As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not even close. A national economy is NOT the same as a household. It just isn't.

Are you jumping up and down, clenching your fists, and getting all red in the face?

[Karee 4,190]

No. They haven't. Prisons have become centers of organized crime. The Saudis and other countries with very, very low drug abuse and the things that go with it DO deal with it differently. Their crime rates and their HIV rates and other outcome based measurement of performance differ significantly from ours. So there is no point in pretending otherwise.

Funny, everytime I fly into Bangkok or Singapore they say in the sweetest voice just before landing "we'd like to remind you that the penalty for trafficking drugs is death" However, Thailand has a raging Methamphetamine problem. Why is that, when the penalty for trafficking is death?

I guess we could base our society on Saudi Arabia. Someone gets caught stealing, chop off their hand. Women can't drive etc. etc. Sounds like a great place.

Personally, handing out some clean needles to people that are gonna use anyway, seems pretty smart in my mind. It protects the rest of society that is not using. If you think locking people up for using drugs is going to solve an HIV problem, you're sadly mistaken. The U.S. has been trying that since Nixon declared war on drugs.

When someone is jonesing for their next fix, do you think something like sharing a syringe is going to stop them from using?

Not even close. A national economy is NOT the same as a household. It just isn't.

Why isn't it?

[james&olya 1,121]

There is no possible combination of statements that will logically explain the concept of borrowing your way out of debt

That is why we need tax revenues. Increasing employment will increase tax revenues. So will increasing tax rates on the rich.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

what specific austerity policies were taken by the us?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

what specific austerity policies were taken by the us?

The article title is misleading.. The basic argument was that if the government had spent more then the economy would have grown faster. True enough... This was also true for Greece up until they could no longer borrow money and the economy collapsed - but right up until the bitter end people still wanted to borrow and protested any cuts as if there was actually a choice in the matter... They were screwed the only question is how do they decide to get screwed - revert to their own currency that would then be worthless? default on the loans and not be able to borrow more money and watch assets be frozen? Throw themselves at the mercy of the Germans and French? Make drastic cuts and live within their means?

Overspending is an option to heat up an economy when risked with recession. We can certainly give ourselves a short term fix but as soon as we stop overspending we will go down again because the DEBT is what is causing drag at this point. That is the very essence of the problem - 16 trillion is dragging the economy, adding another trillion will give you a bubble now but then it is 17 trillion dragging us down. This is not a solution, it is a postponement and a big FU for our children.

Edited February 2, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[james&olya 1,121]

The article title is misleading.. The basic argument was that if the government had spent more then the economy would have grown faster. True enough... This was also true for Greece up until they could no longer borrow money and the economy collapsed - but right up until the bitter end people still wanted to borrow and protested any cuts as if there was actually a choice in the matter... They were screwed the only question is how do they decide to get screwed - revert to their own currency that would then be worthless? default on the loans and not be able to borrow more money and watch assets be frozen? Throw themselves at the mercy of the Germans and French? Make drastic cuts and live within their means?

Overspending is an option to heat up an economy when risked with recession. We can certainly give ourselves a short term fix but as soon as we stop overspending we will go down again because the DEBT is what is causing drag at this point. That is the very essence of the problem - 16 trillion is dragging the economy, adding another trillion will give you a bubble now but then it is 17 trillion dragging us down. This is not a solution, it is a postponement and a big FU for our children.

The solution is to start paying the bills. To do that the government must turn away from the stupid, voodoo economics supply side ideas which have been amply proved not to work the way many wished. The idea that cutting taxes will INCREASE tax revenues was, is, and will always be absurd. Those who have pocketed all the economic growth from the recovery need to pay back into this system that they have found how to exploit so successfully! The problem comes down to individual selfishness and corrupt politics. I am afraid our system will flounder unless and until we get the corrupting influence of money back out of our politics.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The solution is to start paying the bills. To do that the government must turn away from the stupid, voodoo economics supply side ideas which have been amply proved not to work the way many wished. The idea that cutting taxes will INCREASE tax revenues was, is, and will always be absurd. Those who have pocketed all the economic growth from the recovery need to pay back into this system that they have found how to exploit so successfully! The problem comes down to individual selfishness and corrupt politics. I am afraid our system will flounder unless and until we get the corrupting influence of money back out of our politics.

