Austerity? Cut spending, cut economic growth Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on May 24, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Austerity measures in Europe have slowed economic growth and recovery.
With the news that Barack Obama has led America to it's slowest rate of spending increases in over 50 years, it's time to reassess how to move forward out of this recession (source: Wall Street Journal - "Obama spending binge never happened, Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s")
"Over Obamaï¿½s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%." Obama has raised spending slower than both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon Ford and Eisenhower.
It's time to spend, provide stimulus to create jobs, grow revenues and bring America's economy roaring back to Clinton levels. Who else believes that to cut spending will lead to recession or even depression? Yes, DEPRESSION.
"If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression."
Who is this Keynesian?
Why, it's Willard Mitt Romney.
Is it an old Mitt flip flop? An off-the-cuff remark? No, Mitt said it this week to Time Magazine in a sit down interview he prepared for. Web Link
Time for America to invest in Americans. Stimulus. Jobs. Growth. More jobs. Increase revenues.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
Be sure to borrow more if you get too much in debt. That is the way out of your debt. Obviously, that is what we all know to be true. If I get too far in debt, the obvious answer is to borrow more.
And, the 'news' about Obama growing spending less is a complete lie. He and the Dems increased borrowing 1 trillion per year in the first 6 months of his presidency, but act like that was "Bush's budget" because they did it before summer 2009. Right. Most of us are too smart for that.Really...how can debt increase 6 TRILLION in 4 years, but spending only rise "0.4%" per year? The disconnect is obvious. The problem is for those who are willfully blind and dumb.
You have no understanding what Romney was saying. That is the problem with economic illiterates trying to understand deep thoughts. Now, because our yearly borrowing is 1.5 trillion/year, we are like drug addicts stuck on meth LSD. Thanks to the Dems led by Obama,who have pumped up our addiction, we can't just "stop" cold turkey or we might die,..or at least the suffering would be so intense we would quit. So now we are stuck having to very gradually lower our dependence on borrowed money.
Thanks, Dems/Obama, really appreciate your hooking America into debt dependence. Gonna be really hard to unhook us.
BTW, feel free to have the last word. I know that this post will fall on blind eyes to the original posters, but can only hope that someone will read it and a lightbulb go off.
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on May 25, 2012 at 9:16 am
"if you get too much in debt. "
There ya go again, as someone once said. Base your false argument starting with the word "if". Please define what is too much debt, and why. Try to do it without all the 'sky is falling' inflation, stagflation claims that the fringe and the fringy-er Paulies have been using for 30 years, predictions that have not happened even when Reagan tripled the national debt 30 years ago.
too much debt? We aren't there. Righties argue every time a Dem is in charge that there is too much debt, but then they come in and spend like drunken sailors (reagan tripled the debt, Bush doubled the debt.)
Debt is not the issue, growth is. If debt was a serious problem for the largest economy on earth, no one would lend money.
Everyone is lining up to lend America money at near historic low interest rates. Japan has twice the debt (as a % of GDP) and the wold is lining up to lend Japan money at near the same rates.
Debt is not the issue, growth , recovery and jobs are. With growth and jobs, we can balance the budget much easier than through austerity.
Just look at the Clinton balanced budgets for a real world example, instead of these false "if" statements from the fringe right.
Clinton jobs (23 million created) Clinton economy (growth) Clinton balanced budgets.
Who's the last Republican to do that? Let's get started - stimulus for jobs, growth and recovery.
Don't listen to the austerity-mongers that have prevented Europe (see Britain) from recovery by retarding growth and job creation.
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on May 25, 2012 at 9:25 am
Now, Perspective's lies:
Who do you believe? the anonymous dude posting in rants, or an editor and columnist from the right leaning, Murdoch owned WALL STREET JOURNAL, posting historical data that shows Obama's record is actually great?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 29, 2012 at 9:38 am
In my opinon at the heart of it the world economy is POLITICAL, not economical, or secondarily economical. Bottom line is America is the strongest military country and that is why there is as much stability as there is.
The problems we have are not due to the system, they are do to the managers, caretakes and bigshots who exploit their positions in it and have run it into the ground to the point where it is a farce, the point of which existence is to entertain, distract and maintain the status quo with as little threat to that status quo as possible.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Please note the link by D Toyle to the WSJ starts Obama's spending record in 2010. What, Obama and the Dems weren't in full control in 2009? Proves my point, thanks Toyle.
Please note that we "righties" were upset about Bush and Repub spending through 2006, and doubled down on upset when the Dems took over and doubled deficit spending in 2007. Righties and Lefties agreed in 2008... TOO MUCH SPENDING. Recall Obama saying Bush was unpatriotic for borrowing from our children? We agree, don't we? Tripling the deficit spending yet again is not the way out of debt.
Please note also the unemployment rate under Bush and under Obama from 2001.Web Link Even though we "righties" object to the way unemployment is tallied ( those who have given up are no longer counted as "unemployed") the data gathering is consistent between the Administrations.
Lefties can't defend the job losses from Clinton moving into Bush's term, nor from Carter moving into Reagan's term, so how about we look at recovery from both? Web Link See a pattern?
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on May 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Republicans only complain about spending when Democrats are in charge. Evidence? History: Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubling the national debt. The only President to balance the budget and give American surplus? Democrat Bill Clinton.
Perspective claims to be upset with Bush spending, a popular rewrite of history from the so called 'deficit hawks' that supported Reagan tripling the national debt and Bush doubling the national debt. Yet they can never substantiate their claims. Odd that. So let's take a look at perspective's actual postings from the time he lies about:
* 1. I found NO EVIDENCE of Perspective being upset about the Bush spending binge through 2006 - recall that Bush was handed a SURPLUS from Bill Clinton, along with 23 million new jobs.
* 2. From 2006-08, there's few *if any* posts from Perspective on deficits and spending. I found none.
