Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 23, 2012 12:19PM
By austerity I mean attacking recession by cutting spending and raising taxes – the opposite of Keynesianism, which dictates that if the private sector isn't spending enough money to get the economy moving, the government needs to temporarily step in and supply the juice (aka "stimulus"). Europe and the UK are committed to austerity, and – not coincidentally – they've seen growth deteriorate and unemployment jump (to over 20 percent in Greece and Spain). The figure below, from this excellent – and pretty readable – paper by economist Jay Shambaugh reveals the expected positive correlation between governments that cut spending and slower GDP growth.
Too bad for Europe, right? But, wait – we’re doing the austerity thing too, cutting spending as stimulus fades and failing to enact jobs measures, such as fiscal relief to cash-strapped state and local governments or public infrastructure investment – measures that appear more necessary with each new, disappointing economic report.
In a way, our austerity policies are actually less defensible than those in some European countries. With the price of borrowing so extremely low here, capital markets are basically pleading for our government to borrow and get busy with temporary growth measures. That’s not happening in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, and for good reason: government debt in those countries is highly risky, and priced accordingly.
How is it that policy makers keep getting this so wrong? Sure, there are countries – above all Greece, with its record of government overspending and widespread culture of tax evasion – where some measure of austerity might be in order.
But that doesn’t explain the U.S., the U.K., and most others who continue to blithely go down this bumpy road. For that, I think we need to reflect on what the great economist Joe Stiglitz refers to in his new book on inequality (I recently interviewed Joe for these pages – should be up soon) as deficit fetishism, the prime symptom of which is the inability to distinguish between good and bad deficit spending.
I’ve identified four viruses that have led to this illness:
• For Democrats, deficit reduction was a tactic that morphed into an intractable policy position. Back in the G.W. Bush years, many Democrats (I was one!) argued that cutting taxes as deeply as he did would lead to the bad kind of budget deficits: structural ones that starve government of needed revenues and increase even when the economy is growing. We were right, but too many Democrats now fail to distinguish between structural deficits and Keynesian ones. They just think they’re all bad.
• For Republicans, deficit reduction is a cudgel to bash government. They are ideologically opposed to social insurance, stimulus, infrastructure investment, and everything else, but they gussy this up as an economic argument about markets and debt burdens on future generations. Worse, for them it’s mostly rhetoric. Since Reagan, it’s the Republicans who’ve run structural deficits (Obama’s deficits are largely cyclical—very much a function of the recession).
• Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in surplus was at the end of the Clinton years. Economic growth was strong, unemployment very low (below 4% for a few months in 2000!), and financial markets were booming (due, in no small part, to the dot.com bubble, but that’s a different story). These were the years of the alleged bond vigilantes, bond traders who would punish governments by dumping their bonds if they thought their fiscal policy was irresponsible. I’m not sure there ever was such a menace—what led to the late 90s surpluses were a reasonable set of tax rates and strong (albeit bubbly) growth. But whatever…the main point is that fiscal policy during the Clinton years made sense: deficits fell as the recovery gained strength. By no measure does that imply that austerity makes sense in recession.
• In Europe, there’s another dimension to this, something unique to their currency union: anti-bailout sentiment. You think the TARP and the auto bailouts were unpopular here, imagine if they were for Mexico. As a prominent German economist told me, “we know what we have to do, we just can’t let anyone see us doing it.” Good luck with that.
We’d better get straight on all this if we’re going to fix it, not just for this go-round but for the next recession. Imagine arguing for Keynesian jobs measures—another big stimulus—the next time the economy heads south. With all this misunderstanding in the air, there’s just no oxygen for such arguments.
The time for austerity is when the economy is strong and growing. When it’s stuck in the mud, austerity just digs it in deeper.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont-people-get-20120617#ixzz1ydMyGUOX
Too bad for Europe, right? But, wait – we’re doing the austerity thing too, cutting spending as stimulus fades and failing to enact jobs measures, such as fiscal relief to cash-strapped state and local governments or public infrastructure investment – measures that appear more necessary with each new, disappointing economic report.
In a way, our austerity policies are actually less defensible than those in some European countries. With the price of borrowing so extremely low here, capital markets are basically pleading for our government to borrow and get busy with temporary growth measures. That’s not happening in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, and for good reason: government debt in those countries is highly risky, and priced accordingly.
How is it that policy makers keep getting this so wrong? Sure, there are countries – above all Greece, with its record of government overspending and widespread culture of tax evasion – where some measure of austerity might be in order.
But that doesn’t explain the U.S., the U.K., and most others who continue to blithely go down this bumpy road. For that, I think we need to reflect on what the great economist Joe Stiglitz refers to in his new book on inequality (I recently interviewed Joe for these pages – should be up soon) as deficit fetishism, the prime symptom of which is the inability to distinguish between good and bad deficit spending.
I’ve identified four viruses that have led to this illness:
• For Democrats, deficit reduction was a tactic that morphed into an intractable policy position. Back in the G.W. Bush years, many Democrats (I was one!) argued that cutting taxes as deeply as he did would lead to the bad kind of budget deficits: structural ones that starve government of needed revenues and increase even when the economy is growing. We were right, but too many Democrats now fail to distinguish between structural deficits and Keynesian ones. They just think they’re all bad.
• For Republicans, deficit reduction is a cudgel to bash government. They are ideologically opposed to social insurance, stimulus, infrastructure investment, and everything else, but they gussy this up as an economic argument about markets and debt burdens on future generations. Worse, for them it’s mostly rhetoric. Since Reagan, it’s the Republicans who’ve run structural deficits (Obama’s deficits are largely cyclical—very much a function of the recession).
• Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in surplus was at the end of the Clinton years. Economic growth was strong, unemployment very low (below 4% for a few months in 2000!), and financial markets were booming (due, in no small part, to the dot.com bubble, but that’s a different story). These were the years of the alleged bond vigilantes, bond traders who would punish governments by dumping their bonds if they thought their fiscal policy was irresponsible. I’m not sure there ever was such a menace—what led to the late 90s surpluses were a reasonable set of tax rates and strong (albeit bubbly) growth. But whatever…the main point is that fiscal policy during the Clinton years made sense: deficits fell as the recovery gained strength. By no measure does that imply that austerity makes sense in recession.
• In Europe, there’s another dimension to this, something unique to their currency union: anti-bailout sentiment. You think the TARP and the auto bailouts were unpopular here, imagine if they were for Mexico. As a prominent German economist told me, “we know what we have to do, we just can’t let anyone see us doing it.” Good luck with that.
