Mr. Austerity My Ass!

[courseofhistory]

So izzy he gonna do it ? Well maybe if he gets coerced enough since he's such a weakling and flip flopper!

Romney explains that austerity, during the recovery from a Great Recession, would cause catastrophic damage to our nation. The problem, of course, is that the Republican congressional leadership is committed to imposing austerity on the nation and Speaker Boehner has just threatened that Republicans will block the renewal of the debt ceiling in order to extort Democrats to agree to austerity -- severe cuts to social programs. Romney knows this could "throw us into recession or depression" and says he would never follow such a policy.

]Romney, however, has not opposed Boehner's threat to use extortion to force austerity on the nation. Romney has the nomination sown up, but I predict that he will stand by and let Boehner try to throw us into a Great Depression rather than upset the Tea Party-wing of the Republican Party. Indeed, Romney will attack Democrats who have the political courage to defend our nation against his Party's demands for austerity that would throw us into recession or depression.

What does one call a politician who, solely to advance his personal political ambition, supports his Party's efforts to coerce austerity even though he knows that the austerity would cause a national economic catastrophe and states that he, "of course," would never adopt such self-destructive austerity if he were president? Romney is failing the tests of courage, integrity, and loyalty to our nation and people.

Later in the interview, Romney claims that federal budgetary deficits are "immoral." But he has just explained that using austerity for the purported purpose of ending a deficit would cause a recession or depression. A recession or depression would make the deficit far larger. That means that Romney should be denouncing austerity as "immoral" (as well as suicidal) because it will not simply increase the deficit (which he claims to find "immoral" because of its impact on children) but also dramatically increase unemployment, poverty, child poverty and hunger, and harm their education by causing more teachers to lose their jobs and more school programs to be cut. Fewer children will be able to get college degrees. Austerity is the great enemy of children -- it is the epitome of a self-destructive, immoral economic policy.

LINK

 

[beretta304]

You call your ass Mr. Austerity?

 

[California Girl]

It's working in Britain.

 

[ilia25]

It's working in Britain.

Gee, what planet are you living on? Britain is doing worse than during the Great Depression.

 

[courseofhistory]

I hope he does get elected and his flip floppy leadership shows people what a doofus he is. Romney doesn't know from nothin'! Why did he want to be governor of MA? To implement republican policy? If so, he was pretty unsuccessful. Or if he wanted to implement dem policy, WHY? I thought he was against all that socialist stuff. He is a man without a calling except self-gratification of being president which is precisely why he became governor--a stepping stone for Mitt Romney to the presidency. He will be a disaster if elected!

 

[Darkwind]

It's working in Britain.

Gee, what planet are you living on? Britain is doing worse than during the Great Depression.

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's working in Britain.

Gee, what planet are you living on? Britain is doing worse than during the Great Depression.

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

Does this help?

Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit
Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Darkwind]

Gee, what planet are you living on? Britain is doing worse than during the Great Depression.

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

Does this help?

Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit
Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit | UK news | The Guardian

From your link......

The chancellor announced a cut of £10bn in welfare spending in 2016-17 a from forecast bill for benefits, state pensions and tax credits in that year of £229bn.

so to keep cutting spending at the current rate either welfare spending needed to fall another £10bn or other departments including education, health, defence and culture would have to cut spending even deeper.

I do NOT see an actual figure, year over year of the budgetary spending.

I read this as they claim that to not increase the spending is to take 229 billion out of the pockets of the recipients. Except that you cannot count money in that manner.

do you have a budget for welfare as in an actual budget from last year, this year, and the projected budget for the next fiscal year?

 

[ilia25]

It's working in Britain.

Gee, what planet are you living on? Britain is doing worse than during the Great Depression.

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

So you think UK government were lying to the public when they claim that they have been pursuing austerity for the past several years?

I don't have links handy, as far as remember, UK cut so called "real government consumption and investment spending", which is goods and services the government purchases.

 

[Darkwind]

Gee, what planet are you living on? Britain is doing worse than during the Great Depression.

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

So you think UK government were lying to the public when they claim that they have been pursuing austerity for the past several years?

I don't have links handy, as far as remember, UK cut so called "real government consumption and investment spending", which is goods and services the government purchases.

Yes.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. In every case where people claimed austerity measures were being enacted, the truth pans out to be that the rate of growth is the only thing that has changed.

All of which is just an exercise in basic government/private economic interactions. There is no proven causation of government austerity to economic downturn.

I suspect that the increases in taxation, as described in the link, is a contributing factor to the slowing economy. Additionally, the continues downward pressure on the wealth makers in the U.K., just like here in America, are the main contributors to anemic economic activity as a real slid back toward recession.

