Reikėtų Lietuvos valdžią lyginti ne su visos Afrikos vyriausybėmis, o su Mugabės režimu Zimbavėje. Tas pats žmonių niekinimas, tie patys voliuntaristiniai sprendimai ekonomikoje ir švietimo srityje, tas pats klaikus skurdas.
Tiems, kurie mus valdo paskutinius du dešimtmečius, reikėtų kasdien pasižiūrėti į veidrodį ir save paklausti, kaip jiems pavyko taip nustekenti Lietuvą, kad tokie palyginimai tapo įmanomi.
Pagrindinis skaičius, skiriantis recesiją nuo depresijos yra bedarbystės lygis. Dauguma Lietuvos bedarbių išvažiuoja, kai tik gali tai padaryti. Mes turime kur išvažiuoti, galime ten dirbti už normalų atlyginimą. Todėl 15 procentų likusių bedarbių tik parodo Lietuvos ekonomikos smukimo ledkalnio viršūnę.
Zimbabvės gyventojams, kaip taisyklė, neleidžiama dirbti Vakarų Europoje. Todėl aišku, kad po Mugabės veiklos ten darbo neteko kas antras dirbantysis.
Pernelyg įsitraukiau, kritikuodamas poną Kubilių. Na ir kas, kad ponai Kubilius ir Mugabė visiškai sugriovė jų šalių ekonomikas (turėdami tik kilnius tikslus). Svarbiausia, kad ponas Mugabė yra juodas, kaip tamsi naktis. O ponas Kubilius yra ne tik, kad baltas, bet net rožinis nuo brangaus gero lietuviško maisto, kaip darbštaus ūkininko paršelis. Kaip aš galėjau juos lyginti? Kokia neužtarnauta panieka... Kur žiūri mūsų etikos sargai? Man reikėtų uždrausti mėnesį pasisakyti Seime...
2010 m. balandžio 25 d., sekmadienis
2010 m. balandžio 24 d., šeštadienis
JAV balsuoja už bankų pelnų apmokestinimą
G-20 Split on the Need for a Global Tax on Banks
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: April 23, 2010
WASHINGTON — Proposals to establish a global tax on banks and charge them for the cost of government bailouts divided representatives of the Group of 20 countries during a summit meeting here on Friday.
The perilous fiscal condition of Greece and other countries in Europe, and the need for the world’s big economies to coordinate changes in financial regulation, were the other major topics in the daylong meetings of Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors.
“The global recovery has progressed better than previously anticipated, largely due to the G-20’s unprecedented and concerted policy effort,” the officials said in a joint communiqué.
The International Monetary Fund endorsed a proposal this week that would establish a tax on bank profits and on salaries paid to bank executives. Canada, whose banking system withstood the crisis, has led the opposition to the idea, while the Obama administration, which has called for a $90 billion levy to be collected over 10 years from banks that received bailout money, tried to marshal support for it.
“There was not agreement on a global bank tax,” Jim Flaherty, the Canadian finance minister, said at a news conference after the meetings. “Some countries are in favor of that. Some countries quite clearly are not. It depends whether a country has had to use taxpayers’ dollars to bail out banks, for the most part.”
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner defended the idea. “We’re trying to establish the basic principle that where governments are exposed to risk in putting out financial fires like this, that taxpayers don’t bear the costs of paying for those actions,” he said, adding, “That is a simple, fair, basic imperative.”
Mr. Geithner said there was “significant support” for the bank tax, but allowed that he understood a “certain lack of enthusiasm” from Canada.
He added, “We’re going to do what’s necessary for the U.S., what’s in our interest, and I think the world’s going to want to watch what we do. And I suspect that’ll provide a basis for other actions across some of the other economies.”
The cautiously worded joint communiqué acknowledged, but sidestepped, the bank tax proposals. It called for further I.M.F. study “on options to ensure domestic financial institutions bear the burden of any extraordinary government interventions where they occur, address their excessive risk-taking and help promote a level playing field, taking into consideration individual countries’ circumstances.”