Lots of strange conspiracy and tin foil hat rants from Perspective, like Acorn, the Fox lie about Dems throwing flags away or some dumb Fox story he bought into hook, line and sinker, etc.. "Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:26 am" and Communists at Oct 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm,
Then there is this NOT spending comment from a 500 word screed in the same thread:
-"7) The sexual revolution which led to using women, men decoupling responsibility from their sexuality, and rampant diseases." There's posts on the mandarin program like the one on Feb 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm. Lots of local issues, but nothing on Bush spending like she claims over and over again.
This fib also caught my eye "When 69% of our "poor" people own their own homes..." on Feb 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm.
* 3. The moment after President Obama is elected? a different story. Perspective can't wait to attack. Lots of posts starting after the election about executive orders and other conspiracies. Pretty funny if the rants weren't so sad... Nov 10, 2008 at 8:45, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:34, etc...
* 4. The most offensive that I saw? Especially after reading Perspective's comments last month where he laughed at the loss of 5,000 Americans losing their lives searching for WMD?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2008 at 9:38 am. "I won't be cranky, I will be LMAO as America reaps what it sows and learns it's lesson... People like me and my kids will be fine. Just laughing.
My kids will not sign up for any war led by Obama, which means that when we are attacked under Obama, we will either do nothing in response..."
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Sean: I take it you understand that the 2009 budget year included Obama's first 6 months in office when he/Dems tripled the deficit spending that was unpatriotic at 1/2 trillion? And I am betting you also know we haven't had a budget since?
I agree with you... the high school team is done. Time for adults who can adjust course if what they try doesn't work, not double down on stupid.
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on May 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Perspective nevers lets facts get in his way.
I repeat: "One may believe Perspective when he lies about it, or one may look it up and believe the non-partisan OMB and CBO, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the Congressional Budget Office."
I'm on the sude of facts, with the CBO and OMB.
Note that Perspective can't point out ANY examples of his being bothered by Bush spending as Bush doubled the national debt and gave us our first trillion deficit.
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on May 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Yes, perspective, I read the thread were you laughed about American military dead.
Much the same way you wrote this in anger after the election: "I won't be cranky, I will be LMAO as America reaps what it sows and learns it's lesson... People like me and my kids will be fine. Just laughing.
My kids will not sign up for any war led by Obama, which means that when we are attacked under Obama, we will either do nothing in response..."
Want links, if you think I'm taking you out of context?
"The federal government is staring at a disastrous fiscal picture with debt approaching 200 percent of GDP within two decades if Congress doesn’t change course on spending and taxes, according to the latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday. Umm..I hope you notice, by the non-partisan CBO, D Toyle?
CBO said it’s the worst picture since a brief period during World War II when spending ballooned to fund the military campaign.
“In the past few years, the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits since 1945, both in dollar terms and as a share of the economy. Consequently, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged,” CBO said in a long-term budget outlook that paints a shockingly dark picture of government finances."
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on Jun 5, 2012 at 9:50 am
Perspective is concerned that the debt will double in 20 years.
Where was Perspective when Reagan TRIPLED the national debt in 8 years?
Where was Perspective when Bush DOUBLED the national debt in 8 years?
Perspective didn't post a thing about Bush DOUBLING the national debt! He was busy posting about weird and strange conspiracy and tin foil hat rants from Perspective, like Acorn, the Fox lie about Dems throwing flags away or some dumb Fox story he bought into hook, line and sinker, etc.. "Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:26 am" and Communists at Oct 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm, etc..
I found NO EVIDENCE of Perspective being upset about the Bush spending binge through 2006 - recall that Bush was handed a SURPLUS from Bill Clinton, along with 23 million new jobs. This Perspective gem showed up though: "The sexual revolution which led to using women, men decoupling responsibility from their sexuality, and rampant diseases." There's posts on the mandarin program like the one on Feb 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm.
Perspective does doom and gloom only when Democrats are in charge. When a Republican is spending like a drunken sailor? Nope, Perspective moans about the sexual revolution.
Greece simply cannot borrow any more, can not print any more. The end of the line is here and they are trying to control a descent into chaos.
Prevent this from happening here. Control our Federal and State spending now, control our borrowing, reverse our trend toward living within our means, stop saddling every child born today with $200,000 of debt, plus interest, stop strangling the wealth creators in the private sector, stop making promises that are bound to be broken, leaving people with much less than if they worked and saved for their own lives.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 14, 2012 at 9:14 pm
D Toyle: Again...someone making $150,000/year and owing $90,000, which is about what our GDP to debt ratio was until 2009, is very different from now..making $140,000/year but owing $160,000...and adding $100,000 of debt per year ( plus interest payments) with no hope of making enough to live within our means, let alone pay back the debt we have accumulated.
I was "sold" on the old formulae of debt:GDP and deficit:GDP "safe" limits. I am now sold on NO MORE DEFICITS and paying down our debt.
Either we reverse course now, painfully scraping the iceberg as we turn the ship, or we keep on our current course and sink.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2012 at 9:23 am
Spending cuts in the middle of any recession, let alone Bush's recession - the worst since the Great Depression, are INSANE.
Keynesian spending to get Americans employed, paying taxes and generating revenue is the goal. Achieving recovery, we balance the Budget like Clinton did.
Look at the Keynesians who used stimulus spending to spur recovery during recession that hit them in their terms of office: Keynesian Reagan TRIPLED the national debt to spur recovery. Keynesian Bush 1 spent a trillion but was mired in recession. Keynesian Bush 2 doubled the national debt with his stimulus and spending, from 5 trillion to 10 trillion, including our first annual deficit that exceeded a trillion dollars.
Why does the fringe right think it's okay for Reagan to triple the debt, and Bush to double the debt, but when Dems are in the White House, AUSTERITY RULES?