 

[kiwiman127]

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

Does this help?

Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit
Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit | UK news | The Guardian

From your link......

The chancellor announced a cut of £10bn in welfare spending in 2016-17 a from forecast bill for benefits, state pensions and tax credits in that year of £229bn.

so to keep cutting spending at the current rate either welfare spending needed to fall another £10bn or other departments including education, health, defence and culture would have to cut spending even deeper.

I do NOT see an actual figure, year over year of the budgetary spending.

I read this as they claim that to not increase the spending is to take 229 billion out of the pockets of the recipients. Except that you cannot count money in that manner.

do you have a budget for welfare as in an actual budget from last year, this year, and the projected budget for the next fiscal year?

Ask and you shall receive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_complete.pdf

Here's some data from previous years.

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data
Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

There,,I did a little research for you and I did it for free!
If what I looked up for you isn't enough, well then it's up to you to do further research. I'm just an observer.

 

[WillowTree]

You call your ass Mr. Austerity?

 

[ilia25]

Can you list the amounts and departments of government spending that has been cut in Britain?

A link will be required.

And I mean cuts. Not reductions in the rate of growth. That is what austerity means....actual dollar, or in this case, Pounds reduced from the previous budget.

Thanks.

So you think UK government were lying to the public when they claim that they have been pursuing austerity for the past several years?

I don't have links handy, as far as remember, UK cut so called "real government consumption and investment spending", which is goods and services the government purchases.

Yes.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. In every case where people claimed austerity measures were being enacted, the truth pans out to be that the rate of growth is the only thing that has changed.

So you have invented your own definition of austerity to prove that her majesty's government were lying for years to naive Britons, who never suspected they are being had?

Austerity means only that you try to spend less wherever you can. And there is an obvious causal relationship between government austerity and worsening economy -- your spending is my income. So if we are in a depression because everyone tries to save, the government austerity only adds to the troubles.

 

[kiwiman127]

It seems that half the economic experts who backed Osborne's austerity are now reversing themselves!

George Osborne faces calls from leading economists for U-turn on austerity
George Osborne faces calls from leading economists for U-turn on austerity | Politics | The Guardian

 

[Darkwind]

So you think UK government were lying to the public when they claim that they have been pursuing austerity for the past several years?

I don't have links handy, as far as remember, UK cut so called "real government consumption and investment spending", which is goods and services the government purchases.

Yes.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. In every case where people claimed austerity measures were being enacted, the truth pans out to be that the rate of growth is the only thing that has changed.

So you have invented your own definition of austerity to prove that her majesty's government were lying for years to naive Britons, who never suspected they are being had?

Austerity means only that you try to spend less wherever you can. And there is an obvious causal relationship between government austerity and worsening economy -- your spending is my income. So if we are in a depression because everyone tries to save, the government austerity only adds to the troubles.

Austerity, given in terms of politics, means that you cut spending. It does NOT mean reduce the rate of growth. That is called liberal spin.

There is NO obvious causal relationship between government austerity and a worsening economy. Governments, by definition, are not economic engines, unless you wish to move so far left that the government is the tyrant that controls ALL economic activity. I think Stalin, Hitler, and a few others tried that. To the detriment of all nations.

What drives economies is business activity. Those who do not promote it, and foster enslavement of the citizens to the addition of government, are usually third rate nations, weak in economic power as well as the ability to defend itself.

There is a reason that nations that promote private industry capitalism are more powerful economically, militarily, and provide a higher standard of living than any other systems.

Government spending is why America is losing its place in the world as an economic leader, and falling into paucity. It is following the model of Europe.

 

[Darkwind]

Does this help?

Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit
Budget 2012: welfare cuts, tax cuts too, but retreat on child benefit | UK news | The Guardian

From your link......

so to keep cutting spending at the current rate either welfare spending needed to fall another £10bn or other departments including education, health, defence and culture would have to cut spending even deeper.

I do NOT see an actual figure, year over year of the budgetary spending.

I read this as they claim that to not increase the spending is to take 229 billion out of the pockets of the recipients. Except that you cannot count money in that manner.

do you have a budget for welfare as in an actual budget from last year, this year, and the projected budget for the next fiscal year?

Ask and you shall receive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_complete.pdf

Here's some data from previous years.

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data
Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

There,,I did a little research for you and I did it for free!
If what I looked up for you isn't enough, well then it's up to you to do further research. I'm just an observer.

You made the claim, you provide the data. That is how it works.

Okay, since the data does not show spending this year, we'll have to take the numbers presented as factual.

On this page,

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

you'll note the only line that matters. It is the total Expenditure line.

The U.K. spent 669.44 billion pounds in the 2009/2010 budget year and in the following year, 2010/2011, they spent 691.67 billion pounds.

Subtracting the last year by the year previous and we see that the U.K. spent 22.23 billion pounds more than it did previously.

That is GROWTH of government, hence it is NOT austerity.

I'm sure that the U.K. will spend more this year than last.

 

[kiwiman127]

From your link......



I do NOT see an actual figure, year over year of the budgetary spending.

I read this as they claim that to not increase the spending is to take 229 billion out of the pockets of the recipients. Except that you cannot count money in that manner.

do you have a budget for welfare as in an actual budget from last year, this year, and the projected budget for the next fiscal year?

Ask and you shall receive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_complete.pdf

Here's some data from previous years.

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data
Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

There,,I did a little research for you and I did it for free!
If what I looked up for you isn't enough, well then it's up to you to do further research. I'm just an observer.

You made the claim, you provide the data. That is how it works.

Okay, since the data does not show spending this year, we'll have to take the numbers presented as factual.

On this page,

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

you'll note the only line that matters. It is the total Expenditure line.

The U.K. spent 669.44 billion pounds in the 2009/2010 budget year and in the following year, 2010/2011, they spent 691.67 billion pounds.

Subtracting the last year by the year previous and we see that the U.K. spent 22.23 billion pounds more than it did previously.

That is GROWTH of government, hence it is NOT austerity.

I'm sure that the U.K. will spend more this year than last.

No, I made no claims. I provided the info because you weren't going to do it. You asked for others to provide the info, so as an observer I thought I'd help out.
Growth can be austerity if the growth in spending as pared back from mandated spending programs. Usually when a program has become part of the budget, the longterm annual spending for several annuals budgets is allocated out in the future.
Here's an example. Last year there were proposals to scale back spending on defense. But where they were cutting the spending was not there budget baseline but they were cutting back on the planned increase in spending amount. And then they called it cutting spending, when in fact they were cutting back on the increased dollars to be spent.

 

[ilia25]

Yes.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. In every case where people claimed austerity measures were being enacted, the truth pans out to be that the rate of growth is the only thing that has changed.

So you have invented your own definition of austerity to prove that her majesty's government were lying for years to naive Britons, who never suspected they are being had?

Austerity means only that you try to spend less wherever you can. And there is an obvious causal relationship between government austerity and worsening economy -- your spending is my income. So if we are in a depression because everyone tries to save, the government austerity only adds to the troubles.

Austerity, given in terms of politics, means that you cut spending.

Wrong, look it up in any dictionary. Investopedia, for example:
"A state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits."

There is NO obvious causal relationship between government austerity and a worsening economy. Governments, by definition, are not economic engines, unless you wish to move so far left that the government is the tyrant that controls ALL economic activity

.

Or if your economy is depressed so that monetary policy cannot counteract the negative effect of reduced spending. As a rule, you are correct, governments are not economic engines. But they can and should function as an engine starter when the engine stalls. That is a basic textbook policy.

 

[Listening]

Ask and you shall receive,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_complete.pdf

Here's some data from previous years.

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data
Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

There,,I did a little research for you and I did it for free!
If what I looked up for you isn't enough, well then it's up to you to do further research. I'm just an observer.

You made the claim, you provide the data. That is how it works.

Okay, since the data does not show spending this year, we'll have to take the numbers presented as factual.

On this page,

Government spending by department, 2010-11: get the data | Visualised | News | guardian.co.uk

you'll note the only line that matters. It is the total Expenditure line.

The U.K. spent 669.44 billion pounds in the 2009/2010 budget year and in the following year, 2010/2011, they spent 691.67 billion pounds.

Subtracting the last year by the year previous and we see that the U.K. spent 22.23 billion pounds more than it did previously.

That is GROWTH of government, hence it is NOT austerity.

I'm sure that the U.K. will spend more this year than last.

No, I made no claims. I provided the info because you weren't going to do it. You asked for others to provide the info, so as an observer I thought I'd help out.
Growth can be austerity if the growth in spending as pared back from mandated spending programs. Usually when a program has become part of the budget, the longterm annual spending for several annuals budgets is allocated out in the future.
Here's an example. Last year there were proposals to scale back spending on defense. But where they were cutting the spending was not there budget baseline but they were cutting back on the planned increase in spending amount. And then they called it cutting spending, when in fact they were cutting back on the increased dollars to be spent.

That is not austerity.

 

[Listening]

Or if your economy is depressed so that monetary policy cannot counteract the negative effect of reduced spending. As a rule, you are correct, governments are not economic engines. But they can and should function as an engine starter when the engine stalls. That is a basic textbook policy.

Only if you are Keyensian.