John Lipsky, the deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said on Friday that the bank tax, if calculated based on the risk banks posed to the financial system, “could help to discourage financial institutions from taking on excessive risk.” Such a fee would also “address the public policy concern that financial institutions are able to privatize gains but socialize costs arising in the financial sector,” he said.
Mr. Lipsky’s boss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the top I.M.F. official, caused rumblings on Friday when he suggested that some countries were moving too quickly on reform. He said the Obama administration’s plan “comes too soon” given the need to coordinate responses across countries.
“I read that and I thought, really?” Mr. Geithner said in response. “My sense is that it’s been 15 months — or more than a year — since we started this process in the United States. We’re not moving with excessive haste.”
Mr. Geithner acknowledged that one of the biggest reform elements — forcing banks to hold more capital as a buffer against economic disruptions — was partly beyond the scope of the legislation being debated by Congress. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a global regulatory body, is coordinating discussions around capital requirements in the hope of announcing new standards by the end of this year.
“The core issue there is the quality and quantity of capital and setting standards for that, and also an appropriate cap on leverage,” said Mr. Flaherty. “We agreed that that’s a key element.”
The Group of 20 officials offered few details on the Greek debt crisis, except to support the aid plans of the European Union and the I.M.F. Mr. Flaherty said of the Greeks: “They have undermined the confidence of the markets and it is essential that some steps be taken, that the Greek government work with the I.M.F., and the European Commission of course, to identify a credible, multiyear economic and fiscal program.”
Although India and Brazil this week joined calls by the United States for China to allow the value of its currency, the renminbi, to appreciate, the Group of 20 officials said the topic did not come up in their meetings.
Yoon Jeung-Hyun, the South Korean finance minister who coordinated the meetings, said “there were no specific discussions” of either the renminbi, also known as the yuan, or the euro, which has recently fallen in value.
Even as problems in Europe preoccupied the leaders, officials reported positive developments in some poorer parts of the world.
The I.M.F. projected on Friday that economic output in sub-Saharan Africa would expand by 4.75 percent this year and 5.75 percent next year, up from 2 percent last year.
“The economic slowdown in sub-Saharan Africa looks set to be mercifully brief,” said Antoinette Monsio Sayeh, director of the fund’s African department, adding that “the slowdown has nonetheless entailed considerable social dislocation and suffering.”
A version of this article appeared in print on April 24, 2010, on page B2 of the New York edition.
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: April 23, 2010
WASHINGTON — Proposals to establish a global tax on banks and charge them for the cost of government bailouts divided representatives of the Group of 20 countries during a summit meeting here on Friday.
The perilous fiscal condition of Greece and other countries in Europe, and the need for the world’s big economies to coordinate changes in financial regulation, were the other major topics in the daylong meetings of Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors.
“The global recovery has progressed better than previously anticipated, largely due to the G-20’s unprecedented and concerted policy effort,” the officials said in a joint communiqué.
The International Monetary Fund endorsed a proposal this week that would establish a tax on bank profits and on salaries paid to bank executives. Canada, whose banking system withstood the crisis, has led the opposition to the idea, while the Obama administration, which has called for a $90 billion levy to be collected over 10 years from banks that received bailout money, tried to marshal support for it.
“There was not agreement on a global bank tax,” Jim Flaherty, the Canadian finance minister, said at a news conference after the meetings. “Some countries are in favor of that. Some countries quite clearly are not. It depends whether a country has had to use taxpayers’ dollars to bail out banks, for the most part.”
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner defended the idea. “We’re trying to establish the basic principle that where governments are exposed to risk in putting out financial fires like this, that taxpayers don’t bear the costs of paying for those actions,” he said, adding, “That is a simple, fair, basic imperative.”
Mr. Geithner said there was “significant support” for the bank tax, but allowed that he understood a “certain lack of enthusiasm” from Canada.
He added, “We’re going to do what’s necessary for the U.S., what’s in our interest, and I think the world’s going to want to watch what we do. And I suspect that’ll provide a basis for other actions across some of the other economies.”
The cautiously worded joint communiqué acknowledged, but sidestepped, the bank tax proposals. It called for further I.M.F. study “on options to ensure domestic financial institutions bear the burden of any extraordinary government interventions where they occur, address their excessive risk-taking and help promote a level playing field, taking into consideration individual countries’ circumstances.”
