Erm, ja, Tom? Actually, not a Grimm tale but a British one. But I get the drift….the [northern] Europeans (what’s with the stereotype European from a hundred years ago?) don’t understand what is a Goldilocks economy; neither too hot to cause inflation, neither too cold to tip it into a recession. Austerity clouds their judgement.
The problem is the same as in the US: corporations are negotiating with governments to determine what is the best thing for the people. The opinion of the people is taken for granted as something to be ignored as too naive.
Well W inspired wars that were kept off the books have to get paid for sometime. Its the child’s fault for not being a Job Creator and siphoning money off shore
The population has been spending other people’s money until there is no more. Then it spent money that was borrowed. It has stopped because there is no more. The next step would be (in the old days) to invade another country and spend that country’s money.
Unlike for an individual, across an economy one person’s spend is another person’s income. Cutting public sector jobs means more unemployment. Cutting public sector pay can also possibly mean less consumer spending, since public sector employees comprise close to 10% of all workers. Cutting government investment in building, services and infrastructure, means fewer contracts to the private businesses which provide materials and services – which means fewer hires and less pay and less consumer spend.
Austerity measures can help manage debt when, but only when, the economy has some resiliance; if there is no private sector investment going on, then all that austerity measures do is lessen the flow of money through the economy even more, and ultimately increase unsupported government debt. And constant uncertainty over demand leeches away resilience from the economy.
And if you think that spend only supports Democrats, you are truly misinformed.
Onguard: How about just reading? Don’t need to support a post where EVERY economic report that compares tax rates shows HIGHER tax rates going back to Bush II, Clinton, even as far back as Eisenhower."nuff said!
" If Obama truly wanted the rich paying the same IRS Rate they paid when Clinton was President, why didn’t he stand up to his own party and Veto the Bill they passed extending The Bush Tax Cuts?"In 2010 the GOP refused to extend the Bush tax cuts for only lower incomes & had filibuster power in the Senate. They insisted that ALL the cuts be extended. Since we were still in a recession, few Democrats were willing oppose extending the cuts. Sometimes you truly want something you can’t get, so you take the least damaging option, until you can revisit the issue. That’s what Obama did, but the Republicans don’t seem to think that way.I seem to recall taxes going up slightly on the top brackets this year. Did Obama oppose that?
jnik23260 about 11 years ago
The German idea of comfort!
pam Miner about 11 years ago
Ryan’s plan for the old, the disable’s, children, the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, and the working poor.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
Erm, ja, Tom? Actually, not a Grimm tale but a British one. But I get the drift….the [northern] Europeans (what’s with the stereotype European from a hundred years ago?) don’t understand what is a Goldilocks economy; neither too hot to cause inflation, neither too cold to tip it into a recession. Austerity clouds their judgement.
edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago
Love the fact that the Read A Book ad appearing next to this comic today shows Scrooge!
Chillbilly about 11 years ago
The problem is the same as in the US: corporations are negotiating with governments to determine what is the best thing for the people. The opinion of the people is taken for granted as something to be ignored as too naive.
Justice22 about 11 years ago
Put the money back Ima. You shouldn’t be stealing from little girls.
Kylop about 11 years ago
Well W inspired wars that were kept off the books have to get paid for sometime. Its the child’s fault for not being a Job Creator and siphoning money off shore
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member about 11 years ago
The population has been spending other people’s money until there is no more. Then it spent money that was borrowed. It has stopped because there is no more. The next step would be (in the old days) to invade another country and spend that country’s money.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
@King of Me:
Yup, Radish is right; just checked your posts in a few threads, you’re banished. :-| Oh dear, who did you upset?
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
Yeah, you’re right, I now too suspect he’s in their pay; gotta be else he’d been bannished ages ago.
lbatik about 11 years ago
Here’s a little Economy 101 for you:
Unlike for an individual, across an economy one person’s spend is another person’s income. Cutting public sector jobs means more unemployment. Cutting public sector pay can also possibly mean less consumer spending, since public sector employees comprise close to 10% of all workers. Cutting government investment in building, services and infrastructure, means fewer contracts to the private businesses which provide materials and services – which means fewer hires and less pay and less consumer spend.
Austerity measures can help manage debt when, but only when, the economy has some resiliance; if there is no private sector investment going on, then all that austerity measures do is lessen the flow of money through the economy even more, and ultimately increase unsupported government debt. And constant uncertainty over demand leeches away resilience from the economy.
And if you think that spend only supports Democrats, you are truly misinformed.
edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago
Onguard: How about just reading? Don’t need to support a post where EVERY economic report that compares tax rates shows HIGHER tax rates going back to Bush II, Clinton, even as far back as Eisenhower."nuff said!
Uncle Joe Premium Member about 11 years ago
" If Obama truly wanted the rich paying the same IRS Rate they paid when Clinton was President, why didn’t he stand up to his own party and Veto the Bill they passed extending The Bush Tax Cuts?"In 2010 the GOP refused to extend the Bush tax cuts for only lower incomes & had filibuster power in the Senate. They insisted that ALL the cuts be extended. Since we were still in a recession, few Democrats were willing oppose extending the cuts. Sometimes you truly want something you can’t get, so you take the least damaging option, until you can revisit the issue. That’s what Obama did, but the Republicans don’t seem to think that way.I seem to recall taxes going up slightly on the top brackets this year. Did Obama oppose that?