The General Politics Thread

traptunderice

cry of the banshee wrote
but the reality is, the state is broke; how are they supposed to pay for these (public sector) demands?

Article I just read, snippets only:

Part of Scott Walker's approach in Wisconsin has been to claim that everyone needs to sacrifice, and all he's asking is for public-sector workers to contribute more toward their benefits and pensions. In effect, he claims that public-sector workers are getting something for nothing.But in fact, public-sector unions have negotiated for a part of workers' compensation to go toward better benefits and pensions. They accepted lower wages in the present in exchange for having some compensation put toward health care and retirement costs. So asking them to "contribute more" is, in reality, asking them to accept a pay cut.

Pension contributions in their entirety amount to less than 4 percent of state spending currently. The National Association of State Retirement Administrators puts the figure at 2.9 percent, while the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure at 3.8 percent.Overall, Robert Reich reports that taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. The lion's share of benefits comes from contributions made by workers themselves.And in Scott Walker's Wisconsin, the state isn't even facing the kind of fiscal crisis that plagues some other states. Walker is claiming that the state is facing a $137 million deficit this fiscal year--far smaller than many states. And a number of analysts believe Walker is inflating the shortfall--based on a Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau report that estimated the state would have ended the fiscal year with a positive balance, if not for corporate tax breaks that Walker pushed through as his first act in office.So turning around and attacking public-sector workers is a pure bait-and-switch. Walker chose to make the deficit worse, and then use it as an excuse to go after public workers.

A new International Monetary Fund study concluded that half of the increases in budget deficits around the world are due to collapsing tax revenues--and a further large share is due to interest payments on old debt. Less than 10 percent is due to discretionary public spending.As is always the case in an economic slump, the recession--which brought with it wealth destruction, high rates of unemployment and increased reliance on social programs--caused a decline in revenues and increased spending on some services.

Conservative economic commentators and politicians alike hammer relentlessly at the idea that the country is "broke," and it's only fair that public workers should chip in.But apparently, shared sacrifice doesn't apply to Wall Street executives. Back in 2008, when George Bush's Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was trying to sell Congress on approving the the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program, he argued vociferously that limiting executive compensation would be "impractical."

cry_of_the_banshee

traptunderice wrote
cry of the banshee wrote
but the reality is, the state is broke; how are they supposed to pay for these (public sector) demands?
Article I just read, snippets only:
Part of Scott Walker's approach in Wisconsin has been to claim that everyone needs to sacrifice, and all he's asking is for public-sector workers to contribute more toward their benefits and pensions. In effect, he claims that public-sector workers are getting something for nothing.But in fact, public-sector unions have negotiated for a part of workers' compensation to go toward better benefits and pensions. They accepted lower wages in the present in exchange for having some compensation put toward health care and retirement costs. So asking them to "contribute more" is, in reality, asking them to accept a pay cut.
Pension contributions in their entirety amount to less than 4 percent of state spending currently. The National Association of State Retirement Administrators puts the figure at 2.9 percent, while the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure at 3.8 percent.Overall, Robert Reich reports that taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. The lion's share of benefits comes from contributions made by workers themselves.And in Scott Walker's Wisconsin, the state isn't even facing the kind of fiscal crisis that plagues some other states. Walker is claiming that the state is facing a $137 million deficit this fiscal year--far smaller than many states. And a number of analysts believe Walker is inflating the shortfall--based on a Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau report that estimated the state would have ended the fiscal year with a positive balance, if not for corporate tax breaks that Walker pushed through as his first act in office.So turning around and attacking public-sector workers is a pure bait-and-switch. Walker chose to make the deficit worse, and then use it as an excuse to go after public workers.

A new International Monetary Fund study concluded that half of the increases in budget deficits around the world are due to collapsing tax revenues--and a further large share is due to interest payments on old debt. Less than 10 percent is due to discretionary public spending.As is always the case in an economic slump, the recession--which brought with it wealth destruction, high rates of unemployment and increased reliance on social programs--caused a decline in revenues and increased spending on some services.
Conservative economic commentators and politicians alike hammer relentlessly at the idea that the country is "broke," and it's only fair that public workers should chip in.But apparently, shared sacrifice doesn't apply to Wall Street executives. Back in 2008, when George Bush's Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was trying to sell Congress on approving the the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program, he argued vociferously that limiting executive compensation would be "impractical."

