• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What's so bad about the fiscal cliff?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
See, this is why we are convinced that the left is as ignorant of reality as a possum in a potato bin. Herbert Hoover in no way practiced austerity. As a Republican and a self-proclaimed progressive, Hoover was committed to government, believing that government merely had an efficiency problem that could be fixed. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html........
Your post has no credibility. Choosing the Wall Street Journal which is now a propaganda mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch? They just had a piece on how the government didn't invent the internet!!!
And the Heritage Foundation is a Koch Brothers propaganda mouthpiece.

Why should we take any part of your post seriously when it is based on two lying sack of shit organizations?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
This is why the Tea Party is so dangerous. They are not just ignorant they are stupendously ignorant.
Actually wanting to cause a Great Depression is madness.
Yeah! Obviously anyone who wants to ensure the financial health of our country for future generations is dangerous and stupendously ignorant. Anyone with the idiotic notion that we should try not to spend more than we bring in is clearly crazy and should be locked away.

Borrow more! Spend more! Tax more! Waste More!

Repeat as needed.

That's the right model to bring us back to prosperity.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
This. That kind of austerity worked out really well for Herbert Hoover.
Only an extremely ignorant person would consider doubling the size of government spending over 4 years "austerity".

Austerity should be practiced when times are good
Unfortunately, the reality is that when times are good, there is no pressure to cut spending, everyone is content to keep wasting money. When times are tough and choices have to be made is the only time spending can realistically be constrained.

The tea partiers like to say that taxes shouldn't be raised to reduce/eliminate the deficit due to "taxes already being too high", but the truth is that taxes are at historic lows in the US.
Even if they are at historic lows (and I don't believe they are if you add up all the local fees, property taxes, assessments, sales taxes, income taxes, school district taxes and on and on and on), that doesn't mean they aren't still too high. I understand the need to raise taxes, but not before spending is slashed.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Yeah! Obviously anyone who wants to ensure the financial health of our country for future generations is dangerous and stupendously ignorant. Anyone with the idiotic notion that we should try not to spend more than we bring in is clearly crazy and should be locked away.

Borrow more! Spend more! Tax more! Waste More!

Repeat as needed.

That's the right model to bring us back to prosperity.
Wow. Just wow.

The Tea Party stands for no tax increases. In order to balance the budget tomorrow you would take a trillion dollars out of the economy. Instant Great Depression.

Marching off the fiscal cliff is not just a few years of economic downturn. It would be at least a ten year descent. And it would probably last 20 years or more. Remember the Great Depression only ended when the government started pumping money into the economy for arms purchases. Since we couldn't do that under the Tea Party maybe we would go into a permant state of collapse.

Imagine. Ten million small business's wiped out. A 50 percent or greater unemployment rate. Hospitals without drugs. Food would not only be not available, even if it was tens of millions of Americans could not get to the few stores remaining since they couldn't afford the gas to get there.

The fiscal cliff is not just the immediate effects. The auto industry gone never to return. Ten or twenty or thirty million homes foreclosed on. Rampant disease. Rampant starvation. Crime would be the new normal. Colleges would be emptied. Bridges would collapse. Roads become unusable.

Yet the simple minded still mindlessly parrot the Tea Party line without even taking the time to think about what they are advocating.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
89
91
The political reality is that major spending cuts are never easy to pass even during "good times" in Washington D.C. In fact it's when times are "good" that we see all the little poor orphans trotted out and brought to D.C. in order to demonstrate that "Yes we can afford to feed these poor helpless children during these 'Good Times' senator."

So it is more of a misnomer to say that we are able and can put off spending cuts for a better economic climate because the political reality is in Washington that it is always difficult to pass major spending cuts in a political climate that allows the left to continually charge and label anyone in favor of government spending cuts as being "mean spirited", "selfish" or "shills for the rich".
I'm not confusing "easy to do" with "the right thing to do". As unfortunate as it is, you are correct about the political reality. We should hold our politicians to a higher standard...to be statesmen and do what is for the good of the nation and not necessarily their own campaigns. This is why I have immense respect for the original George "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!" Bush.
 
