More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[deicer]

Methinks this article explains why change is needed and why. Highlighted section was my emphasis.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/want-to-cut-public-debt-bring-in-the-leftists/article25663385/

In Greece, it took a very left-wing government to cut public spending, slash the size of the public service and reduce a government debt load that had begun to rise fast under conservatives a decade earlier. “We must all adapt ourselves to this new situation,” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras told the members of his far-left Syriza coalition as he successfully persuaded them to vote in a second round of reforms this week.

In France, it has taken a Socialist Party government to break open a paralyzed and overregulated economy in an effort to bring back growth and fiscal order. Prime Minister Manuel Valls, after an economically disappointing start, instructed Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, a former Wall Street banker, last year to redesign the economy. This month, after tortured debate, parliament passed the 400-article “Macron Bill,” which deregulates many sectors, allows competition, cuts public spending and even introduces Sunday shopping – things that two decades of mainly conservative governments were unable to touch.

In the United States, it has taken a Democratic president to get the fiscal house in order. After George W. Bush’s lofty spending and lavish tax cuts sent public debt soaring (even before the 2008 crisis), under Barack Obama the size of the debt began to fall in 2013 – in large part because under his watch government spending has risen by only 1.4 per cent (in part because new programs such as Obamacare cost taxpayers less), compared with an 8.1-per-cent increase under Mr. Bush and 8.7 per cent in Ronald Reagan’s first term.

We have entered the age of the austerity left.

Meanwhile, conservative governments are faring less well. Britain’s Tories have been unable to get public debt under control after triggering a second recession with their post-2011 policies.

Their Canadian counterparts, whose signature policies involve handing billions in cheques to voters and removing large tranches of revenue permanently from the public purse, have not managed to reduce the size of the public or private debt, despite some big program cuts.

Right-wing governments are simply not faring well as fiscal stewards.

Has the world turned upside down? Not really. It’s just more evidence of a well-established trend. Since the early 1980s, in much of the Western world, liberal and social-democratic parties have been entrusted to clean up the fiscal and spending messes created by conservative regimes.

In the United States, Mr. Reagan managed to increase debt, government spending and even (ironically) taxes; it took Bill Clinton’s less state-heavy economics to send debt plummeting, until Mr. Bush repeated the pattern.

In Britain, Conservative debt became a problem in the mid-1990s, when the Labour Party under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown used strict fiscal discipline to keep debt below 40 per cent of gross domestic product for a decade, until the 2008 crisis forced all governments to spend.

In Canada, Brian Mulroney’s Tories pushed spending and debt to record-breaking levels, precipitating a world-scale crisis that Liberals Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin finally faced down with aggressive program cuts. On top of this, analyses show that over the 30 years from 1981 to 2011, the Canadian governments most likely to have balanced budgets, and those with the lowest deficits, were provincial NDP regimes.

This has tangible effects: After analyzing 12 Western countries, economist Douglas A. Hibbs found that “the unemployment rate has been driven downward by Democratic and Labour administrations and upward by Republican and Conservative governments.”

This seems to go against not only our expectations, but against the stated values of many of these parties (Syriza was elected to end austerity and leading economists recommended it reject the European reforms). So why is the left repeatedly more fiscally sensible than the right?

One answer, in an analysis of 40 years of Western governments by economist Jose Tavares, is that this is how parties get elected, by playing against type: Right-wingers gain power only if they pledge both spending programs and tax cuts; voters won’t trust liberals unless they show fiscal restraint. This sort of triangulation has become core to the thinking of the more successful major political parties.

But there is a larger explanation, found in the balance sheets. “Tax-and-spend liberals” is a fair description of much of the centre-left. Right-wing parties generally scorn the tax half of this equation – but they can’t do much about the spending half. It is loss of tax revenues that has both sent debt soaring and choked off economic growth in the United States in the 2000s, and Canada and Britain now. To get the wheels of capitalism turning again, it may require another bunch of leftists.

[Don Hudson]

Interesting that the article seems to have struck a chord with a number of commenters offering their thoughts below the article, particularly on low-taxation regimes. They seem to realize that a country cannot be run on tax give-aways.