<a class="postlink" href="http://factcheck.org/2011/03/walkers-tax-cuts/">http://factcheck.org/2011/03/walkers-tax-cuts/</a>[quote]It’s not true that Gov. Scott Walker’s tax cuts are the cause of Wisconsin’s current budget deficit — a false claim widely spread by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and repeated in numerous e-mails to us since we wrote about the state’s budget problems earlier this week. In fact, the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the tax cuts won’t add a penny to the current year’s $137 million deficit[/quote]

The short answer is that the tax breaks — which total in the millions, not billions — don’t take effect until fiscal year 2012 and beyond, so they do not contribute to this year’s budget deficit, according to Fiscal Bureau Director Bob Lang

On his first day in office Jan. 3, Walker called for a special session of the Legislature to deal with job creation. Four bills came from that session that provided tax breaks. On Jan. 31, the fiscal bureau issued a memo that explains the impact of three of those bills on the current fiscal year and the next two-year budget cycle. We will get to the impact in a minute. First, as wrote previously, the fiscal bureau’s memo showed a $121 million gross balance in the state’s general accounting fund for fiscal year 2011 — but that did not include outstanding debts, including more than $170 million for Medicaid services, $21 million for corrections programs and more than $58 million owed to Minnesota for a tax reciprocity deal. The net deficit: $137 million

Yeah, ok.
Now give it up already.

traptunderice

dominated.

traptunderice

However... if the deficit is such a huge problem to the degree that public sector unions need to be fucked over, why is it acceptable to fuck over the deficit for next year in order to provide tax breaks? Why do unions bear the weight of the deficit when come next year the deficit will even be larger? Who is going to bear the brunt next March?

dead1

The silly Americans have now decided that not just a no-fly zone is required but rather that full scale bombing of Libyan army units is required:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12768695

This sort of stuff is dangerous because if it happens it opens the floodgates for other countries invading or bombing their neighbours on dodgy humanitarian grounds.

To be honest, the West doesn't know what's happening in Libyan parts controlled by Gaddafhi.

The action that's been portrayed on the news seems legitimate from a military perspective (artillery duels, bombing of rebel positions - all legitimate under current rules of war).

Bombing the guts out of Libya legitimises other countries doing too - e.g. Israeli strikes in Lebanon or Russian engagement in the Caucasus.

It even legitimises Serbian military involvement in the Balkans in the 1990's - after all the Serb military's excuse for being in Croatia and Bosnia was to protect Serbs who were being persecuted by majority Croats and Muslims.

Even if it has UN sanction, it creates further precedents that undermine global stability. One day the US will not be the top dog and the new powers with even poorer human rights or peace records will use the precedents sent now to further push their own agenda.

Goat

This is pretty interesting -

<a class="postlink" href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/03/palin-trails-sheen-with-independents.html">http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com ... dents.html</a>

dead1

Ah hilarious stuff. The US will inflict a no-fly zone over Libya as punishment for Libya bombing its own people.

Meanwhile the Americans just killed 35 people in Pakistan using unamnned drones. Not the first time Allied forces have indiscriminately bombed civilians* in Afghanistan/Pakistan

*I say "civilians" cause most likely these men were armed. Most Pakistanis in tribal areas and Afghanis are armed. You can buy AK-47's and light machine guns at markets there.

However armed is not the same as Al Qaeda or Taliban.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167510.htm?section=justin">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... ion=justin</a>

I wish they got rid of the pretence of humanity with these things. Just say "we want Gaddafhi out because he's a pain in the arse." I would've gladly accepted the same rationale in Iraq.

Indeed without pretence of humanitarianism we can actually wage war effectively as opposed to the half measured cockups being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq that just prolong misery (no offence to troops but their hands are tied by political machinations).