John Lipsky, the deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said on Friday that the bank tax, if calculated based on the risk banks posed to the financial system, “could help to discourage financial institutions from taking on excessive risk.” Such a fee would also “address the public policy concern that financial institutions are able to privatize gains but socialize costs arising in the financial sector,” he said.
Mr. Lipsky’s boss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the top I.M.F. official, caused rumblings on Friday when he suggested that some countries were moving too quickly on reform. He said the Obama administration’s plan “comes too soon” given the need to coordinate responses across countries.
“I read that and I thought, really?” Mr. Geithner said in response. “My sense is that it’s been 15 months — or more than a year — since we started this process in the United States. We’re not moving with excessive haste.”
Mr. Geithner acknowledged that one of the biggest reform elements — forcing banks to hold more capital as a buffer against economic disruptions — was partly beyond the scope of the legislation being debated by Congress. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a global regulatory body, is coordinating discussions around capital requirements in the hope of announcing new standards by the end of this year.
“The core issue there is the quality and quantity of capital and setting standards for that, and also an appropriate cap on leverage,” said Mr. Flaherty. “We agreed that that’s a key element.”
The Group of 20 officials offered few details on the Greek debt crisis, except to support the aid plans of the European Union and the I.M.F. Mr. Flaherty said of the Greeks: “They have undermined the confidence of the markets and it is essential that some steps be taken, that the Greek government work with the I.M.F., and the European Commission of course, to identify a credible, multiyear economic and fiscal program.”
Although India and Brazil this week joined calls by the United States for China to allow the value of its currency, the renminbi, to appreciate, the Group of 20 officials said the topic did not come up in their meetings.
Yoon Jeung-Hyun, the South Korean finance minister who coordinated the meetings, said “there were no specific discussions” of either the renminbi, also known as the yuan, or the euro, which has recently fallen in value.
Even as problems in Europe preoccupied the leaders, officials reported positive developments in some poorer parts of the world.
The I.M.F. projected on Friday that economic output in sub-Saharan Africa would expand by 4.75 percent this year and 5.75 percent next year, up from 2 percent last year.
“The economic slowdown in sub-Saharan Africa looks set to be mercifully brief,” said Antoinette Monsio Sayeh, director of the fund’s African department, adding that “the slowdown has nonetheless entailed considerable social dislocation and suffering.”
A version of this article appeared in print on April 24, 2010, on page B2 of the New York edition.
2010 m. balandžio 23 d., penktadienis
Bedarbystė yra siaubinga
15 procentų. Toks bedarbių skaičius yra, siaučiant neregėto dydžio emigracijai. Lietuvoje siaučia ne Didžioji Recesija, bet Didžioji Depresija. Teisūs norintys sustabdyti Kubiliaus siautėjimą valdžioje. Užtenka.
Kokia turėtų būti bankų eros pabaiga?
Šiandieniniai bankai sukūrė kazino sistemą, kurioje tie bankai žaidžia su kitų žmonių pinigais. Tokia sistema destabilizavo realią ekonomiką bei sukėlė krizę. Todėl teisus Tarptautinis valiutos fondas, rekomenduodamas mažinti bankų sistemą, apkraunant jų pelnus ir išmokas darbuotojams papildomais mokesčiais. Tų pinigų užtektų ir pensininkams, ir kitoms mūsų valstybės reikmėms. Konkurencija neleistų permesti tuos mokesčius bankų paslaugų vartotojams.
Bankininkai dažnai dangstosi mistiniu gilesniu, negu kitų, ekonomikos suvokimu. Kai visame pasaulyje apmokestinsime jūsų, bankininkų, pelnus, sumažindami šį parazitų sluoksnį, tada bus aišku, kas ką supranta ekonomikoje. Lietuva labai nukentėjo nuo bankininkų savivalės, todėl lietuviams derėtų pradėti vieniems iš pirmųjų.