Austerity hampers recovery, does not create jobs, does not increase revenue. Mitt Romney has said it. Every serious economists say it. Austerity in Europe has prolonged their pain.
Perspective: show us your posts from 2001 to 2009 that asked Bush to reign in spending. Then we can talk.
You did call for cuts in spending and deficit reduction when Bush was running the economy into the ditch, didn't you?
Stimulus to create jobs, jobs increase revenue, that's the only way to balance a budget. Clinton proved it. Your ideas are just silly unproven rightie fantasies.
Unless you have a Republican President who balanced a budget.
It was Dick Cheney, who authored many of the policies that Romney seeks to repeat, that said: "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter"
Why do you add "except when a democrat is in office"?
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2012 at 9:35 am
Perspective: Read the NYT today - Romney's lies... and the millions who believe them because he repeats them so often.
Sounds like Perspective has bought into it. Note the spending lie and reality:
"Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites. The stimulus failed. (Three million employed people beg to differ.) The auto bailout was a mistake. (Another million jobs.) Spending is out of control. (Spending growth is actually lower than under all modern Republican presidents.) He says these kinds of things so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth."
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 6:33 am
3 million PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, not private growth. Don't you know that the "stimulus" went to support State's government workers? See Greece and how well that is working out.
Auto bailout: Depends if you think that TAX DOLLARS should bail out failed companies. I don't want my kids' tax dollars to prop up the failures of today. Why didn't Ford need any "bailout"?
Spending growth lower than modern Republicans? As said repeatedly, that is only if you pretend that Obama and Democrats did NOT add nearly a trillion per year of borrowing in the first 6 months of full Democrat control. In case you didn't realize this, the "Stimulus" was in February, 2009, in the 2009-2010 budget which is very conveniently called the "Bush budget", as if Bush were still POTUS in Feb 2009. The "stimulus' was not a one time thing, it is now year after year of an additional nearly 1 trillion of borrowing. True, not RAISED since then, but still present. Like saying you haven't "increased" your rate of borrowing since you tripled your rate 3 years ago.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 6:40 am
Pat: Again..to answer your question about when it is ok to increase debt and when it isn't. Deficit:GDP ratio. 30% Deficit:GDP ratio was supposedly a "safe" ratio, and I bought into that formula. ( I now believe it is wrong to have a country go into borrowing aka "deficit" mode without a war of defense to justify it and a plan to get out of debt ASAP the moment the war is won.)
Our current 100% Deficit:GDP ratio is completely unsustainable, leading to inevitable bankruptcy/collapse ( again, see Greece. Simply put, adding $100,000/year of debt when one makes $100,000/year with no hope of increasing one's earnings enough to pay back the debt is simply insane.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 9:58 am
"3 million PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, not private growth. Don't you know that the "stimulus" went to support State's government workers?"
Public sector jobs are way down, public sector jobs have been cut under Obama. Don't you read the news?
"Auto bailout" The bailout has accounted for an actual rise in manufacturing jobs (that IS news, isn't it - did not happen under Bush in 8 years.) Ohio and nearby states lead the nation in job recovery, due to the bailout. America supports it, the far right wing fringe tea bag toters don't. As the bumpersticker says: Bin Ladin is dead, GM is alive.
Stimulus spending: half of it was middle-class tax cuts. Also: where were you when Reagan tripled the national debt? Please point out your posts here or anywhere that decried Bush's first trillion dollar deficit and Bush doubling the national debt.
Comparing the US to Greece is a ridiculously, absurd childish thing to do. I looked at other threads (the same ones asking why you never said anything about republicans spending like drunken sailors, your posts were on more "important" things like radical feminism) and they demolish your silly Greek comparison.
With one question:
Why is THE WORLD lined up to loan us money at record low interest rates (essentially zero, or negative after inflation) if there is any chance of the US ending up like Greece.
This is a GREAT time for stimulus and rebuilding the infrastructure:
- get job growth up, therefore revenue growth, to balance the budget down the road
- borrowing costs are near zero
- rebuilding infrastructure is cheaper in slow economic times; people and companies are clamoring to work, therefore bid projects cheap; materials costs will not be lower once the economy recovers
- we have to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure sooner or later if we want to compete this century in world markets, do it now when it's cheap, people need the work, and it gets the US out of recession
The resulting revenues from people working and paying taxes, combined with eliminating the deficit-busting Bush tax cuts, cut DOD spending and the unfunded Medicare part D, and the budget will balance itself like Clinton did.
Unless you can show me a republican that balanced the budget some other way.
One notices you studiously ignore that question!
Unless you can show me a republican that balanced the budget some other way. Can you?
It was Dick Cheney, who authored many of the policies that Romney seeks to repeat, that said: "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter"
Why do you add "except when a democrat is in office"?
Perspective: "30% Deficit:GDP ratio was supposedly a "safe" ratio, and I bought into that formula. "
Last time the US had that was under CARTER! When Reagan started his stimulus, on his way to tripling the national debt (which you didn't care about) it rose above 30% and hasn't looked back. The only president to do anything about it was CLINTON. Bush took Clinton's surplus and doubled the national debt and gave America it's first trillion dollar deficit.
Look at the chart - the only time the debt:gdp line declines is under a democrat.
America cannot afford Romney's return to the Bush policies that caused this Great Recession. We must completely grow out of this Great Recession first, before America can even consider a return to the IRRESPONSIBLE fiscal policies of a Bush, a Reagan or the Bush-on-steroids policies of Romney.
Posted by stephen levy, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 11:05 am stephen levy is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Pat Brick and others have summed up the relevant points pretty well. But I think the back and forth about Republicans and Democrats, while interesting, takes away from the technical issues.
So, yesterday, Japan, citing the debt, decided to raise sales taxes. Many European countries have raised taxes now to reduce the growth of debt.
While I worry about the debt as a long term problem, I believe stimulus now is a better policy as I have written--combined with policies to reduce the long term deficints.
So I ask you, do you favor what Japan and European countries have done in raising taxes now as part of deficit reduction.
As to your Greece comparisons, how do you explain that U.S. bonds now are eagerly sought at record low interest rates while European rates are rising for countries in trouble? Are you saying the markets have it wrong that U.S. debt is a safe haven.
Another question, even though as posters have pointed out, all job growth has been in the private sector, what is wrong with avoiding layoffs of teachers and public safety employees?
I get that you personally prefer other social values but it seems that you are confusing yoru personal values with the economics of the situation.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Mr. Levy: No I do not favor raising taxes for debt reduction. Why? Raising taxes drives the business/job creators out of the country, or shuts down the growth in the country. In addition, when, ever, have you seen any country actually cut spending when the taxes go up? It is an insatiable beast, the government growth, the more we feed it, the more it grows.
As for explaining American bonds now being at record low rates while European raates are rising for countries "in trouble". Impending bankruptcy will do that to bond rates (rise). Hope that this country may actually be on the political path of cutting our spending with our impending election may be feeding the bond buying as folks bet that we will actually be able to make good on our bond promises. People who buy bonds, ..or any investment, ..are making bets on the security of their outcome.
The "all job growth in private sector" and "avoiding layoffs of teachers.." etc are two interelated issues. One, our private sector job growth is the lowest since the Depression, completely incapable of keeping up with the entering work force, and if we continue at this rate, we will become the European shrug of "oh well, 8-9% unemployment isn't so bad". The more unemployment, the fewer taxes paid into the IRS, the less able we are to pay the "public sector". That is why they are interrelated.
Not sure what you mean by "personal values". Unless you mean my personal values of assuring a dynamic land with much opportunity for our kids,while simultaneously assuring we don't end up reneging all of our promises we have made to the elderly and disabled in their Social Security and health care, while adjusting both systems into a model that gives the youth some ability to have trust in THEIR old age, all while NOT saddling our kids with ever growing debt.
I just re-read that paragraph, and I don't mean it at all sarcastically, though in writing it could be seen as that. I truly mean the paragraph as my biggest concerns for our country, which can not possible be separated from my concerns for the next generation and for our elderly and disabled. My personal values were very high risk with my OWN funds and future, so differed from the values I have for others, and for the future generations. Individuals risking their own future and money is one thing, setting up anything which risks collapse that others are counting on is another thing.
By the way, I agree with the "Repub vs Dem" malarky. Just have to answer every time someone else tries the blame game inaccurately, and probably shouldn't. The past is done, we have the future in our hands.
If the baseline assumption is that for some reason a country must carry debt ( one I used to accept, but no longer do), and if we take even Europe's rules as a guide:
Deficit:GDP ratio should be no more than 3%. We are nearly 10%
Debt: GDP ratio no more than 60%. We are at 100%
I reject the notion of even EU's very high debt and deficit ratios, but even within their very liberal and, IMO, high risk ruleset, we are far, far outside the bounds and have entered the realms of the countries that are in full collapse.
Greece, the first to enter the crisis by EU standards, was undereporting its deficit:GDP ratio, and it turned out to be close to 13% in 2010, and its debt:GDP 120%. Both have increased exponentially since then since they have been unable to reverse their borrowing trend nor their business decline.
Spain, another country in trouble, was at nearly 10% deficit:GDP in 2009 ( or maybe 2010), while if memory serves, about 60% debt:GDP ( less than we are now). They did not reign in their borrowing..and they were on the bankruptcy block behind Greece. The talk of their demise has died down...please note their deficit reductions.
We were downgraded for the first time ever because we did not limit our deficit spending last year. France was next in line and heading in line, appalled also that they were downgraded.
Chart on deficit:GDP around world by year 2006-2010.
I like to learn from the mistakes of others. I think we have a world of classroom to learn from. Given that the countries with the highest deficit:GDP and debt:GDP ratios are entering bankruptcy, and that we are at or near their levels already, we can either learn from them, and NOT do what they did, which was to continue to grow their debt, or we can repeat their methods ( which we are doing now) and hope we are somehow different and the outcomes will be different.
Call me simple-minded maybe, but I prefer to not keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2012 at 2:25 am
Ok. I will bite.
I think the fear of Obama completing the leftist circle, making a complete power by the Democrats, led to an increased panic by employers, who laid off yet more people as they battened down their hatches in anticipation of the increasing storm of promised "transformation" ie: more business killing laws and more business killing taxes.
Just like I believe that at least some of the slow down in job loss is from the small wall put up by the election in 2010 which slowed the "transformation" ( what some refer to as "obstruction", which is nothing more than the new majority in the House doing what it was elected to do).
Just like I believe there will be a sudden uptick in jobs if Romney is elected in November, especially if the Repubs win control of the Senate also, in anticipation of a reversal of the policies of 2 years of full Democrat control from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011.
I believe that some of the job loss in 2008 was a natural result of an increasing foreclosure rate which was a result of almost 10 years of changed rules on who gets the keys to houses, setting up a higher risk of foreclosures. A natural economic outcome ( increased foreclosures) fed the normal economic normal cycle, and was accelerated by election cycle ginning up of impending doom. People started to panic, stopped buying that 3rd latte per week,that pair of jeans they had their eye on, that car etc, until businesses started to fail, adding to the panic,which led to more election cycle rhetoric, a rush by everyone in Congress and both parties to prove the people they could "save us" by bailouts, which added to business owners and creators fears that they were losing control of their own businesses ( taxes bailing out some, not others, monkeying with the market). The economic evolution rules were tampered with, from the beginning when housing mortgage rules were tampered with, to the beginning of bailouts, promised "financial reforms" ( who knew what that would bring? batten down the hatches), promised "health care reform" ( who knew what that would bring? batten down the hatches), etc.
The cycle was completed with the election of Obama, and the panic in the business community went full steam ahead.
Economics is more than "one person", of course, nor is it confined to "a day" in time for the most part. It is a combination of the psychology of hundreds of millions of us, here and around the world, deciding what risks to take and what to spend our resources on, with policies or anticipated policies, and beliefs about what is "coming down the road", informing our choices. It is about our (meaning individual and governmental) reactions to whatever is happening in our world, from a 9/11 which shook our nation up and sent us into a recession, from which we roared back, to the latest panic cycle lit by foreclosures and an election cycle.
I can imagine if 9/11 had happened in an election year and what could have happened as a result of a panicked approach.
So, again, no, not all was "Bush", nor all "Obama", but in my opinion the perfect storm of all of the above.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Quit gloating, Sam. I was just hoping Perspective could answer a simple question on historical fact, in this case, who is responsible for job growth in January 2009, with Obama actually taking the oath on Jan 20 2009.
Perspective, let's make it easier to see if we have anything in common upon which to move forward...
Posted by tin foil tricorners, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Where did the post on hats go?
Great questions, for what it's worth. Should be required so we know were the extreme posters are coming from.
Agree with Sam, you'll never get a simple answer to these simple questions. These are the types who check everyday to see if Trumps "investigators" or Arpayles deputies have discovered the real birth certificate yet.
Posted by romney wants Stimulus now, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 9:14 am
Austerity just causes pain because it slows an economy down - Europe proves it. Evidence above shows Reagan and Bush used Stimulus excessively to grow the economy.
Romney has agreed that cutting spending is bad for the economy, and he won't do it. One imagines that Mitt would like a 2nd term and not have the economy make him a single term president too, so he will prime the pump.
As mitt says, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Stimulus for jobs now. The jobs will kick in in in late fall, just in time for Mitt to take credit
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Correct - austerity causes unnecessary pain and extends the recession.
Look at the House today, dominated by fishing expeditions into a program started under Bush and his AG Mukasy, and ended under cantor. 7,600 documents delivered, they want a political expedition into hundreds of thousands of documents after the program was ended.
The cost? The House GOP ignores a settled transportation bill that would work on roads and create a million jobs.
Jobs lost for a political battle in an election year.
Welcome to today's republican party.
Perspective: saw that you posted in the deleted thread today - we lose you from this thread? Perspective...
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Sigh. Pat, I recommend you read up on Nixon and Watergate. The difference in this one is dead people.
Gunrunner was indeed begun under Bush. It was expanded under Obama/Holder to allow guns to leave the country which were then used to kill our agents.
The BIG deal is ( aside from dead people) the amount of lying going on to prevent anyone from knowing who knew what, who ordered what, who shut down the whistle blowers..and why does Pres Obama, who had claimed to know nothing about Fast and Furious, suddenly invoke Executive Privilege, which is reserved for actions taken by a President? Very odd.
Learn what happened to Nixon when he tried this ( cover up and lying) with Watergate.
Okay, back to topic - looks like all agree that austerity is killing the world economy.
As the US slowly recovers, slowly because the GOP has obstructed every effort to use the same stimulus that Reagan and Bush used, Mitt Romney has big problems peddling his lies about the economy in crucial states with Republican governors.
"Romney Campaign Said to Ask Scott to Downplay Job Gains
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign asked Florida Governor Rick Scott to tone down his statements heralding improvements in the state’s economy because they clash with the presumptive Republican nominee’s message that the nation is suffering under President Barack Obama...
What’s unfolding in Florida highlights a dilemma for the Romney campaign: how to allow Republican governors to take credit for economic improvements in their states while faulting Obama’s stewardship of the national economy. Republican governors in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin also have highlighted improving economies.
“This is one of those situations where you could have it both ways and there’s enough truth in it that it would resonate,” Stipanovich said. “It would be better if everybody was singing from the same hymnal.” "
As someone else said... really, ya had to use the word "hymnal"? Web Link
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Wow, caught the last part of President Obama's address to the Latino elected officials conference and compared it to Etch-A-Sketch's speech.
Amazing difference. Mr Negative never addressed his promise to veto the Dream Act yesterday, furthering his rep as a flip flopper and liar. Today, President Positive reminded Latinos that Democrats passed the act in the House and had 55 votes for it in the senate but republicans filibustered and didn't allow a straight up or down vote.
No wonder Latinos are shifting rapidly away from the GOP in droves, even in Florida. Heck, in a dozen years, even Texas will approach swing state status!
Obama: "Our patriotism is not based on race, ethnicity or religious belief."
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm
At least Mitt isn't so racist he asks for the forks and knives to be gone before he shows up at an event for elected and appointed latinos.
I am trying to imagine MLKs reaction if JFK had asked for all the forks and knives to come up before JFK showed up at, say, a Black Caucus meeting, but not any other group. I simply can't imagine this happening at any other president's gathering. Discreetly, yes..openly? How insulting.
I wonder how the Hollywood 1%ers reacted to this announcement when they were at the Obama fundraiser? Oh yes, that's right, they didn't have this insult. Or the local folks going to local fundraisers at peoples' homes where Obama shows up? Can you imagine?
BTW, I AM hispanic AND gay AND a woman. Shocking, isn't it? Of course, you won't believe it, or will think I am a self-hating woman/latina/lesbian. Don't care.
I prefer to have a country where I am seen as an individual, not a "special interest group that needs help because I am hispanic, gay or woman". I really took Martin Luther King to heart ( that whole content of character not color of skin thing.) And JFK ( you know, the "ask what you can do for your country" thing). This is when I got the deeply engrained "live and let live" part of my makeup.These were pivotal people in my life. My whole life I believed "liberal" and "Democrat" were synonyms for "live and let live" and "judge on individual merit". So very sad to see the incredible destruction of those concepts.
