Mrtraveler01: gblive: The only countries in Europe which are recovering from recession are those who adopted real austerity like Estonia and Latvia (not the U.K).

Are you sure you want to use Latvia as an example?

[www.tradingeconomics.com image 640x274]

[www.tradingeconomics.com image 640x274]

Yes, I am. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Switzerland are all examples of success in austerity. Even Krugman does not dispute the figures and success, but tries to claim the countries are too small to be representative examples. Which is like trying to claim that Greece to too small to serve as an example of how not to run an economy.

Austerity Works

GeneralJim: But, even if they DON'T, watch what they do... Especially, though, if they DO have a super-majority, watch what happens in the first six months.

They only need 50 Senate seats. That's all that is required for a budget to pass. The Ryan budget.

gblive: Estonia and Latvia


That's funny you think those countries can be compared to any big economy like England or America.

GeneralJim: LordJiro: Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.
Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

Alright let's cut some spending.

Let's start with the Department of Defense, they got tons of waste and fraud that we can cut.

*cue Republican whining against it*

Shvetz: The money gets spent multiple times over. Unless Bain Capital could tax the entirety of the economy, they wouldn't make any money. There is a reason the vast, overwhelming majority of economists don't consider supply-side/trickle-down economics to be effective at economic stimulus.

1.) That's both completely untrue and an argument from authority to boot.

2.) If you look at things like employment, GDP growth, and inflation (you know, actual evidence) the stupid little meme about "trickle-down" economics not working is utterly false.

Somebody gets a food stamp, the spend it at a local market. That local market now needs cashiers, shelf stockers, etc. Those newly employed people have their wages taxed. They go out and spend all their money because they have low-income jobs, and can't afford to save in a bad economy. They create demand/jobs, which now pay federal income tax. It's a cycle, and it's trickle up.

Yes, because that money farking grows on trees. It magically appears after being deposited by the money fairies.

That dollar in food stamps comes from somewhere else in the economy. It comes either from taxes or borrowing. Taxes have deadweight losses. Oh, and then you have to pay to collect that tax, administer the program that gives the food stamps, and then actually cut the checks. Those are all further losses.

So you haven't created a farking thing. You've just taken one dollar from somewhere else in the economy and put it somewhere else. There's no economic value being created, and in fact there's economic value being destroyed.

What you are describing is something that was thoroughly debunked and demolished over 200 years ago. Making the same conceptual mistakes over and over again is not the sign of an intelligent society.

If you give tax cuts to a corporation in a poor economy, they're just going to sit on the money. Without new customers, they have no reason to expand or hire new employees. That's why you read about companies such as Apple, sitting on more cash than the US Treasury.

Yes, because all corporations keep their money in a big vault, Scrooge McDuck-style. The CEOs even swim in it from time to time.

No, they don't "sit" on it. It still shows up on their balance sheets as retained earnings (or shareholder's equity).

Oh, and who does that help? The people who own the shares of the corporation. You know, like the teacher with a retirement account that's invested in the market. And the people who have an IRA or a mutual fund.

This is why we need better education on economics in this country. Because virtually everything in that post was like saying that cold transfers from cold objects to hot ones, the Sun spins around the Earth, and Jesus won the Battle of Wounded Knee and defeated the Nazis by riding on a dinosaur. Economic ignorance is no better than any other kind of ignorance.

GeneralJim: LordJiro: Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.
Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

I really wish the RNC would issue a new talking points handbook. Hearing the same debunked, fallacious nonsense time and time again is getting so stale.

intelligent comment below: it's good to be super rich and hide my wealth offshore

That's just it, giving these farkers a tax cut or a place at the stimulus trough is going to result in them doing just that. If we don't want them to treat the money we give them like it's their own, then we shouldn't give it to them. There's really no practical difference between these slightly different forms of corporate welfare.

gblive: Mrtraveler01: gblive: The only countries in Europe which are recovering from recession are those who adopted real austerity like Estonia and Latvia (not the U.K).

Are you sure you want to use Latvia as an example?

[www.tradingeconomics.com image 640x274]

[www.tradingeconomics.com image 640x274]

Yes, I am. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Switzerland are all examples of success in austerity. Even Krugman does not dispute the figures and success, but tries to claim the countries are too small to be representative examples. Which is like trying to claim that Greece to too small to serve as an example of how not to run an economy.

Austerity Works

So one of your examples of a country we should emulate (Latvia) had LESS GDP GROWTH than the United States even during a recession.

To be honest, that really doesn't help your argument.

rubi_con_man: Anyone with a business knows that doing it exclusively on the basis of having a large pool of cash that you own free and clear is almost unheard of. Most companies borrow.

The company I work for has never borrowed, and operates from cash. They're very small and I know they're an exception.

GeneralJim: Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

False talking point is false

Funny that under Obama, government hasn't been smaller for literally decades.

The problem with government is too much military spending, too many corporate welfare cases, and too little taxes on multinational corporations and the wealthy

gblive: Yes, I am. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Switzerland are all examples of success in austerity. Even Krugman does not dispute the figures and success, but tries to claim the countries are too small to be representative examples. Which is like trying to claim that Greece to too small to serve as an example of how not to run an economy.

Austerity Works


Austerity works... except in every single big economy that tries it.

But keep pointing to economies with enough citizens to barely fill New York City as "proof"

Under 6 is a bit optimistic, though I daresay the idiocy the GOP/Teabaggers have managed to pull off, adding uncertainly to an already uncertain period of time where other major powers have substantive problems of their own, isn't doing anyone any favors, and only creates additional problems for the US.

Pretending that the rank obstructionist tact is at all beneficial is merely holding fast to the path the federal gov't has taken for the past 30 years.

WombatControl: This is why we need better education on economics in this country.

I agree but what's farked up is that we'd try to do it by spending more money. It's like trying to teach someone brain surgery by hitting them in the head with a hammer.

intelligent comment below: gblive: Estonia and Latvia


That's funny you think those countries can be compared to any big economy like England or America.

When I engineer a little jet engine for a tiny RC plane or a huge jet engine for an large passenger plane - the successful design concepts remain the same, it is just a matter of scale.

WombatControl: The people who own the shares of the corporation. You know, like the teacher with a retirement account that's invested in the market. And the people who have an IRA or a mutual fund.


Top 10% wealth holders own over 80% of the stock market. This means nothing except a false appeal to emotion to pretend regular people benefit from the market.

Your entire trickle down argument was invalidated in the 1980's.

The 1980's

Only in America can we call year after year of increased federal government spending "austerity".

paygun: That's just it, giving these farkers a tax cut or a place at the stimulus trough is going to result in them doing just that. If we don't want them to treat the money we give them like it's their own, then we shouldn't give it to them. There's really no practical difference between these slightly different forms of corporate welfare.


Then take away their citizenship and ability to do business in America. Want to be unpatriotic? Go somewhere else.

GoldSpider: Only in America can we call year after year of increased federal government spending "austerity".

I agree that we have nothing close to austerity here in the US (Thank God).

Subby just said we did to troll the right-wingers. And it looked like it worked.

palladiate: Umm what?

Government controls government employment. Government employment is down 3%. 3% is X jobs. X jobs added to the economy,

Actually, this "government" you refer to is actual SEVERAL THOUSAND SMALL POLITICAL UNITS in this country. The Federal Government actually controls a very very tiny amount of the spending that goes on in the USA. More is spent by the States, and even more by cities and towns. Most of the Jobs lost were not in the Federal Government. Most of them were lost in the City and Town governments and State Governments, who generally rely on property taxes.

Since the 1980s, Property owners have rigged their taxes so that they only rise VERY slowly, and sometimes not at all (see: California). On the other hand, they have to pay competitive wages for police, firemen, road repairs, teachers, and so on... In the Last ten years, states and Cities have been both unable to cut spending (it's at the bone) and unable to raise revenues.

This has led to a number of what might be called "one-shot fixes", where the city sells off tracts of land at fire sale prices to make ends meet, or sells off the tight to the parking meter income to pay teachers, or accepts "land swaps" with cash bonuses in order to cover the 4th of July fireworks. Selling off their 'prisons' and then having to pay fees to private prison companies. They've resorted to turning employees into contractors, and only bringing talent on as 1099 consultants because they can't afford the pension and medical care costs ... because the taxpayers have refused to pay more taxes than they did in 1979.

Because of this, assets carefully and expensively pieced together by the generation before World War II are gone, and no longer work for us, but must be paid for over and over and over.

So this is what you're getting, lads. This is what Privatization means. It means that everyone has to pay all the time for everything. That we end sharing the commons and become screeching clutching creatures who lust for money, and hate their lives, and revile each other.

GoldSpider: Only in America can we call year after year of increased federal government spending "austerity".

As long as we keep the government out of my medicare, that's all that matters.

intelligent comment below: Then take away their citizenship and ability to do business in America. Want to be unpatriotic? Go somewhere else.

Or we could just hang them.

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, it's just that it's not workable politically. Our political system runs on big money donors. Until that's addressed all this other stuff won't be solved.

gblive: When I engineer a little jet engine for a tiny RC plane or a huge jet engine for an large passenger plane - the successful design concepts remain the same, it is just a matter of scale.


Okay, you're just trolling. We're done here


paygun: I agree but what's farked up is that we'd try to do it by spending more money. It's like trying to teach someone brain surgery by hitting them in the head with a hammer.


Government has always been the largest employer in the nation.

Why do you hate people having jobs?