Tai išdėstyta anglų kalba apžvalgininko Paulo Krugmano straipsnyje:
Op-Ed Columnist
Don’t Cry for Wall Street
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 22, 2010
On Thursday, President Obama went to Manhattan, where he urged an audience drawn largely from Wall Street to back financial reform. “I believe,” he declared, “that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of the financial sector.”
Well, I wish he hadn’t said that — and not just because he really needs, as a political matter, to take a populist stance, to put some public distance between himself and the bankers. The fact is that Mr. Obama should be trying to do what’s right for the country — full stop. If doing so hurts the bankers, that’s O.K.
More than that, reform actually should hurt the bankers. A growing body of analysis suggests that an oversized financial industry is hurting the broader economy. Shrinking that oversized industry won’t make Wall Street happy, but what’s bad for Wall Street would be good for America.
Now, the reforms currently on the table — which I support — might end up being good for the financial industry as well as for the rest of us. But that’s because they only deal with part of the problem: they would make finance safer, but they might not make it smaller.
What’s the matter with finance? Start with the fact that the modern financial industry generates huge profits and paychecks, yet delivers few tangible benefits.
Remember the 1987 movie “Wall Street,” in which Gordon Gekko declared: Greed is good? By today’s standards, Gekko was a piker. In the years leading up to the 2008 crisis, the financial industry accounted for a third of total domestic profits — about twice its share two decades earlier.
These profits were justified, we were told, because the industry was doing great things for the economy. It was channeling capital to productive uses; it was spreading risk; it was enhancing financial stability. None of those were true. Capital was channeled not to job-creating innovators, but into an unsustainable housing bubble; risk was concentrated, not spread; and when the housing bubble burst, the supposedly stable financial system imploded, with the worst global slump since the Great Depression as collateral damage.
So why were bankers raking it in? My take, reflecting the efforts of financial economists to make sense of the catastrophe, is that it was mainly about gambling with other people’s money. The financial industry took big, risky bets with borrowed funds — bets that paid high returns until they went bad — but was able to borrow cheaply because investors didn’t understand how fragile the industry was.
And what about the much-touted benefits of financial innovation? I’m with the economists Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny, who argue in a recent paper that a lot of that innovation was about creating the illusion of safety, providing investors with “false substitutes” for old-fashioned assets like bank deposits. Eventually the illusion failed — and the result was a disastrous financial crisis.
In his Thursday speech, by the way, Mr. Obama insisted — twice — that financial reform won’t stifle innovation. Too bad.
And here’s the thing: after taking a big hit in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, financial-industry profits are soaring again. It seems all too likely that the industry will soon go back to playing the same games that got us into this mess in the first place.
So what should be done? As I said, I support the reform proposals of the Obama administration and its Congressional allies. Among other things, it would be a shame to see the antireform campaign by Republican leaders — a campaign marked by breathtaking dishonesty and hypocrisy — succeed.
But these reforms should be only the first step. We also need to cut finance down to size.
And it’s not just critical outsiders saying this (not that there’s anything wrong with critical outsiders, who have been much more right than supposedly knowledgeable insiders; see Greenspan, Alan). An intriguing proposal is about to be unveiled from, of all places, the International Monetary Fund. In a leaked paper prepared for a meeting this weekend, the fund calls for a Financial Activity Tax — yes, FAT — levied on financial-industry profits and remuneration.
Such a tax, the fund argues, could “mitigate excessive risk-taking.” It could also “tend to reduce the size of the financial sector,” which the fund presents as a good thing.
Now, the I.M.F. proposal is actually quite mild. Nonetheless, if it moves toward reality, Wall Street will howl.
But the fact is that we’ve been devoting far too large a share of our wealth, far too much of the nation’s talent, to the business of devising and peddling complex financial schemes — schemes that have a tendency to blow up the economy. Ending this state of affairs will hurt the financial industry. So?
Bankininkai dažnai dangstosi mistiniu gilesniu, negu kitų, ekonomikos suvokimu. Kai visame pasaulyje apmokestinsime jūsų, bankininkų, pelnus, sumažindami šį parazitų sluoksnį, tada bus aišku, kas ką supranta ekonomikoje. Lietuva labai nukentėjo nuo bankininkų savivalės, todėl lietuviams derėtų pradėti vieniems iš pirmųjų.