After all killing 100 men for power and greed is better than killing 10,000 for humanitarian reasons.

Goat

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12785695">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12785695</a>

Nearly a century ago, Britain was accused of masterminding a failed plot to kill Lenin and overthrow his fledgling Bolshevik regime. The British government dismissed the story as mere Soviet propaganda - but new evidence suggests it might be true...

I love stories like this.

Karmakosmonaut

If only they had succeeded.

dead1

Shame they don't have similar plots to take out the Saud family but then the Saud family is too big a customer.

Azrael

José Sócrates' Socialist Party government fell today, after failing to push through his proposed austerity measures.

pension cuts across the board (which meant idiot politicians got hit, but so did people at the lowest end of the pensions scale), VAT increases to 23%, and other moves made him far too unpopular to go on. i think austerity measures are necessary but that he was picking all the money up from the wrong place - the taxpayer's empty pockets.

dead1

Azrael wrote
José Sócrates' Socialist Party government fell today, after failing to push through his proposed austerity measures.pension cuts across the board (which meant idiot politicians got hit, but so did people at the lowest end of the pensions scale), VAT increases to 23%, and other moves made him far too unpopular to go on. i think austerity measures are necessary but that he was picking all the money up from the wrong place - the taxpayer's empty pockets.

I wonder if this will cause further uncertainty in financial markets and economic forecasts.

Portugal might be a small player in global economic affairs but then so are Iceland, Greece and Ireland and all of them have had caused massive global economic uncertainty.

Azrael

i think it's more opportunism from financial markets than true issues with sovereign debt, or the impact of the default on said sovereign debt.

hopefully whoever takes charge will put and end to Sócrates' idiotic projects like a TGV railway, new airport and new bridge over the Tagus river.

but the issue remains that whoever comes, certain people will keep taking huge bites off our national budget. i'm talking about politicians with early retirement and lifetime pensions but who keep on working in the private sector, former MPs who get paid for several months after they leave parliament as a "social reinsertion subsidy" (because those former MPs are a hard to employ bunch!), municipal leaders who offer useless construction jobs left and right to their friends in engineering companies, and jobs for the boys, like former president Jorge Sampaio's daughter who is an "aid" to a (former) minister with a huge salary despite having recently finished her Law course with a fucking 10/20 GPA.

but obviously, no, the answer is to keep hiking up taxes and cutting on social security benefits.

Karmakosmonaut

Hey, at least you've had a government these last years. We in Belgium have had a dysfunctional one since 2007 and before that we had eight years of liberal-socialist faggotry and immigrant pampering.

Goat

O Canada...! Everyone vote Liberal.

Goat

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370343/Pregnant-woman-told-seat-Gordon-Brown-fly-BA-Club-Class.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Class.html</a>

:rolleyes:

GeneralDiomedes

Goat wrote
O Canada...! Everyone vote Liberal.

I think the phrase 'politics is a choice between the unpalatable and the disastrous' was made for Canadian politics .. the Liberals have not shown their ruling quality just yet.

Bruce_Bitenfils

Karmakosmonaut wrote
Hey, at least you've had a government these last years. We in Belgium have had a dysfunctional one since 2007 and before that we had eight years of liberal-socialist faggotry and immigrant pampering.

Hey Karma, do you think Belgium will eventually split into two distinct entities ? Here in France, there is an emerging debate : "should France gobble up Wallonia + Brussels ?" There are pro-annexation in almost every single party. Communists, socialists, centrists, right-wingers, nationalists... everywhere (but to be fair, there are antis everywhere just as well).
Vultures, if you ask me.

Karmakosmonaut

There are plenty of Walloon rattachists and personally I wouldn't mind if they did. But Brussels? You can forget about that.

Bruce_Bitenfils

There are national elections next year, so wannabe elected politicians just throw random nonsensical propositions, one being Brussels becoming a part of France. Nothing to be taken seriously.

However I didn't knew there were that much Walloon in favor of being part of France. Not sure I like that.

« Previous Page Next Page »