[DEFCON]

"an effort to bring back growth"

Continuing to focus on growth supported by compounding interest means the Banksters have no intention to correct anything and by extension the little people should only expect more of the same. It would appear that the 1%ers have been successful in protecting and maintaining the state of public servitude.

[deicer]

http://magazine.good.is/articles/organize-fight-win

Paramedic Shares Awesome Facebook Post About Minimum Wage Increase
by Craig Carilli

Jens Rushing, like so many people, took to Facebook to rant about something. Rushing, a paramedic, wrote an angry post about fast food workers winning a $15/hr wage that has since gone viral. But instead of getting angry that his skilled job only pays him the same amount, he stood in solidarity with the underpaid workers and had this to say to everyone complaining about the wage increase: “That's exactly what the bosses want! They want us fighting over who has the bigger pile of crumbs so we don't realize they made off with almost the whole damn cake.”

Check out his full post below:

Fast food workers in NY just won a $15/hr wage.

I'm a paramedic. My job requires a broad set of skills: interpersonal, medical, and technical skills, as well as the crucial skill of performing under pressure. I often make decisions on my own, in seconds, under chaotic circumstances, that impact people's health and lives. I make $15/hr.

And these burger flippers think they deserve as much as me?

Good for them.

Look, if any job is going to take up someone's life, it deserves a living wage. If a job exists and you have to hire someone to do it, they deserve a living wage. End of story. There's a lot of talk going around my workplace along the lines of, “These guys with no education and no skills think they deserve as much as us? **bleep** those guys.” And elsewhere on FB: “I'm a licensed electrician, I make $13/hr, **bleep** these burger flippers.”

And that's exactly what the bosses want! They want us fighting over who has the bigger pile of crumbs so we don't realize they made off with almost the whole damn cake. Why are you angry about fast food workers making two bucks more an hour when your CEO makes four hundred TIMES what you do? It's in the bosses' interests to keep your anger directed downward, at the poor people who are just trying to get by, like you, rather than at the rich assholes who consume almost everything we produce and give next to nothing for it.

My company, as they're so fond of telling us in boosterist emails, cleared 1.3 billion dollars last year. They expect guys supporting families on 26-27k/year to applaud that. And that's to say nothing of the techs and janitors and cashiers and bed pushers who make even less than us, but they are as absolutely crucial to making a hospital work as the **bleep** CEO or the neurosurgeons. Can they pay us more? Absolutely. But why would they? No one's making them.

The workers in NY *made* them. They fought for and won a living wage. So how incredibly petty and counterproductive is it to fuss that their pile of crumbs is bigger than ours? Put that energy elsewhere.

Organize. Fight. Win.

[Guest]

I wonder where the paramedic making $15.00 an hour lives, the average in Canada is:

Paramedic Salary (Canada)

The average pay for a Paramedic is C$25.59 per hour. Most people move on to other jobs if they have more than 20 years' experience in this career.

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Paramedic/Hourly_Rate

and in Alberta:

What are the salary and benefits?

Paramedics at Alberta Health Services are also referred to as EMT – Paramedics (short for emergency medical technologist – paramedics). They are represented by a union called the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, commonly called HSAA. Alberta Health Services and HSAA have an employment contract called a collective agreement that applies to most Alberta Health Services paramedics.

The pay scale for paramedics ranges from $33.33 to $43.87 per hour for more experienced paramedics. In addition, hourly premiums may apply for evening, weekend and holiday work.

Paramedics also get paid vacation time and a comprehensive Employee and Family Assistance Program paid for by Alberta Health Services. Depending on the number of hours and type of position, other benefits can include paid sick time, supplementary health and dental coverage, vision care, insurances (life, accidental death and dismemberment and short-term and long-term disability) and a flexible spending account.

Not exactly burger flipping wages or benefits.

[deicer]

The article is by a paramedic from New York. Below is the wage scale, nothing like what Canada pays.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ems_salary_benefits_042607.shtml

[Guest]

The article is by a paramedic from New York. Below is the wage scale, nothing like what Canada pays.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ems_salary_benefits_042607.shtml

Then I guess we can once again be thankfull we live in Canada. We should also perhaps use "Real" Canadian examples of wage inequity when discussing the problem so as to compare apples to apples , not apples to lemons.

[GDR]

I have long been a supporter of the idea of a guaranteed annual income which could be a replacement for a myriad of other programs and more effectively target those that truly need assistance. There are problems with it as it does not deal with those who work on a cash basis and don't declare income but I still think it would do the most effective job of helping those in need.

Here is a "Grope and Flail" column on the subject.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-time-for-a-guaranteed-annual-income-might-finally-have-come/article25819266/

Whoever wins this election, hopefully the Conservatives, should call an all party committee to seriously look into the idea.

[Guest]

GDR, the idea of a "guaranteed Annual Income" will never work unless it is attached to a guarantee from those who benefit to work a min. number of hours so as to "earn" that income. Exceptions would of course be made for those who really can not work but in reality there are not many of those left given the ability of modern technology that enables most folks to overcome any disability and contribute to the workforce.

Just imagine where your call is answered by customer service support staff (earning the guaranteed wage and living in Canada) who can converse in either of our 2 official languages and help you out.

[mo32a]

As Former CP air says, I am all for getting rid of all the myriad of support programs/handouts etc. and making it a guaranteed annual wage, as long as it is tied to a guaranteed minimum hours of work.

[GDR]

Well the current system isn't tied to work and it actually discourages people from working. With a GAI, as the article mentions, you institute it in a way that the amount is gradually reduced to zero but not simply by the amount that is earned. The person receiving GAI will always be better off with paid employment.

One of the problems though will always be, as it is now, with those who work for cash under the table. I don't know what can be done about that.

[DEFCON]

"One of the problems though will always be, as it is now, with those who work for cash under the table. I don't know what can be done about that."

Call it theft, or fraud and throw the buggers in jail, which in my view ought to include work gangs of some kind too.

[Boney]

High taxes is causing this underground economy.

Reduce taxes.

Oh I can hear it now, the poor will end paying more as a percentage of their income. Well, so what. The middle class and rich folks will now have increased disposable income to stimulate the economy, which will create jobs for those poor folks.

Nothing personal, just "business".

[DEFCON]

The author of the G&M article above points to a wide variation in lifespans existing between two of Hamilton’s sub-populations and then uses the statistic to support a weak theory in which it’s claimed that a GIA would correct the apparent deficiency. Is it possible those with shorter lives were born and spent their formative and more years as residents of the third world? If so, this factor alone could easily account for the claimed disparity.

Knowing the present social services industry is already a mess, it’s fair to ask who, or how would the GAI be supervised to protect against abuse?

Would Canada stop the importation of people lacking in all the basic skills and often even the ambition necessary to hit the ground running, figuratively speaking, and only allow those in that are able to compete for work versus the current scheme that provides what is effectively a lottery win with placement at the public trough for life?

Current social service programs; i.e., baby bonuses, child tax credits, other tax credits and refunds, etc., etc. encourage the so-called impoverished to procreate and more often than not produce children destined to relive the experience of the parents. Would a GAI replace ‘all’ current social programs, or serve as a supplement, meaning the ‘disadvantaged person will end up sharing lifestyles with the guy paying the freight on the others behalf?

[Guest tailwheel]

Methinks this article explains why change is needed and why. Highlighted section was my emphasis.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/want-to-cut-public-debt-bring-in-the-leftists/article25663385/

In Greece, it took a very left-wing government to cut public spending, slash the size of the public service and reduce a government debt load that had begun to rise fast under conservatives a decade earlier. “We must all adapt ourselves to this new situation,” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras told the members of his far-left Syriza coalition as he successfully persuaded them to vote in a second round of reforms this week.

.

While I don't know much about France, look at the first paragraph which I have quoted, Do you really believe that the Syriza party has implemented these reforms. Germany has forced it onto Greece.

As we have all seen recently in the news, Greece's economy was starting to grow when Syriza came into power determined to reverse the austerity measures. The end result has been financially paralysis of the country for the last month and a huge economic loss.

The cost to the economy as been billions.

[deicer]

It is my opinion that if Greece went back to the Drachma, they would have felt the pain. Yes, but they would have come out better in the end.

However, as I have stated before, this, in my opinion, was just the latest attempt by Germany to take over Europe.

Why is it that the Germans have to have so much control? Why do they have to have representatives in the governments of Euro nations?

Just the Banksters creating the new world order.....

[Guest tailwheel]

It is my opinion that if Greece went back to the Drachma, they would have felt the pain. Yes, but they would have come out better in the end.

However, as I have stated before, this, in my opinion, was just the latest attempt by Germany to take over Europe.

Why is it that the Germans have to have so much control? Why do they have to have representatives in the governments of Euro nations?

I can't comment on whether it would have been better or not to go to the Drachma, but either way, they were and are experiencing a terrible situation. Surely that must be obvious as we have been reading about their economic woes for years now.

As for Germany, if you are wondering why they "have so much control", I suggest you first look at their population, and then look at their economic performance.

Germany, it appears has been working the hardest to keep the European union together as a way to stop the endless wars that happened previously. As far as I am concerned, they are among the most responsible countries in the world.

They have continued to loan money to the Greeks over the years to keep them going yet have been insulted terribly.

I am rather surprised that you feel that this Greek government is something to be considered as reasonable.

I'm curious, which party in Canada do you think would be most similar to Syriza?

[deicer]

It has nothing to do with the Greek government being agreeable or disagreeable. It is the interference and bullying of the Germans that is the problem.

To look at it in a simpler light, would your neighbours appreciate it if you were to dictate to them how to run their house next door and to having you run their finances?

[DEFCON]

Germany has followed the tried and true model of the banksters; lend money to a punch drunk spender and then claim his assets when the inevitable default occurs...nothing new there.

And who's idea was it to cancel the gold standard, don't blame Nixon, that once prevented all the crazy smoke and mirror style transactions that go on today from taking place?

[Fido]

To look at it in a simpler light, would your neighbours appreciate it if you were to dictate to them how to run their house next door and to having you run their finances?

To the Greeks they would ask you, their neighbour for a loan to heat their house and pay the light bill and then tell you they needed another loan to pay you back.

[Guest]

Re the Greeks, this is a story a lot like the one about the Ants and the Grasshopper, at some point the Grasshopper has to pay.

[deicer]

Why would you loan money to your neighbour, knowing that they couldn't pay you back, unless you want to put a lien on their house and take possession?

[Guest]

Why would you loan money to your neighbour, knowing that they couldn't pay you back, unless you want to put a lien on their house and take possession?

Maybe , just maybe it was to give them a chance to recover and prosper, based on a hope that they would at least try.

[Guest tailwheel]

The Germans and others have not stated why they loaned money to Greece but it appears that it was with good intentions as it has helped keep them from defaulting and entering a complete financial crisis over the years until Syriza took power).

The Greeks promised they would make reforms(and in fact were making reforms) until Syriza came in. Their economy was finally starting to recover as the first step in the long road back to health although the previous government was slow to fully implement reforms due to opposition from Syriza. If all those pensioners that we hear about in Greece had been cut off, I suspect the same people complaining about Germany and the terrible bankers would be castigating Germany and the terrible bankers for cutting Greece off.

Germany has made incredible efforts to keep the European union together based on the weight of Europe's history. The Greek have clearly said that above all, the want to stay in the EU. Obviously it was naïve of Germany and others to lend more money to Greece and think that these people who think along the lines of Syriza would do anything but spit in the face of those trying to help them out with further loans and a willingness to take a loss with agreed to partial non-payments.

I would like to answer your question though about "would your neighbours appreciate it if you were to dictate to them how to run their house next door and to having you run their finances?".

What would be your reaction if you loaned a significant amount of money to your neighbour, initially when their finances were reasonable. Later on when they said that they needed more or else their kids would lose their only chance at ever completing school, you wanted to be a good friend and loaned some more. Finally, when they asked for more and out of frustration you started saying no way unless they stopped frittering it away on other things(that you found out about) you got terribly insulted and called the worst names by your neighbour and then told that you would probably never get your money back, then what would you do.

I have to say, that I have never seen in the west, such an irresponsible and ungrateful group of people as in Greece.

[deicer]

Again, the Germans knew what the Greeks were like, yet they still pursued their agenda of throwing money at them.

Why?

Portugal and Spain have knuckled under, but the Greeks were defiant......