Tai išdėstyta anglų kalba apžvalgininko Paulo Krugmano straipsnyje:
Op-Ed Columnist
Don’t Cry for Wall Street
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 22, 2010
On Thursday, President Obama went to Manhattan, where he urged an audience drawn largely from Wall Street to back financial reform. “I believe,” he declared, “that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of the financial sector.”
Well, I wish he hadn’t said that — and not just because he really needs, as a political matter, to take a populist stance, to put some public distance between himself and the bankers. The fact is that Mr. Obama should be trying to do what’s right for the country — full stop. If doing so hurts the bankers, that’s O.K.
More than that, reform actually should hurt the bankers. A growing body of analysis suggests that an oversized financial industry is hurting the broader economy. Shrinking that oversized industry won’t make Wall Street happy, but what’s bad for Wall Street would be good for America.
Now, the reforms currently on the table — which I support — might end up being good for the financial industry as well as for the rest of us. But that’s because they only deal with part of the problem: they would make finance safer, but they might not make it smaller.
What’s the matter with finance? Start with the fact that the modern financial industry generates huge profits and paychecks, yet delivers few tangible benefits.
Remember the 1987 movie “Wall Street,” in which Gordon Gekko declared: Greed is good? By today’s standards, Gekko was a piker. In the years leading up to the 2008 crisis, the financial industry accounted for a third of total domestic profits — about twice its share two decades earlier.
These profits were justified, we were told, because the industry was doing great things for the economy. It was channeling capital to productive uses; it was spreading risk; it was enhancing financial stability. None of those were true. Capital was channeled not to job-creating innovators, but into an unsustainable housing bubble; risk was concentrated, not spread; and when the housing bubble burst, the supposedly stable financial system imploded, with the worst global slump since the Great Depression as collateral damage.
So why were bankers raking it in? My take, reflecting the efforts of financial economists to make sense of the catastrophe, is that it was mainly about gambling with other people’s money. The financial industry took big, risky bets with borrowed funds — bets that paid high returns until they went bad — but was able to borrow cheaply because investors didn’t understand how fragile the industry was.
And what about the much-touted benefits of financial innovation? I’m with the economists Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny, who argue in a recent paper that a lot of that innovation was about creating the illusion of safety, providing investors with “false substitutes” for old-fashioned assets like bank deposits. Eventually the illusion failed — and the result was a disastrous financial crisis.
In his Thursday speech, by the way, Mr. Obama insisted — twice — that financial reform won’t stifle innovation. Too bad.
And here’s the thing: after taking a big hit in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, financial-industry profits are soaring again. It seems all too likely that the industry will soon go back to playing the same games that got us into this mess in the first place.
So what should be done? As I said, I support the reform proposals of the Obama administration and its Congressional allies. Among other things, it would be a shame to see the antireform campaign by Republican leaders — a campaign marked by breathtaking dishonesty and hypocrisy — succeed.
But these reforms should be only the first step. We also need to cut finance down to size.
And it’s not just critical outsiders saying this (not that there’s anything wrong with critical outsiders, who have been much more right than supposedly knowledgeable insiders; see Greenspan, Alan). An intriguing proposal is about to be unveiled from, of all places, the International Monetary Fund. In a leaked paper prepared for a meeting this weekend, the fund calls for a Financial Activity Tax — yes, FAT — levied on financial-industry profits and remuneration.
Such a tax, the fund argues, could “mitigate excessive risk-taking.” It could also “tend to reduce the size of the financial sector,” which the fund presents as a good thing.
Now, the I.M.F. proposal is actually quite mild. Nonetheless, if it moves toward reality, Wall Street will howl.
But the fact is that we’ve been devoting far too large a share of our wealth, far too much of the nation’s talent, to the business of devising and peddling complex financial schemes — schemes that have a tendency to blow up the economy. Ending this state of affairs will hurt the financial industry. So?
2010 m. balandžio 21 d., trečiadienis
Ką mums pasakytų Didysis kunigaikštis Gediminas?