I am really hoping Rubio is the VP pick for Romney. He has the right attitude about illegal immigration, being the first generation of an immigrant ( like me) who loved this country and raised him to love it and understand why it was so much better than any other country in the world, especially the ones our parents came from.
BTW again. In response to the assertion by a bitter, fired ex-employee of the Bush admin, fired because he was openly undermining Bush and the Administration, that Cheney supposedly said "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter".Right. I always believe bitter, ex-employees. Like bitter ex-spouses, they are so truthful.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2012 at 5:19 pm
No, please, ramble on. It's quite entertaining. Especially the weird fox stuff like clearing the lunch tableware before the President speaks.
re: Cheney - whether he said it or not, he lived it. The only ones in our lifetime to do what they did. Bush/Cheney took 2 years of surplus and went hog wild, ending with America's first trillion dollar deficit, doubling the national debt. And Romney has the same policies (Bush/Cheney/Romney) and the same advisers.
Rambling on to MLK and JFK. Quite the rant.
Just a quick one: Perspective - did you think MLK was an American?
You have yet to answer whether you think Obama is an American, so maybe MLK is easier for you.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Geez, it's getting so I have no idea what the fringies are talking about unless I spend time at Fox. So sad. From Fox:
"It is a common practice for the USSS to ensure tables are cleared of any materials that may be deemed a possible hazard prior to the arrival of the president," Secret Service spokesman Max Milien said. "Any implication that this was unique for this event is completely inaccurate."
Perceptive: why do you think a President bothers with input over Secret Service policies and tactics at each event? The USSS did it because the President wanted to work the rope line at the event. Did Mitt do so the day before?
To imply he's going to lose any support over that is ABSURD, and shows you didn't watch the two speeches. Mittens is TOAST with the Latino vote.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2012 at 8:30 am
I pasted the quote from the Secret Service directly from the same story and you deny it. "It is a common practice for the USSS to ensure tables are cleared of any materials that may be deemed a possible hazard prior to the arrival of the president..." You also didn't say anything about Romney at NALEO the day before.
"Your statement that Romney is toast with the Latino vote is absurd, on its face, since I am one, as is Rubio." Anecdotal fables aside, Romney is getting slaughtered with the Latino vote and Rubio won't help (unlikely to be the pick anyway - he doesn't want to tarnish his name for future elections.) Romney numbers among Latinos will further plummet when SCOTUS upholds the Arizona 'papers please' SB 1070 law tomorrow.
In fact, if Romney loses swing states, you'll be able to go back and look at the Latino vote as the difference.
re: Obama is an American - no answer from Perspective. Was MLK an American? No answer. Let's make it easier:
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2012 at 11:15 am
PB: Good grief. I feel sorry for you. I conclude that you need a good hug and a nice meal. I "denied" the fork story? No, I didn't.
Latinos here legally are just as appalled as anyone else at their tax dollars and jobs being taken by illegal immigrants, the crime rate giving latinos a bad rep by illegals, and the assertion by Obama that he is going to give 800,000 illegal immigrants a front-of-the-line jump after many have gone through the process for 10-15 years. We are not a "monolith", a "group", we are also intelligent individuals. Latinos support Rubio's stance on illegal immigration, which is Romney's, which is AZ's, which is the Federal law, by the way. We are sick of the law not being followed.
Reagan and debt: "...by the end of the Reagan presidency, the federal deficit as a share of GDP had fallen from 6.3% in 1983 to 2.9% in 1989. Inflation was cut in half, the Dow Jones tripled and economic growth was averaging 4.6% annually." ( Heritage Foundation).
Nobody denies debt went up 2.5 times with Reagan...however along with it went an end to the Cold War and the pushback of Communism, the explosion of our economy for over 20 years, almost doubling the GDP by the end of his Presidency.
I realize this is a hard thing to grasp, but if I earn $100,000 and expect a 10% rise in what I earn every year, but owe $50,000, which I used to start my growing business, that is reasonable bet. But if I owe $100,000 and make $100,000, with no hope of earning more in the future and a great deal of risk that I will earn less, I am in deep doo-doo. That is the difference between Reagan's time and now. Debt and economic policies have to be carefully orchestrated to not lead to collapse.
We agree..having this level of debt is atrocious. Where we went wrong as a country was to accept that we have to keep growing our expenditures and debt every year. Wrong. I was SO disillusioned with Bush and RINOs when we had the largest GDP ever in the history of our nation in 2005, and instead of finally reversing the debt bomb,and I am not sure why since it wasn't a problem, increased our annual deficit to 500 billion to fund a new Medicare Drug program. Of course, the Democrats all voted for it, and I am pretty sure it was to "buy votes" in the upcoming 2006 election. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We should have paid down our debt.
We have approached 100% Debt:GDP ratio, with no hope of our GDP increasing to overtake and pay down our debt. This type of debt precedes bankruptcy and collapse of all our federal programs. Period.
The only solutions left are massive inflation and massive interest rate hikes..and to STOP INCREASING OUR SPENDING (or better, lower our spending. Even the very mild 1/2 trillion per year cut proposed by Romney is still nowhere near as low as the appalling defict spending in 2007 and 2008 that Obama called unpatriotic. But it is a start.)
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2012 at 11:43 am
"Latinos support Rubio's stance on illegal immigration, which is Romney's, which is AZ's"
Rubio supports a version of the Dream Act, which is why he won't be VP.
"We are not a "monolith", a "group", we are also intelligent individuals." Didn't say you were a monolith. But as a group, you're for Obama. Show me any national poll that says otherwise.
"I was SO disillusioned with Bush and RINOs" Why? Because Cheney said "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter" and then acted upon it like every other republican has? Who's the last republican to balance a budget?
