|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 1, 2010 6:08:11 GMT -8
Implement austerity policies?
Higher taxes and reduced government benefits can be a tough pill to swallow.
Austerity policies mean tax hikes and spending cuts. Does anybody really want to go down this path?
Greece can be seen as a test of this agenda. And its citizens have responded with strikes and social unrest. As it continues, Greece might see a civil war, especially if we see rampant inflation (Which most of us know is just around the corner.).
But why go that insane path? All we have to do is ask the FED "To forgive us out debt as we have forgiven our bankers."
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 1, 2010 11:43:09 GMT -8
Implement austerity policies? Higher taxes and reduced government benefits can be a tough pill to swallow. Austerity policies mean tax hikes and spending cuts. Does anybody really want to go down this path? Greece can be seen as a test of this agenda. And its citizens have responded with strikes and social unrest. As it continues, Greece might see a civil war, especially if we see rampant inflation (Which most of us know is just around the corner.). But why go that insane path? All we have to do is ask the FED "To forgive us out debt as we have forgiven our bankers." We do need huge spending cuts, but tax increases are poison to economic activity. We also need people on a personal level to reduce their overall debt. Now I know that would decrease private sector spending which is needed, but we need to find a balance. You can only carry so much personal debt until it becomes a burden that you can't overcome. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 1, 2010 20:25:57 GMT -8
Just ask the FED to forgive us our debt as we forgave our bankers.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 5, 2010 6:46:16 GMT -8
I am amazed that the deficit was not a big issue in 2002 to 2008 when "old belt buckle" was warring and rich tax cutting us into poverty. No it is a big issue, because that great economist, Bo[eh]ner, and the rest of the simpletons have made it an issue.
The fact is that budget cutting should wait (if it is needed at all) until the demand in the economy improves. What you geniuses want is akin to starving a skinny man because he needs more food than the normal man. State employment and demand (consumer demand is 70% of the economy, remember?) have been decimated by austerity.
All you will do by cutting the budget is decrease demand. Most government funds go to the private businesses you love like a fetish. All you will do by cutting demand is increase unemployment.
Increase demand which will increase spending, income and tax receipts. Then indulge your Bo[eh]ner for the deficit.
I do think that we should tax the piss out of the rich, because in believe the reduction of their income will not materially change their demand. We should end the tax cuts, which will increase my taxes too. But as a responsible person I realize that it is necessary.
Incidentally, I get a big kick of the Republican deficit hawks who want to save posterity from the debt. But, they have no problem taking social security from the same posterity.
Once again the real issue is that Republicans do not want to pay any taxes, because they do not believe in the common good. That common good is the one that benefits them more than almost everyone.
Supply side economics is stupid when consumption drives the economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 7:07:03 GMT -8
I am amazed that the deficit was not a big issue in 2002 to 2008 when "old belt buckle" was warring and rich tax cutting us into poverty. No it is a big issue, because that great economist, Bo[eh]ner, and the rest of the simpletons have made it an issue. The fact is that budget cutting should wait (if it is needed at all) until the demand in the economy improves. What you geniuses want is akin to starving a skinny man because he needs more food than the normal man. State employment and demand (consumer demand is 70% of the economy, remember?) have been decimated by austerity. All you will do by cutting the budget is decrease demand. Most government funds go to the private businesses you love like a fetish. All you will do by cutting demand is increase unemployment. Increase demand which will increase spending, income and tax receipts. Then indulge your Bo[eh]ner for the deficit. I do think that we should tax the piss out of the rich, because in believe the reduction of their income will not materially change their demand. We should end the tax cuts, which will increase my taxes too. But as a responsible person I realize that it is necessary. Incidentally, I get a big kick of the Republican deficit hawks who want to save posterity from the debt. But, they have no problem taking social security from the same posterity. Once again the real issue is that Republicans do not want to pay any taxes, because they do not believe in the common good. That common good is the one that benefits them more than almost everyone. Supply side economics is stupid when consumption drives the economy. Consumption is stupid when you do not have the money and you are spending your Grandchildren's money. I think that in November we will make a start once again in getting on the right track. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 5, 2010 7:27:16 GMT -8