We’d better get straight on all this if we’re going to fix it, not just for this go-round but for the next recession. Imagine arguing for Keynesian jobs measures—another big stimulus—the next time the economy heads south. With all this misunderstanding in the air, there’s just no oxygen for such arguments.
The time for austerity is when the economy is strong and growing. When it’s stuck in the mud, austerity just digs it in deeper.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont-people-get-20120617#ixzz1ydMyGUOX
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 23, 2012 12:21PM
Rich people dont spend they Horde their money. They re-invest and trickle down is a sham and a lie. Middle class and poor families spend ALL of their income because THEY HAVE TO SPEND IT ALL IN ORDER TO GET BY Day by Day, week By Week, MONTH TO MONTH.
The Private sector is NOT making jobs so the Government MUST STEP in and Spend.
What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
The Private sector is NOT making jobs so the Government MUST STEP in and Spend.
What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Krugman's pinched loaf
()
Date: June 23, 2012 01:35PM
I can't call the current situation austerity.
Permanent Keynesianism doesn't work either. Look at what happened in 2008 after five years of never-ending stimulus.
Eventually, something comes along and knocks the economy for a loop.
It may be something as simple as interest rates rising just 2 points.
With many mortgages financed at 3 to 5 percent, that would easily render the banking system insolvent and force the government to inject trillions more into the banks...
Permanent Keynesianism doesn't work either. Look at what happened in 2008 after five years of never-ending stimulus.
Eventually, something comes along and knocks the economy for a loop.
It may be something as simple as interest rates rising just 2 points.
With many mortgages financed at 3 to 5 percent, that would easily render the banking system insolvent and force the government to inject trillions more into the banks...
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: June 23, 2012 02:02PM
ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By austerity I mean attacking recession by cutting
> spending and raising taxes – the opposite of
> Keynesianism, which dictates that if the private
> sector isn't spending enough money to get the
> economy moving, the government needs to
> temporarily step in and supply the juice (aka
> "stimulus"). Europe and the UK are committed to
> austerity, and – not coincidentally – they've
> seen growth deteriorate and unemployment jump (to
> over 20 percent in Greece and Spain). The figure
> below, from this excellent – and pretty readable
> – paper by economist Jay Shambaugh reveals the
> expected positive correlation between governments
> that cut spending and slower GDP growth.
>
> Too bad for Europe, right? But, wait – we’re
> doing the austerity thing too, cutting spending as
> stimulus fades and failing to enact jobs measures,
> such as fiscal relief to cash-strapped state and
> local governments or public infrastructure
> investment – measures that appear more necessary
> with each new, disappointing economic report.
>
> In a way, our austerity policies are actually less
> defensible than those in some European countries.
> With the price of borrowing so extremely low here,
> capital markets are basically pleading for our
> government to borrow and get busy with temporary
> growth measures. That’s not happening in Spain,
> Italy, Portugal, and Greece, and for good reason:
> government debt in those countries is highly
> risky, and priced accordingly.
>
> How is it that policy makers keep getting this so
> wrong? Sure, there are countries – above all
> Greece, with its record of government overspending
> and widespread culture of tax evasion – where
> some measure of austerity might be in order.
>
> But that doesn’t explain the U.S., the U.K., and
> most others who continue to blithely go down this
> bumpy road. For that, I think we need to reflect
> on what the great economist Joe Stiglitz refers to
> in his new book on inequality (I recently
> interviewed Joe for these pages – should be up
> soon) as deficit fetishism, the prime symptom of
> which is the inability to distinguish between good
> and bad deficit spending.
>
> I’ve identified four viruses that have led to
> this illness:
>
> • For Democrats, deficit reduction was a tactic
> that morphed into an intractable policy position.
> Back in the G.W. Bush years, many Democrats (I was
> one!) argued that cutting taxes as deeply as he
> did would lead to the bad kind of budget deficits:
> structural ones that starve government of needed
> revenues and increase even when the economy is
> growing. We were right, but too many Democrats
> now fail to distinguish between structural
> deficits and Keynesian ones. They just think
> they’re all bad.
>
> • For Republicans, deficit reduction is a cudgel
> to bash government. They are ideologically opposed
> to social insurance, stimulus, infrastructure
> investment, and everything else, but they gussy
> this up as an economic argument about markets and
> debt burdens on future generations. Worse, for
> them it’s mostly rhetoric. Since Reagan, it’s
> the Republicans who’ve run structural deficits
> (Obama’s deficits are largely cyclical—very
> much a function of the recession).
>
> • Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton
> surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in
> surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
> Economic growth was strong, unemployment very low
> (below 4% for a few months in 2000!), and
> financial markets were booming (due, in no small
> part, to the dot.com bubble, but that’s a
> different story). These were the years of the
> alleged bond vigilantes, bond traders who would
> punish governments by dumping their bonds if they
> thought their fiscal policy was irresponsible.
> I’m not sure there ever was such a menace—what
> led to the late 90s surpluses were a reasonable
> set of tax rates and strong (albeit bubbly)
> growth. But whatever…the main point is that
> fiscal policy during the Clinton years made sense:
> deficits fell as the recovery gained strength. By
> no measure does that imply that austerity makes
> sense in recession.
>
> • In Europe, there’s another dimension to
> this, something unique to their currency union:
> anti-bailout sentiment. You think the TARP and
> the auto bailouts were unpopular here, imagine if
> they were for Mexico. As a prominent German
> economist told me, “we know what we have to do,
> we just can’t let anyone see us doing it.”
> Good luck with that.
>
> We’d better get straight on all this if we’re
> going to fix it, not just for this go-round but
> for the next recession. Imagine arguing for
> Keynesian jobs measures—another big
> stimulus—the next time the economy heads south.
> With all this misunderstanding in the air,
> there’s just no oxygen for such arguments.
>
> The time for austerity is when the economy is
> strong and growing. When it’s stuck in the mud,
> austerity just digs it in deeper.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/nationa
> l-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont
> -people-get-20120617#ixzz1ydMyGUOX
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By austerity I mean attacking recession by cutting
> spending and raising taxes – the opposite of
> Keynesianism, which dictates that if the private
> sector isn't spending enough money to get the
> economy moving, the government needs to
> temporarily step in and supply the juice (aka
> "stimulus"). Europe and the UK are committed to
> austerity, and – not coincidentally – they've
> seen growth deteriorate and unemployment jump (to
> over 20 percent in Greece and Spain). The figure
> below, from this excellent – and pretty readable
> – paper by economist Jay Shambaugh reveals the
> expected positive correlation between governments
> that cut spending and slower GDP growth.