Last edited:

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
89
91
See, this is why we are convinced that the left is as ignorant of reality as a possum in a potato bin. Herbert Hoover in no way practiced austerity. As a Republican and a self-proclaimed progressive, Hoover was committed to government, believing that government merely had an efficiency problem that could be fixed. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Hoover took office in 1929. In 1928 the federal government spent $3.1 billion dollars. In 1932 the federal government spent $4.7 billion dollars, an increase of over 50% in only four years! He also managed, through the largest ever peace-time expansion of government spending, to turn a large budget surplus into a $2.7 billion deficit.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/20/hoover-fdr-and-clinton-tax-increases-a-brief-historical-lesson/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932
Hoover raised taxes on the highest earners from 25% to 63%, and the lowest bracket from 1.1% to 4.4%. The estate tax doubled, and corporate rates went up 15%. That caused the economy, barely recovered from the Smoot-Hawley recession, to double dip into depression in spite of a more than 50% increase in government spending. Might want to think about that for a minute as it is exactly the Obama/progressive prescription for ending the current recession. Roosevelt originally campaigned against Hoover for Hoover's profligate spending, not his austerity. And Roosevelt himself, when he slightly lowered government spending in '37 after the Depression had been defeated, saw exactly how durable is the artificial demand created by government spending. (Although to be fair, Roosevelt also raised taxes in '37 and got some seriously anti-business legislation restored by SCOTUS, both of which contributed to the relapse into depression.) Only Hitler saved Roosevelt from Hoover's fate, as first England and the USSR and later America ordered hundreds of million dollars in war equipment.

This is what happens when we build a generation that gets not only its news from Bill Maher and John Stewart and its economic policy from Barack Obama, but evidently gets its history from the same place. We've actually defined increasing federal government spending by more than 50% in just four years as austerity.

We have literally become too stupid to succeed as a nation.
More revisionist tripe, but with just enough actual information for it to seem appealing. Ask anyone who was alive back then what they thought of the policies of Hoover and Roosevelt and you'll see just how different their policies were. Hoover was on the WRONG side of history and did not do what was necessary to get the economy moving again. (this being a huge injection of deficit spending into the economy to offset the drop in consumer and business spending) Compared to what was needed, we were already practicing a form of austerity comparatively speaking. Back then, it was business as usual. The right has done its darndest to discredit Roosevelt's new deal policies. That simply does not fly when you take into account the experiences of people that lived during and going forward from the Great Depression. He, in a sense, saved Capitalism from itself. At least Hoover wasn't afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy for the good of the nation unlike modern tea publicans. Roosevelt's only fault (aside from his court-packing scheme) was to attempt to end the interventionist measures too early in the recovery, same as the right wants to do now.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
More revisionist tripe, but with just enough actual information for it to seem appealing. Ask anyone who was alive back then what they thought of the policies of Hoover and Roosevelt and you'll see just how different their policies were. Hoover was on the WRONG side of history and did not do what was necessary to get the economy moving again. (this being a huge injection of deficit spending into the economy to offset the drop in consumer and business spending) Compared to what was needed, we were already practicing a form of austerity comparatively speaking. Back then, it was business as usual. The right has done its darndest to discredit Roosevelt's new deal policies. That simply does not fly when you take into account the experiences of people that lived during and going forward from the Great Depression. He, in a sense, saved Capitalism from itself. At least Hoover wasn't afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy for the good of the nation unlike modern tea publicans. Roosevelt's only fault (aside from his court-packing scheme) was to attempt to end the interventionist measures too early in the recovery, same as the right wants to do now.
Agree 100 percent. Except with the part that Roosevelt attempted to end interventionist measures too early. I would have to put the blame on the Republicans along with the southern Democrats. Roosevelt couldn't get more spending passed, and being the consummate politician didn't try very hard. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have, if he could.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Your post has no credibility. Choosing the Wall Street Journal which is now a propaganda mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch? They just had a piece on how the government didn't invent the internet!!!
And the Heritage Foundation is a Koch Brothers propaganda mouthpiece.

