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

[dblack]

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

In the U.S.?

When?

I'm not sure if it's worked or not. It's irrelevant from my view. Government shouldn't be involved in manipulating the economy.

 

[Wiseacre]

Interestingly enough, since you brought them up, you should read Reinhart and Rogoff's book (This Time Is Different). According to their research, full recovery from a financial crisis takes, on average, a decade. The participation rate isn't really that meaningful. It's been declining over time as the population becomes grayer. Many countries that people would say have a strong economy than ours have lower participation rates.

I've already read it, 2009 version, a couple of years ago. Had to go back and review it, you might have been a bit disingenuous. It says the average banking crises lasts 1.9 years, post WWII crises 1.7 years, duirng the Great Depression 4.1 years. Sovereign defaults, debt restructuring, or near defaults last on average 5.1 years.

The number of years to return output to pre-crises levels post-ar is 4.4 years, during the depression it was 10 years. You were a bit misleading, I think, referring to that number and misleading what it actually meant.

So you don't think the participation rate means much? I kinda think it does, the UE rate needs to be taken in context with how many people are looking and also not looking for a job. The number of people that have given up are somewhat indicative of how bad things are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Strangely enough, it did. Most states are reporting higher revenues this year, even California has improved in that area, despite all the cuts to the state budget. Yet, for some reason, the national economy is not doing as well. Could that that be because the difference between the states cutting spending and the feds not cutting it?

Yea, it did. Because we are barely coming back from a deep recession. Note: I said "barely". If Republicans had their way, there would be no recovery. If they get back in office, you can bet on it.

State tax revenues are higher now than they were before the recession. Not sure how you classify that as barely coming back, but I will be happy to watch you try.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The federal government did not lose 600000 jobs.

And if government is smaller then how come it is costing us more?

The federal government has not gotten smaller.

 

[editec]

During the CIVIL WAR?

GREENBACKS worked.

Time to read some history, kiddies.

 

[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?

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?

Where did I ever blame Bam Bam for slow job growth?

And government is not smaller as it is costing us more.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

None. But its a good thing most Americans had a big fat pay-check for a job well done from Uncle Sam to get the economy going. Imagine a few hundred thousand GI's back from the war, with money in the bank, ready to buy houses and cars, get married, have kids, go to college, start businesses - you'd think it might lead to the 1950's or something.

But no - its all a lie. The key to reviving the economy is to reduce spending. That way, there will be less demand for goods and services, and companies will have to lay off more workers. Which will lead to recovery, of course.

At the expense of whom?

The poor folks that had to suffer through the boom I guess. I dunno - you tell me.

More broken windows...More unicorns and leprechauns with pots of gold.

You're right. Nearly full national employment didn't help anyone. The late 40's and 50's were a gloomy time. History doesn't even matter. Someone could tell me something that happened in history, and all anyone has to do is say "unicorns leprechauns" and its gone.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

So the idea that it would lead to growth is an untested theory then, is it not?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1946

Fail.

Government spending as a % of GDP was far higher in 1946 than today.

Did you move the goalposts on me? You asked when a cut in government spending resulted in an economic boost. In 1945 the government spending was over 50% of GDP, it dropped to 35% in 1946, and went down even further after that. Despite this massive cut GDP actually went up during those years.

I didn't ask when one correlated with a boost, I asked when one resulted in a boost. Do you know the difference? I doubt it. Here's a hint. When you can show me where all the pay checks that the men brought home after the war disappeared to in a way that in no way influenced the booming economy that followed, you'll have a start.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Man you're right. I fucking hate people that have good jobs. Fuck them! Fucking assholes! I hope they all lose their jobs and wind up in the unemployment line! That'll show 'em! I hope they have to suck dick for money and sell their children into slavery! Yeah! Fucking dicks with good jobs, who the FUCK do they think they are?


Yeah! Kick that ass! 'merica FUCK YEAH!

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I believe Bill Clinton's very unpopular cuts to Welfare did in fact help to spur Economic growth -if memory serves.

It did, when you are cut off the Teet, you are forced to own up to your own personal responsibility and get a job....

Welfare is for the Old and Sick.... if you are young and able bodied, get off your couch and do community service in return for the Taxpayer Money you are given, this includes Community Service in return for Free Cellphones, Section 8, Food Stamps.

If the Government spends less, the debt goes down, taxes can go down, money is left over to work on infrastructure which brings more jobs, less taxes mean more people spend money, Economy goes up....

