In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
In response to skeeter20's comment:
I don't need snark when your inability to post a shred of evidence shows how inept you are at this debate thing.
For the person who lives in his alternate reality like you do:
Some inconvenient truths.
The tax rates for the highest brackets in the 60's was 65-90% and yet that was the longest period of sustained economic growth in the country
The second longest period of economic growth immediately followed the Bush Sr tax increase and the Clinton tax increase.
Even St Ronnie raised taxes 11 times during his turn at the helm.
I've posted two countries that did this successfully. That's evidinece. Here are two more:
Ireland (in the 90's)
Of course, you will claim that neither of these are evidence either, because you are ideologically wed to the big ideolgical economic lie.
Chile? - Really?
I guess the gov't's stimulus of $4 Billion, equaling 5% of GDP was just 'austerity' in disguise.
Chile's finance minister said the economy should not enter in a recession in 2009 thanks to government moves to ease the impact of a global downturn, an interview published in daily El Mercurio said on Saturday.
Minister Andres Velasco told the newspaper he did not expect gross domestic product to fall in two consecutive quarters of this year, which would technically constitute a recession.
Earlier this week, the government announced a $4 billion economic stimulus plan to spur employment and growth despite the global financial crisis, aiming for an expansion of between 2 percent and 3 percent of GDP this year.
In 2012, 4 yrs after Latvia's meltdown, GDP is still a full 15% below pre-crisis levels.
What enabled Latvia to survive the crisis were EU and IMF bailouts – whose payments will soon fall due.
And when 10% of the population just gets up and leaves that is a huge hit to both GDP and GNP:
Latvians resigned themselves to the situation and left. Demographers estimate that 200,000 have departed the past decade – roughly 10 per cent of the population – at an accelerating rate that reflects the austerity being inflicted....If a similar percent left the US, some 30 million would exit. Where would they go? Mexico? Surely, this model cannot be reproduced in any sizeable country.
Ireland in the 90's was a booming economy so you're just ignorant of reality as usual.
You clearly do not understand the principle here. The principle is that what you call austerity, in most cases is not austerity at all, but a reduction in the growth of spending. Point one.
Point two: expansionary fiscal contraction puts more money back into private hands where it works by limiting the amount ofthe economy the government consumes. when you considerthat government, local federal, state, consume somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of our GDP, we have a problem.
As far as your cherry picking details on the countries mentioned where it has been tried, well, nothing works perfectly for ever. Remember that economies go through cycles. The question is, does long term borrowing help or hurt? I gave you four examples where it helped. Now for some places where execessive government spending has not helped:
But, here is the big economic lie: that there isn't a cost to long term borrowing as a means to grow the economy now. there is, and the cost is huge. Greece went through it, Japan is about to go through it, and I fear we will as well. Places that are more contractionary in their government spending will fare better in the long run.