Originally Posted by tonton
Your economic claims ring terribly flawed when you consider the FACT that the European countries that are in the deepest crisis are the European countries that have gone the "austerity" path. The problem with austerity past a certain point is that once the government stops spending, businesses stop spending, and once businesses stop spending, individuals stop spending. This is exactly what happened in Greece. Forget the fiscal cliff, this is the fiscal brick wall.
Welcome back by the way, even if it is to gloat. Floorjack hit this perfectly below so read his very succinct answer.
Question for you... When the government spends money, does the money disappear?
Happen to know of one particular member of these boards whose salary is partially paid for by the California State government. How hilarious it would have been had that person been downsized because Governor Brown's 0.25% sales tax/tax increase on the wealthy earning over $250k had failed. Wonder who he would have left to blame then. Keep in mind that music programs would be among the first to go.
Except it wouldn't have been hilarious because my daughter will be attending a high school starting next year and parts of her program would definitely have been cut. Thank god California voters had enough sense to pay a little more, save my daughter's education and in the process possibly save Nick's job (you're welcome!)
It must be a gas in the copy room at Nick's school when he loudly trumpets out his opinion that he would rather risk losing his job and the jobs of his colleagues than ask rich people to give a little more!
Does the money disappear. In some ways yes and in other ways it causes future dollars and returns to disappear. If the dollar taken would have been invested in something that would get a return or to pay an employee for productive work, then it has indeed caused future dollars to disappear and stopped future growth.
If the dollar is spent properly for education and infrastructure then it can have a multiplier effect. However if you spend some time in California and especially if you visit California's conservative neighbors, you will see that is not the case. California has the highest sales tax and highest income tax rates in the nation now and they were first of top three before the increase. They are in the bottom five for education spending per pupil. The difference isn't because we don't take in the money, it is because they don't send it to education and when they do, they send it in a top down manner that gets fewer dollars to the classroom.
FYI, I edited the name of the school out of quote and I hope you will do the same for the initial post. While you are familiar with me as a poster and probably with most posters on the forum, who knows who lurks out there and better to be safe than sorry regarding your child's privacy. I hope for the best for her but most education cuts have merely been shifts in funds. General education is being cut but interventions and dollars spent mainstreaming special needs children are the biggest money grabs right now and grow every year. We've talked about the California system and how it might really discriminate against your daughter with regard to top UC schools and her Chinese and white ancestry.
As for me and my job, a few points, one I'm getting a few miles on the odometer and because of that and the current system, I'm far enough up on the seniority ranks that they would have to be burning down the school buildings to collect the insurance money before I would be laid off. Second if that weren't the case I'd still be a valuable and kept employee because my kids learn disproportionately compared to other teachers and score very well on state tests. Finally if the education system were private, I have no doubt I would attract the same amount or more money in terms of salary and students/clientele. When it comes to demographics, the UC schools mentioned before have way to many of your daughter as an example and so they turn them away while letting in other demographics meeting lower standards. My demographic is pretty rare in education (only 5% of elementary school teachers are men) and as such I'm snagged pretty quick no matter the occasion.
Thanks for your heartfelt concern though.
Originally Posted by tonton
So according to Trumptman, the auto bailouts were solely for the purpose of "buying" the election. According to him, we should have shut them down and added all those people to the unemployment lines. That would have gone over well!
Like BR points out, if you want your party to be competitive, you need a better grasp on reality.
They wouldn't have liquidated the automakers. They would have resumed making cars but discharged their debts. Their debts are union contracts and union pension obligations. Obama claimed Romney would have let them go bankrupt but Obama still let them go bankrupt as well. He took them through bankruptcy court as well but what he did was keep the pension obligations, pay for them with federal money. He took all the secured debts, moved them to a shell company, shafted them, and took the new company flush with union workers and federal dollars out of "bankruptcy" court. I use the quotations because in a proper bankruptcy, secured debts have first claim over unsecured debts and Obama ignored the rule of law for political gain.
Understand that what Obama did was akin to an Enron. If it were the private sector, you'd be screaming he should be put in jail. The secured debt holders wouldn't want the companies liquidated. That makes it harder to get their full loans back. It would have just been reorganized. The pension and union obligations would have been shed, especially since they were unsecured and the causes of the companies being insolvent. The companies would have resumed making and selling cars with much better agreements an at a profit. The claim that they would disappear forever is pure nonsense. Six Flags as an example went through bankruptcy at around the same time. They didn't shut down a single theme park. You can still go to Magic Mountain tomorrow.
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
It would have helped the GOP argument that Obama failed and increased unemployment.
Do recall that Mittens said that he wanted liberal policies to fail... yep, he wanted the president's policies to hurt the American people. And he got almost half the vote.
It's in here, towards the end:
Obama's policies have been hurting the American people. They just haven't gotten the bill yet and so they don't realize the harm. If your friend was letting you crash at his place while you were down on your luck, you'd consider him a good friend. That is you would until six months later when he moves out right after you get a job paying $50k and leaves you a letter detailing how he had taken a credit card out in your name and paid the apartment rent on for the six months you were there and felt justified in his actions. You'd feel much worse after the letter and thanks to the debt, be worse off. During the six months though, you thought this friend was really helping you.
The American people have been bought off with transfer payments and growth that has us near 8% unemployment. What will their tax rate be and what will the unemployment rate be when the taxes have to raise to pay off the $5 trillion all ready borrowed and the project $4-5 trillion borrowed in his second term? That is near or at 100% of GDP borrowed in two terms. How does that help anyone when the problems aren't solved?
Originally Posted by FloorJack
Pure fantasy. None of them have made a real effort to do "austerity". They certainly didn't do it before the crisis. It's like going into bankruptcy court, cutting up one of your credit card and then telling the judge "cutting costs doesn't work".
This is pure awesome.