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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!

The U.S. was only "downgraded" by the very same rating agency that A rated Lehman Bros. even as they were filing for bankruptcy.

Funny how the day after U.S. debt was "downgraded" treasury prices went up. Do you know what it means when analysts downgrade stock and the price of the stock goes up the next day? It means the market doesn't believe the analysts for shit.


I love how the right is always the first to point to the actual market as the best valuator for things - except when its inconvenient to their goal of smearing Obama.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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!!

You need to add a zero to the interest rate being charged by the so called "credit card" to have a household budget. Anyone who has a credit card that charges a regular rate of less than %4 must have a credit rating of 1 million or something.


Here's my budget from last year:

Money Earned - $70,000
Money spent - $250,000


Oh no! I must be in danger of imminent bankruptcy!

 

[Gremlin-USA]

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.

Man you're right. I fucking hate people that have good jobs. Fuck them! Fucking assholes! I hope they all lose their jobs and wind up in the unemployment line! That'll show 'em! I hope they have to suck dick for money and sell their children into slavery! Yeah! Fucking dicks with good jobs, who the FUCK do they think they are?


Yeah! Kick that ass! 'merica FUCK YEAH!

Do you kiss anyone with such a nasty mouth?

One "fuck" makes your point, idiot.....

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I believe Bill Clinton's very unpopular cuts to Welfare did in fact help to spur Economic growth -if memory serves.

It did, when you are cut off the Teet, you are forced to own up to your own personal responsibility and get a job....

No lie. That's why there are so many unemployed people. Folks just decided to stop taking personal responsibility. If the 8.2% unemployed would just "get a job", we'd all be better for it.

Welfare is for the Old and Sick....

Social Security Retirement isn't welfare. To call it so is an insult to the millions of hard working retired Americans who have paid into the system their entire lives and earned the benefit they receive. SSDI isn't welfare, either. Its an insurance product paid for by the insured to offset the risk of being disabled from the work force.

if you are young and able bodied, get off your couch and do community service in return for the Taxpayer Money you are given, this includes Community Service in return for Free Cellphones, Section 8, Food Stamps.

Most of the folks in those programs that are able to work already work and don't have time for your fake government jobs. BTW, the cellphones are paid for by private corporations. Universal Service has been national policy since 1934. Odd you would use it as an excuse to pick on the least of us, but then again, I guess we'd expect nothing less. Its a good thing those private companies provide those cell phones, or else my wife's disabled homeless war veteran clients would have no way of calling her. In case you hadn't noticed there aren't really any pay phones anymore, and if you do find one, chances are it's out of order.

If the Government spends less, the debt goes down, taxes can go down, money is left over to work on infrastructure which brings more jobs, less taxes mean more people spend money, Economy goes up....

Infrastructure which brings more jobs? I thought people just had to stop being lazy and "get a job". You're contradicting yourself. Which is it?

 

[Artevelde]

When we compare Germany and France we see that Germany has a substantially smaller public sector and lower debt-ratio and deficit than France. Whose economy is doing better?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Man you're right. I fucking hate people that have good jobs. Fuck them! Fucking assholes! I hope they all lose their jobs and wind up in the unemployment line! That'll show 'em! I hope they have to suck dick for money and sell their children into slavery! Yeah! Fucking dicks with good jobs, who the FUCK do they think they are?


Yeah! Kick that ass! 'merica FUCK YEAH!

Do you kiss anyone with such a nasty mouth?

One "fuck" makes your point, idiot.....

.

Bwahh

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Where did I ever blame Bam Bam for slow job growth?

And government is not smaller as it is costing us more.

If you have 600,000 fewer government employees than you had 3 years ago your government is smaller.

If you can't agree to that simple fact than don't respond to my posts because we won't get anywhere.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Where did I ever blame Bam Bam for slow job growth?

And government is not smaller as it is costing us more.

If you have 600,000 fewer government employees than you had 3 years ago your government is smaller.

If you can't agree to that simple fact than don't respond to my posts because we won't get anywhere.

Smaller does not only mean less in appearance...

Do you say your debt is smaller because last year you owed $50000 on 4 credit cards and this year you owe $75000 on 2 credit cards??

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The federal government did not lose 600000 jobs.

And if government is smaller then how come it is costing us more?

The federal government has not gotten smaller.

That is not relevant. Federal, state, and local governments are all governments, all funded by the taxpayers.

Be relevant. Please.