Why should we take any part of your post seriously when it is based on two lying sack of shit organizations?
Choose ANY organization that addresses Hoover's actual tax and spending policy and the results will be the same.

More revisionist tripe, but with just enough actual information for it to seem appealing. Ask anyone who was alive back then what they thought of the policies of Hoover and Roosevelt and you'll see just how different their policies were. Hoover was on the WRONG side of history and did not do what was necessary to get the economy moving again. (this being a huge injection of deficit spending into the economy to offset the drop in consumer and business spending) Compared to what was needed, we were already practicing a form of austerity comparatively speaking. Back then, it was business as usual. The right has done its darndest to discredit Roosevelt's new deal policies. That simply does not fly when you take into account the experiences of people that lived during and going forward from the Great Depression. He, in a sense, saved Capitalism from itself. At least Hoover wasn't afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy for the good of the nation unlike modern tea publicans. Roosevelt's only fault (aside from his court-packing scheme) was to attempt to end the interventionist measures too early in the recovery, same as the right wants to do now.
Well, at least you're a consistent idiot, refusing to allow actual facts to sway your preconceived notions of "Democrat good, Republican bad."

We now have an official proggie bottom to the "necessary" levels of spending. If we spent $3.7 trillion in 2008, anything up to $5.6 trillion in 2012 is "austerity". And this level of spending must be continued for at least eight years, judging by Roosevelt's ending the interventionist measures "too early in the recovery". Of course, we all know what's REALLY needed is probably something like $8 or $10 trillion. By that time we'll have a national debt approximately four or five times GDP, but that won't matter because the economy will be "fixed" into government just moving money around and we'll be entirely free of that evil private sector.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I think it's almost impossible to balance the budget today, politically. The deficit is huge. Cutting spending is going to draw tons of criticism for slowing economic growth and killing a lot of government/government dependent jobs. Raising taxes is going to draw tons of criticism for slowing economic growth and killing consumption and killing a lot of private sector jobs. What we need is a balance of both. What we will get is neither. Taxes will stay the same and spending will increase. So while both parties get the 1 thing they want, neither one actually helps the country in the long run.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
This. That kind of austerity worked out really well for Herbert Hoover. Austerity should be practiced when times are good, not when the shit hits the fan. That does not mean that the nature of spending shouldn't be changed as not all spending is equal. (considering the economic multiplier effect) The tea partiers like to say that taxes shouldn't be raised to reduce/eliminate the deficit due to "taxes already being too high", but the truth is that taxes are at historic lows in the US.

Going over a fiscal cliff is not a good idea. Its just dumb...and shows that the tea partiers are no statesmen...
Hoover didnt practice Austerity. He enacted legislation FDR expanded on in the New Deal.
 
Last edited:

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
350
126
Wow. Just wow.

The Tea Party stands for no tax increases. In order to balance the budget tomorrow you would take a trillion dollars out of the economy. Instant Great Depression.

Marching off the fiscal cliff is not just a few years of economic downturn. It would be at least a ten year descent. And it would probably last 20 years or more. Remember the Great Depression only ended when the government started pumping money into the economy for arms purchases. Since we couldn't do that under the Tea Party maybe we would go into a permant state of collapse.

Imagine. Ten million small business's wiped out. A 50 percent or greater unemployment rate. Hospitals without drugs. Food would not only be not available, even if it was tens of millions of Americans could not get to the few stores remaining since they couldn't afford the gas to get there.