>
> Too bad for Europe, right? But, wait – we’re
> doing the austerity thing too, cutting spending as
> stimulus fades and failing to enact jobs measures,
> such as fiscal relief to cash-strapped state and
> local governments or public infrastructure
> investment – measures that appear more necessary
> with each new, disappointing economic report.
>
> In a way, our austerity policies are actually less
> defensible than those in some European countries.
> With the price of borrowing so extremely low here,
> capital markets are basically pleading for our
> government to borrow and get busy with temporary
> growth measures. That’s not happening in Spain,
> Italy, Portugal, and Greece, and for good reason:
> government debt in those countries is highly
> risky, and priced accordingly.
>
> How is it that policy makers keep getting this so
> wrong? Sure, there are countries – above all
> Greece, with its record of government overspending
> and widespread culture of tax evasion – where
> some measure of austerity might be in order.
>
> But that doesn’t explain the U.S., the U.K., and
> most others who continue to blithely go down this
> bumpy road. For that, I think we need to reflect
> on what the great economist Joe Stiglitz refers to
> in his new book on inequality (I recently
> interviewed Joe for these pages – should be up
> soon) as deficit fetishism, the prime symptom of
> which is the inability to distinguish between good
> and bad deficit spending.
>
> I’ve identified four viruses that have led to
> this illness:
>
> • For Democrats, deficit reduction was a tactic
> that morphed into an intractable policy position.
> Back in the G.W. Bush years, many Democrats (I was
> one!) argued that cutting taxes as deeply as he
> did would lead to the bad kind of budget deficits:
> structural ones that starve government of needed
> revenues and increase even when the economy is
> growing. We were right, but too many Democrats
> now fail to distinguish between structural
> deficits and Keynesian ones. They just think
> they’re all bad.
>
> • For Republicans, deficit reduction is a cudgel
> to bash government. They are ideologically opposed
> to social insurance, stimulus, infrastructure
> investment, and everything else, but they gussy
> this up as an economic argument about markets and
> debt burdens on future generations. Worse, for
> them it’s mostly rhetoric. Since Reagan, it’s
> the Republicans who’ve run structural deficits
> (Obama’s deficits are largely cyclical—very
> much a function of the recession).
>
> • Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton
> surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in
> surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
> Economic growth was strong, unemployment very low
> (below 4% for a few months in 2000!), and
> financial markets were booming (due, in no small
> part, to the dot.com bubble, but that’s a
> different story). These were the years of the
> alleged bond vigilantes, bond traders who would
> punish governments by dumping their bonds if they
> thought their fiscal policy was irresponsible.
> I’m not sure there ever was such a menace—what
> led to the late 90s surpluses were a reasonable
> set of tax rates and strong (albeit bubbly)
> growth. But whatever…the main point is that
> fiscal policy during the Clinton years made sense:
> deficits fell as the recovery gained strength. By
> no measure does that imply that austerity makes
> sense in recession.
>
> • In Europe, there’s another dimension to
> this, something unique to their currency union:
> anti-bailout sentiment. You think the TARP and
> the auto bailouts were unpopular here, imagine if
> they were for Mexico. As a prominent German
> economist told me, “we know what we have to do,
> we just can’t let anyone see us doing it.”
> Good luck with that.
>
> We’d better get straight on all this if we’re
> going to fix it, not just for this go-round but
> for the next recession. Imagine arguing for
> Keynesian jobs measures—another big
> stimulus—the next time the economy heads south.
> With all this misunderstanding in the air,
> there’s just no oxygen for such arguments.
>
> The time for austerity is when the economy is
> strong and growing. When it’s stuck in the mud,
> austerity just digs it in deeper.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/nationa
> l-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont
> -people-get-20120617#ixzz1ydMyGUOX
Attachments:
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
20 cent
()
Date: June 23, 2012 02:18PM
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: June 23, 2012 03:11PM
ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> • Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton
> surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in
> surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
Great story bro!
Too bad it's based on a lie.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message...but you will anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------
> • Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton
> surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in
> surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
Great story bro!
Too bad it's based on a lie.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message...but you will anyway.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Ben F
()
Date: June 23, 2012 03:56PM
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Pinky's Brain
()
Date: June 23, 2012 05:01PM
The government can not kick start the economy. It has to either take money out of the private sector or it has to borrow from our kids and grandkids. Raising taxes on anyone making $250K or higher will pay for less than 1 month of the deficti of Obama's spending machine. Nothings free freeloaders. Eventually, the dollar will be nothing if we just keep printing and giving it away throught government redistribution.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
P. Krugman
()
Date: June 23, 2012 05:46PM
Debt doesn't matter! We just need to spend $4 trillion more and all of our problems will be solved!
No, really, I mean it!
Why are you idiots laughing?
I'm the smartest guy in the room because, well, because I SAY SO! AND I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!
STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!
I have a column in the fucking NY Times BEOTCH!
Obama reads my shit!
I HAVE A BEARD DAMMIT!
Does Obama read your shit? Have you got a fucking beard?
No?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
STOP FUCKING LAUGHING AND LISTEN TO ME!!!
No, really, I mean it!
Why are you idiots laughing?
I'm the smartest guy in the room because, well, because I SAY SO! AND I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!
STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!
I have a column in the fucking NY Times BEOTCH!
Obama reads my shit!
I HAVE A BEARD DAMMIT!
Does Obama read your shit? Have you got a fucking beard?
No?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
STOP FUCKING LAUGHING AND LISTEN TO ME!!!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
GpXmb
()
Date: June 23, 2012 07:25PM
Pinky's Brain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The government can not kick start the economy. It
> has to either take money out of the private sector
> or it has to borrow from our kids and grandkids.
LMAO oooh so the private sector can give the US government a BAIL out? Just like all those fucking bailouts TAXPAYERS REPEATEDLY GIVE THE FUCKING PRIVATE SECTOR? FUCK YOU IDIOT
> Raising taxes on anyone making $250K or higher
> will pay for less than 1 month of the deficti of
> Obama's spending machine.
thats like saying. Nah not gonna fill up my gas tank so I can get that extra mile down the road. ...... Fuck wit
Nothings free
> freeloaders. Eventually, the dollar will be
> nothing if we just keep printing and giving it
> away throught government redistribution.
Its call 99% of people losing 40% of their wealth due to redistribution TO THE TOP! Let it come back down and equality for this country resume!
