Explaining austerity to liberals:

[ilia25]

There is a simple explanation why the austerity will be a disaster now:

1) Cutting spending depresses the economy (less demand for goods and services ==> less jobs)

no one is burning money so it disappears and net spending decreases. When you cut "government" waste spending you then leave the money in private hands where it can be used to create real sustainable growth.

And what if private hands are not inclined to spend its cash because, say, they want to reduce their debt and they do not want to expand their business because they already have more than enough capacity to serve the present weak demand? You think laying off a "waste" teacher would help?

 

[DSGE]

"Hooked" doesn't imply "destructive".

who knew I figured hooked on heroin was for sure destructive

"
Yeah it's the heroin that's the destructive part.

anologies may be over your head. Heroin is not destructive unless you are hooked on it. You just said hooked is not destructive???.

I like that you continue to hit the unimportant points and completely ignore the meat of the conversation. Going for the small victories huh?

I don't get how you don't understand this. Being hooked on heroin is dangerous because it's heroin that you're hooked on. Being hooked on exercise is good for you. Being hooked on classic cinema is fine. Being hooked on jazz trumpet is kinda lame, but not dangerous. There is nothing inherently destructive about being "hooked", it depends what you're hooked on. So it's not sufficient to say "the liberal government is 'hooked' on debt. That's bad because being 'hooked' is always dangerous'". You see? You have to show A) that the government is actually 'hooked' on debt; and B) debt is something bad, like heroin.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You might want to mention that to St Reagan.

better yet mention it to the Democrats who are 100% opposed to fiscal and monetary responsibility. Ron Paul is a Republican not a Democrat!!

And the republicans have had absolutely nothing to do with the current debt situation?

sure some did but so what?? The Tea Party and Ron Paul are Republicans. 100% of the energy for fiscal and monetary responsibility is in the Republican Party while Democrats are openly opposed.

Make Democrats illegal as the Constitution intended and our problems would be solved.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't see any explanation anywhere...
I see a parallel being drawn between debt and heroin with absolutely no justification. Maybe I should start a thread where the only content is: "Debt is like exercise. The more you do it the longer you'll live. Don't do it at all and you'll die young and obese. And it's all too easy to stop exercising."

Do you see that argument by analogy is fallacious? How about a post with some actual substance. Maybe throw an actual argument in there?

so whats the substantial difference between a liberal government hooked on spending and a junkie hooked on heroin??

The junkie can quit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The junkie can quit. [heroin]

yes; easier than the liberal can quit spending!!

 

[DSGE]

The junkie can quit. [heroin]

yes; easier than the liberal can quit spending!!

It must be nice to live in your own world where you can just make up shit and say that your opponents believe it. God knows it's much harder to actually become informed and approach things with reason. Kudos for taking the easy way out.

 

[kiwiman127]

The junkie can quit. [heroin]

yes; easier than the liberal can quit spending!!

It must be nice to live in your own world where you can just make up shit and say that your opponents believe it. God knows it's much harder to actually become informed and approach things with reason. Kudos for taking the easy way out.

Are you saying that EdB offers no substance? Noooooooooooooo!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have to show A) that the government is actually 'hooked' on debt;

BO's debt will be more than all other American presidents combined!!

B) debt is something bad, like heroin.

current public debt per household is $300,000. Thats bad and it really really has to be paid off. Make liberals illegal. Its the only solution.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Again, another case of cutting too much too quickly.

again cutting government is good because private sector then has more and the private sector is the only real source of economic growth.

Why do I have the distinct impression that you are pissing into the wind here?

 

[ilia25]

Yes, look at the Europe -- it is sliding into a recession for no other reason than the austerity.

dear, there is the little matter of the housing crisis which is the source of the worlds problems. Another liberal bubble will only make things worse.

The bubble burst almost 4 years ago! Why the euro-zone started to slow down now?

Or look at Japan -- it has twice as big debt as US.

and now you know why it has suffered 2 lost decades

No I don't -- care to explain how Japan's debt had caused the lost decades? You may start by showing us why, in this particular case, the effect preceded the cause.