Puikiai paruoštoje Donaldos Meiželytės 2009 metų Vyriausybės ataskaitos apžvalgoje [1] yra skaudus kontrastas tarp mūsų oficialiosios propagandos ir realaus gyvenimo. Turime didingą Lietuvos valstybingumo tradiciją. O vis dar renkame valdžion svetimšalių palaižūną Kubilių, maitinantį mus rytietiška, Rusijos stiliaus, propaganda.
Keisti ir tie mūsų palaižūnai. Rusų laikais jie tarnavo istorijos pasmerktiems komunistams. Dabar jie tarnauja užsienio bankininkams, iš kurių mūsų akivaizdoje jų valdovai atima valdžią ir galimybę patenkinti gobšumą. Kodėl mes, išdidžios tautos vieninteliai palikuonys, vergiškai sekame mirštančius piemenis į dykynę, lyg buka gyvulių banda?
Užsienio bankininkams reikia skubiai mažinti Lietuvos deficitą ir įvesti eurą, kad apsaugoti tų bankininkų investicijas nuo rizikos. Mums užteks ir lito.
Baidydami rusais mus, gyvenančius NATO ir ES šalyje, kubiliniai baigia numauti mūsų paskutines kelnes. Gal tapkime visi, jei net ir nelabai drąsūs, tai bent truputį drąsesni?
1. Donalda Meiželytė 2010-04-21, 16:40
Seimui pateikta Vyriausybės ataskaita (griausmingi plojimai)!
Perskaičiusi 2009 metų Vyriausybės ataskaitą patyriau de javu su tarybiniais laikais. Naktimis nemiegodavau, kai pačiai reikėdavo parašyti klasės pionierių būrio darbo planą, nes visas tas planas būdavo fikcija, oras. O čia juk visa Ministro Pirmininko tarnyba darbavosi, jie patys ataskaitoje dar vadinami “ekspertų-analitikų centru, turinčiu veiksmingai padėti atlikti Ministro Pirmininko ir Vyriausybės funkcijas”.
Ir taip dėmesio, cituoju: “Patikėkime savimi, savo valstybe ir drauge kurkime savo sėkmės istoriją!”. Moja skepetaite emigruojantiems tautiečiams Vyriausybė, mažu dar kuris apsigalvos ir grįš. “Laimėję “karo keliuose” mūšį įrodėme, kad nėra tikslų, kurių negalėtume pasiekti sutelktomis pastangomis”, - puikuojasi savimi. Jums neprimena TSKP n-tojo suvažiavimo stenogramos? Trūksta Vyriausybės ataskaitoje tik įrašų skliausteliuose “plojimai”, “griausmingi plojimai”, o geriausia “plojimai peraugantys į ovacijas”.
“Stabilizavome viešuosius finansus. (...) Šį uždavinį pavyko įgyvendinti tik todėl, kad nuo pat pradžių sutarėme laikytis dviejų ypač svarbių nuostatų - solidarumo ir tarimosi.” Kiek pamenu, Vyriausybė Ministro pirmininko asmenyje pati su savimi ir pasitardavo, ir padiskutuodavo, ir nuspręsdavo. Nuo tokio “tarimosi” net koalicijos partneriai dažnai žagsėdavo, o vienas iš viso liko pakirptais sparnais. Tariantis su savimi buvo pasirašytas Nacionalinis susitarimas - taip vadinamas “atviro Vyriausybės ir socialinių partnerių (tik klausimas, kokių?) dialogo dokumentas”. Vienos pasirašiusios organizacijos prezidento paklausiau, o ką Kubilius jiems už tai? “Pelno mokestį sumažino”, - atsako. Naivuoliai, pelno mokestį sumažinti nuo 20 iki 15 proc. Ministras Pirmininkas pažadėjo dar prieš metus vienai linksmai frakcijai prispaudus ir penlo mokestį sumažinti buvo nuspręsta dar pusmetis iki visų socialinių dialogų. Ir kaip galima vadinti “dialogo dokumentą” Nacionaliniu susitarimu, kai dialoge dalyvauja tik lojalūs socialiniai partneriai ir nei viena opozicinė partija?
“Dėl mokesčių reformos per 2009 metus į nacionalinį biudžetą papildomai gauta apie 1,5 mlrd. litų pajamų”, - pučiasi Vyriausybė, bet ar paskaičiavo valdantieji, kiek biudžetas nesurinko?
“Sumažinome administracinių procedūrų, reikalingų verslui pradėti, skaičių, terminus ir išlaidas”. Taip, kai verslumą sugniuždai, tada jau tenka krapštyti galvą, kaip jį atgaivinti. Čia iš tos serijos, kai pirma uždaužau, o tada, nutaisęs rūpestingą veido išraišką, mėginu suteikti pirmąją pagalbą.
Šimtas puslapių panegirikos. Nesiginčysiu, Vyriausybės ataskaitoje parašyta ir nemažai tiesos, cituoju: “Išaugo oficialiai neapskaityta ekonomika. 2009 metais, palyginti su 2008 metais, nusikalstamų veikų ekonomikai ir verslo tvarkai užregistruota 60,9 procento daugiau, iš jų kontrabandos atvejų - 27,8 procento daugiau”. Gryniausia tiesa surašyta, kad bedarbių padaugėjo tris kartus, iki 121 tūkstančio padaugėjo socialinės pašalpos gavėjų, socialiai pažeidžiamų gyventojų gausėjimas didina grėsmę socialiniam stabilumui ir t.t. Gaila, kad tiesa sudėta daugiausia į ataskaitos priedus, kuriuose visos mūsų bėdos ir sudėtos.
Siūlau paskaityti šitą beletristika kvepiantį ir vietomis juoką pro ašaras keliantį veikalą po to, kai Seimas jam nepritars.
Keisti ir tie mūsų palaižūnai. Rusų laikais jie tarnavo istorijos pasmerktiems komunistams. Dabar jie tarnauja užsienio bankininkams, iš kurių mūsų akivaizdoje jų valdovai atima valdžią ir galimybę patenkinti gobšumą. Kodėl mes, išdidžios tautos vieninteliai palikuonys, vergiškai sekame mirštančius piemenis į dykynę, lyg buka gyvulių banda?
Užsienio bankininkams reikia skubiai mažinti Lietuvos deficitą ir įvesti eurą, kad apsaugoti tų bankininkų investicijas nuo rizikos. Mums užteks ir lito.
Baidydami rusais mus, gyvenančius NATO ir ES šalyje, kubiliniai baigia numauti mūsų paskutines kelnes. Gal tapkime visi, jei net ir nelabai drąsūs, tai bent truputį drąsesni?
1. Donalda Meiželytė 2010-04-21, 16:40
Seimui pateikta Vyriausybės ataskaita (griausmingi plojimai)!
Perskaičiusi 2009 metų Vyriausybės ataskaitą patyriau de javu su tarybiniais laikais. Naktimis nemiegodavau, kai pačiai reikėdavo parašyti klasės pionierių būrio darbo planą, nes visas tas planas būdavo fikcija, oras. O čia juk visa Ministro Pirmininko tarnyba darbavosi, jie patys ataskaitoje dar vadinami “ekspertų-analitikų centru, turinčiu veiksmingai padėti atlikti Ministro Pirmininko ir Vyriausybės funkcijas”.
Ir taip dėmesio, cituoju: “Patikėkime savimi, savo valstybe ir drauge kurkime savo sėkmės istoriją!”. Moja skepetaite emigruojantiems tautiečiams Vyriausybė, mažu dar kuris apsigalvos ir grįš. “Laimėję “karo keliuose” mūšį įrodėme, kad nėra tikslų, kurių negalėtume pasiekti sutelktomis pastangomis”, - puikuojasi savimi. Jums neprimena TSKP n-tojo suvažiavimo stenogramos? Trūksta Vyriausybės ataskaitoje tik įrašų skliausteliuose “plojimai”, “griausmingi plojimai”, o geriausia “plojimai peraugantys į ovacijas”.
