Nice name calling Michael! Makes all your points mute.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Susan

http://onlinemariogames.net

Not everything in government and in a county, city, state or federal budget is needed. There is so much padding and waste to expenses that most of us could live quite comfortably from those. However, the paradigm is that this is the way we do things, so this is what it costs. It isn't until we change that paradigm, will we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

After all, how many of our citizens create the budget and then decide where they are going to get the money from to pay for it. Usually a budget is dictated by the amount of money you are bringing in, not the other way around.

i appreciate a thoughtful response. i don't agree, but at least you've THOUGHT for a moment, unlike 98% of the idiots who think that, necessarily and ipso facto, govt is bad.

you're right about one thing: the dips in the gdp in the euro zones--and certainly in japan--were more severe than we experienced, so it's easier to tip over into growth after a more severe downturn.

you're simply wrong, tho, about the comparison problem: we're talking macroeconomics here, and the same rules inhere for economies, regardless of size. (my degree is in economics.) germany is the world's fourth largest economy, japan the second; the eurozone is the largest, larger significantly than the us, and it will likely eke out of recession this year, ahead of the us, based on france, germany & gb--though that's still anyone's best guess. the comparison is valid. the united states is not always an exception.

here's the info regarding germany & france's recovery:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6020127/Germany-makes-surprise-recovery-from-recession.html

and gb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8217122.stm

finally, you still haven't actually responded meaningfully to my post. my point was that cutting public spending now makes no sense--expansionary fiscal policy is the only way to maintain, at the very least, the status quo. ask your local car dealership what it does, or check out the uptick in case-schiller this month, attributable in large part to the first-time buyer tax credit.

i think it's clear that GOVERNMENT WORKS. only in america, with its shrill and illogical (and racist) 20%, is this even debated. i've lived extensively abroad, and i can tell you that our system is broken--our tax system, our health care system, our infrastructure, or local culture, our agriculture... go spend 15 minutes in, for instance, the new airport in bilbao, and then 15 minutes in jfk. tell me which country is poised to enter the 21st century!

and, finally, i agree with you--government wastes lots of money. this however does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that government MUST waste money. good government works. bad government sucks.

why is that so hard to understand?

Michael said: "cutting taxes and reducing govt is the WORST possible idea--it's what hubert humphrey did, and look what happened under his "fiscal prudence."

Ummm...Hubert Humphrey lobbied for higher taxes in 1960, then agreed with Kennedy's plan to cut taxes a few years later in order to stimulate economic growth. You're likely screaming about it because they way they implemented it, the "super-rich" were disproportionately helped. Humphrey also raised taxes just afterward as VP to LBJ to help fund Vietnam. As far as I can see, Humphrey was about even on taxes, it sounds more like you want to stick it to people who actually still have money.

Michael also opined: "in a deflationary time with a reduction in consumer and business spending, the government must step in to keep the economy from slipping further into recession. an aggressive fiscal policy is the answer--proved by france, germany and the UK--all with strong fiscal responses to the current economic crises, and all of which have ALREADY recovered from their recessions and are now tracking positive GDP growth."

They've already recovered? Have you seen the GDP for those countries? They're worse off than we are because of their ploy to raise taxes, in some cases more than double, to pay for their debt. None of those countries, nor most of the EU, are strong fiscally right now, and were in poor shape even before the global recession. On top of that, the combined workforces and economic engines of those countries is minuscule to that of the United States. You're comparing apples with sauerkraut.

Finally, Michael whined: "now, i'm sure the 'fair tzx' palinbots and the nutwhackjob goppers will appear any moment and start screeching about 'librul gument' and whining about the dirty f*king hippies. but none of them can offer a cogent, factual rebuttal to the keynsian argument that during economic crises that follow inflationary/bubble period, a strongly expansionary policy is merited.

instead, we'll get limbaugh arrogance and ignorance. three, two, one..."

This is the true reason for the post...to rail against people who think and make decisions for themselves and their families, and who apparently have a vocabulary sufficient enough to avoid swearing (or lamely attempt to veil it with asterisks). Michael, you need help man. Go take a nap.

As for the Volusia County issues, I agree more cuts should be looked into, however the first response will likely be police, fire, and other protection services. I find this unacceptable given the literally thousands of financial aspects to the Volusia County budget. Cut park services, not sheriffs. Cut consultants and administrators, not firefighters. Cut red-tape and inefficient bureaucracy, not teachers. Show us that you're focusing on keeping the truly important stuff, and we'll be more receptive to cutting our own budgets even more to try to pay for some of this increase.

Quoting...

************

“We’re in a crisis in this county and in this country,” he spoke. “We need to find ways in this county to create jobs.”

“Do you know there are businesses that are closing?” Betty Kane asked the council. “We just don’t have any jobs here.”

************

i can't even begin to understand this statement. local government in volusia is far and away the largest employer (teachers, police, firemen, maintenance, city works, parks and rec, state universities, etc.). how will cutting taxes and reducing revenue and net operating budget save jobs? what nonsense!

are people really idiotic enough to think that businesses close because of high taxes? MOST counties in the US have higher ad valorems and local taxes than volusia (which is a very cheap are to do business in--i know!). so blaming business' closings on high taxes is absurd. businesses that have closed in deland were, by and large, poorly run and marginally profitable before the current recession. i'm not saying the deserved to fail, but that they failed because of dynamics largely secondary to taxes.

cutting taxes and reducing govt is the WORST possible idea--it's what hubert humphrey did, and look what happened under his "fiscal prudence." in a deflationary time with a reduction in consumer and business spending, the government must step in to keep the economy from slipping further into recession. an aggressive fiscal policy is the answer--proved by france, germany and the UK--all with strong fiscal responses to the current economic crises, and all of which have ALREADY recovered from their recessions and are now tracking positive GDP growth.

now, i'm sure the 'fair tzx' palinbots and the nutwhackjob goppers will appear any moment and start screeching about 'librul gument' and whining about the dirty f*king hippies. but none of them can offer a cogent, factual rebuttal to the keynsian argument that during economic crises that follow inflationary/bubble period, a strongly expansionary policy is merited.

instead, we'll get limbaugh arrogance and ignorance. three, two, one...