Or you may spare yourself from the misery by simply admitting that you are full of it.

 

[kiwiman127]

You have to show A) that the government is actually 'hooked' on debt;

BO's debt will be more than all other American presidents combined!!

B) debt is something bad, like heroin.

current public debt per household is $300,000. Thats bad and it really really has to be paid off. Make liberals illegal. Its the only solution.

You are retarded, I swear!

On the first day of Obama's first fiscal budget( October 1, 2009) the National Debt was 11,920,519,164,319.42

Today the National Debt is 15,236,279,221,858.36. The only way Obama will accomplish having more debt than all previous presidents combined is to get re-elected and that isn't going to happen.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Can anyone tell me exactly when Congress and the President became responsible for creating jobs? Is there some legislative edict on the subject of which I'm unaware?

The only time of which I am aware that the Federal Government took on that responsibility was in 1935. The program was the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Congress appropriated an enormous sum of $4,880,000,000 to fund it. The mission put the people back to work. It not only did that, but it also funded highways and building construction, slum clearance, reforestation, and rural rehabilitation. (1) Projects for which the States could not pay.

The WPA was responsible for building structures, such as airports, seaports, and bridges. It paved 651,000 miles of road, built 78,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 800 airports(2)

Please concentrate on all the zeroes in the amount quoted above. Congress appropriated this sum during the Great Depression. A time when salaries were $15 - $30 a month, if you were lucky enough to have a job.

We were and maybe still are the most powerful nation in the world - military and industrial. And maintaining that status takes a whole hell of a lot of money. Unfortunately, for decades the Middle Class has footed the bill. The rich use tax loopholes and off-shore bank accounts to ease or erase their tax burden. The poor by nature of their poverty don't pay much tax. The lion's share rests on the average American worker.

I am no Obama fan. But when Conservatives start prattling on and on about debt and spending under this Administration, they conveniently forget who appropriates the money. Well at least when a Democrat is in the White House and Republicans are running Congress. When there is a Republican in the White House and the Democrats are running Congress, Conservatives switch the roles.

And just in case some of you have forgotten or never knew, Congress has more power than the President. Another reality conveniently forgotten by Conservatives when they start pushing their BS blame game.

So perhaps that is why most Conservative arguments go in one ear and out the other. I know if I wait long enough, they'll change their tune. But primarily they'll find a Democrat to blame.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Works Progress Administration, Indiana University Archives, Lilly Library
(2) WPA Historical Records Survey by Steve Paul Johnson, July 28, 1999

 

[DSGE]

You have to show A) that the government is actually 'hooked' on debt;

BO's debt will be more than all other American presidents combined!!

That doesn't at all mean anybody is hooked on debt. The debt is being increased because of a crazy downturn. Whenever there's a downturn deficits automatically expand, tax revenues fall and transfer payments increase. These are called Automatic Stabilizers (which I'm sure you learnt about in your famous Econ 101 class?). On top of that, there were further tax cuts, increases in transfer payments and increases in government spending to try to avoid having a lost decade. You and I would both agree that fiscal stimulus isn't an especially good idea (although for different reasons; mine being more correct than yours), but it's hard to say that anybody is hooked on debt when the debt was created trying to get out of a ditch.

Also, remember that Clinton (a democrat) left Bush (a republican) with a budget surplus! Bush increased the real quantity of US debt by about 30%, or $5 trillion in nominal terms. If debt is so bad and republicans so fiscally responsible, why the **** did Bush turn a surplus into an extra $5 trillion in debt? Why was his first reaction to a crisis that happened on his watch to engage in fiscal stimulus and bail out banks?

B) debt is something bad, like heroin.

current public debt per household is $300,000. Thats bad and it really really has to be paid off. Make liberals illegal. Its the only solution.