“Stabilizavome viešuosius finansus. (...) Šį uždavinį pavyko įgyvendinti tik todėl, kad nuo pat pradžių sutarėme laikytis dviejų ypač svarbių nuostatų - solidarumo ir tarimosi.” Kiek pamenu, Vyriausybė Ministro pirmininko asmenyje pati su savimi ir pasitardavo, ir padiskutuodavo, ir nuspręsdavo. Nuo tokio “tarimosi” net koalicijos partneriai dažnai žagsėdavo, o vienas iš viso liko pakirptais sparnais. Tariantis su savimi buvo pasirašytas Nacionalinis susitarimas - taip vadinamas “atviro Vyriausybės ir socialinių partnerių (tik klausimas, kokių?) dialogo dokumentas”. Vienos pasirašiusios organizacijos prezidento paklausiau, o ką Kubilius jiems už tai? “Pelno mokestį sumažino”, - atsako. Naivuoliai, pelno mokestį sumažinti nuo 20 iki 15 proc. Ministras Pirmininkas pažadėjo dar prieš metus vienai linksmai frakcijai prispaudus ir penlo mokestį sumažinti buvo nuspręsta dar pusmetis iki visų socialinių dialogų. Ir kaip galima vadinti “dialogo dokumentą” Nacionaliniu susitarimu, kai dialoge dalyvauja tik lojalūs socialiniai partneriai ir nei viena opozicinė partija?
“Dėl mokesčių reformos per 2009 metus į nacionalinį biudžetą papildomai gauta apie 1,5 mlrd. litų pajamų”, - pučiasi Vyriausybė, bet ar paskaičiavo valdantieji, kiek biudžetas nesurinko?
“Sumažinome administracinių procedūrų, reikalingų verslui pradėti, skaičių, terminus ir išlaidas”. Taip, kai verslumą sugniuždai, tada jau tenka krapštyti galvą, kaip jį atgaivinti. Čia iš tos serijos, kai pirma uždaužau, o tada, nutaisęs rūpestingą veido išraišką, mėginu suteikti pirmąją pagalbą.
Šimtas puslapių panegirikos. Nesiginčysiu, Vyriausybės ataskaitoje parašyta ir nemažai tiesos, cituoju: “Išaugo oficialiai neapskaityta ekonomika. 2009 metais, palyginti su 2008 metais, nusikalstamų veikų ekonomikai ir verslo tvarkai užregistruota 60,9 procento daugiau, iš jų kontrabandos atvejų - 27,8 procento daugiau”. Gryniausia tiesa surašyta, kad bedarbių padaugėjo tris kartus, iki 121 tūkstančio padaugėjo socialinės pašalpos gavėjų, socialiai pažeidžiamų gyventojų gausėjimas didina grėsmę socialiniam stabilumui ir t.t. Gaila, kad tiesa sudėta daugiausia į ataskaitos priedus, kuriuose visos mūsų bėdos ir sudėtos.
Siūlau paskaityti šitą beletristika kvepiantį ir vietomis juoką pro ašaras keliantį veikalą po to, kai Seimas jam nepritars.
2010 m. balandžio 20 d., antradienis
Gėda, Kubiliau
Kodėl vien tik Lietuva tokioje gilioje krizėje? Todėl kad tik Lietuva susikaupė kelti mokesčius, pildyti biudžetą bei dalint tuos litus Maksimai po nusikalstamos Leo aferos subyrėjimo. Visos kitos šalys stiprino verslus ir kūrė darbo vietas nuo pačios krizės pradžios. Paimti iš bedarbių šeimos, skurstančios bankininkų sukeltoje krizėje, ir atiduoti Maksimos vagims, baigiantiems nugirdyti žymią tautos dalį? Nejaugi mes kovojome vardan tokios Lietuvos? Gėda, Kubiliau, gėda.
2010 m. balandžio 16 d., penktadienis
Pensija tik kapuose?
_... tačiau sprendimus reikėtų priimti dabar, kad šiuo metu dirbantys žmonės žinotų, kada išeis į pensiją._
Po mirties. Tegyvuoja Kubilius ir skandinavų bankai.
Po mirties. Tegyvuoja Kubilius ir skandinavų bankai.
Užsisakykite:
Pranešimai (Atom)