The fiscal cliff is not just the immediate effects. The auto industry gone never to return. Ten or twenty or thirty million homes foreclosed on. Rampant disease. Rampant starvation. Crime would be the new normal. Colleges would be emptied. Bridges would collapse. Roads become unusable.

Yet the simple minded still mindlessly parrot the Tea Party line without even taking the time to think about what they are advocating.
Hmmm... Fiscal cliff + war with Iran and China? = 50-60s prosperity all over again? Sign me up.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Wow. Just wow.

The Tea Party stands for no tax increases. In order to balance the budget tomorrow you would take a trillion dollars out of the economy. Instant Great Depression.

Marching off the fiscal cliff is not just a few years of economic downturn. It would be at least a ten year descent. And it would probably last 20 years or more. Remember the Great Depression only ended when the government started pumping money into the economy for arms purchases. Since we couldn't do that under the Tea Party maybe we would go into a permant state of collapse.

Imagine. Ten million small business's wiped out. A 50 percent or greater unemployment rate. Hospitals without drugs. Food would not only be not available, even if it was tens of millions of Americans could not get to the few stores remaining since they couldn't afford the gas to get there.

The fiscal cliff is not just the immediate effects. The auto industry gone never to return. Ten or twenty or thirty million homes foreclosed on. Rampant disease. Rampant starvation. Crime would be the new normal. Colleges would be emptied. Bridges would collapse. Roads become unusable.

Yet the simple minded still mindlessly parrot the Tea Party line without even taking the time to think about what they are advocating.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
89
91
Choose ANY organization that addresses Hoover's actual tax and spending policy and the results will be the same.


Well, at least you're a consistent idiot, refusing to allow actual facts to sway your preconceived notions of "Democrat good, Republican bad."

We now have an official proggie bottom to the "necessary" levels of spending. If we spent $3.7 trillion in 2008, anything up to $5.6 trillion in 2012 is "austerity". And this level of spending must be continued for at least eight years, judging by Roosevelt's ending the interventionist measures "too early in the recovery". Of course, we all know what's REALLY needed is probably something like $8 or $10 trillion. By that time we'll have a national debt approximately four or five times GDP, but that won't matter because the economy will be "fixed" into government just moving money around and we'll be entirely free of that evil private sector.
Thats the problem with you righties. You refuse to believe that just because someone disagrees with you on one issue that it must be because we think "Democrat good, Republican bad." You dismiss us as "Liberals" without any regard to facts even if we agree with Republicans on other issues. This is politics, not a damn sports game. But yeah, just go on and keep thinking that "we hate America/free enterprise/capitalism/self-reliance/puppies/whatever". Horseshit, as always.

As far as this situation goes now, we haven't been practicing austerity. Europe has. We can already see how each approach is bearing fruit with our respective economies. Those preaching austerity are on the wrong side of this issue as the results speak for themselves, just like they did in the depression. An entire generation of Americans knew this, yet as they pass into history, the right has seized upon the opportunity to attack with diminished opposition the line of economic thinking spawned by the experience of living through that era - by attacking FDR's legacy.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't increase spending on activities with high economic multipliers or decrease spending on activities with low multipliers (say, foreign military activities). Our stimulus and restructuring efforts were not enough, so we suffered through a prolonged recession. And yet, as things continue to improve (slowly), the right has seemed to shout about deficits all the while refusing to raise taxes on those that can afford to pay them. As we eventually transition into a good economy, they will claim that increased taxes to pay down the debt are "taking your money", thus making it more difficult to perform stimulus during the next recession. We're experiencing that now from the 90s. We can't be expected to quickly dig our way out of an economic hole with both our hands tied behind our back.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
This. That kind of austerity worked out really well for Herbert Hoover. Austerity should be practiced when times are good, not when the shit hits the fan. That does not mean that the nature of spending shouldn't be changed as not all spending is equal. (considering the economic multiplier effect) The tea partiers like to say that taxes shouldn't be raised to reduce/eliminate the deficit due to "taxes already being too high", but the truth is that taxes are at historic lows in the US.