Bush/Cheney policies have morphed into Bush/Cheney/Romney policies. It will be more of Bush/Cheney... Romney even chooses the same advisers, over 20 Bush/Cheney advisers at last count are now Bush/Cheney/Romney advisers.
The GOP talks change just to placate the tea bag party, the sheep buy it, and the GOP chooses Romney anyway, to institute Bush/Cheney/Romney policies for the billionaires that are buying this election.
Romney will raise the deficit. He's already shown us the plans for it. Look on his websites and listen to his speeches, the few speeches where he goes beyond rhetoric and the usual bs. Even Paul Ryan's plans require multiple debt ceiling increases.
Enjoy your break. Take the time to think about it and when you come back, let us know if you decided yet whether Obama is an American.
You've already answered it for anyone that has read this thread long enough.
Posted by Pat Brick, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Back so soon?
Believe I have that one down, thanks. You should learn more about Romney and his adhering to the Bush/Cheney policies that have ruined our economy, debt AND deficit.
Romney wants to increase defense spending $2 trillion over ten years, to 4% of GDP, along with huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which doesn't add up to a reduced deficit.
To reduce the deficit with those two items alone, Romney would have to shred spending beyond anything ever seen or even talked about (not talked about because it's politically impossible - it would kill the GOP for a generation.)
That conflicts with his statement listed above by D Toyle, about going into a depression - Romney: "If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression."
It doesn't add up. It's Bush/Cheney/Romney gobbledygook, or as Bush I called it - voodoo economics.
Or he is lying. Again.
The tea bag party is being used. That's why you got Mitt instead of a real candidate.
Being used. Evidence? You are so far into the Fox/Rush/Fringe world you can't even answer whether the President is an American or not. You think the most important thing in an austerity thread is whether forks and knives are cleared before the President works a rope line.
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:13 am
P: France may cut spending, if they do so, history shows they will extend the recession and the pain it incurs upon it's people. That said, I'm pretty sure you posted the wrong link, from a week ago.
Try: "France Plans Cuts but ‘Rejects’ Idea of Austerity June 25, 2012 " Web Link
"France is preparing new measures to fill a 2012 budget shortfall, Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said Monday, but he insisted that austerity was not in the cards for the Socialist government."
You seem to be either in error, or spreading falsehoods for your partisan purposes. While I see other threads and posters that accuse you of purposefully lying, I will assume it was a mistake.
P: you neglected to comment on Pat Brick's statement about Romney's deficit busting plans that require, along with the Ryan plan, numerous debt ceiling raises.
Why was it okay for Reagan to triple the national debt using stimulus, and Dubya doubled the national debt (using the wrong spending to help the economy) yet you are always against Democrats when they want to create jobs for Americans, which creates revenue, which allows us to balance a budget like Clinton did?
Your partisanship is well over the line and unpatriotic. Are you an American citizen?
I notice several posters asked you a question that relates: ...do you believe President Obama is an American?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2012 at 6:36 am
Oh..I see. If we don't call it "austerity" it isn't. It is just cuts.
Sick to death of explaining economics, ie:debt:GDP and deficit:GDP importance. GDP is critical, which relates to economic health. For the last time, if I make $100,000/year but borrow 1% of that, $1,000/year, expecting to make more every year, so that I never owe more than 30% of what I earn..fine. If I make $100,000/year, but borrow 10% of that, $10,000, per year, and make the same amount or less every year, so that I now owe 100% of my yearly income..bad.
Though I don't buy it any more, there was a thought that <3% deficit:GDP spending was "safe", as in the eras you refer to (I which I no longer accept...piling on debt is too risky), but more than that dangerous ( where we are now at least 6%,maybe at 8%, deficit:GDP depending on what our GDP actually comes in as this year...many fearing it will be lower than "expected" as our economy continues to grind down)
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jul 12, 2012 at 5:37 am
D Toyle: So, in your world, somehow "governments" can keep borrowing every year, growing their debt to levels they can't pay back, until they collapse? If you didn't learn from Greece, see Spain.Web Link
Or maybe a city can just keep making promises it can't keep, until it collapses? See Stockton, or San Bernadino Web Link
Or, maybe those cities are just "too large" to compare to a family, so see Mammoth Lakes Web Link
Yup, too "simple" I guess to think of a family spending more than it earns every year, with no hope of ever paying back its debts. Yup.
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on Jul 12, 2012 at 10:18 am
I didn't say "simple", I said moronic. I stick with my statement: Comparing a national economy to a family budget is moronic - it makes zero sense as they do not apply. Anyone peddling that noise is completely unaware of the realities of the world. In other words, a Fox viewer.
Spain, Greece, a state or a city does not have, literally, the whole world lined up to loan money at record low interest rates. The United States of America is the economic power that does.
Bush and Reagan used stimulus extensively to get out of recession - note that Perspective always thinks it's okay when Republicans do it. Look back at Perspective's posts in 2007 and 2008 - not a peep about Bush, just some odd posts about abortion and local schools.
Now is the time to build our way out of this recession - money is cheap, building costs will never be lower than now, employing people gets more money into the economy and creates more demand, hence more jobs on top of that, increasing revenues, then cut and balance the budget the Democratic Party way, the Clinton way 23 million new jobs and a powerhouse economy. We have to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure sooner or later, do it now and get a two-fer.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jul 12, 2012 at 10:27 am
Ok..is it "moronic" ( ie, simple minded) to compare small towns, big cities and entire national governments going bankrupt to families going bankrupt? Is the cause the same? ( living beyond your means, borrowing beyond your ability to pay, not saving for rainy day?) Or are small towns, big cities and countries run by different laws of economics from families?
I think the answer is not so simple, for some. For some, the answer is to borrow more to dig out of debt..Right.
82 million ( out of 300 million US citizens) folks pay federal taxes.