You don't get it, do you? The solution is to stop running up those bills you can't afford any longer. Sure, it's nice to have that huge, overpaid government work force that doesn't produce anything, but like any household, when you are not taking in the same revenue you used to, you have to cut back to basic cable, and get another few months out of that smartphone, before upgrading to the latest model.

If you want to know who is holding onto all the wealth in America and refusing to die? It's those same folks everybody is worried will have to eat cat food instead of tuna three times a day. Boy, the geezers sure fooled you young whipper-snappers, didn't they?

Edited February 3, 2013 by The Patriot

[himher 634]

Your views do not reflect historical revenue generation though we realize that learning from history is really not a valid expectation of a liberal

The issue is and always has been spending increases exceed revenue increases. There has never been a doubt that there are real, measurable revenue increases that result from tax cuts.

That is why we need tax revenues. Increasing employment will increase tax revenues. So will increasing tax rates on the rich.

Edited February 3, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

Since you consistantly speak for the non-productive I would venture that you are correct in regards to those who you speak for

The statement was not incorrect for the productive working, industry, and business owners. But as long as they feed you and your children who cares eh?

That is incorrect.

Edited February 3, 2013 by himher

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Your views do not reflect historical revenue generation though we realize that learning from history is really not a valid expectation of a liberal

The issue is and always has been spending increases exceed revenue increases. There has never been a doubt that there are real, measurable revenue increases that result from tax cuts.

You and both know that if we increase revenues (Taxes), Dems will be figuring out which programs to spend the new revenues on the same day

[Dan and Judy 614]

Your views do not reflect historical revenue generation though we realize that learning from history is really not a valid expectation of a liberal

The issue is and always has been spending increases exceed revenue increases. There has never been a doubt that there are real, measurable revenue increases that result from tax cuts.

The federal receipts would be heavily influenced by the population increase and the the significant rise in families incomes from 1960 to 2012, As government spending goes up the

federal receipts would go up because the workers it pays would be paying some back in taxes. I'm just pointing out that the graph is not particularly useful.

Some might wonder how the economy was going gangbusters in the 1960's inspite of the 90 and 70% marginal tax bracket, but we fell into recession in 2008 with a much lower mar tax bracket of 35%

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

The solution is to start paying the bills. To do that the government must turn away from the stupid, voodoo economics supply side ideas which have been amply proved not to work the way many wished. The idea that cutting taxes will INCREASE tax revenues was, is, and will always be absurd. Those who have pocketed all the economic growth from the recovery need to pay back into this system that they have found how to exploit so successfully! The problem comes down to individual selfishness and corrupt politics. I am afraid our system will flounder unless and until we get the corrupting influence of money back out of our politics.

I was not suggesting how we balance the budget only that we do. Increasing taxes is preferable to running deficits - I would prefer that they actually set a rate and stick with it.. Make a commitment to a) paying down the deficit with say the first 300 billion - which at the current deficit growth rate would still take over 100 years to pay off and b) living withing the budget that the set rate gives them. Government growth needs to be tied to national growth.

Mind you raising taxes would not work into forcing economic growth like it does now. If we tax enough to pay all the bills we are taking the money out of the economy and just moving it around. The forced growth comes when the government spends money it borrows from the future. Always fun for a while.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why isn't it?

For starters, which household controls the currency and manages inflation? Mine doesn't. Does yours? Anybody?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are you jumping up and down, clenching your fists, and getting all red in the face?

No I don't. The argument that the federal government must - from a budget point of view - behave like a household is just so stupid that I can't help but make an effort to point out that the federal government is not the same as a private household. When someone can tall me how their specific household - or maybe just the household of someone they know - has managed to control the currency and inflation, then I'll start engaging in that kind of argument. Until then, it's just an utterly stupid argument to make.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is no possible combination of statements that will logically explain the concept of borrowing your way out of debt.

Nobody makes the case that you borrow your way out of debt. The argument is that you borrow your way out of severe economic downturns, get the economy running again which then enables you to balance budgets again. It's how we got out of the Great Depression last century. It's how the Great Recession did not turn into another depression. It's why our deficits and debts as a share of the economy today are lower than they would have been absent even the meager stimulus spending that has taken place.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog