Austerity making economy worse

[bripat9643]

Austerity is making the economy worse - MarketWatch First Take - MarketWatch



The stimulus — including tax cuts, grants to state and local governments, increased spending on infrastructure, a reinforced safety net and the automatic budget stabilizers — boosted the economy significantly in 2009 and 2010, but the impact of the stimulus and the automatic stabilizers is now waning. The recent agreement to end the debt-ceiling impasse will put a cap on federal discretionary spending for the next 10 years and it calls for even more deficit reduction from the so-called Super Congress. And, under current law, the Bush-Obama tax cuts will be expiring at the end of 2012.

How did borrowing money and giving it to parasites who produce nothing of value help the economy?

 

[bripat9643]

keep ignoring the facts

Perhaps when you post an actual fact we can bother to ignore it.

 

[bripat9643]

You dont know what austerity is then

Most people call it "living within your means." It worked well for 200 years.

 

[bripat9643]

"Austerity" for useless tics means a better life for people who actually produce something of value.

Austerity is making the economy worse - MarketWatch First Take - MarketWatch

 

[bripat9643]

From Market Watch

With households still constrained by too much debt and flat wage growth, with businesses constrained by slow growth in sales, and with government pulling back, it’s going to take five more years before we’ll close the output gap — the difference between what we could produce and what we’ll actually produce. .

"With government pulling back?"

You're joking, right?

 

[bripat9643]

are you aware that nearly every economist in the world sayds it worked?

Nearly every economist in the world says exactly the opposite.

 

[bripat9643]

The Economists backing Obama are the intellectual equivalents of the government funded scientists who supported AGW.

Just sayin'.

Yep. Most economists are sucking on the government tit. They've been co-opted. They are little more than government propagandists these days.

 

[The T]

The Economists backing Obama are the intellectual equivalents of the government funded scientists who supported AGW.

Just sayin'.

Yep. Most economists are sucking on the government tit. They've been co-opted. They are little more than government propagandists these days.

And the very same experts that proclaim all the trends downward as unexpected.

If every report that comes out is proclaimed unexpected? Seems to me that they aren't experts but shills for the gubmint as you suggest.

 

[boedicca]

It working and it needing to be bigger are two different subjects.

Your team forced to much of it to be in tax cuts for the welathy who then NEVER hired like you promoised they would.

Wait a minute, there was no tax cut for the wealthy in the Stimulus bill, or at any other time during the Obama admin, as you well know. What DID happen was the extension of the Bush tax cuts for everybody, done under the Congress when the dems stll had control of the House. You got a lot of gall blaming it on the repubs.

85% of the Bush tax cuts went to people making less than the MILLIONAIRE-BILLIONAIRE level of families that make $250 THOUSAND per year. In major metro areas, many of the $250K+ people are also middle class.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010

 

[Charles_Main]

The stimulus — including tax cuts, grants to state and local governments, increased spending on infrastructure, a reinforced safety net and the automatic budget stabilizers — boosted the economy significantly in 2009 and 2010, but the impact of the stimulus and the automatic stabilizers is now waning..

DING DING DING DING!!!

Exactly why the type of spending we did in the Stimulus was and is not the answer. It buys you nothing but a temporary blip in GDP. It does not buy you long term growth, it does not buy you Private Sector Growth.

Doing it again will give you the same results. A small Blip, nothing more. Only private sector growth can fix things.

 

[boedicca]

Cash for Clunkers.

'Nuff said.

 

[Charles_Main]

It working and it needing to be bigger are two different subjects.

Your team forced to much of it to be in tax cuts for the welathy who then NEVER hired like you promoised they would.

Wait a minute, there was no tax cut for the wealthy in the Stimulus bill, or at any other time during the Obama admin, as you well know. What DID happen was the extension of the Bush tax cuts for everybody, done under the Congress when the dems stll had control of the House. You got a lot of gall blaming it on the repubs.

85% of the Bush tax cuts went to people making less than the MILLIONAIRE-BILLIONAIRE level of families that make $250 THOUSAND per year. In major metro areas, many of the $250K+ people are also middle class.

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010

One of the worst, and biggest lies Liberals tell. Almost everyone agrees Millionaires and Billionaires should pay their Fair share.The Problem is when Obama and Liberals say Millionaires and Billionaires. They are referring to a Tax Bracket that includes single incomes of 200k or more, or couples making 250k or more. In that group almost 90% of the people are at the Bottom end of it. Not anywhere near Millionaires or Billionaires, and that group includes the Vast majority of Small Business owners.

 

[Toro]

Austerity will make the economy worse in the near-term.

It will make it better in the long-term.

 

[boedicca]

Austerity will make the economy worse in the near-term.

It will make it better in the long-term.

Indeed. It's the only way to keep $T+ deficits from being a permanent feature.

 

[Avatar4321]

You dont know what austerity is then

Please name a year in the past 50 where government has cut the amount of money it spends?

When we actually try living within our means, you can complain about it hurting us. But until we actually, you know, do it, there are no facts to make a determination whether it works or not.

You are seriously one of the most habitual liars I've ever met. I know criminals more honest than you are.

 

[Avatar4321]

You dont know what austerity is then

Most people call it "living within your means." It worked well for 200 years.

It's always worked well. It hasnt been tried in the United States government for well over 100 years though.

 

[boedicca]

The dollar volume of Federal Spending has increased by 40% in four years.

The economy sure as hell didn't grow by that much.

 

[Avatar4321]

The dollar volume of Federal Spending has increased by 40% in four years.

The economy sure as hell didn't grow by that much.

That much? Seriously??

Im surprise we aren't seeing much more inflation than we currently are.

 

[boedicca]

The dollar volume of Federal Spending has increased by 40% in four years.

The economy sure as hell didn't grow by that much.

That much? Seriously??

Im surprise we aren't seeing much more inflation than we currently are.

Download table 1.1 (from the White House OMB website) and read it for yourself - it's quite interesting.

Historical Tables | The White House

Total Federal Outlays in 2007 were $2,728,686 million. The projected outlays for 2011 are $3,818,819 million. An increase of nearly $1.1T in four short years. This is why we have a $T+ deficit. Outlays have increased far faster than either inflation or population growth would warrant.

 

[boedicca]

The dollar volume of Federal Spending has increased by 40% in four years.

The economy sure as hell didn't grow by that much.

That much? Seriously??

Im surprise we aren't seeing much more inflation than we currently are.

Oh - the inflation is there. It's just not properly calculated.

Here's a better source:

Alternate Inflation Charts