Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ten million dollars in taxes or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars to research shrimp on treadmills or $10 million in reinvestment? Ten million dollars in presidential suites for IRS agents or $10 million in reinvestment?
*Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in lavish parties for business executives?
Ten million for schools? Ten million for medical research? How much did the US government spend to create the modern-day internet and what do you think would have been a better use of the money?
What does better mean? In this case, better meant that these European countries budgets could be balanced. Otherwise, they could default, go bankrupt and nobody would invest or loan them any money! In Greece they got to the point they could not further pay their debts and could not pay salaries to government workers. "Better" meant that the state could go on doing business. It did not mean lower consumer prices, high employment and expansion of social programs, (if that's what you refer to by better).
It didn't "balance those budgets" - it made the deficits there WORSE by plunging the economies there deeper into recession and raising unemployment. Spain is a prime example - after the government began cutting its' spending, unemployment - which was already hovering a bit over 20% - increased by almost 50% and the deficit SOARED. It's now going to take LONGER to get rid of their deficit than it was to BEGIN WITH. The whole "shrink government to balance the budget" idea in the midst of economic tough times was a complete DISASTER.
There is a time and place for trying to balance the budget - and trying to do it during tough economic times is NOT THE TIME NOR THE PLACE.
*Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in lavish parties for business executives?
Ten million for schools? Ten million for medical research? How much did the US government spend to create the modern-day internet and what do you think would have been a better use of the money?
You are right and it is because some are invested in the fallacious beliefs that any money the government collects in taxes would be better spent by keeping that money in individual hands. I use the example of air traffic controllers, who are funded by fees on tickets. Would it really be a better country if we got rid of those fees and dismantled the air traffic control system that keeps planes from crashing into each other? I don't think so.
The fallacy of 'unemployment in Europe is caused by Socialism,' is completely refuted by the fact the countries who are the most 'Socialist,' like the Scandinavian countries, are doing jut fine.
It didn't "balance those budgets" - it made the deficits there WORSE by plunging the economies there deeper into recession and raising unemployment. Spain is a prime example - after the government began cutting its' spending, unemployment - which was already hovering a bit over 20% - increased by almost 50% and the deficit SOARED. It's now going to take LONGER to get rid of their deficit than it was to BEGIN WITH. The whole "shrink government to balance the budget" idea in the midst of economic tough times was a complete DISASTER.
There is a time and place for trying to balance the budget - and trying to do it during tough economic times is NOT THE TIME NOR THE PLACE.
I didn't say that they succeeded. I only clarified what the goal of austerity was. France, with their socialist president, refused going into that direction, yet their economy sank as well.
The truth is that with difficult economic times, the poor and low income segments suffer first, one way or another. They are the first to feel it (even before austerity measures) when the governments are no longer capable of paying salaries and welfare.
It didn't "balance those budgets" - it made the deficits there WORSE by plunging the economies there deeper into recession and raising unemployment. Spain is a prime example - after the government began cutting its' spending, unemployment - which was already hovering a bit over 20% - increased by almost 50% and the deficit SOARED. It's now going to take LONGER to get rid of their deficit than it was to BEGIN WITH. The whole "shrink government to balance the budget" idea in the midst of economic tough times was a complete DISASTER.
There is a time and place for trying to balance the budget - and trying to do it during tough economic times is NOT THE TIME NOR THE PLACE.
Well make no mistake, there was no sugar coating of what countries needed to do and what it was going to cost them:
Quote:
The economic crisis and the austerity measures to counter it are widely expected to cause
poverty and inequality to rise sharply.
Quote:
Our results can be summarized as follows. As a result of the austerity measures, poverty is
expected to increase, especially in Greece and, to a lesser extent, Estonia. Changes in
inequality are less pronounced, and may even go to the opposite direction. The relative
weight of social benefits including pensions in total income has been reduced (except in
Estonia), while that of taxes and social contributions has grown (in Greece only once VAT
changes are taken into account). While higher income groups contribute the bulk of the
total fiscal consolidation effort, the contribution of lower income groups is not negligible
relative to their (low) income. Finally, income losses are greater in absolute terms (i.e. in
euros) for higher income groups (except in Spain where the pattern is less clear). However,
in relative terms (i.e. as a proportion of their income) lower income groups suffer a greater
income loss (except in Greece, excluding the effect of tax evasion and indirect taxation).
While these findings are non-trivial, the estimated impact of austerity measures may seem
less significant than expected. This may to some extent be related to the fact that in most
cases policy packages were carefully designed to minimise losses for lower income groups
and/or partly to compensate these groups through “sweeteners”.
That sounds just like the left's and the right's answer to solving our problems except the left would refuse any and all measures regarding lower incomes and the right would refuse any and all tax increases on the higher incomes. In other words it sounds like they took a "balanced approach."
No where was I hearing that America should be taking a balanced approach from?
*Ten million dollars in lavish parties for IRS agents or $10 million in lavish parties for business executives?
Ten million for schools? Ten million for medical research? How much did the US government spend to create the modern-day internet and what do you think would have been a better use of the money?
Why would anyone spend $10 million in capital gains on lavish parties? They do that and write it off as business expenses before they ever pay one red cent in taxes and they do it for the business.
Many EU countries are having serious talks about pulling plug on austerity programs
Actually, all they're doing is prolonging austerity. You can bet your bottom dollar those countries will be right back on the chopping block if allowed to continue the reckless policies which they were engaged in right before the crisis.
I mean you don't really think after hundreds of years of economic engagement that they're all the sudden going to becoming competitive against countries like China (and then C. Eurasia and then MENA and then sub-Saharan Africa) do you? Globalization is picking up steam, not slowing down.
I didn't say that they succeeded. I only clarified what the goal of austerity was. France, with their socialist president, refused going into that direction, yet their economy sank as well.
The truth is that with difficult economic times, the poor and low income segments suffer first, one way or another. They are the first to feel it (even before austerity measures) when the governments are no longer capable of paying salaries and welfare.
The goal was to get their economies at or under 3% deficits. Many couldn't manage that (including the Netherlands) and now they're talking about giving them two more years to get their 'ish together.
Again, who really thinks these, or any "Western" countries for that matter, are going to become competitive enough to fight off stagnation when they're going to have to be competing up-and-coming countries with the lowest wages on the planet?
Getting universal equality isn't exactly turning out to be as rosy as it sounds when you say it is it? And of course when you mix the West's attempt to lower global emissions -- which is pissing off the East because they fear the West is just jealous that their standards of living are going down -- with "talks" you'll soon see just how screwed the West is with it pushing more strict standards on itself while the largest countries with the highest populations on the planet (3.1 billion and counting) refusing to push any real reforms and polluting more than the West could ever dream of. In fact the last time I saw the numbers that the East was requesting for emerging markets to "go green" during industrialization (oxymoron) it was to the tune of $1 trillion a year.
Hopelessly screwed is too nice a term.
So who wants to come out and say something stupid like "let's spend more money on stimulus and increase deficits and debt so that later on down the road we can pay those back when we become prosperous again."
Last edited by BigJon3475; 06-05-2013 at 06:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