Going over a fiscal cliff is not a good idea. Its just dumb...and shows that the tea partiers are no statesmen...

Actually, if you include all forms of US government (local, state, federal), revenue as a percentage of GDP is pretty close to historical highs.

Federal revenue is right around 16% of GDP for FY2012 (estimated) which is a few percent off of the 18% norm but the state and local .govs have definitely picked up the slack.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Thats the problem with you righties. You refuse to believe that just because someone disagrees with you on one issue that it must be because we think "Democrat good, Republican bad." You dismiss us as "Liberals" without any regard to facts even if we agree with Republicans on other issues. This is politics, not a damn sports game. But yeah, just go on and keep thinking that "we hate America/free enterprise/capitalism/self-reliance/puppies/whatever". Horseshit, as always.

As far as this situation goes now, we haven't been practicing austerity. Europe has. We can already see how each approach is bearing fruit with our respective economies. Those preaching austerity are on the wrong side of this issue as the results speak for themselves, just like they did in the depression. An entire generation of Americans knew this, yet as they pass into history, the right has seized upon the opportunity to attack with diminished opposition the line of economic thinking spawned by the experience of living through that era - by attacking FDR's legacy.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't increase spending on activities with high economic multipliers or decrease spending on activities with low multipliers (say, foreign military activities). Our stimulus and restructuring efforts were not enough, so we suffered through a prolonged recession. And yet, as things continue to improve (slowly), the right has seemed to shout about deficits all the while refusing to raise taxes on those that can afford to pay them. As we eventually transition into a good economy, they will claim that increased taxes to pay down the debt are "taking your money", thus making it more difficult to perform stimulus during the next recession. We're experiencing that now from the 90s. We can't be expected to quickly dig our way out of an economic hole with both our hands tied behind our back.
In all fairness I personally don't think that European countries that you speak of are even close to a fair comparison. They don't have a "Fed" that can and has intervened to such extents as ours has to keep our borrowing costs low. If and when we return to historical norm bond rates our budget is going to take a huge hit.

Hell, I am pretty sure the bond prices that are breaking the backs of the European countries are pretty close to historical norms.

I am not trying to argue the other components have nothing to do with it, simply that it is a very difficult comparison to make due to vastly different monetary systems.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
As much as I believe that it is necessary, at least at some point, he is absolutely correct. Its rather simple mathematics, withdraw X amount of money from the economy and the economy shrinks by at least X amount. Hell, one of the factors in figuring GDP is "G" which stands for Government spending.

Just like your families lifestyle would necessarily contract if you all of sudden stopped spending X amount of borrowed money per year. Very simple math.

The argument should be which is worse, dealing with it now or dealing with it later.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
As far as this situation goes now, we haven't been practicing austerity. Europe has. We can already see how each approach is bearing fruit with our respective economies. Those preaching austerity are on the wrong side of this issue as the results speak for themselves....
I think it far too premature to reach conclusions about the eventual results of an austerity-type approach. It's going to many years until we can look back and judge with the hindsight necessary to be accurate.

I've never heard anyone advocating an austerity approach claim there wouldn't be pain, especially in the short term. To point to the expected S.T. pain and claim it is a badge of failure is simply assinine.

As usual, discussions here about austerity and the like completely ignore the perils of huge debt pretending it's not part of the equation. Both aspects, increased debt (from stimulus spending) and reduction in demand (from austerity) need to be carefully examined, particularly in the longer term.

Fern
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
89
91
In all fairness I personally don't think that European countries that you speak of are even close to a fair comparison. They don't have a "Fed" that can and has intervened to such extents as ours has to keep our borrowing costs low. If and when we return to historical norm bond rates our budget is going to take a huge hit.

Hell, I am pretty sure the bond prices that are breaking the backs of the European countries are pretty close to historical norms.

