Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
...in the USA with an agreement reached over the debt ceiling... and the USA can keep on spending its way into ruin.
The Republicans did not do themselves any good at all. They were right in trying to call a halt to the 'out of control' Federal spending splurge but their tactics and methods were simply wrong. In trying to get the right result they did themselves massive damage.
The Democrats tactics, in contrast to the Republicans, were very clever. The Republicans allowed the Democrats to paint them as extremists and as intractable. The Democrats racked up the stakes with their friends in the media with tales of an economic Armageddon arising if the Republicans did not back down. The American public fell hook, line and sinker for this line as reflected in the polls. To be fair some 'respectable' institutions also added to the fear factor for their own purposes.; This was, of course, nonsense. Hitting the deadline without an agreement would not have been a disaster and if, like me, you are involved in watching the various markets in bonds and equities, the reality was reflected in the calm way the markets were behaving right up until yesterday.
There was an opportunity for the Republicans to appear statesmanlike and to milk the situation for political gain and a win at the next Presidential elections - but they failed the test. The Democrats have now an undeserved political advantage.
The leadership of the Republicans was inept and is now in a crisis of their own.
The American people deserve better than this. Better leadership by the Opposition to Obama and a more responsible economic policy from Obama.
The result is merely to delay another political crisis and, eventually, another economic crisis.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Here Barry, have some Harry Secombe...
[URL][/URL]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
mmmm ..... second time I have done this.....
It should have been on my blog.
Oh well..... must be an age thing!!
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Don't know which to fear most, the US economy or Barry losing the plot!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
both probably lesley
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i looked at it and wondered why it was not on your blog barry.
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,938
Lesley Ives wrote:Don't know which to fear most, the US economy or Barry losing the plot!
Neither young Lesley, the time to become afraid is when losing the plot is nearer to home!
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It just means that the US Federal Administration will go on taxing the economy to oblivion to pay the public debt plus interest, while continuing to borrow and so add to the debt.
There are also 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA, and 7.5 million unemployed Americans.
Many Americans are getting fed up with the constant public debt increases to pay for everything, including unemployment tickets.
The Republicans know they are on the right track on this one.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think Barryw is closer to the mark
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It's unsustainable for a government to keep funding public spending through public borrowing, Keith.
America has a public debt of $17 trillion. It goes up all the time.
The Federal Reserve has also been adding $40 billion a month in quantitative easing money printing to artificially keep the US share market going.
At this rate the US dollar could crash overnight.
Madame Lagarde of the IMF has also given the US very bad advice in pushing for an increase of the US debt-ceiling.
She should be telling South and Central American countries to get their act in order rather than sending millions of people over to the USA.
Some South American countries do try to introduce social equality, which is necessary and prevents mass emigration to the USA or elsewhere.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
This is going to sound a bit like a tory, but here goes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lol
So Alexander, if we take your statement to be correct and i think it is
the debt then to be repaid means that money will have to come from somewhere, thus cut backs
so where alexander do you suggest the USA cutbacks?
the same could apply to the UK
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Does it really need to be cut backs?
An alternative would be to unwind the tax breaks to the wealthy in the US in conjunction with more modest cuts in federal spending.
As an example the US spends more on defence than the next 26 nations by spend and 25 of those are her allies
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Does it really need to be cut backs?
An alternative would be to unwind the tax breaks to the wealthy in the US in conjunction with more modest cuts in federal spending.
As an example the US spends more on defence than the next 26 nations by spend (combined) and 25 of those are her allies
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
It does Ross.... Cutting spending is the only way to deal with excessive spending. High taxes have a cost in growth but, as we agree, a reform of complex tax regimes and a simple flat tax arrangement can both increase revenue and boost growth. They cannot get away without spending cuts and even more important restraint.
They certainly have more room to cut defence spending than we do but remember, their Defence needs are very different to ours and even if cut to the bone they would remain the world biggest defence spender. After all they have extensive interests to protect in both the Pacific and Atlantic so a large capable Navy and an expeditionary capable Marine Corp are key aspects to their Defensive needs and these do not come cheap. They also need to remain top of the technology tree in Defence as the USA can never match the number of troops some nations in potential flashpoints can muster. Again not cheap.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Of course spending needs to be reduced, but it is truly obscene when multi millionaires in the US can legally end up paying less tax than their maid or their gardener
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
There are some differences, Keith, between the USA and Britain in economic matters, such as the USA being a federal country, where each state has a budget of its own.
The UK has a more centralised system where local budgets are mainly made up of Government grants, with very limited local input (council tax).
The federal public debt ($17 trillion) does not include certain state-debts.
California is one example of an insolvent state.
The UK situation is a centralised Treasury debt with practically no chance for local authorities to influence the economy, as comparatively little economic income goes into local council budgets.
If the US government had a prolonged partial shutdown, each state could still keep its economy running, whereas a partial government shutdown in Britain would mean lights out for all local authorities.
We need to decentralise the tax and budget system, give local authorities more local revenue and also more management of local economic affairs.
This management would mean local authorities assuring that employment goes to local people.
It would involve direct contact with local employers and the creation of a valid and stable skills and training programme.
This is imperative.
Once unemployment in Britain is reduced significantly, the benefits burden would decrease and the tax income would increase.
Personally I think the State Treasury should get one third of all tax revenues, the rest should go to local budgets.
All benefits would be paid from Council budgets, as too state pensions.
The more people are in work, the less benefits are paid out overall, and this means local authorities ensuring that the people in their administrative area get a fair deal from employers.
A capable skills and training programme would help people integrate into the work environment, which would benefit employers too.
Unless we leave the EU, it's all a dream.
We must freeze immigration and make sure that those who are here illegally go back home.
The Government needs to text people who are not entitled to be here inviting them to return home, and must send vans out across the Country carrying billboards informing illegal residents that unless they go home, they face arrest.
Local residents must also inform the authorities when they suspect employers employing always and only non-British people, such as in care homes and off-license shops.
In particular when the employed people there are always different people.
It means the employer is systematically importing people so as to get them "legally in the system" of permanent residence.
We must combat this by informing the authorities.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well now if theres a racist comment the last post certainly harps that way,
looking at the wording,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
going out in the streets with bill boards telling people to go home
But not all the thread is
there are some better bits(thankfully)
giving powers to/making decisions more locally yep great idea
monies instead of going back to govt should go to local authorities yep go with that
there is one fly in the ointment that needs to be pointed out though,
whilst iv always felt decisions should be made as local as possible we also need to have the right people in place locally to be able to make these decisions
Dovers planning dept has shown(for whatever the reason)that its not up to the task
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I am not one to defend Alexander and his many strange and unworkable ideas but he said nothing at all that was rascist.
No more than your mate Brown who said 'British jobs for British people', though of course he did not mean what he said.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
it depends on the definition of british.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
It is not racist to suggest the deportation of people who are in the UK illegally. They should be tracked down, prosecuted for the original illegal entry, fined or imprisoned, then deported, and any assets they possess should be sequestered to help pay the costs.
And I don't care if they are black, white, Christian or Muslim. There is no country on earth which has such a limp-wristed attitude towards illegal immigrants.
Hand-wringers please note: I am not discussing asylum seekers or legal immigrants in this post. We have an obligation to welcome and care for those. The economic migrants who slink in in the back of lorries or overstay their visit or (bogus) student visas are the ones I am talking about.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