-------------------------------------------------------
> The government can not kick start the economy. It
> has to either take money out of the private sector
> or it has to borrow from our kids and grandkids.
LMAO oooh so the private sector can give the US government a BAIL out? Just like all those fucking bailouts TAXPAYERS REPEATEDLY GIVE THE FUCKING PRIVATE SECTOR? FUCK YOU IDIOT
> Raising taxes on anyone making $250K or higher
> will pay for less than 1 month of the deficti of
> Obama's spending machine.
thats like saying. Nah not gonna fill up my gas tank so I can get that extra mile down the road. ...... Fuck wit
Nothings free
> freeloaders. Eventually, the dollar will be
> nothing if we just keep printing and giving it
> away throught government redistribution.
Its call 99% of people losing 40% of their wealth due to redistribution TO THE TOP! Let it come back down and equality for this country resume!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
99999999999999999
()
Date: June 23, 2012 07:30PM
Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > • Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton
> > surpluses: The last time the federal budget was
> in
> > surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
>
>
> Great story bro!
>
> Too bad it's based on a lie.
>
> http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
>
> Shooting the messenger doesn't change the
> message...but you will anyway.
you can have your own opinions which that clearly is but you cant have your own FACTS. Austerity during GOOD times is appropriate. The government needs to help the people NOW. They've already been good employees of the Corporations and BAILED OUT and LACKED THE FUCKING BALLS TO PROESCUTE anyone. LET THEM NOW HELP THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. TAXPAYERS>
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > • Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton
> > surpluses: The last time the federal budget was
> in
> > surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
>
>
> Great story bro!
>
> Too bad it's based on a lie.
>
> http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
>
> Shooting the messenger doesn't change the
> message...but you will anyway.
you can have your own opinions which that clearly is but you cant have your own FACTS. Austerity during GOOD times is appropriate. The government needs to help the people NOW. They've already been good employees of the Corporations and BAILED OUT and LACKED THE FUCKING BALLS TO PROESCUTE anyone. LET THEM NOW HELP THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. TAXPAYERS>
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: June 23, 2012 08:14PM
99999999999999999 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vexxxed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ferfux Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > • Drawing the wrong lessons from the
> Clinton
> > > surpluses: The last time the federal budget
> was
> > in
> > > surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
> >
> >
> > Great story bro!
> >
> > Too bad it's based on a lie.
> >
> > http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
> >
> > Shooting the messenger doesn't change the
> > message...but you will anyway.
>
>
> you can have your own opinions which that clearly
> is but you cant have your own FACTS. Austerity
> during GOOD times is appropriate. The government
> needs to help the people NOW. They've already
> been good employees of the Corporations and BAILED
> OUT and LACKED THE FUCKING BALLS TO PROESCUTE
> anyone. LET THEM NOW HELP THE PEOPLE WHO NEED
> IT. TAXPAYERS>
Uh..........okay.
But what does that have to do with the false premise that there was a surplus of money laying around when Billy left office?
Why does the Rolling Stone get to have their own facts?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vexxxed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ferfux Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > • Drawing the wrong lessons from the
> Clinton
> > > surpluses: The last time the federal budget
> was
> > in
> > > surplus was at the end of the Clinton years.
> >
> >
> > Great story bro!
> >
> > Too bad it's based on a lie.
> >
> > http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
> >
> > Shooting the messenger doesn't change the
> > message...but you will anyway.
>
>
> you can have your own opinions which that clearly
> is but you cant have your own FACTS. Austerity
> during GOOD times is appropriate. The government
> needs to help the people NOW. They've already
> been good employees of the Corporations and BAILED
> OUT and LACKED THE FUCKING BALLS TO PROESCUTE
> anyone. LET THEM NOW HELP THE PEOPLE WHO NEED
> IT. TAXPAYERS>
Uh..........okay.
But what does that have to do with the false premise that there was a surplus of money laying around when Billy left office?
Why does the Rolling Stone get to have their own facts?
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Lester
()
Date: June 24, 2012 11:12AM
Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli would be better for the economy in the longer run per the CBO.
The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
One looks at what would happen if Congress does nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal cliff. The other scenario looks at what would happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by extending most, if not all, of the current policies.
Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam an already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
On the other hand, extending current policies would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of 2013.
That may sound great, but a funny thing happens after those first six months.
In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns the corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%. Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
The initial growth spurred by extending current policies, however, starts to peter out after six months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO says GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower growth would continue through 2016.
"Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013," say Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May 31 report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would be faster growth in 2013, slower growth between 2014 and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth rates over the next four years."
Extending the policies of tax cuts and high government spending would drastically accelerate the national debt. The CBO says federal debt held by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this year, would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by 2037.
But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff, the debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022 and just 53% in 2037.
http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
One looks at what would happen if Congress does nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal cliff. The other scenario looks at what would happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by extending most, if not all, of the current policies.
Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam an already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
On the other hand, extending current policies would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of 2013.
That may sound great, but a funny thing happens after those first six months.
In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns the corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%. Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
The initial growth spurred by extending current policies, however, starts to peter out after six months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO says GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower growth would continue through 2016.
"Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013," say Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May 31 report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would be faster growth in 2013, slower growth between 2014 and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth rates over the next four years."
Extending the policies of tax cuts and high government spending would drastically accelerate the national debt. The CBO says federal debt held by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this year, would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by 2037.
But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff, the debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022 and just 53% in 2037.
http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Rhondayes
()
Date: June 24, 2012 01:14PM
Krugman's pinched loaf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't call the current situation austerity.
>
> Permanent Keynesianism doesn't work either. Look
> at what happened in 2008 after five years of
> never-ending stimulus.
>
> Eventually, something comes along and knocks the
> economy for a loop.
>
> It may be something as simple as interest rates
> rising just 2 points.
>
> With many mortgages financed at 3 to 5 percent,
> that would easily render the banking system
> insolvent and force the government to inject
> trillions more into the banks...
Where in the heck are you getting your opinions? beliefs?
What five years of stimulus? The borrowing and SPENDING ON THE WAR? The tax cuts for the wealthy? That was stimulus? All of the money spent between 2007 and 2009 went towards wars, the rebuilding and funding of other countries and their infrastructure. There wasn't any stimulus for America or Americans. We've carried the burdens of the plutocracy. You're a fool for believing that the money that has been spent has been spent here in America on Americans. You're overseers are selling you and the people in your cities and states a pig in a poke.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't call the current situation austerity.
>
> Permanent Keynesianism doesn't work either. Look
> at what happened in 2008 after five years of
> never-ending stimulus.