I am amazed that the deficit was not a big issue in 2002 to 2008 when "old belt buckle" was warring and rich tax cutting us into poverty. No it is a big issue, because that great economist, Bo[eh]ner, and the rest of the simpletons have made it an issue. The fact is that budget cutting should wait (if it is needed at all) until the demand in the economy improves. What you geniuses want is akin to starving a skinny man because he needs more food than the normal man. State employment and demand (consumer demand is 70% of the economy, remember?) have been decimated by austerity. All you will do by cutting the budget is decrease demand. Most government funds go to the private businesses you love like a fetish. All you will do by cutting demand is increase unemployment. Increase demand which will increase spending, income and tax receipts. Then indulge your Bo[eh]ner for the deficit. I do think that we should tax the piss out of the rich, because in believe the reduction of their income will not materially change their demand. We should end the tax cuts, which will increase my taxes too. But as a responsible person I realize that it is necessary. Incidentally, I get a big kick of the Republican deficit hawks who want to save posterity from the debt. But, they have no problem taking social security from the same posterity. Once again the real issue is that Republicans do not want to pay any taxes, because they do not believe in the common good. That common good is the one that benefits them more than almost everyone. Supply side economics is stupid when consumption drives the economy. Consumption is stupid when you do not have the money and you are spending your Grandchildren's money. I think that in November we will make a start once again in getting on the right track. Consumption is 70% of the economy, Win. Just how is stimulating 70% of the economy any less useful l than stimulating the top 1% of it? Would someone please explain that to me?! Is the posterity you will save the same posterity you want to take Social Security away from? As to a possible change in power, Republicans simply cannot govern. They are bound by their ideology and have to resort to ideas outside their belief system (see Bush in late 2008 engineering the stimulus program) when their ideas result in chaos. When citizens understand the practical effects of their leadership (like privatizing social security) they shun the Bo[eh]ners of the world. And that means if Republicans re-gain power, they will lose it again. The citizens don't like Republicans leadership. Voters are going to vote against the economy this year, not for any Republicans. By the way, I have a real hard on for that Bo[eh]ner! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 9:00:15 GMT -8
Consumption is stupid when you do not have the money and you are spending your Grandchildren's money. I think that in November we will make a start once again in getting on the right track. Consumption is 70% of the economy, Win. Just how is stimulating 70% of the economy any less useful l than stimulating the top 1% of it? Would someone please explain that to me?! Is the posterity you will save the same posterity you want to take Social Security away from? As to a possible change in power, Republicans simply cannot govern. They are bound by their ideology and have to resort to ideas outside their belief system (see Bush in late 2008 engineering the stimulus program) when their ideas result in chaos. When citizens understand the practical effects of their leadership (like privatizing social security) they shun the Bo[eh]ners of the world. And that means if Republicans re-gain power, they will lose it again. The citizens don't like Republicans leadership. Voters are going to vote against the economy this year, not for any Republicans. By the way, I have a real hard on for that Bo[eh]ner! ;D Consumption is important if you are not spending what you do not have. That is very simple to see. Spending by taking on debt is counterproductive in the present and destructive for the future. Yes we are voting against the Obama economy but you are failing to see that the Republicans are changing as we go along. More Conservative folks are being offered up rather than RINOs. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 5, 2010 9:41:14 GMT -8
Consumption is 70% of the economy, Win. Just how is stimulating 70% of the economy any less useful l than stimulating the top 1% of it? Would someone please explain that to me?! Is the posterity you will save the same posterity you want to take Social Security away from? As to a possible change in power, Republicans simply cannot govern. They are bound by their ideology and have to resort to ideas outside their belief system (see Bush in late 2008 engineering the stimulus program) when their ideas result in chaos. When citizens understand the practical effects of their leadership (like privatizing social security) they shun the Bo[eh]ners of the world. And that means if Republicans re-gain power, they will lose it again. The citizens don't like Republicans leadership. Voters are going to vote against the economy this year, not for any Republicans. By the way, I have a real hard on for that Bo[eh]ner! ;D Consumption is important if you are not spending what you do not have. That is very simple to see. Spending by taking on debt is counterproductive in the present and destructive for the future. Yes we are voting against the Obama economy but you are failing to see that the Republicans are changing as we go along. More Conservative folks are being offered up rather than RINOs. The debt is secondary to the unemployment issue. The debt can be managed by growth. Republicans never change. They want to pay less taxes. The economic principle of ineslasticity of demand that suggests cutting taxes for the rich does not stimulate demand. It has not done so since Bush cut them. You have to stimulate consumption. And that is the 70% I have been talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 10:43:30 GMT -8
Consumption is important if you are not spending what you do not have. That is very simple to see. Spending by taking on debt is counterproductive in the present and destructive for the future. Yes we are voting against the Obama economy but you are failing to see that the Republicans are changing as we go along. More Conservative folks are being offered up rather than RINOs. The debt is secondary to the unemployment issue. The debt can be managed by growth. Republicans never change. They want to pay less taxes. The economic principle of ineslasticity of demand that suggests cutting taxes for the rich does not stimulate demand. It has not done so since Bush cut them. You have to stimulate consumption. And that is the 70% I have been talking about. You can do as you say, but it is the at expense of future activity (see "cash for clunkers") and you not only cheapen the dollar but foist burden on future generations. At some time the piper must be paid one way or another. It can be future debt that you won't have to pay but your kids will or it can be through inflation. At some time you have to face reality and go through that rough spot yourself in order to right our economy on a solid basis. You and Krugman are just flat wrong and it is becoming clearer that when you advocate an easier path for yourself but let your children and their children face the music says a lot about liberals in general and just maybe about you personally. I would take that back if you would say that a personal belt tightening and one for the nation for the benefit of our kids is not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 5, 2010 15:34:47 GMT -8
The debt is secondary to the unemployment issue. The debt can be managed by growth. Republicans never change. They want to pay less taxes. The economic principle of ineslasticity of demand that suggests cutting taxes for the rich does not stimulate demand. It has not done so since Bush cut them. You have to stimulate consumption. And that is the 70% I have been talking about. You can do as you say, but it is the at expense of future activity (see "cash for clunkers") and you not only cheapen the dollar but foist burden on future generations. At some time the piper must be paid one way or another. It can be future debt that you won't have to pay but your kids will or it can be through inflation. At some time you have to face reality and go through that rough spot yourself in order to right our economy on a solid basis. You and Krugman are just flat wrong and it is becoming clearer that when you advocate an easier path for yourself but let your children and their children face the music says a lot about liberals in general and just maybe about you personally. I would take that back if you would say that a personal belt tightening and one for the nation for the benefit of our kids is not a bad thing. Austerity is fine, but you want to put more people out of work in the name of that austerity. Where will the additional unemployed people find jobs? (and most of them will be private industry jobs, in case you didn't know) You would increase unemployment and stifle demand even more? You want to lay off people and stifle demand in the middle of the worst job down turn since word war II? So, you want to reduce demand when there is already no demand? No demand is what a recession is. Belt tightening does not make sense. Who do you think will pay for the reduction in demand? Belt tightening when you call those who would be laid off lazy and begrudge them unemployment on top of it? Do they deserve to go hungry? Because, that is what some Republicans want if you carry their logic to its foreseeable end. ". . .foist burden on future generations. . ." But you would take away their Social security? Why not end the tax cuts "old belt buckle" passed? That won't hurt demand any worse than laying off all the people your austerity plan will cause. I am willing to pay the extra taxes it takes to shore up Social Security and reduce the deficit. Are you? I'll write Jay Inslee and tell him so and send you a copy, if you will do the same with whomever is your Republican. Please name a Republican economist and supply side economic enthusiast with a Nobel prize. I was actually pretty good at economics, and Krugman makes more sense than, for example, that moron representative from Minnesota. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 5, 2010 15:38:08 GMT -8
I would take that back if you would say that a personal belt tightening and one for the nation for the benefit of our kids is not a bad thing. Absolutely, Win. All of us Liberals are convinced that we need to stop fueling the military industrial complex. It is a totally wasteful expenditure and only gets people killed. We should bring all the overseas troops home and ban the military as soon as they are back home. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 5, 2010 15:57:54 GMT -8
I would take that back if you would say that a personal belt tightening and one for the nation for the benefit of our kids is not a bad thing. Absolutely, Win. All of us Liberals are convinced that we need to stop fueling the military industrial complex. It is a totally wasteful expenditure and only gets people killed. We should bring all the overseas troops home and ban the military as soon as they are back home. Who is going to explain why reducing demand works when the problem is no demand? All you will do is shrink the tax base and fuel more cuts. What would have happened if we had taken the three trillion that the wars will cost and improved infrastructure with it? (infrastructure is the reason we are prosperous by the way) |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 5, 2010 19:05:44 GMT -8
70 percent of the economy is service sector but that only will grow if the other 30 percent of the economy is growing. Right now that is not happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 5, 2010 19:54:49 GMT -8
Austerity is fine, but you want to put more people out of work in the name of that austerity. Where will the additional unemployed people find jobs? (and most of them will be private industry jobs, in case you didn't know) You would increase unemployment and stifle demand even more? You want to lay off people and stifle demand in the middle of the worst job down turn since word war II?
