|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
inflation makes people richer if there is a lot of debt in the economy. this is what's going on right now.
also, holding money (lolgold) itself should never be a good thing to do. you need to invest with that money or spend it. if holding money is +ev, your system is fucked too. that's why money supply should roughly grow with size of all the goods in the economy. but private banks can create inside money by issuing credit too so it's not all the fed's doing.
there's quite a bit of unused productiion capacity in the economy and that's just a dead weight loss. this is the most pressing short term problem
|
On November 21 2012 21:07 Nikk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 20:57 Velr wrote:
Now please tell me, is there any easier way to catch votes than to be against something that is clearly "Bad" at first sight?
Btw: I'm actually all for reducing debt/deficit... But right now, for a country, is just like the worst time to do it, right now is more the right time to go more into debt/deficit to get the motor going again.. The problem is, as soon as the crisis is over, people will forget about the debt until the next crisis hits...
So you think politicians are only saying this to get votes? That is even worse than being ignorant, that is almost malicious and/or misanthropic. Why are you for reducing the debt and deficit? Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 20:52 p4NDemik wrote:
There was a real economic concern behind handling the deficit, if you want to get some perspective, I'd recommend reading The Price of Politics. Woodward sets the stage quite well, where the major players all agreed that yes, this was an important issue.
Ideology played a major part though because it fueled the lengths to which the opposing parties were willing to go to in order to get their way, which was what set the crisis in motion. Thanks, I will take a look at that book tomorrow!
Yes, they are only saying it to get votes, considering they'll gladly increase the deficit when it concerns their agenda and not their opponents. It's called politics, lol. Especially amongst republicans, it's an organized talking point they all state in unison for effect. Democrats gladly play along even though they end up looking bad (you, obama) every time they try to argue for deficit neutrality. It's just an easy polarizing talking point to rally people to your side, by pointing at the other side anytime they aren't deficit neutral, which isn't always realistic.
|
On November 22 2012 00:36 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 21:07 Nikk wrote:On November 21 2012 20:57 Velr wrote:
Now please tell me, is there any easier way to catch votes than to be against something that is clearly "Bad" at first sight?
Btw: I'm actually all for reducing debt/deficit... But right now, for a country, is just like the worst time to do it, right now is more the right time to go more into debt/deficit to get the motor going again.. The problem is, as soon as the crisis is over, people will forget about the debt until the next crisis hits...
So you think politicians are only saying this to get votes? That is even worse than being ignorant, that is almost malicious and/or misanthropic. Why are you for reducing the debt and deficit? On November 21 2012 20:52 p4NDemik wrote:
There was a real economic concern behind handling the deficit, if you want to get some perspective, I'd recommend reading The Price of Politics. Woodward sets the stage quite well, where the major players all agreed that yes, this was an important issue.
Ideology played a major part though because it fueled the lengths to which the opposing parties were willing to go to in order to get their way, which was what set the crisis in motion. Thanks, I will take a look at that book tomorrow! Yes, they are only saying it to get votes, considering they'll gladly increase the deficit when it concerns their agenda and not their opponents. It's called politics, lol. Especially amongst republicans, it's an organized talking point they all state in unison for effect. Democrats gladly play along even though they end up looking bad (you, obama) every time they try to argue for deficit neutrality. It's just an easy polarizing talking point to rally people to your side, by pointing at the other side anytime they aren't deficit neutral, which isn't always realistic.
I think the "fiscal cliff" is unfortunately a situation ripe for political misinterpretation and manipulation, in that the associated vocabulary is full to the brim with words and phrases that are too easily thrown in the face of the average man or woman without context or definition. The concept of debt and what it means as it pertains to the federal budget and the US economy as a whole is fundamentally very different from the same concept's application to personal finance, and yet we see major media outlets pay this distinction relatively little lip service as they instead opt for repeated unadorned exhortations of cliffs, debt, deficit, and pay backs. It is rather funny that in this regard, the media benefits greatly from keeping financial jargon nebulous and lacking in specific definition; otherwise, they'd only be cooling down a story that generates a great amount of interest/readership/viewership. To be fair, the "truth" is still out there, granted one wants to take the time to sift through and actually read through news articles, something the vast majority of Americans are simply unwilling to do.
|
On November 22 2012 03:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 00:36 rd wrote:On November 21 2012 21:07 Nikk wrote:On November 21 2012 20:57 Velr wrote:
Now please tell me, is there any easier way to catch votes than to be against something that is clearly "Bad" at first sight?
Btw: I'm actually all for reducing debt/deficit... But right now, for a country, is just like the worst time to do it, right now is more the right time to go more into debt/deficit to get the motor going again.. The problem is, as soon as the crisis is over, people will forget about the debt until the next crisis hits...
So you think politicians are only saying this to get votes? That is even worse than being ignorant, that is almost malicious and/or misanthropic. Why are you for reducing the debt and deficit? On November 21 2012 20:52 p4NDemik wrote:
There was a real economic concern behind handling the deficit, if you want to get some perspective, I'd recommend reading The Price of Politics. Woodward sets the stage quite well, where the major players all agreed that yes, this was an important issue.
Ideology played a major part though because it fueled the lengths to which the opposing parties were willing to go to in order to get their way, which was what set the crisis in motion. Thanks, I will take a look at that book tomorrow! Yes, they are only saying it to get votes, considering they'll gladly increase the deficit when it concerns their agenda and not their opponents. It's called politics, lol. Especially amongst republicans, it's an organized talking point they all state in unison for effect. Democrats gladly play along even though they end up looking bad (you, obama) every time they try to argue for deficit neutrality. It's just an easy polarizing talking point to rally people to your side, by pointing at the other side anytime they aren't deficit neutral, which isn't always realistic. I think the "fiscal cliff" is unfortunately a situation ripe for political misinterpretation and manipulation, in that the associated vocabulary is full to the brim with words and phrases that are too easily thrown in the face of the average man or woman without context or definition. The concept of debt and what it means as it pertains to the federal budget and the US economy as a whole is fundamentally very different from the same concept's application to personal finance, and yet we see major media outlets pay this distinction relatively little lip service as they instead opt for repeated unadorned exhortations of cliffs, debt, deficit, and pay backs. It is rather funny that in this regard, the media benefits greatly from keeping financial jargon nebulous and lacking in specific definition; otherwise, they'd only be cooling down a story that generates a great amount of interest/readership/viewership. To be fair, the "truth" is still out there, granted one wants to take the time to sift through and actually read through news articles, something the vast majority of Americans are simply unwilling to do.
Thanks TL US Politics Megathread!
|
Another sad day for internet privacy 
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants
A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.
Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.
source
One more little step towards a police state.
|
On November 22 2012 04:23 kmillz wrote:Another sad day for internet privacy Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants Show nested quote +A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.
Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days. source
Yeah, I saw that. I find it hard to believe that this bill will pass judicial scrutiny if passed. It tramples all over the current state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, presuming that this jurisprudence extends to emails (I haven't researched this specifically).
|
On November 22 2012 04:23 kmillz wrote:Another sad day for internet privacy Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants Show nested quote +A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.
Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days. sourceOne more little step towards a police state.
Does the internet need to stage yet another mass protest?
|
On November 22 2012 04:23 kmillz wrote:Another sad day for internet privacy Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants Show nested quote +A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.
Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days. sourceOne more little step towards a police state.
I wouldn't get too worked up yet, it would appear CNET is practicing some poor quality journalism.
A Judiciary Committee aide denied on Tuesday that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) supports legislation that would allow government agencies to read emails, Facebook messages and other forms of electronic communication without a warrant.
CNET, a technology news site, reported on Tuesday that Leahy was backing a bill that would allow more than 22 federal agencies to read private emails without a warrant.
"CNET has it wrong," an aide tweeted from Leahy's account. "Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC."
A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy "does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches."
But according to CNET, Leahy agreed to weaken the bill in order to appease Republicans and law enforcement groups.
The site reported that a new version of his legislation exempted more than 22 federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, from the warrant requirement. The bill would give the FBI and the Homeland Security Department even more extensive powers in some circumstances, allowing them to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying the owner or a judge, according to CNET.
The Judiciary Committee aide explained that discussions between lawmakers and interest groups on Leahy's bill are ongoing. The aide said it is possible that there will be "tweaks" to the bill before the committee's markup next week, but that major revisions are unlikely.
Leahy denies supporting bill to allow warrantless email searches
Discussions of the bill in question are still ongoing, and congressional authorities have suggested that items such as warrantless perusal of digital information are not going to be included.
|
On November 22 2012 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 04:23 kmillz wrote:Another sad day for internet privacy Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.
Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days. sourceOne more little step towards a police state. I wouldn't get too worked up yet, it would appear CNET is practicing some poor quality journalism. Show nested quote +A Judiciary Committee aide denied on Tuesday that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) supports legislation that would allow government agencies to read emails, Facebook messages and other forms of electronic communication without a warrant.
CNET, a technology news site, reported on Tuesday that Leahy was backing a bill that would allow more than 22 federal agencies to read private emails without a warrant.
"CNET has it wrong," an aide tweeted from Leahy's account. "Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC."
A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy "does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches."
But according to CNET, Leahy agreed to weaken the bill in order to appease Republicans and law enforcement groups.
The site reported that a new version of his legislation exempted more than 22 federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, from the warrant requirement. The bill would give the FBI and the Homeland Security Department even more extensive powers in some circumstances, allowing them to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying the owner or a judge, according to CNET.
The Judiciary Committee aide explained that discussions between lawmakers and interest groups on Leahy's bill are ongoing. The aide said it is possible that there will be "tweaks" to the bill before the committee's markup next week, but that major revisions are unlikely.
Leahy denies supporting bill to allow warrantless email searchesDiscussions of the bill in question are still ongoing, and congressional authorities have suggested that items such as warrantless perusal of digital information are not going to be included.
Thanks for clearing that up and sorry for the weak source, I thought it sounded pretty crazy and I originally heard the story on yahoo, so there's that too. I hope that nothing like the alleged proposal from my source ever actually happens.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the warrantless wiretaps this term, correct? I expect that to be struck down and put to rest such highly invasive policies.
|
On November 22 2012 04:51 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 04:32 farvacola wrote:On November 22 2012 04:23 kmillz wrote:Another sad day for internet privacy Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.
Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Revised bill highlights
✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days. sourceOne more little step towards a police state. I wouldn't get too worked up yet, it would appear CNET is practicing some poor quality journalism. A Judiciary Committee aide denied on Tuesday that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) supports legislation that would allow government agencies to read emails, Facebook messages and other forms of electronic communication without a warrant.
CNET, a technology news site, reported on Tuesday that Leahy was backing a bill that would allow more than 22 federal agencies to read private emails without a warrant.
"CNET has it wrong," an aide tweeted from Leahy's account. "Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC."
A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy "does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches."
But according to CNET, Leahy agreed to weaken the bill in order to appease Republicans and law enforcement groups.
The site reported that a new version of his legislation exempted more than 22 federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, from the warrant requirement. The bill would give the FBI and the Homeland Security Department even more extensive powers in some circumstances, allowing them to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying the owner or a judge, according to CNET.
The Judiciary Committee aide explained that discussions between lawmakers and interest groups on Leahy's bill are ongoing. The aide said it is possible that there will be "tweaks" to the bill before the committee's markup next week, but that major revisions are unlikely.
Leahy denies supporting bill to allow warrantless email searchesDiscussions of the bill in question are still ongoing, and congressional authorities have suggested that items such as warrantless perusal of digital information are not going to be included. Thanks for clearing that up and sorry for the weak source, I thought it sounded pretty crazy and I originally heard the story on yahoo, so there's that too. I hope that nothing like the alleged proposal from my source ever actually happens.
Misinformed story aside, I do think it is a good thing that folks are paying more attention to how the legislature is dealing with digital age security and the like. An informed and involved electorate that takes a more pronounced interest in these matters might end up being very important as the government increasingly attempts to exert influence over the internet.
|
On November 21 2012 23:22 paralleluniverse wrote:From Bernanke's recent speech in New York: Show nested quote +A third headwind to the recovery--and one that may intensify in force in coming quarters--is U.S. fiscal policy. Although fiscal policy at the federal level was quite expansionary during the recession and early in the recovery, as the recovery proceeded, the support provided for the economy by federal fiscal actions was increasingly offset by the adverse effects of tight budget conditions for state and local governments. In response to a large and sustained decline in their tax revenues, state and local governments have cut about 600,000 jobs on net since the third quarter of 2008 while reducing real expenditures for infrastructure projects by 20 percent. More recently, the situation has to some extent reversed: The drag on economic growth from state and local fiscal policy has diminished as revenues have improved, easing the pressures for further spending cuts or tax increases. In contrast, the phasing-out of earlier stimulus programs and policy actions to reduce the federal budget deficit have led federal fiscal policy to begin restraining GDP growth. Indeed, under almost any plausible scenario, next year the drag from federal fiscal policy on GDP growth will outweigh the positive effects on growth from fiscal expansion at the state and local level. However, the overall effect of federal fiscal policy on the economy, both in the near term and in the longer run, remains quite uncertain and depends on how policymakers meet two daunting fiscal challenges--one by the start of the new year and the other no later than the spring. [...] Even as fiscal policymakers address the urgent issue of longer-run fiscal sustainability, they should not ignore a second key objective: to avoid unnecessarily adding to the headwinds that are already holding back the economic recovery. Fortunately, the two objectives are fully compatible and mutually reinforcing. Preventing a sudden and severe contraction in fiscal policy early next year will support the transition of the economy back to full employment; a stronger economy will in turn reduce the deficit and contribute to achieving long-term fiscal sustainability. At the same time, a credible plan to put the federal budget on a path that will be sustainable in the long run could help keep longer-term interest rates low and boost household and business confidence, thereby supporting economic growth today. Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm If only other Republicans were so sensible.
In response to Bernanke's comments, while states as a whole were cutting jobs, some states, such as Massachusetts, were adding jobs.
State governments as a whole:
![[image loading]](http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/CES9092000001_181706_1353526243541.gif)
Massachusetts specifically:
![[image loading]](http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/SMS25000009092000001_181539_1353525826359.gif)
Part of the reason MA was able to avoid large layoffs was because when times were good, the state prudently added to its "rainy day fund" to prepare for bad times. As you can see from the following chart, even though MA is a relatively small state, the rainy day fund itself was quite large (was over $2B, now $750M):
![[image loading]](http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy2009h1/exec2_09/statesstabilizfunds.gif)
If only we could elect the wise people who govern MA to the national level 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 22 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 21 2012 23:22 paralleluniverse wrote:From Bernanke's recent speech in New York: Show nested quote +A third headwind to the recovery--and one that may intensify in force in coming quarters--is U.S. fiscal policy. Although fiscal policy at the federal level was quite expansionary during the recession and early in the recovery, as the recovery proceeded, the support provided for the economy by federal fiscal actions was increasingly offset by the adverse effects of tight budget conditions for state and local governments. In response to a large and sustained decline in their tax revenues, state and local governments have cut about 600,000 jobs on net since the third quarter of 2008 while reducing real expenditures for infrastructure projects by 20 percent. More recently, the situation has to some extent reversed: The drag on economic growth from state and local fiscal policy has diminished as revenues have improved, easing the pressures for further spending cuts or tax increases. In contrast, the phasing-out of earlier stimulus programs and policy actions to reduce the federal budget deficit have led federal fiscal policy to begin restraining GDP growth. Indeed, under almost any plausible scenario, next year the drag from federal fiscal policy on GDP growth will outweigh the positive effects on growth from fiscal expansion at the state and local level. However, the overall effect of federal fiscal policy on the economy, both in the near term and in the longer run, remains quite uncertain and depends on how policymakers meet two daunting fiscal challenges--one by the start of the new year and the other no later than the spring. [...] Even as fiscal policymakers address the urgent issue of longer-run fiscal sustainability, they should not ignore a second key objective: to avoid unnecessarily adding to the headwinds that are already holding back the economic recovery. Fortunately, the two objectives are fully compatible and mutually reinforcing. Preventing a sudden and severe contraction in fiscal policy early next year will support the transition of the economy back to full employment; a stronger economy will in turn reduce the deficit and contribute to achieving long-term fiscal sustainability. At the same time, a credible plan to put the federal budget on a path that will be sustainable in the long run could help keep longer-term interest rates low and boost household and business confidence, thereby supporting economic growth today. Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm If only other Republicans were so sensible. In response to Bernanke's comments, while states as a whole were cutting jobs, some states, such as Massachusetts, were adding jobs. State governments as a whole: Massachusetts specifically: Part of the reason MA was able to avoid large layoffs was because when times were good, the state prudently added to its "rainy day fund" to prepare for bad times. As you can see from the following chart, even though MA is a relatively small state, the rainy day fund itself was quite large (was over $2B, now $750M): If only we could elect the wise people who govern MA to the national level
You mean, Democrats? 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the federal government can print its own money while MA is mandated to keep a balanced budget. it's a bit different.
but yea the deficit is still important as politically constrained fiscal policy space. speaking of rainy day funds, we've got a lot of them stashed away in our banks, but they are neither ours or yours. :D
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Hillary scores a cease-fire in Gaza.
This woman works magic. I, for one, thought it would be impossible for an immediate cease-fire after the bombing of the bus in Tel Aviv. The Obama Administration won't be the same without her I imagine. If Susan Rice weathers the storm then I imagine she'll take the reigns, otherwise it's likely to be John Kerry, who is a shoo-in for both Secretary of Defense and State.
What's next, Hillary?
|
On November 22 2012 05:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 21 2012 23:22 paralleluniverse wrote:From Bernanke's recent speech in New York: Show nested quote +A third headwind to the recovery--and one that may intensify in force in coming quarters--is U.S. fiscal policy. Although fiscal policy at the federal level was quite expansionary during the recession and early in the recovery, as the recovery proceeded, the support provided for the economy by federal fiscal actions was increasingly offset by the adverse effects of tight budget conditions for state and local governments. In response to a large and sustained decline in their tax revenues, state and local governments have cut about 600,000 jobs on net since the third quarter of 2008 while reducing real expenditures for infrastructure projects by 20 percent. More recently, the situation has to some extent reversed: The drag on economic growth from state and local fiscal policy has diminished as revenues have improved, easing the pressures for further spending cuts or tax increases. In contrast, the phasing-out of earlier stimulus programs and policy actions to reduce the federal budget deficit have led federal fiscal policy to begin restraining GDP growth. Indeed, under almost any plausible scenario, next year the drag from federal fiscal policy on GDP growth will outweigh the positive effects on growth from fiscal expansion at the state and local level. However, the overall effect of federal fiscal policy on the economy, both in the near term and in the longer run, remains quite uncertain and depends on how policymakers meet two daunting fiscal challenges--one by the start of the new year and the other no later than the spring. [...] Even as fiscal policymakers address the urgent issue of longer-run fiscal sustainability, they should not ignore a second key objective: to avoid unnecessarily adding to the headwinds that are already holding back the economic recovery. Fortunately, the two objectives are fully compatible and mutually reinforcing. Preventing a sudden and severe contraction in fiscal policy early next year will support the transition of the economy back to full employment; a stronger economy will in turn reduce the deficit and contribute to achieving long-term fiscal sustainability. At the same time, a credible plan to put the federal budget on a path that will be sustainable in the long run could help keep longer-term interest rates low and boost household and business confidence, thereby supporting economic growth today. Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm If only other Republicans were so sensible. In response to Bernanke's comments, while states as a whole were cutting jobs, some states, such as Massachusetts, were adding jobs. State governments as a whole: Massachusetts specifically: Part of the reason MA was able to avoid large layoffs was because when times were good, the state prudently added to its "rainy day fund" to prepare for bad times. As you can see from the following chart, even though MA is a relatively small state, the rainy day fund itself was quite large (was over $2B, now $750M): If only we could elect the wise people who govern MA to the national level You mean, Democrats?
Patrick DID have an awesome DNC speech. Personally I'd prefer the greatest MA governor of all time (Weld) though he's a bit over the hill nowadays.
|
Debt isn't only about economics. It's also about morality to some degree. It should be considered wrong to repeatedly take money from people who haven't even been born yet, we are hurting our own children and grandchildren. Obviously we can't increase the debt forever, and obviously many of our social programs and employee benefits are unsustainable in the long run. That means the benefits we are reaping now from our policies of excess will be paid eventually by later generations, either in the form of higher taxes or reduced benefits, but most likely both.
Just to take one example, the people who are receiving social security now are receiving more than they paid into it. In future generations people will receive less than they pay in. The people paying now are getting screwed over, because they are paying the cost of benefits for other people which they will never receive themselves. Social security alone is an example of a direct transfer of wealth from one generation to another.
|
On November 22 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It should be considered wrong to repeatedly take money from people who haven't even been born yet, we are hurting our own children and grandchildren.
And yet I distinctly remember you taking a rather hardline "damn the torpedoes" attitude towards environmentalism...
|
On November 22 2012 05:29 Souma wrote:Hillary scores a cease-fire in Gaza. This woman works magic. I, for one, thought it would be impossible for an immediate cease-fire after the bombing of the bus in Tel Aviv. The Obama Administration won't be the same without her I imagine. If Susan Rice weathers the storm then I imagine she'll take the reigns, otherwise it's likely to be John Kerry, who is a shoo-in for both Secretary of Defense and State. What's next, Hillary?
I saw this too and I'll put my bias towards Hillary aside and concur that this is good news.
|
On November 22 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Debt isn't only about economics. It's also about morality to some degree. It should be considered wrong to repeatedly take money from people who haven't even been born yet, we are hurting our own children and grandchildren. Obviously we can't increase the debt forever, and obviously many of our social programs and employee benefits are unsustainable in the long run. That means the benefits we are reaping now from our policies of excess will be paid eventually by later generations, either in the form of higher taxes or reduced benefits, but most likely both.
Just to take one example, the people who are receiving social security now are receiving more than they paid into it. In future generations people will receive less than they pay in. The people paying now are getting screwed over, because they are paying the cost of benefits for other people which they will never receive themselves. Social security alone is an example of a direct transfer of wealth from one generation to another.
It is only really borrowing from the future when we borrow against the SS Trust Fund, which we really should put into a "lockbox" like Al Gore wanted to. However, when we sell debt to other people, we are taking money from those people, not the unborn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
