What Madness?


"The police are refused service at many gas stations because the City can't pay it's bills."

There is a overwhelming financial crisis in all levels of government in the USA and other countries and nobody seems to know what to do about it. The normal approach is to cut government spending and now the rights of union workers are being threatened. Unfortunately, the problem is so huge that budget cutting and union bashing will not get the job done. A new mindset of paying our way needs to be adopted.

If you want to get a sense of the urgency and seriousness of this matter, watch the CBS video below called "Day of Reckoning" It is truly disturbing. Chicago is known as a deadbeat city because it can't pay it's bills. Government employees in offices are being evicted because the city can't pay the rent. The police are refused service at many gas stations because the City can't pay it's bills. This is just one example of the calamity.

This crisis applies to virtually all US local and state governments. In addition, the U.S. debt is over $13.5 trillion, which is the sum of all outstanding debt owed by the Federal Government. Additionally, the annual operating deficit for 2011 is projected to be $1.26 trillion. Every year, the deficit is added to the debt, by the end of this year the debt will be almost $15 trillion.

The video below shows how dire the situation is with State and Local governments. Nobody wants to admit it or talk about it but, we need to pay for what we get. Budget cutting and borrowing money is not sustainable.

For a quick visual of how big the problem is go to http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

 

CBS Video `Day of Reckoning`

 


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Why Consevatives Like to Kiss Babies


Below is a comment on an article in the U.S.News & World Report on March 10, 2011 in response to a story about the Wisconsin Republican vote to take away union rights.

 

"My Thoughts

Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money. Have you ever wondered why Republicans are so interested in encouraging people to volunteer in their communities? It’s because volunteers work for no pay. Republicans have been trying to get people to work for no pay for a long time. Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

[report comment]

JT of MN @ Mar 10, 2011 14:55:50 PM


Leave a comment

How the Baby Boomers Took their Children’s Future


How the Baby Boomers Took their Children's Future – and Why They Should Give it Back

By David Willetts

Reviewed by Jenni Russell – 26 February 2010

© New Statesman 1913 – 2010

 Generation why?

 In the mid-1980s, when I was working for the BBC and buying my first flat in London, it seemed that my generation was having a much harder time of it than the cohort just ahead of us. The journalists and producers who were ten or 20 years older had bought Georgian terraces in Islington or big, red-brick houses in Hampstead on their salaries, and often on a single salary at that. Our lot thought we were being squeezed to the edges of the civilised universe because we were having to flat-hunt in pairs in Stoke Newington or Balham or Acton.

A couple of decades on, and our lives look impossibly gilded to those who followed us. How was I, as a BBC trainee paid less than the lowest-graded secretary, able to buy a two-bed, two-bath maisonette in a handsome Victorian house in Stroud Green, and share the perfectly manageable mortgage with my PhD student boyfriend? What did it feel like to enter adult life with no overdraft and no student debt? Why were companies competing to offer us career paths and final-salary pensions? Where did it all go so right for us, and so wrong for the teens and twentysomethings of today?

Those questions are the starting points for the new book by the Conservative shadow secretary of state for universities and skills, David Willetts, on the generational imbalance in Britain. The Pinch is sold as an examination of how the baby boomers managed to grab the best of everything – money, sex, houses, guilt-free carbon consumption, jobs – and whether they can be persuaded, or compelled, to hand back some of those resources. (It may be a little late for the sex.)

Willetts's point is that the baby boomers, born in the 20 years from 1945, are not necessarily any more selfish than any generation before or after them. Their dominance derives largely from their sheer numbers. Their music, their rebellions and their tastes changed society because they formed such a huge consumer group, and because there was space for so much creative diversity to emerge within that.

Their political weight has been just as strong. Their working years were prosperous because they formed a bulge in the middle of the age range, with relatively few dependants ahead of them, and relatively few behind. Houses were affordable because the competition for them had not yet sent prices soaring. But as the boomers age, their position is going to be threatened. The burden of providing for them, and paying for the pensions and care they were promised, is falling on a smaller, poorer, more badly housed cohort behind them. This group will have to work longer, pay higher taxes, receive fewer services and live in a more degraded environment than their parents and their grandparents did. Unless the boomers do something to address such a fundamental inequality in life chances, this unequal contract may not hold.

Willetts's book is far more wide-ranging and absorbing than its subtitle suggests. It is full of lovely insights. He illustrates the unpredictable costs of pension schemes, for example, by telling us that the last payment to a pensioner from the American civil war fund went to a woman who died 140 years after the conflict ended, having married an ancient veteran when she herself was very young. But his principal concern throughout is to understand why British society functions as it does.

Willetts explores how our long history of small, nuclear families has driven our need for strong government and powerful civil institutions to protect us from the uncertainties of life. He points out how our increasing individualism and readiness to leave relationships has had the effect of making us more dependent on the state, which has had to take on the financial responsibilities that families and breadwinners used to meet. He shows how our consumer culture has encouraged us to think of nothing but living for ourselves and for the day, leaving us without a proper sense of responsibility to the future, or to one another.

This is not, however, any kind of conservative lament for the past. Rather, it is a clear-sighted look at the present. Willetts is interested in how we build altruism and reciprocity, and in the institutions that encourage them in the increasingly atomised and unequal world in which we live.

It is here that I begin to be most intrigued by what the author is going to conclude. For instance, he is eloquent about how individuals' desire to be better parents, and to invest more time and money in their own children, has made them less likely to volunteer in activities that help the offspring of others. The simultaneous collapse of trust in adult-child relationships has left deprived children more socially isolated than ever before, with even less chance of finding paths out of their backgrounds into more rewarding futures.

The author is clearly disturbed by the effect of all this on both inequality and social mobility – as he says, we have become better parents than we are citizens – and thinks we must find ways to challenge it. Similarly, he is clear that soaring house prices entrench the advantages of those whose parents have capital, given that only those offspring can afford to enter the housing market now.

I turned to the last chapter with real curiosity. Was Willetts going to advocate what his arguments seem so often to imply? Would he recommend higher inheritance taxes, on the grounds of both generational and social equality? How would he suggest we combat parents' desire to do ever more to protect their own offspring's interests? Would he suggest measures such as a retrospective graduate tax as a first step in the baby boomers' repayment scheme?

This is one way in which the book disappoints, because the reader is left hanging as the author simply recaps his appeal to us to rethink what society needs. I see his dilemma here. He is a front-bench spokesman whose party is on the verge of taking power. Presumably he can't start challenging existing policies, or suggesting new ones, without being seen to trample all over his colleagues' territory. Yet I was left frustrated. There is a good deal of radicalism implicit in what Willetts writes, and I wanted to know how far he is willing to follow his own arguments, and how far he will push them within his party.

I intend some day, at some political event, to supply him with so much red wine that he lets spill what his own prescriptions would be. And when he does, I promise that New Statesman readers will be the first to know.

Jenni Russell is a commentator and broadcaster

The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took their Children's Future – and Why They Should Give it Back
David Willetts
Atlantic Books, 288pp, £18.99


Leave a comment

Pay Up or Bankrupt our Children


What will it take to wake up the world to the fact that if we don't start paying the full cost of the government services we get, we will bankrupt the next generation.

We have become so anti-government and anti-tax that governments are scared to ask the people to pay more for services they demand. Instead they keep going deeper and deeper in the hole.

Also, they keep trying to cut budgets for existing services thinking that such cuts will solve the problem. There are not enough cuts to solve the debt/deficit crisis. The US government would have to eliminate almost half their budget just to eliminate the annual $1.5 Trillion deficit. This would not even make a dent in the $14 Trillion debt.

Why do people understand why they have to pay the actual cost of their telephone bill, their electricity bill and their cable bill but, they can't seem to accept that government services need to be paid in full, rather than borrowing money to cover unpaid balances resulting from the reluctance to increase taxes.

It truly is madness. We expect to pay for everything we get, except government services.

 


Leave a comment

Tax Cuts for Business Does not Equal More Jobs


Big business constantly begs for more tax breaks so that they can create more jobs. Where are the jobs being created with all the current tax breaks they get. Jobs are not created unless there is a market for a service or product. You can't invent a market by putting more money in shareholders pockets.

When will we stop listening to their self-serving rhetoric. They need to pay more taxes to reduce the deficit and the debt then investment and jobs will come. We should listen to Warren Buffet below;

  • Warren Buffet on tax breaks for the rich…

    “The rich are always going to say that" (reduce our taxes), "you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you,” Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in the interview. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

    Warren Buffet tells ABC News that the rich should pay more taxes.

     


Leave a comment

Wisconsin Governor Ignores Real Problem


In typical brainwashed politician response to government debt and deficits, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is taking away rights that union workers have fought for many decades to achieve. Why is cutting jobs or reducing government worker benefits the only response to budget deficits?   

Why does no one consider that the proper response may be for people to start paying for their lifestyle? Of course that would mean increasing taxes, something it seems that politicians have forgot how to do. They don't even bother asking the people if they would rather pay more taxes than losing services.

Maybe it is time to ask the people what they want. 


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment