Privacy Policy for liberaleconomic.blogspot.com
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at gedangsusu1@gmail.com.
At liberaleconomic.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by liberaleconomic.blogspot.com and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, liberaleconomic.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
liberaleconomic.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on liberaleconomic.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to liberaleconomic.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on liberaleconomic.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
liberaleconomic.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. liberaleconomic.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Poll shows 'mood for change'
Labor Deputy Leader Julia Gillard says new poll figures show a "mood for change" in Australia, despite a majority of people continuing to favour the Coalition on economic issues.
Today's Fairfax AC Nielsen poll puts the Opposition ahead by 58 per cent to 42 per cent on a two-party preferred basis.
Voters regard the Federal Government as a better economic manager than Labor, but the majority believe the Opposition is the best party for industrial relations.
The Government's primary vote has edged up for the second consecutive month, rising two points to 39 per cent compared to Labor's 48 per cent.
Two weeks after the federal Budget, 60 per cent of voters believe the Government is the best economic manager, compared to 30 per cent for Labor.
But Labor Deputy Leader Julia Gillard is focusing on the Opposition's clear lead on industrial relations issues - 59 per cent to the Coalition's 31 per cent.
"There is a mood for change in the Australian community," she said.
"I think that they do want a different style of leadership in this country and I think these polls are particularly showing that people think Mr Howard's industrial relations laws have gone too far."
Meanwhile a Federal Government backbencher says he is confused by the poll results.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen says Labor has run an effective scare campaign on IR, but he does not see the negative sentiment directed towards the Government in his Western Australian electorate.
"I really don't know what people are looking for," he said.
Today's Fairfax AC Nielsen poll puts the Opposition ahead by 58 per cent to 42 per cent on a two-party preferred basis.
Voters regard the Federal Government as a better economic manager than Labor, but the majority believe the Opposition is the best party for industrial relations.
The Government's primary vote has edged up for the second consecutive month, rising two points to 39 per cent compared to Labor's 48 per cent.
Two weeks after the federal Budget, 60 per cent of voters believe the Government is the best economic manager, compared to 30 per cent for Labor.
But Labor Deputy Leader Julia Gillard is focusing on the Opposition's clear lead on industrial relations issues - 59 per cent to the Coalition's 31 per cent.
"There is a mood for change in the Australian community," she said.
"I think that they do want a different style of leadership in this country and I think these polls are particularly showing that people think Mr Howard's industrial relations laws have gone too far."
Meanwhile a Federal Government backbencher says he is confused by the poll results.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen says Labor has run an effective scare campaign on IR, but he does not see the negative sentiment directed towards the Government in his Western Australian electorate.
"I really don't know what people are looking for," he said.
"Clearly the IR laws are doing the job that they were designed to do, which is create work and create better living conditions for all Australians."
Liberal decision over economic report expected
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff could announce as early as Monday morning whether Canadians can expect to head back to the polls, or if his party will support the Conservative government’s economic report.
Ignatieff has scheduled an announcement at 11 a.m. ET after taking the weekend to weigh his options.
Ignatieff’s call will determine whether the last week of the spring parliamentary session comes to a close Friday with a bang or a whimper.
All eyes are on Ignatieff, however, because both the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have already opposed the government’s progress report on the economy, which was released Thursday. All three parties would have to unite behind a motion declaring non-confidence in the government to bring it down and force a summer election.
Ignatieff told reporters after the report was released that he wanted a few days to analyze the 234-page document, which says, among other things, that most of the funds set aside to stimulate the economy have started flowing, or are at least tied to specific commitments.
Late last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper weighed in on the issue, telling reporters that Canadians don’t want an election during a recession.
The Liberals have enjoyed an uptick in recent public opinion polls, prompting some hawks in the party to push for an election to take advantage of the minority government’s problems over the economy, the ballooning government deficit and the medical isotope crisis.
Even though an election cannot be ruled out, few observers are predicting with any confidence that Canadians will be going to the polls this summer.
Ignatieff has scheduled an announcement at 11 a.m. ET after taking the weekend to weigh his options.
Ignatieff’s call will determine whether the last week of the spring parliamentary session comes to a close Friday with a bang or a whimper.
All eyes are on Ignatieff, however, because both the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have already opposed the government’s progress report on the economy, which was released Thursday. All three parties would have to unite behind a motion declaring non-confidence in the government to bring it down and force a summer election.
Ignatieff told reporters after the report was released that he wanted a few days to analyze the 234-page document, which says, among other things, that most of the funds set aside to stimulate the economy have started flowing, or are at least tied to specific commitments.
Late last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper weighed in on the issue, telling reporters that Canadians don’t want an election during a recession.
The Liberals have enjoyed an uptick in recent public opinion polls, prompting some hawks in the party to push for an election to take advantage of the minority government’s problems over the economy, the ballooning government deficit and the medical isotope crisis.
Even though an election cannot be ruled out, few observers are predicting with any confidence that Canadians will be going to the polls this summer.
Economic point men battle over deficit
The increasingly heated exchanges inside and outside the House of Commons are part of a bigger debate over which party is better suited to manage the country in an economic crisis.
Following a Conservative caucus meeting Wednesday morning, Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, warned reporters that the country’s finances would be in peril under the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition. He said he was particularly concerned over the two-year fiscal stimulus package the coalition is proposing.
“I understand that the opposition [coalition] is planning a $30-billion package which would mean our country would go under permanent deficit like the Liberals did to our country in the 1970s,” he told reporters in a brief scrum.
The $30-billion is the equivalent of 2% of GDP, or what the Group of 20 nations agreed to commit toward fiscal measures aimed at pulling the global economy out of a recession. Liberal MPs Martha Hall Findlay and David McGuinty told the Reuters News Agency Wednesday that the stimulus package would cost roughly $30-billion.
The chief Liberal economic spokesman, John McCallum, called the Conservative allegations “entirely wrong,” adding the stimulus package the coalition has under consideration would cost “significantly less” than $30-billion. He also said there would be no structural deficit under the coalition because the policy framework calls for a return to surplus in the fourth year after it assumes power.
Mr. McCallum — considered one of two top contenders to be the coalition’s Finance Minister — said Ms. Hall Findlay and Mr. McGuinty were “wrong” because they had “misunderstood” the situation.
Until Wednesday, Mr. McCallum and other Liberals have declined to provide details of the cost of the coalition’s stimulus package. Under the coalition’s policy framework pact, the package would focus on infrastructure, housing construction and retrofits, as well as aid to the ailing auto and forestry sectors.
Mr. McCallum signalled the package could be pared back depending on the size of the deficit the coalition would stand to inherit.
“If the Conservatives are hiding a deficit of $15-billion, let’s say, we will obviously have less money at our disposal than if it is $5-billion,” Mr. McCallum said. “It would be irresponsible, and fiscally imprudent, for a future government to give any figure until we can see the books.”
Bay Street economists and analysts have warned the country risks sliding back down the slope to structural, or permanent, deficits if the Liberal-NDP stimulus plan costs $30-billion.
Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets, said the deficit could swell to $20-billion next year.
Conservative Self-Delusion On Liberal Economic Policy
The Anonymous Liberal has reviewed a number of conservative blogs and finds the same signs of self-delusion among many of them which I have pointed out in numerous posts (including here, here and here along with the previous post).
Most of the posts I read were filled with complete nonsense about the dangers of government interference with private industry (as if that’s not what always happens when companies go bankrupt). Many indulged in the paranoid fantasy that the Obama administration wants to take over and run GM, that administration officials would soon be sitting in the board room telling GM what cars to make, who to hire, where to build factories, etc. Others warned that this was a dangerous power grab by the Obama administration, that it was the first major step toward turning the country into a socialist state.
I’m always amazed by how willing conservatives are to believe their own lazy caricatures and, as a result, how completely and utterly they fail to understand the actual motivations and beliefs of their political opponents. The reality is that liberals in this country — including Obama — have absolutely no desire whatsoever to nationalize private enterprise. They’re not going around looking for excuses to take over corporations. Quite the opposite, actually…
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy. That debate, to the extent it ever really happened in this country, was settled a long time ago. What we’re dealing with right now are differences of opinion regarding how best to manage the failure of a number of major companies. It’s not a debate about socialism vs. capitalism; it’s a debate about methods of damage control. But many conservatives have so deluded themselves with their own propaganda that they’re not even capable of following the conversation any more. So instead they spend all day indulging in paranoid delusions and debates that have no relevance to current events. It’s a sad spectacle.
Most of the posts I read were filled with complete nonsense about the dangers of government interference with private industry (as if that’s not what always happens when companies go bankrupt). Many indulged in the paranoid fantasy that the Obama administration wants to take over and run GM, that administration officials would soon be sitting in the board room telling GM what cars to make, who to hire, where to build factories, etc. Others warned that this was a dangerous power grab by the Obama administration, that it was the first major step toward turning the country into a socialist state.
I’m always amazed by how willing conservatives are to believe their own lazy caricatures and, as a result, how completely and utterly they fail to understand the actual motivations and beliefs of their political opponents. The reality is that liberals in this country — including Obama — have absolutely no desire whatsoever to nationalize private enterprise. They’re not going around looking for excuses to take over corporations. Quite the opposite, actually…
The notion that there is anyone of significance on the American left who still believes in anything approaching genuine socialism is pure fantasy. That debate, to the extent it ever really happened in this country, was settled a long time ago. What we’re dealing with right now are differences of opinion regarding how best to manage the failure of a number of major companies. It’s not a debate about socialism vs. capitalism; it’s a debate about methods of damage control. But many conservatives have so deluded themselves with their own propaganda that they’re not even capable of following the conversation any more. So instead they spend all day indulging in paranoid delusions and debates that have no relevance to current events. It’s a sad spectacle.
Liberal Economic Obfuscation
Sunday talk shows and the Liberal drum pounding wears on me like stench from a skunk. Oh for the Clinton years, Oh for the economic boom! Hogwash in triplicate! Hillary Clinton suggests taking the profits of oil companies to use for energy entitlements of her design, crying over the 10 long years of no minimum wage hike, complaining about the so-called “rich” and the beat goes on.
Liberals don’t like to discuss the “dot-com bubble” or reforms brought forward by the Republican Congress and the “Contract with America.” While Liberals were relying on polls and public opinion at every turn Bill Clinton had to stay politically centered or look like a fool, which he took care of all by himself in the privacy of the oval office.
The hand wringing continues with former Reagan Secretary of the Navy, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) trying to explain everything wrong with America and blaming President Bush for the downturn of the United States. He sounds embarrassed to be American.
Comparing the numbers:
Liberals don’t like to discuss the “dot-com bubble” or reforms brought forward by the Republican Congress and the “Contract with America.” While Liberals were relying on polls and public opinion at every turn Bill Clinton had to stay politically centered or look like a fool, which he took care of all by himself in the privacy of the oval office.
The hand wringing continues with former Reagan Secretary of the Navy, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) trying to explain everything wrong with America and blaming President Bush for the downturn of the United States. He sounds embarrassed to be American.
Comparing the numbers:
- Between 1991 and 1996, the unemployment rate averaged 6.4%.
- Between 2001 and 2006, the unemployment rate averaged 5.4%.
- Real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth, averaged 0.6% annually for non-farm workers in the first half of the 1990s.
- Real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth, is averaging 1.5% annually for non-farm workers this decade. For the last 12 months, real wages have risen even faster, at a 1.7% clip.
Current Numbers:
- Exports are now booming (up 10% last year), especially to the countries with which the U.S. has signed free-trade agreements.
- At the end of last year’s third quarter, U.S. household net worth had climbed to $54.1 trillion, an increase of more than $3 trillion over the previous four quarters.
Should We Worry?
Inflation needs to be watched carefully and it seems the Fed is in good hands. The political risk is real and Democrats hate the Bush tax cuts, have not kept their promise of earmark reform entirely and relish the opportunity to set up government controlled health care, crushing any school voucher system and rejecting free trade.
The Democrats are busy using their bully pulpit to sound the alarms, many of which are simply “false alarms” to gain power.
Inflation needs to be watched carefully and it seems the Fed is in good hands. The political risk is real and Democrats hate the Bush tax cuts, have not kept their promise of earmark reform entirely and relish the opportunity to set up government controlled health care, crushing any school voucher system and rejecting free trade.
The Democrats are busy using their bully pulpit to sound the alarms, many of which are simply “false alarms” to gain power.
The Provocateur
Bush: Economic Liberal
A few weeks ago, I examined President Bush's legacy. As it turns out, my analysis is likely to be obselete. That's because the analysis was done prior to the financial meltdown and the manner in which this bailout will play out will most certainly affect his legacy. If this financial meltdown leads to a bad recession, then I believe his legacy will continue to remain mixed as I wrote. If, on the other hand, it leads to a long and painful depression, then that will tarnish President Bush's legacy in a manner that will make his Presidency among the worst of all time.
One thing I don't have to wait to analyze though is President Bush's legacy as an economic conservative. On this issue he has failed miserably. In fact, his record is so economically liberal that in my opinion it challenges the economic liberalism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Now, President Bush endeared the hearts of economic and fiscal conservatives everywhere right away when he passed sweeping and across the board tax cuts to combat the weakening economy in 2001. Ironically enough, the most economically conservative idea that President Bush offered never became law when he pushed for privatizing social security accounts. Bush has also shown great conservative economic credentials on the issue of trade. We have seen very few more pro free trade Presidents than George W. Bush. As a result, we have had a landmark agreement with the Latin American sphere as well as smaller agreements with the Far East and Middle East. Still, this is where his conservative economic record ends and his liberal economic record is much longer.
The biggest affront that President Bush has perpetrated to economic conservatism has of course been spending. Rather than curbing spending when he implemented these tax cuts, he allowed the Congress that his own party controlled to go on unlimited spending sprees without ever once vetoing one budget due to the pork in it.
Spending is just one way to look at President Bush's economic liberalism. Another way to look at his economic liberalism is the massive increase in government bureaucracy under his administration. Both of No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security added tens of thousands of new bureaucrats into the Federal government. Nationalizing education may have been a hallmark of Compassionate Conservatism but it was certainly not economic conservatism.
Besides this, President Bush was also the architect of the massive new prescription drug benefit program. Putting to the side the merits of providing government subsidies for seniors struggling to pay for prescription drugs, this new roughly $70 billion program (in its inception and it will likely grow) is the furthest thing from economic conservatism. President Bush also signed into law the massive new highway bill in 2005. This nearly $300 billion bill was nothing more than a series of giveaways by the Federal government for local and state projects. It also appears that the highway bill was a major boon personally for its main Congressional architect Dennis Hastert. In July of this year, President Bush signed into law a massive bailout of distressed borrowers, a bill co authored by the dubious Chris Dodd. This bill, worth in excess of $300 billion, would have the FHA back loans for troubled borrowers in which they would get rates and even loan balances that they neither deserve and nor would they get in the open market. This bill was not only an affront to free markets but to economic conservatism.
That brings us to the present. In response to a financial crisis, President Bush threw all appearance of the belief in free markets and economic conservatism out the window in announcing his bailout proposal. Now, the President has backed a $700 billion bailout of financial institutions by buying up their distressed Mortgage Backed Securities. Meanwhile, he has authorized government intervention to bailout both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to guarantee loans to the automakers. Beyond this, his Treasury Secretary has been authorized to begin buying up preferred stock in major U.S. financial institutions. In fact, the President is now coordinating a world wide and massive socialization of the world wide financial system. The President in the last few months has gone from economic liberal to economic socialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)