>
> Eventually, something comes along and knocks the
> economy for a loop.
>
> It may be something as simple as interest rates
> rising just 2 points.
>
> With many mortgages financed at 3 to 5 percent,
> that would easily render the banking system
> insolvent and force the government to inject
> trillions more into the banks...
Where in the heck are you getting your opinions? beliefs?
What five years of stimulus? The borrowing and SPENDING ON THE WAR? The tax cuts for the wealthy? That was stimulus? All of the money spent between 2007 and 2009 went towards wars, the rebuilding and funding of other countries and their infrastructure. There wasn't any stimulus for America or Americans. We've carried the burdens of the plutocracy. You're a fool for believing that the money that has been spent has been spent here in America on Americans. You're overseers are selling you and the people in your cities and states a pig in a poke.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 24, 2012 01:17PM
Vexxxed Wrote:
>
> Uh..........okay.
>
> But what does that have to do with the false
> premise that there was a surplus of money laying
> around when Billy left office?
>
> Why does the Rolling Stone get to have their own
> facts?
false premise? You are so full of shit. LMAO!
>
> Uh..........okay.
>
> But what does that have to do with the false
> premise that there was a surplus of money laying
> around when Billy left office?
>
> Why does the Rolling Stone get to have their own
> facts?
false premise? You are so full of shit. LMAO!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 24, 2012 01:18PM
Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli would
> be better for the economy in the longer run per
> the CBO.
>
> The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
>
> One looks at what would happen if Congress does
> nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal
> cliff. The other scenario looks at what would
> happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by
> extending most, if not all, of the current
> policies.
>
> Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal
> cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam an
> already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report
> says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of
> 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
>
> On the other hand, extending current policies
> would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of 2013.
>
>
> That may sound great, but a funny thing happens
> after those first six months.
>
> In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns the
> corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%.
> Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an
> astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
>
> The initial growth spurred by extending current
> policies, however, starts to peter out after six
> months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO says
> GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower growth
> would continue through 2016.
>
> "Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move
> economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013," say
> Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May 31
> report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would be
> faster growth in 2013, slower growth between 2014
> and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth rates
> over the next four years."
>
> Extending the policies of tax cuts and high
> government spending would drastically accelerate
> the national debt. The CBO says federal debt held
> by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this year,
> would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by 2037.
>
> But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff, the
> debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022
> and just 53% in 2037.
>
> http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-t
> o-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
Right im sure these guys are so smart they could predict a world wide economic catastraphe coming and avoid it with all thses models and charts and graphs. FUCK OFF!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli would
> be better for the economy in the longer run per
> the CBO.
>
> The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
>
> One looks at what would happen if Congress does
> nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal
> cliff. The other scenario looks at what would
> happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by
> extending most, if not all, of the current
> policies.
>
> Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal
> cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam an
> already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report
> says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of
> 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
>
> On the other hand, extending current policies
> would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of 2013.
>
>
> That may sound great, but a funny thing happens
> after those first six months.
>
> In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns the
> corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%.
> Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an
> astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
>
> The initial growth spurred by extending current
> policies, however, starts to peter out after six
> months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO says
> GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower growth
> would continue through 2016.
>
> "Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move
> economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013," say
> Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May 31
> report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would be
> faster growth in 2013, slower growth between 2014
> and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth rates
> over the next four years."
>
> Extending the policies of tax cuts and high
> government spending would drastically accelerate
> the national debt. The CBO says federal debt held
> by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this year,
> would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by 2037.
>
> But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff, the
> debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022
> and just 53% in 2037.
>
> http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-t
> o-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
Right im sure these guys are so smart they could predict a world wide economic catastraphe coming and avoid it with all thses models and charts and graphs. FUCK OFF!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Rhondayes
()
Date: June 24, 2012 01:27PM
The thing that you've got to love about the republicans they just love fear. They love the doomsday scenario and are highly invested in murder/suicide. This is why there are so many family annihilators and spree murderers amongst them.
They kill people, just to know what it feels like to kill a person. All of those guns and not one person to shoot??? It just doesn't seem right somehow.
Stop trying to destroy this country just to find out how we would survive such an event. You people are a danger to the rest of us.
They kill people, just to know what it feels like to kill a person. All of those guns and not one person to shoot??? It just doesn't seem right somehow.
Stop trying to destroy this country just to find out how we would survive such an event. You people are a danger to the rest of us.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Lester
()
Date: June 24, 2012 02:13PM
ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lester Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli
> would
> > be better for the economy in the longer run per
> > the CBO.
> >
> > The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
>
> >
> > One looks at what would happen if Congress does
> > nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal
> > cliff. The other scenario looks at what would
> > happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by
> > extending most, if not all, of the current
> > policies.
> >
> > Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal
> > cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam
> an
> > already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report
> > says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half
> of
> > 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, extending current policies
> > would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of
> 2013.
> >
> >
> > That may sound great, but a funny thing happens
> > after those first six months.
> >
> > In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns
> the
> > corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%.
> > Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an
> > astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
> >
> > The initial growth spurred by extending current
> > policies, however, starts to peter out after
> six
> > months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO
> says
> > GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower
> growth
> > would continue through 2016.
> >
> > "Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move
> > economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013,"
> say
> > Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May
> 31
> > report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would
> be
> > faster growth in 2013, slower growth between
> 2014
> > and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth
> rates
> > over the next four years."
> >
> > Extending the policies of tax cuts and high
> > government spending would drastically
> accelerate
> > the national debt. The CBO says federal debt
> held
> > by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this
> year,
> > would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by
> 2037.
> >
> > But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff,
> the
> > debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022
> > and just 53% in 2037.
> >
> >
> http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-t
>
> > o-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
>
>
> Right im sure these guys are so smart they could
> predict a world wide economic catastraphe coming
> and avoid it with all thses models and charts and
> graphs. FUCK OFF!
The Keynesians, on the other hand, cite the CBO estimates for the short-term impact on the economy to justify keeping the stimulus in place indefinitely. You have to look at the long-term picture. SCREW YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lester Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli
> would
> > be better for the economy in the longer run per
> > the CBO.
> >
> > The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
>
> >
> > One looks at what would happen if Congress does
> > nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal
> > cliff. The other scenario looks at what would
> > happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by
> > extending most, if not all, of the current
> > policies.
> >
> > Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal
> > cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam
> an
> > already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report
> > says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half
> of
> > 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, extending current policies
> > would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of
> 2013.
> >
> >
> > That may sound great, but a funny thing happens
> > after those first six months.