The solution is to restore nominal income to where it should be; don't be involved in a war or have such an unnecessarily large and expensive military; adopt superannuation or similar mandatory savings accounts; adopt single payer healthcare because it's way cheaper than the shit you're doing now; return tax rates to their Clinton levels. Debt problem solved.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Can anyone tell me exactly when Congress and the President became responsible for creating jobs? Is there some legislative edict on the subject of which I'm unaware?

The only time of which I am aware that the Federal Government took on that responsibility was in 1935. The program was the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Congress appropriated an enormous sum of $4,880,000,000 to fund it. The mission put the people back to work. It not only did that, but it also funded highways and building construction, slum clearance, reforestation, and rural rehabilitation. (1) Projects for which the States could not pay.

The WPA was responsible for building structures, such as airports, seaports, and bridges. It paved 651,000 miles of road, built 78,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, and 800 airports(2)

Please concentrate on all the zeroes in the amount quoted above. Congress appropriated this sum during the Great Depression. A time when salaries were $15 - $30 a month, if you were lucky enough to have a job.

We were and maybe still are the most powerful nation in the world - military and industrial. And maintaining that status takes a whole hell of a lot of money. Unfortunately, for decades the Middle Class has footed the bill. The rich use tax loopholes and off-shore bank accounts to ease or erase their tax burden. The poor by nature of their poverty don't pay much tax. The lion's share rests on the average American worker.

I am no Obama fan. But when Conservatives start prattling on and on about debt and spending under this Administration, they conveniently forget who appropriates the money. Well at least when a Democrat is in the White House and Republicans are running Congress. When there is a Republican in the White House and the Democrats are running Congress, Conservatives switch the roles.

And just in case some of you have forgotten or never knew, Congress has more power than the President. Another reality conveniently forgotten by Conservatives when they start pushing their BS blame game.

So perhaps that is why most Conservative arguments go in one ear and out the other. I know if I wait long enough, they'll change their tune. But primarily they'll find a Democrat to blame.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Works Progress Administration, Indiana University Archives, Lilly Library
(2) WPA Historical Records Survey by Steve Paul Johnson, July 28, 1999

The government, Congress and the President, are not responsible for creating jobs. But they have contrived through regulation to make private creation of jobs almost impossible in this country.

 

[rightwinger]

The real choice is austerity now or austerity later. But, the sooner you do it the less austerity required. The longer hooked on heroin you are the harder the rehabilatation.

Yes, another hit of heroin makes you feel that you're not really hooked, but in reality it just makes you more hooked and in need of harsher rehabilitation.

Is that like being hooked on tax cuts as a solution no matter what the problem is?

 

[gallantwarrior]

return tax rates to their Clinton levels.

I'll agree to that, as long as we return our expenditures and debt to Clinton levels as well. Oh, yeah, and do away with any government agency or program that did not exist during Clinton's term.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have to show A) that the government is actually 'hooked' on debt;

BO's debt will be ( if reelected] more than all other American presidents combined!!

That doesn't at all mean anybody is hooked on debt. .

oh so then BO can walk away from more debt with no trouble??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'll agree to that, as long as we return our expenditures and debt to Clinton levels as well. Oh, yeah, and do away with any government agency or program that did not exist during Clinton's term.

and lets turn the competition from China and India back to what it was then too!!

 

[DSGE]

You have to show A) that the government is actually 'hooked' on debt;

BO's debt will be ( if reelected] more than all other American presidents combined!!

That doesn't at all mean anybody is hooked on debt. .

oh so then BO can walk away from more debt with no trouble??

So I take the time to write a carefully thought out post which addresses the points you made, and you give me nothing. You are either extremely stupid or extremely rude. Or both. Probably both.

 

[DSGE]

I'll agree to that, as long as we return our expenditures and debt to Clinton levels as well. Oh, yeah, and do away with any government agency or program that did not exist during Clinton's term.

and lets turn the competition from China and India back to what it was then too!!

What are you talking about? Didn't your Econ 101 course cover comparative advantage and free trade? Guess you must have been asleep...