Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

[Quantum Windbag]

because like recent history shows in europe it fails every time fools are talked into it

Actually, what the recent examples of Greece and Spain tell us is that raising taxes without cutting spending doesn't help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."



Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

 

[Oddball]

And if the celebutard-in-chief weren't so openly hostile to private business, some of those layed off bureaucrats might be able to find real productive jobs, for a change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."


Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

You confused spending with jobs

 

[The T]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."


Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

You confused spending with jobs

Carbonated doesn't get that...along with ObamaCare...all the other indirect taxation. He thinks it's just simple...but then Cabonated is a simple mind with little grasp.

 

[The T]

And if the celebutard-in-chief weren't so openly hostile to private business, some of those layed off bureaucrats might be able to find real productive jobs, for a change.

Instead of screaming like stuck pigs when the Public sector rejects them...they think they're OWED because they're Gubmint...

 

[The T]

NO JOB is safe...particuliarally GOVERNMENT jobs.

I shed NO tears for anyone in Gubmint losing thier jobs. They think they're a protected class.

High time they FEEL what the rest of us are and be knocked OFF thier arrogant HIGH HORSES.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the U.S.?

When?

There have never been any meaningful cuts to the size of government in this country.
So your question cannot be answered

Moreso recently than in many decades:

That may explain much of the slowness in the recovery.

I am speaking of the federal government as it is the only entity that can be meaningfully discussed on a board such as this. There is too much variation between states to think that including all state local and federal statistics will result in any meaningful discourse.

Right now federal spending is 25% of GDP, the highest since WWII.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."



Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

And who is going to pay for all those public sector employees?

 

[The T]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."



Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

And who is going to pay for all those public sector employees?

They'll just take it all from the 'rich' which will pay for about 6-9 months of spending...and what then?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."



Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

Thanks for the evidence that the private sector is not doing fine.

 

[Avorysuds]

After reading this thread a couple things stand out...

First it was asked by the OP, then a couple other of the boards far far left liberal clowns chimed in asking for proof that cuts in spending can spur economic growth. Several times the 1920’s depression that took a whole 18 months for Harding to recover from was presented. Harding did these cuts after a big spender President failed fix the depression through spending/stimulating.

Instead the conversation moved to Europe’s “austerity” as examples of how cuts failed but these people who offer Britain as an example fail to provide these massive cuts in spending (spending to GDP).

The next shifting of the goal post is to talk about the great depression, the depression that FDR severed 3 entire terms under and never managed to get it under control despite historic amounts of spending. Cuts were in fact made after FDR left office, taxes were in fact lowered and all this happened following the ending of ww2, the place where FDR sent 10% of the US population, the poor jobless population.


Fact is, spending can “stimulate growth.” I don’t think anyone denies this. The issue is you have to be willing to take the next step and in this case the next step is to see what happens after the spending has occurred. Debt and deficits are created and for a while these debts and deficits seem manageable. However, on a global scale we can now look outside of the US and see what happens when spending over a prolonged period of time can devastate and bankrupt a country.

Today the US spends around 1.5 trillion that it has to print or borrow, this by definition is Big spending and perpetual stimulation done by the US Government. If you are willing to look back in time you will see the US has been doing this for quite a while. Perpetual stimulus “works” like taking steroids “works.” First there is addiction, then there are the side effects, deficits and debt… Then everything falls apart.

The US might not be at the end of its rope, but you can bet your ass the end in nearing, even if we get passed the “great recession.”

This is all simple fact.

 

[freedombecki]

Bullshit, Greece lied about its financial status.

They also embarked on massive government investment and spending in order to boost their economy. The results are there for everybody to see.

They didn't grow government, OTOH, Bush's massive taxcuts didn't grow the conomy, its produced debt.

The debt grew under Reid/Pelosi. Liberal Congresses tax and spend, don't forget. They have to.

Flaylo, you're a Lulu.

 

[Avorysuds]

They also embarked on massive government investment and spending in order to boost their economy. The results are there for everybody to see.

They didn't grow government, OTOH, Bush's massive taxcuts didn't grow the conomy, its produced debt.

The debt grew under Reid/Pelosi. Congress taxes and spends, don't forget.

Flaylo, you're a Lulu.

I find it odd that Obama kept the Bush ear tax cuts instead of letting them expire and they are still called the Bush era tax cuts. Why are they not called the Obama era tax cuts seeing as it has his name on it now? Not even getting into all the deficit building tax credits in the stimulus.

 

[Avorysuds]

Constantine's Thoughts: Why the U.S. was downgraded:

A great way to see how Obama has added to spending compared to the evil big spender Bush. It's a breakdown!

 

[freedombecki]

They didn't grow government, OTOH, Bush's massive taxcuts didn't grow the conomy, its produced debt.

The debt grew under Reid/Pelosi. Congress taxes and spends, don't forget.

Flaylo, you're a Lulu.

I find it odd that Obama kept the Bush ear tax cuts instead of letting them expire and they are still called the Bush era tax cuts. Why are they not called the Obama era tax cuts seeing as it has his name on it now? Not even getting into all the deficit building tax credits in the stimulus.

Obama has to wait until his next term to raise taxes and eliminate the tax cuts initiated on Bush's term. First, Obama had to force through Obamacare, and Harry and Nancy complied. In his second term, his true colors will come out unless he is sent home by the voters in November. I hope we don't have to find out how horrible a second Obama term would have been, but just review his Senate voting record. You'll then understand how horrible it would be if he were unrestrained. Shooting his mouth off to Europe on his first visit there was just a warm-up of horrors to come.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Constantine's Thoughts: Why the U.S. was downgraded:

A great way to see how Obama has added to spending compared to the evil big spender Bush. It's a breakdown!

Just had to add this from your link...

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

Yeahhhh... THAT'S the ticket!!

 

[WillowTree]

Growing government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

Where?

When?

its not about Growing Government you idiot.

its about building a common future with good infrastructure investment.

You know the shit Bush completely ignored

Then you must think of a way to make sure that the OTHER 50% of the leeches who pay no taxes, pay some.. so we'll all have us some patriotic skin in da game.. it's a damn good investment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There have never been any meaningful cuts to the size of government in this country.
So your question cannot be answered

Moreso recently than in many decades:

That may explain much of the slowness in the recovery.

I am speaking of the federal government as it is the only entity that can be meaningfully discussed on a board such as this. There is too much variation between states to think that including all state local and federal statistics will result in any meaningful discourse.

Right now federal spending is 25% of GDP, the highest since WWII.

A loss of 600,000 jobs is meaningful. They were lost because government was made smaller.

According to conservatives, that downsizing of government should have accelerated job growth and led to a more robust recovery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent."



Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post

And who is going to pay for all those public sector employees?

What does that even mean?

You conservatives wanted smaller government and you're getting it, 600,000 job losses worth of it in 3 years.

Why are you blaming Obama for slow job growth when the very thing you want to happen is happening?