It would take very little time for the stability that responsible adults controlling spending to an amount that you have to create confidence in the economy.
So, you want to reduce demand when there is already no demand? No demand is what a recession is. Belt tightening does not make sense. Who do you think will pay for the reduction in demand?
You can fuel demand with your children's money, but I want to leave them in better shape than you do it seems. You have to start getting a grip on the problem and now is a good time.
Belt tightening when you call those who would be laid off lazy and begrudge them unemployment on top of it? Do they deserve to go hungry? Because, that is what some Republicans want if you carry their logic to its foreseeable end.
Total nonsense! Responsible policy with some certainty would spur business by giving us confidence in some sound policy for a change.
". . .foist burden on future generations. . ." But you would take away their Social security?
Again, raise the retirement age and lift the cap. Pretty simple. Want some real confidence in Social Security? Take it private and out of the hands of Congress.
Why not end the tax cuts "old belt buckle" passed? That won't hurt demand any worse than laying off all the people your austerity plan will cause. Give us that tax policy and make it permanent and you see an instant rise in economic activity.
I am willing to pay the extra taxes it takes to shore up Social Security and reduce the deficit. Are you?
I am willing to pay more taxes to help Social Security. Raise the retirement age and remove the cap on earnings. That is the logical way.
Please name a Republican economist and supply side economic enthusiast with a Nobel prize. I was actually pretty good at economics, and Krugman makes more sense than, for example, that moron representative from Minnesota.
This is a little stale. Anyone who knows to quit spending before you run out of money fits the bill. Krugman has become so out of favor and irrelevant that he should be taken down from even your alter.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 6, 2010 6:24:07 GMT -8
70 percent of the economy is service sector but that only will grow if the other 30 percent of the economy is growing. Right now that is not happening. Private consumption is seventy percent of the economy. Stimulate that 70% and the other 30% will go. I know you understand that. But it does not matter. The issue really is that conservatives hate taxes. They have absolutely no interest in the common good. That is the whole cause of this austerity production, which won't work when there is no demand to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 6, 2010 6:37:45 GMT -8
Austerity is fine, but you want to put more people out of work in the name of that austerity. Where will the additional unemployed people find jobs? (and most of them will be private industry jobs, in case you didn't know) You would increase unemployment and stifle demand even more? You want to lay off people and stifle demand in the middle of the worst job down turn since word war II? It would take very little time for the stability that responsible adults controlling spending to an amount that you have to create confidence in the economy.Business confidence in the economy is based on the fact that people will buy what they have to sell. That is the motivation of their expansion. Cut demand and business contracts. Government expenditures benefit business. Responsible adults have nothing to do with it.
So, you want to reduce demand when there is already no demand? No demand is what a recession is. Belt tightening does not make sense. Who do you think will pay for the reduction in demand? You can fuel demand with your children's money, but I want to leave them in better shape than you do it seems. You have to start getting a grip on the problem and now is a good time.Conservatives don't want to pay higher taxes, even though by comparison our tax rate is low. That is the whole discussion, right there. We owe those and we incurred the debt not our kids. So, we pay them. Its real simple. You can't reduce demand when there already is no demand. Cutting reduces demand.Belt tightening when you call those who would be laid off lazy and begrudge them unemployment on top of it? Do they deserve to go hungry? Because, that is what some Republicans want if you carry their logic to its foreseeable end. Total nonsense! Responsible policy with some certainty would spur business by giving us confidence in some sound policy for a change.Business will only respond to an increase in demand. That is what they are. They don't do responsible. Responsible is forced on them at bayonet point.