Each of us who are one of the federal taxpayers now owes $200,000 in total debt, ($64,000 more since Obama's inauguration). 4 million babies are born each year in the USA. I guess we COULD just keep growing this debt and pass it on to them, as our forebears passed their debt onto us!
But, of course, the answer is to go into more debt, and "make the rich" pay more!
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on Jul 12, 2012 at 11:38 am
"is it "moronic" ( ie, simple minded) to compare small towns, big cities and entire national governments going bankrupt to families going bankrupt?"
Yes, it is moronic to make such a specious comparison, especially one of comparing the United States with a family, or even Greece. Thought I was clear the first two times, but happy to clarify for you.
The so-called "conservative" way doesn't work. Proven not to. In the real world. Cutting taxes does not create jobs, it only increases deficits and debt. Federal taxes are effectively at a 30 year low and debt is soaring. And it hasn't created jobs.
Bush proved it. Reagan proved it.
So let's go with what is PROVEN to work - that's putting America back to work.
The Clinton real world example - 23 million new jobs and a soaring economy that is the envy of the world. Clinton tax rates, Clinton spending. Balanced budgets.
Start now by putting America back to work - not austerity which just extends the recession and it's pain.
You ranted on, yet failed to answer the simple questions posed: why does Perspective not care about debt when republicans create it?
Who was the last republican to balance a budget.
Republicans are the fiscally IRresponsible party. Proven. Over and over again. Now they are running a bozo who can't even keep his secret Cayman Island and secret Swiss bank accounts a secret from reporters.
Posted by La Honda, a resident of another community, on Jul 12, 2012 at 4:39 pm
D Toyle - are you calling perspective a hypocrite because he never called for deficit reduction under Bush? That's easy to refute - Perspective, a quick search will show all your 2007-8 posts on the tragedy of the Bush policies.
Plenty of us were appalled at the 170 billion per year deficit spending under Bush when the Repubs controlled it all through 2006, when the USA brought in the most tax revenue EVER...we were triply appalled at tripling the deficit spending once the Dems took the House and the deficit spending went to 500 billion ( appalled that Bush and RINOs didn't stem the flood). In that regard, we agreed with Obama when he said such levels of borrowing were unpatriotic......we are now triple-y appalled yet again at a tripling yet again to 1.5 trillion deficit spending every year.
But, hey...let's just keep borrowing. Working half a year for all govt programs is just not enough. Why don't we all work the entire year, and just let the govt decide how much food and living space we need?
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on Jul 13, 2012 at 11:36 am
Perspective - you claim you were appalled when Bush took Clinton's surplus's and ran the nations first trillion dollar deficit. You certainly post about the deficit since Obama was elected yet I find no such posts when bush was president.
Prove you are not a hypocrite. Show us the links to a couple posts from 2006 to 2008 where you were appalled at bush's spending.
I bet you can't. Because we both know you didn't. Neither did any of the other so-called 'fiscal conservative' or 'libertarians' posters around here. Why didn't you?
Because Fox didn't tell you to do so.
Then Fox told you to start when Obama took office.
Prove me wrong. Show us your posts - it's an easy search.
Until then, you're just another fringe hypocrite who is doing what some foreigner named Murdoch tells you to do.
"Republicans as 'fiscal hawks'" is one of the biggest canards in politics. Clinton balanced the budget twice. Name the Republicans who have balanced a budget. I'll wait.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Living in the here and now, further news about our current status: President Obama has now decided to ignore yet another law passed by Congress: this one the Welfare to Work program of 1996. Don't have to be training to get back to work anymore, according to yet another fiat. We are back to the good ol' days of welfare with no expecations.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm
"Prove it"??? I see..so we can only be outraged at 1.5 trillion deficit per year, if we can "prove" we were outraged at 1/2 trillion deficit per year?
Good grief, how old are you?
Can you be bothered by your little brother stealing $100 from you, but not report him to the police...but then be forbidden from making a police report when your other brother steals $300 because you were not publicly "outraged" the first time?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2012 at 6:24 am
right side of tracks: can't admit s/he is a hypocrite. Somehow it was horrible when "Bush" was borrowing ( unpatriotic!!) 1/2 trillion per year from China, but now it is just fine that Obama is borrowing 1.5 trillion per year.
I would be SOO grateful to go back in time, as Obama keeps saying, to the "Clinton years". I would even support the Bush years to 2006. Or even to 2008! I support going back to spending that much!! We would be in GREAT shape!!
Posted by D Toyle, a resident of Woodside, on Jul 14, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Perspective is a hypocrite because he never objects to Republican deficit spending - evidenced by him never making posts about it in 2006, 2007 or 2008, where Bush/Cheney was leading America from Clinton's surplus to America's first trillion dollar deficit.
Perspective admits it with the last post: "I would even support the Bush years to 2006. Or even to 2008!"
So now that Perspective's spending hypocrisy is defined and settled, readers may revisit the discussion:
- Perspective wants to cut spending only when a Democrat is in charge
- a sensible plan to put America back to work, rebuild infrastructure, build revenues that take us back to the Clinton roaring economy, with Clinton spending and Clinton tax rates
Easy choice. Unless you're John Boehnerr who has to fight that plan for political reasons only.
Spain public sector employees are marching in the streets...with 25% unemployment ( since Spain went "tax the rich" and "green"..odd...) they march in the streets to demand they don't have a 7% pay cut...while complaining that their universal health care and schooling are being slashed.
A fundamental disconnect in economic literacy...a people have to EARN MONEY in the private sector in order to PAY TAXES to support the dreams of the leftists. If you kill the private sector, you kill the public sector. Simple.
I find it hilarious that none of the remaining taxpayers are marching in the streets from having their sales tax increased to 21%..and they wonder how this vicious cycle continues of destroying private businesses and hence their government revenue!
The story of killing the goose that lays the golden egg needs to be learned from pre-school through high school. It has been lost.