nobody said sociopathy would be easy.

[Jim]

Well. I'll try and explain this one last time regarding pensions. If you are only puting in 50 cents on the dollar of future obligations during the good times(promised pensions) it doesn't matter what your tax revenues are doing. You are still going to have a day of reckoning. Newsflash - it's here.

 

Bubbles burst - you cut back. Tapping out the credit card - cut back. You do this at home, likely you are more conservative and don't push the envelope as the state and local governments have. Raise tax revenue? Not happening in WA and other jurisdictions. What then is plan B?

[j_b]

did you redo your math, because both Baker and Johnson disagreed on your arithmetic or CBS's version, which you bought hook, line and sinker?

[Jim]

I suppose this means there is no plan B.

[j_b]

you can't really make plans without identifying the problem and what caused it.

[j_b]

especially when sociopath are trying to have us believe that austerity is going to fix anything beside making the peons pay for the crisis engineered by financial elites.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well. I'll try and explain this one last time regarding pensions. If you are only puting in 50 cents on the dollar of future obligations during the good times(promised pensions) it doesn't matter what your tax revenues are doing. You are still going to have a day of reckoning. Newsflash - it's here.

 

Bubbles burst - you cut back. Tapping out the credit card - cut back. You do this at home, likely you are more conservative and don't push the envelope as the state and local governments have. Raise tax revenue? Not happening in WA and other jurisdictions. What then is plan B?

 

It would be nice if the federal, state, and local gov'ts all saved during times of plenty instead of spending every last dime... you know so they'd have cash on hand during the economic troughs.

 

[Jim]

While I think the pension issue needs fixing, I have sympathy for the state because of the boneheaded voters who don't want to be taxed to invest in education, technology, or infrastructure. Anytime a state runs a surplus the neocons start banging on the door claiming they are overtaxed and demanding a refund.

 

Take WA where the voters have continually voted for less taxes, even very focused ones on nonessentials such as candy and soda. You are stuck trying to patch together some forward looking programs with glue and popcicle sticks.