". . .foist burden on future generations. . ." But you would take away their Social security? Again, raise the retirement age and lift the cap. Pretty simple. Want some real confidence in Social Security? Take it private and out of the hands of Congress.Private investment/business has shown me nothing. I would not trust them with my used toilet paper. Please note the private financial bubble and meltdown as an example of private success. Also add the great depression, the downturns of the early eighties the nineties and early 2000s.Why not end the tax cuts "old belt buckle" passed? That won't hurt demand any worse than laying off all the people your austerity plan will cause. Give us that tax policy and make it permanent and you see an instant rise in economic activity. It hasn't worked in the first ten years (real income declined, Win), why will it now?I am willing to pay the extra taxes it takes to shore up Social Security and reduce the deficit. Are you? I am willing to pay more taxes to help Social Security. Raise the retirement age and remove the cap on earnings. That is the logical way.OK, I agree. Although I would raise the tax ,5% for each side.
Please name a Republican economist and supply side economic enthusiast with a Nobel prize. I was actually pretty good at economics, and Krugman makes more sense than, for example, that moron representative from Minnesota. This is a little stale. Anyone who knows to quit spending before you run out of money fits the bill. Krugman has become so out of favor and irrelevant that he should be taken down from even your alter. Just so you know, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't agree with it at this moment. Responsible austerity and efficiency is a good thing. But cutting expenses when the economy depends on the demand is counter productive. Fix the demand problem, then look at expenditures. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 6, 2010 15:46:19 GMT -8
Austerity is fine, but you want to put more people out of work in the name of that austerity. Where will the additional unemployed people find jobs? (and most of them will be private industry jobs, in case you didn't know) You would increase unemployment and stifle demand even more? You want to lay off people and stifle demand in the middle of the worst job down turn since word war II? It would take very little time for the stability that responsible adults controlling spending to an amount that you have to create confidence in the economy.Business confidence in the economy is based on the fact that people will buy what they have to sell. That is the motivation of their expansion. Cut demand and business contracts. Government expenditures benefit business. Responsible adults have nothing to do with it.
So, you want to reduce demand when there is already no demand? No demand is what a recession is. Belt tightening does not make sense. Who do you think will pay for the reduction in demand? You can fuel demand with your children's money, but I want to leave them in better shape than you do it seems. You have to start getting a grip on the problem and now is a good time.Conservatives don't want to pay higher taxes, even though by comparison our tax rate is low. That is the whole discussion, right there. We owe those and we incurred the debt not our kids. So, we pay them. Its real simple. You can't reduce demand when there already is no demand. Cutting reduces demand.Belt tightening when you call those who would be laid off lazy and begrudge them unemployment on top of it? Do they deserve to go hungry? Because, that is what some Republicans want if you carry their logic to its foreseeable end. Total nonsense! Responsible policy with some certainty would spur business by giving us confidence in some sound policy for a change.Business will only respond to an increase in demand. That is what they are. They don't do responsible. Responsible is forced on them at bayonet point.
". . .foist burden on future generations. . ." But you would take away their Social security? Again, raise the retirement age and lift the cap. Pretty simple. Want some real confidence in Social Security? Take it private and out of the hands of Congress.Private investment/business has shown me nothing. I would not trust them with my used toilet paper. Please note the private financial bubble and meltdown as an example of private success. Also add the great depression, the downturns of the early eighties the nineties and early 2000s.Why not end the tax cuts "old belt buckle" passed? That won't hurt demand any worse than laying off all the people your austerity plan will cause. Give us that tax policy and make it permanent and you see an instant rise in economic activity. It hasn't worked in the first ten years (real income declined, Win), why will it now?I am willing to pay the extra taxes it takes to shore up Social Security and reduce the deficit. Are you? I am willing to pay more taxes to help Social Security. Raise the retirement age and remove the cap on earnings. That is the logical way.OK, I agree. Although I would raise the tax ,5% for each side.
Please name a Republican economist and supply side economic enthusiast with a Nobel prize. I was actually pretty good at economics, and Krugman makes more sense than, for example, that moron representative from Minnesota. This is a little stale. Anyone who knows to quit spending before you run out of money fits the bill. Krugman has become so out of favor and irrelevant that he should be taken down from even your alter. Just so you know, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't agree with it at this moment. Responsible austerity and efficiency is a good thing. But cutting expenses when the economy depends on the demand is counter productive. Fix the demand problem, then look at expenditures. Funny how I see your point(s) and think that there is merit. The problem is I am willing to go through the hard spot that facing the problem now will entail rather than "kick the can" down the street to let my Granchildren face the problems. |
|