Are you really going to argue, in an economic sense, that spending money on education is a net loss in the long run? Wow...

intelligent comment below: GeneralJim: Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

False talking point is false

Funny that under Obama, government hasn't been smaller for literally decades.

The problem with government is too much military spending, too many corporate welfare cases, and too little taxes on multinational corporations and the wealthy

And that is why government revenue relative to GDP has been steadily increasing continuously whilst government spending has been accelerating at a far greater pace?

You need a name change. In no possible math can *any* level of taxation on all sectors of our society catch our current spending pace, much less the increased pace that inevitably we face.

paygun: Or we could just hang them.

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, it's just that it's not workable politically. Our political system runs on big money donors. Until that's addressed all this other stuff won't be solved.


So vote Republican

GoldSpider: Only in America can we call year after year of increased federal government spending "austerity".

In the real world, Austerity means that spending goes "Down". Not so in the U.S. and many European countries. Then the politicians jump up & down and claim that "austerity" was a failure. Austerity did not fail; you increasing spending and calling it "austerity" is a big Fail.

notShryke: And that is why government revenue relative to GDP has been steadily increasing continuously whilst government spending has been accelerating at a far greater pace?


citation needed


notShryke: You need a name change. In no possible math can *any* level of taxation on all sectors of our society catch our current spending pace, much less the increased pace that inevitably we face.


taxes have never been lower, in a hundred years.

Are you really trying to make an argument against this?

intelligent comment below: paygun: I agree but what's farked up is that we'd try to do it by spending more money. It's like trying to teach someone brain surgery by hitting them in the head with a hammer.


Government has always been the largest employer in the nation.

Why do you hate people having jobs?

Are you really going to argue, in an economic sense, that spending money on education is a net loss in the long run? Wow...

What I've always wondered about the pro-austerity people is how does having more government workers unemployed help the economy?

intelligent comment below: Are you really going to argue, in an economic sense, that spending money on education is a net loss in the long run? Wow...

Effective education is not a direct byproduct of spending money. Do you think we could make George Bush smart by just spending enough money on the project?

That makes no sense when you apply it to any non-sacred cow either. Do you think our military just keeps getting better as long as we keep spending more money on it?

gblive: In the real world, Austerity means that spending goes "Down". Not so in the U.S. and many European countries. Then the politicians jump up & down and claim that "austerity" was a failure. Austerity did not fail; you increasing spending and calling it "austerity" is a big Fail.


except England has cut spending in all areas like the military, health care and education.

Guess what has happened? Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

notShryke: intelligent comment below: GeneralJim: Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

False talking point is false

Funny that under Obama, government hasn't been smaller for literally decades.

The problem with government is too much military spending, too many corporate welfare cases, and too little taxes on multinational corporations and the wealthy

And that is why government revenue relative to GDP has been steadily increasing continuously whilst government spending has been accelerating at a far greater pace?

You need a name change. In no possible math can *any* level of taxation on all sectors of our society catch our current spending pace, much less the increased pace that inevitably we face.

that is true. but if you cut spending and increase taxes through revenue you pay the debt down even quicker than just cutting spending. and why should the rich not suffer austerity too?

intelligent comment below: So vote Republican

You can always tell when someone doesn't agree with Citizens United that they must be a Republican. I'm the same way with gay marriage.

intelligent comment below: paygun: Or we could just hang them.

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, it's just that it's not workable politically. Our political system runs on big money donors. Until that's addressed all this other stuff won't be solved.


So vote Republican

You are terrified of any argument that deviates from boilerplate rhetoric, aren't you?

Hobodeluxe: but if you cut spending and increase taxes through revenue you pay the debt down even quicker than just cutting spending.

I never understood why people on the right don't understand this.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending in some programs (Defense) even if you cut spending in others (Entitlements), is not going to get us out of debt.

paygun: Effective education is not a direct byproduct of spending money. Do you think we could make George Bush smart by just spending enough money on the project?


"just spending money" is the argument who is using? Not me.
Smart spending is the only way to do it, but unfortunately the right wing has ruined public education with various ideas like tying education spending to property taxes (hurting low income areas), keeping teacher salaries low not attracting better people, and special interest groups getting involved in the education system from what to put in textbooks to what teachers can say and do.

/so vote Republican


paygun: That makes no sense when you apply it to any non-sacred cow either. Do you think our military just keeps getting better as long as we keep spending more money on it?


Not at all, having all the latest toys and thousands of nukes has nothing to do with the military might of America... heavy sarcasm

GoldSpider: You are terrified of any argument that deviates from boilerplate rhetoric, aren't you?

It's just something they say when they get lost. The worst is when you agree with them and they don't know why. Sometimes I think they might be crying.

GoldSpider: You are terrified of any argument that deviates from boilerplate rhetoric, aren't you?


your projection is showing

intelligent comment below: Smart spending is the only way to do it, but unfortunately the right wing has ruined public education with various ideas like tying education spending to property taxes (hurting low income areas), keeping teacher salaries low not attracting better people, and special interest groups getting involved in the education system from what to put in textbooks to what teachers can say and do.

I sure as hell don't think that if we just cut education to the bone and made students meet in mud huts that it will all turn around. I really don't think our problem with education is really a problem with the system itself. A talented well paid teacher can't fix a broken community.

NowhereMon: Whatever it takes right guys? Tank the economy, disenfranchise millions, the ends justify the means right? RIGHT?

The Ghost of Republican Nixon reverberates OH HELL YES YOU DOLT!!!!!!

paygun: It's just something they say when they get lost. The worst is when you agree with them and they don't know why. Sometimes I think they might be crying.


I think it's sad you see yourself as some super intelligent troll who tools with everyone and laughs on his way to a mensa meeting.

You troll pretending to sit the independent fence but some of us in reality know not to waste our time with you because you use circular logic just to get out of a debate, you never hold onto a side of an argument.

And yet you've never advocated once against Republican policies, your days on here are complete Koch Brothers shilling.

Now your game is to be a political moderate and rally against Citizens United, while in other topics you cry about how powerful and overpaid evil unions and government employees are. But you're really the smart one and we are all just "lost"

Get lost

djkutch: Reagan raised taxes several times.

Obama needs to say he wants to put taxes at Reagan-era levels. It would be one of the few ways to make this election more entertaining than it already is.

intelligent comment below: GoldSpider: You are terrified of any argument that deviates from boilerplate rhetoric, aren't you?


your projection is showing

paygun: I sure as hell don't think that if we just cut education to the bone and made students meet in mud huts that it will all turn around. I really don't think our problem with education is really a problem with the system itself. A talented well paid teacher can't fix a broken community.


Finally we get to your argument, it's the minorities fault.

It's just all those Escalades and gangsters and baby daddies.

intelligent comment below: Top 10% wealth holders own over 80% of the stock market.

This means nothing except a false appeal to emotion to pretend regular people benefit from the market.

Your entire trickle down argument was invalidated in the 1980's.

The 1980's

Oh, yeah, trickle down was totally invalidated by the 1980s. I mean things totally sucked in the 1980s. All that massive GDP growth, inflation being put under control, and dramatically reduced unemployment was a total failure.

Get the facts. GDP grew by an average of 3.2% during Reagan's two terms in office. Per-family median income increased by $4,000. Unemployment went from nearly 10% when Reagan took office. When he left it was 5.5%.

You can spew all the bullshiat talking points about the economy of the 1980s, but no matter how many times you repeat them that won't actually make them true...

intelligent comment below: And yet you've never advocated once against Republican policies, your days on here are complete Koch Brothers shilling.

I side with the left on all the stupid Republican bedroom policies, and that's nothing new. Pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro all the usual stupid crap that government has no business messing with.

And I've never claimed that someone who disagrees with me is a party operative. This is the fark politics tab, this isn't the center of the political universe.

intelligent comment below: Finally we get to your argument, it's the minorities fault.

I never made a connection between a broken community and race. But you just did.

djkutch: I want to vote for a Republican. I really do. And, then, I remember Reagan raised taxes several time. I'm not suggesting that offset programs like Star Wars.

But, Reagan raised taxes several times.

I don't think this a difficult.

Reagan raised taxes several times.

I love left-wing talking points. It's like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole with stupid.

What party had control of the House during all the Reagan years? And what part of the government must revenue bills originate from?

Reagan didn't raise taxes - he had to compromise with Democrats in order to get other things done.

Any time a liberal tries to take on the mantle of Reagan, they're selling you a 55-gallon drum of concentrated bullshiat. Reagan's actual philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the left-wing statism of the modern Democratic Party.

One of the problems with the Kos analysis is that as Krugman made clear over and over again, the Obama Administration was never going to propose a stimulus to make up enough for the job losses. The gap was at least 50%.

Now you can say that that was caused by Republican Obstructionism, but that was prior to any of the real fights. Obama's proposal was weak and insufficient PRIOR to any Republican Obstructionism.

The other thing I believe is wrong about the Kos analysis is the handwaving argument that the overlap between the two sets of numbers, the 2.3 million lost as a result of lack of Federal funds to replace state jobs and their multipler and the 1.9 million lost that moody claims is a small overlap. The analysis of the first number, 2.3 million lost makes clear that a small number of gov't jobs creates a significant amount of private jobs.

(The other reason unemployment would not be lower than 6% is that plenty of "Democratic" economists also believe like Republican economists that that's the natural rate of unemployment and to go lower would risk inflation.)

Anyway, that's my idiot take on it.