> >
> > In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns
> the
> > corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%.
> > Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an
> > astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
> >
> > The initial growth spurred by extending current
> > policies, however, starts to peter out after
> six
> > months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO
> says
> > GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower
> growth
> > would continue through 2016.
> >
> > "Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move
> > economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013,"
> say
> > Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May
> 31
> > report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would
> be
> > faster growth in 2013, slower growth between
> 2014
> > and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth
> rates
> > over the next four years."
> >
> > Extending the policies of tax cuts and high
> > government spending would drastically
> accelerate
> > the national debt. The CBO says federal debt
> held
> > by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this
> year,
> > would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by
> 2037.
> >
> > But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff,
> the
> > debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022
> > and just 53% in 2037.
> >
> >
> http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-t
>
> > o-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
>
>
> Right im sure these guys are so smart they could
> predict a world wide economic catastraphe coming
> and avoid it with all thses models and charts and
> graphs. FUCK OFF!
The Keynesians, on the other hand, cite the CBO estimates for the short-term impact on the economy to justify keeping the stimulus in place indefinitely. You have to look at the long-term picture. SCREW YOU.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 24, 2012 02:57PM
Lester Wrote:
>
> The Keynesians, on the other hand, cite the CBO
> estimates for the short-term impact on the economy
> to justify keeping the stimulus in place
> indefinitely. You have to look at the long-term
> picture. SCREW YOU.
long term picture? how about 40 percent of wealth DROP over the last two decades or mkore for the middle class and the poor? FUCK OFF with your lies!
>
> The Keynesians, on the other hand, cite the CBO
> estimates for the short-term impact on the economy
> to justify keeping the stimulus in place
> indefinitely. You have to look at the long-term
> picture. SCREW YOU.
long term picture? how about 40 percent of wealth DROP over the last two decades or mkore for the middle class and the poor? FUCK OFF with your lies!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
west end
()
Date: June 24, 2012 03:08PM
Amazing that Obama can continue to get away with his class warfare. Meanwhile he rubs elbows with the richest people on earth. After he is re elected he will run back to the golf course with his rich White friends never to see the lower and middle class again.
His class warfare works best on the following:
The stupid - who can never hope to get rich
The jealous - who are similar to the stupid, they know they are never going to be rich so they hate anyone who is
The lazy - They dont really give a shit they just want other peoples money without working
Liberal elites - They hate the rich but only rich conservatives. Rich folk like George Clooney and Matt Damon are ok as long as they support Obama
His class warfare works best on the following:
The stupid - who can never hope to get rich
The jealous - who are similar to the stupid, they know they are never going to be rich so they hate anyone who is
The lazy - They dont really give a shit they just want other peoples money without working
Liberal elites - They hate the rich but only rich conservatives. Rich folk like George Clooney and Matt Damon are ok as long as they support Obama
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
inerdshuh
()
Date: June 24, 2012 09:29PM
west end Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing that Obama can continue to get away with
> his class warfare. Meanwhile he rubs elbows with
> the richest people on earth. After he is re
> elected he will run back to the golf course with
> his rich White friends never to see the lower and
> middle class again.
>
> His class warfare works best on the following:
>
> The stupid - who can never hope to get rich
>
> The jealous - who are similar to the stupid, they
> know they are never going to be rich so they hate
> anyone who is
>
> The lazy - They dont really give a shit they just
> want other peoples money without working
>
> Liberal elites - They hate the rich but only rich
> conservatives. Rich folk like George Clooney and
> Matt Damon are ok as long as they support Obama
The Rich are geniuses at self perpetuating class warfare. They have the inertia to continue to rig the system, and when the laws in place arent enough they lie cheat steal and bilk everyone else out of what little they have left. Its not laziness, jealousy, stupidity or "liberal elites" What a bunch of Horseshit. Thats more propaganda from the ELITE CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA MACHINE keeping every one of the 99% DOWN and uplifting the 1%, Thanks but no thanks to more of the same rhetoric that keeps EVERYONE but the 1% enriched. 40% wealth deprecation over the last 3 decades is proof enough of the LIE that you are spreading.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing that Obama can continue to get away with
> his class warfare. Meanwhile he rubs elbows with
> the richest people on earth. After he is re
> elected he will run back to the golf course with
> his rich White friends never to see the lower and
> middle class again.
>
> His class warfare works best on the following:
>
> The stupid - who can never hope to get rich
>
> The jealous - who are similar to the stupid, they
> know they are never going to be rich so they hate
> anyone who is
>
> The lazy - They dont really give a shit they just
> want other peoples money without working
>
> Liberal elites - They hate the rich but only rich
> conservatives. Rich folk like George Clooney and
> Matt Damon are ok as long as they support Obama
The Rich are geniuses at self perpetuating class warfare. They have the inertia to continue to rig the system, and when the laws in place arent enough they lie cheat steal and bilk everyone else out of what little they have left. Its not laziness, jealousy, stupidity or "liberal elites" What a bunch of Horseshit. Thats more propaganda from the ELITE CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA MACHINE keeping every one of the 99% DOWN and uplifting the 1%, Thanks but no thanks to more of the same rhetoric that keeps EVERYONE but the 1% enriched. 40% wealth deprecation over the last 3 decades is proof enough of the LIE that you are spreading.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
I Call BS
()
Date: June 24, 2012 09:37PM
Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli would
> be better for the economy in the longer run per
> the CBO.
>
> The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
>
> One looks at what would happen if Congress does
> nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal
> cliff. The other scenario looks at what would
> happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by
> extending most, if not all, of the current
> policies.
>
> Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal
> cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam an
> already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report
> says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of
> 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
>
> On the other hand, extending current policies
> would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of 2013.
>
>
> That may sound great, but a funny thing happens
> after those first six months.
>
> In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns the
> corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%.
> Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an
> astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
>
> The initial growth spurred by extending current
> policies, however, starts to peter out after six
> months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO says
> GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower growth
> would continue through 2016.
>
> "Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move
> economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013," say
> Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May 31
> report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would be
> faster growth in 2013, slower growth between 2014
> and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth rates
> over the next four years."
>
> Extending the policies of tax cuts and high
> government spending would drastically accelerate
> the national debt. The CBO says federal debt held
> by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this year,
> would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by 2037.
>
> But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff, the
> debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022
> and just 53% in 2037.
>
> http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-t
> o-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
I CALL BS
Actually, we tried austerity in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1937, 2008, and 2012. Every single instance led to more pain and more debt. It took years extra and billions extra to recover from the mistake of austerity in the 30's. Obama's stimulus prevented a depression and turned GDP positive in just two quarters. The economy has lost momentum as the effects of the stimulus died. Now, we're back in austerity-ville, on the road to Recession Round II.
Too bad there are so many people who cannot learn from our own history, and they insist on repeating the same mistakes, expecting a different result this time.
The concept is very simple. Save, during a sunny day, for a rainy day. NOT the other way around.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminating the 2001, 2003, and 2009 stimuli would
> be better for the economy in the longer run per
> the CBO.
>
> The CBO ran projections based on two scenarios.
>
> One looks at what would happen if Congress does
> nothing and lets the country go over the fiscal
> cliff. The other scenario looks at what would
> happen if Congress dodges the fiscal cliff by
> extending most, if not all, of the current
> policies.
>
> Choosing to take a leap off of the fiscal
> cliff--as has been widely reported-- would slam an
> already faltering U.S. economy. The CBO report
> says GDP would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of
> 2013, pushing the country back into a recession.
>
> On the other hand, extending current policies
> would push GDP up 5.3% in the first half of 2013.
>
>
> That may sound great, but a funny thing happens
> after those first six months.
>
> In the CBO's fiscal cliff scenario, GDP turns the
> corner in the second half of 2013, rising 2.3%.
> Then, in 2014, GDP jumps up 5%, followed by an
> astounding 6.4% increase in 2015.
>
> The initial growth spurred by extending current
> policies, however, starts to peter out after six
> months. By the second half of 2013, the CBO says
> GDP would slow to 3.4%. From there, slower growth
> would continue through 2016.
>
> "Postponing the fiscal cliff would simply move
> economic activity from 2014-2016 into 2013," say
> Jason M. Thomas and David M. Marchick in a May 31
> report for the Carlyle Group. "The result would be
> faster growth in 2013, slower growth between 2014
> and 2016, and no change in cumulative growth rates
> over the next four years."
>
> Extending the policies of tax cuts and high
> government spending would drastically accelerate
> the national debt. The CBO says federal debt held
> by the public, about 73% of GDP as of this year,
> would rise to 93% by 2022 and about 200% by 2037.
>
> But if America plunges off the fiscal cliff, the
> debt held by the public declines to 61% in 2022
> and just 53% in 2037.
>
> http://moneymorning.com/2012/06/08/how-i-learned-t
> o-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fiscal-cliff/
I CALL BS
Actually, we tried austerity in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1937, 2008, and 2012. Every single instance led to more pain and more debt. It took years extra and billions extra to recover from the mistake of austerity in the 30's. Obama's stimulus prevented a depression and turned GDP positive in just two quarters. The economy has lost momentum as the effects of the stimulus died. Now, we're back in austerity-ville, on the road to Recession Round II.
Too bad there are so many people who cannot learn from our own history, and they insist on repeating the same mistakes, expecting a different result this time.
The concept is very simple. Save, during a sunny day, for a rainy day. NOT the other way around.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
look in the mirror
()
Date: June 24, 2012 09:38PM
You couldnt be more wrong. I am doing very well in life and I do not consider myself in the 1%. I make smart investments through research not luck, watch how I use my credit and spend my money wisely. People such as yourself who just have to have the latest cell phone, every channel available on your tv, lavish vacations you cannot afford and a luxury car way out of your league.
The so called rich dont need to screw over dummies like you, you are perfectly capable of doing it to yourself. The "rich" just make a convienant whipping boy for your stupidity.
The so called rich dont need to screw over dummies like you, you are perfectly capable of doing it to yourself. The "rich" just make a convienant whipping boy for your stupidity.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
Me Me Me
()
Date: June 24, 2012 09:38PM
You and I can't spend money we don't have, but the US Federal government can and should. Out debt to GDP was much higher just after WWII, and we spent to stimulate and raised taxes at first on the wealthiest to 91% on the top marginal income. We cut spending later when the economy could tolerate it. In fact, FDR erred in 1937 and tightened too early, thereby strangling a weak recovery and extending the time it took to fully recover. Republicans know all of this, they're just playing games with you. It was the Rs who ran up most of the debt in the last 3 decades. Get it?
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont-people-get-20120617#ixzz1ylUBgrvI
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont-people-get-20120617#ixzz1ylUBgrvI
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
_Eyedea_
()
Date: June 24, 2012 09:42PM
_
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
1938
()
Date: June 24, 2012 10:33PM
Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn. Keynesian economists assign blame to cuts in federal spending and increases in taxes at the insistence of the US Treasury,[4] while monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, assign blame to the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply in 1936 and 1937.[5] Austrian school economist Johnathan Catalan assigns blame to the relatively large expansion of the money supply from 1933 to 1937. He also notes that the money supply did not tighten until after the recession began.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938
It's time to retract some of the stimulus. The 2001, 2003 stimulus should've already expired. People should've already locked in mortgages and car loans at these ridiculously low interest rates. On the other hand, they would stand to benefit from higher interest rates on their savings, especially now that more people are reaching retirement age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938
It's time to retract some of the stimulus. The 2001, 2003 stimulus should've already expired. People should've already locked in mortgages and car loans at these ridiculously low interest rates. On the other hand, they would stand to benefit from higher interest rates on their savings, especially now that more people are reaching retirement age.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
IGottaBeardToo
()
Date: June 24, 2012 10:43PM
Me Me Me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You and I can't spend money we don't have, but the
> US Federal government can and should. Out debt to
> GDP was much higher just after WWII, and we spent
> to stimulate and raised taxes at first on the
> wealthiest to 91% on the top marginal income. We
> cut spending later when the economy could tolerate
> it. In fact, FDR erred in 1937 and tightened too
> early, thereby strangling a weak recovery and
> extending the time it took to fully recover.
> Republicans know all of this, they're just playing
> games with you. It was the Rs who ran up most of
> the debt in the last 3 decades. Get it?
>
> Read more:
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/nationa
> l-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont
> -people-get-20120617#ixzz1ylUBgrvI
Seriously, quit reading Krugman, Taibbi, and Berstein. You're actually starting to believe that shit. lol
Ask them what % of GDP we'll see with a 50 basis point increase in interest rates. And how much money our annual debt service will represent. Then if you really want to be shocked back to reality, ask them what it will be with a 200 - 300 basis point increase back to the norm.
Of course you can temporarily stimulate the economy by spending tons of money. Especially when you just wave away the debt issue. And we're already starting in a deep hole.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You and I can't spend money we don't have, but the
> US Federal government can and should. Out debt to
> GDP was much higher just after WWII, and we spent
> to stimulate and raised taxes at first on the
> wealthiest to 91% on the top marginal income. We
> cut spending later when the economy could tolerate
> it. In fact, FDR erred in 1937 and tightened too
> early, thereby strangling a weak recovery and
> extending the time it took to fully recover.
> Republicans know all of this, they're just playing
> games with you. It was the Rs who ran up most of
> the debt in the last 3 decades. Get it?
>
> Read more:
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/nationa
> l-affairs/what-part-of-austerity-isnt-working-dont
> -people-get-20120617#ixzz1ylUBgrvI
Seriously, quit reading Krugman, Taibbi, and Berstein. You're actually starting to believe that shit. lol
Ask them what % of GDP we'll see with a 50 basis point increase in interest rates. And how much money our annual debt service will represent. Then if you really want to be shocked back to reality, ask them what it will be with a 200 - 300 basis point increase back to the norm.
Of course you can temporarily stimulate the economy by spending tons of money. Especially when you just wave away the debt issue. And we're already starting in a deep hole.
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
postpoppunk
()
Date: June 24, 2012 11:19PM
This name and that label being thrown around all over, which usually leads to the end of any useful conversation, has again overtaken any value in the discussion at all --- no surprise there...
I do have one question:
At what point in reality did it become the governments responsibility to create jobs?
My personal problem of thinking in "common sense" terms keeps me from being able to find where anyone is PROMISED a job, or employment, by the government of this land.
A Minor Threat
I do have one question:
At what point in reality did it become the governments responsibility to create jobs?
My personal problem of thinking in "common sense" terms keeps me from being able to find where anyone is PROMISED a job, or employment, by the government of this land.
A Minor Threat
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 25, 2012 11:59PM
Sure lets look at YOUR business model. LMAO
1. Let banks inflate massive asset bubbles with the aid of cheap or even free government cash, and tons of leverage;
2. Before it all explodes, carve out gigantic sums for bonuses and compensation for the companies that inflated those bubbles;
3. After it explodes, get the various governments to bail those companies out;
4. Pay for it all by slashing services to what’s left of the middle class.
REPEAT , REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT! GOOD JOB REPUBLICANS!
1. Let banks inflate massive asset bubbles with the aid of cheap or even free government cash, and tons of leverage;
2. Before it all explodes, carve out gigantic sums for bonuses and compensation for the companies that inflated those bubbles;
3. After it explodes, get the various governments to bail those companies out;
4. Pay for it all by slashing services to what’s left of the middle class.
REPEAT , REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT! GOOD JOB REPUBLICANS!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 26, 2012 12:04AM
AUSTERITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS BY CUTTING PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS AND SERVICES? FUCK THAT! CUT BAILOUTS TO BIG BUSINESS AND 0% BANK LOANS. FUCK THEM. LET THEM GET RICH WITH THEIR OWN MONEY BY MAKING SMART INVESTMENTS OVER TIME GRADUALLY. NOT BY CREATING AND INFLATING BUBBLES AND THEN ASKING FOR BAIL OUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND GIVING EACH OTHER HUGE COMPENSATIONS AFTER THE FACT. LET THEM FEEL AUSTERITY BEFORE CUTTING SERVICES AND JOBS! FUCK THEM AAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
The Anit Fux
()
Date: June 26, 2012 12:17AM
ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AUSTERITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS BY CUTTING PUBLIC
> SECTOR JOBS AND SERVICES? FUCK THAT! CUT
> BAILOUTS TO BIG BUSINESS AND 0% BANK LOANS. FUCK
> THEM. LET THEM GET RICH WITH THEIR OWN MONEY BY
> MAKING SMART INVESTMENTS OVER TIME GRADUALLY. NOT
> BY CREATING AND INFLATING BUBBLES AND THEN ASKING
> FOR BAIL OUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND GIVING EACH
> OTHER HUGE COMPENSATIONS AFTER THE FACT. LET THEM
> FEEL AUSTERITY BEFORE CUTTING SERVICES AND JOBS!
> FUCK THEM
> AAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh, ranting psycho, if you'd have noticed it was conservatives who were most opposed to the bail outs and huge bonuses paid to AIG, etc. And Obama's admin who bailed out the automakers, insurance companies, and approved those huge bonuses paid to them. Rant on bro......
-------------------------------------------------------
> AUSTERITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS BY CUTTING PUBLIC
> SECTOR JOBS AND SERVICES? FUCK THAT! CUT
> BAILOUTS TO BIG BUSINESS AND 0% BANK LOANS. FUCK
> THEM. LET THEM GET RICH WITH THEIR OWN MONEY BY
> MAKING SMART INVESTMENTS OVER TIME GRADUALLY. NOT
> BY CREATING AND INFLATING BUBBLES AND THEN ASKING
> FOR BAIL OUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND GIVING EACH
> OTHER HUGE COMPENSATIONS AFTER THE FACT. LET THEM
> FEEL AUSTERITY BEFORE CUTTING SERVICES AND JOBS!
> FUCK THEM
> AAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh, ranting psycho, if you'd have noticed it was conservatives who were most opposed to the bail outs and huge bonuses paid to AIG, etc. And Obama's admin who bailed out the automakers, insurance companies, and approved those huge bonuses paid to them. Rant on bro......
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
postpoppunk
()
Date: June 26, 2012 12:36AM
postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This name and that label being thrown around all
> over, which usually leads to the end of any useful
> conversation, has again overtaken any value in the
> discussion at all --- no surprise there...
>
> I do have one question:
>
> At what point in reality did it become the
> governments responsibility to create jobs?
>
> My personal problem of thinking in "common sense"
> terms keeps me from being able to find where
> anyone is PROMISED a job, or employment, by the
> government of this land.
...?
A Minor Threat
-------------------------------------------------------
> This name and that label being thrown around all
> over, which usually leads to the end of any useful
> conversation, has again overtaken any value in the
> discussion at all --- no surprise there...
>
> I do have one question:
>
> At what point in reality did it become the
> governments responsibility to create jobs?
>
> My personal problem of thinking in "common sense"
> terms keeps me from being able to find where
> anyone is PROMISED a job, or employment, by the
> government of this land.
...?
A Minor Threat
Re: What Part of 'Austerity Isn't Working' Don't People Get?
Posted by:
soSad
()
Date: June 26, 2012 01:56AM
We gotta give Ferfux a pass. He doesn't understand how the economy works. He's just a kid who grew up in a violent drug-infested inner city neighborhood.