I am not trying to argue the other components have nothing to do with it, simply that it is a very difficult comparison to make due to vastly different monetary systems.
That is a fair point. Their tools for controlling monetary policy are quite different. I do think that the comparison is still valid though, as the tools they use, while different, can be used to achieve similar (though not necessarily equal) effects. It is a very complex picture, but it shouldn't boil down to FED vs. no FED though.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
As much as I believe that it is necessary, at least at some point, he is absolutely correct. Its rather simple mathematics, withdraw X amount of money from the economy and the economy shrinks by at least X amount. Hell, one of the factors in figuring GDP is "G" which stands for Government spending.

Just like your families lifestyle would necessarily contract if you all of sudden stopped spending X amount of borrowed money per year. Very simple math.

The argument should be which is worse, dealing with it now or dealing with it later.
No, I was just making a Ghostbuster reference. Not even the Tea Party could get Gov spending chopped that much. They'd at least stand the best chance of chopping it back somewhat. They know this. Everyone with a brain knows this.

The other two parties don't want to chop spending back - at all. They may at times say something about cutting back spending, but, in Reality, it does not happen.

As for now or later, I'd much rather deal with it now (short term) than later (never). Later never happens with the Gov. Later is what Politicians tell you to get you to agree to their short term proposal, knowing full well the later never is going to happen. It's their way of F'ing you with a smile. It is for this reason the Tea Party initially was born. The Tea Party of today is different than the original Tea Party.*

So while I'm *not a member of the Tea Party, nor plan to be, I can sympathize with their many members who simply want Gov spending massively brought back to within even the insane budget levels already set. I think if you asked all Tea Party members if there was one issue they had to have accomplished, it'd be Spend Within Your Means (By Not Borrowing And Calling That Your Means As Well).

I can get behind that sentiment.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
89
91
I think it far too premature to reach conclusions about the eventual results of an austerity-type approach. It's going to many years until we can look back and judge with the hindsight necessary to be accurate.

I've never heard anyone advocating an austerity approach claim there wouldn't be pain, especially in the short term. To point to the expected S.T. pain and claim it is a badge of failure is simply assinine.

As usual, discussions here about austerity and the like completely ignore the perils of huge debt pretending it's not part of the equation. Both aspects, increased debt (from stimulus spending) and reduction in demand (from austerity) need to be carefully examined, particularly in the longer term.

Fern
Fern, I know that we are sometimes on opposite sides when it comes to economic thinking, but I find it hard to disagree with you here. It is a bit premature to make a concrete declaration about the two approaches' results. It will be much easier in hindsight, but all we have to go on is our current experience and the few indicators we have.

That isn't to say that I'm 100% against austerity. It definitely has its place as the current deficit/debt worries me. I just don't think it should be put into practice here yet as the recovery is still quite fragile. We should wait until more of the trailing indicators of recovery pick up (employment/wages being big ones) before we begin a shift to that approach. I suspect that it will likely be another year or two before we can safely begin to move to tackle deficit/debt reduction in a big way. Baby steps, for now.

BTW, if in a year or two things begin to pick up, feel free to hold me to that. :thumbsup:
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
It's the tough medicine no one wants to swallow. You swallow now and take a short lived "great depression" or kick the can and get a greater depression when the real fiscal cliff comes (europe level debts that are at insolvent levels).
Short lived my ass.
At least 10 probably 20 years of Great Depression.
Of course, as a country you wouldn't recognize America by the end of the Depression. We would no longer be democracy.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,463
3,519
136
It's the tough medicine no one wants to swallow. You swallow now and take a short lived "great depression" or kick the can and get a greater depression when the real fiscal cliff comes (europe level debts that are at insolvent levels).
Nein Herr JS80, das ist nicht wahr. Wir sagten dies, und wir zerstörte die Wirtschaft. Das ist, was wir zu Europa gesagt.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY