@Shooter

"Short term stimulus to recover from a recession followed by long term deficit reduction". That is what the IMF and many non-partisan economists tell us.

Think of jobs as a crop.

A field of corn can be growing quite well, but can be destroyed overnight (hail storm or pests).

To recover, you need to replant and tend carefully. Then you need to look at what caused the disaster and prevent it from happening in the future

Austerity is the equivalent of "eating the seed corn".

Austerity only works when there are no crisis and we can save for an expected future. That is why Clinton raised taxes at the right time. If we would have had continue his policies we would not have been so deep into the hole now. Obama can do that but when the GOP saboteur congress got there and when the congressional voting system went to the 60/40 vote he lost the power he needed to change things back.

Austerity during a crisis doesn't work because it is too late. Now we have to apply emergency procedures. We cannot build a future for the elite's children now. We have to think of all of us.

The Ryan Plan of austerity will charge the poor and working poor with more taxes to make it easy on the children of the wealthy. I think that will not work at this time.

Our economy is a Supply and Demand economy. Which means that people who make things or are innovators hire workers for good wages and benefits to make their products. In turn those workers are able to afford the products they make. So the demand for products and services is what will improve the economy.

One may ask: But how can we do that when no one wants to hire and why no one wants to hire? Some may say that it is because the policies of this president are not good for industry. But what policies are those? He has not been able to pass any of his policies. The congress has blocked, sabotage, filibustered each and everyone of his policies.

Thank to God that our president Obama is very resourceful and has managed without the help of this congress to put our country in the positive side of the graphs.

If the idustry does NOT WANT to respond to the need of the country, then it is the responsibility of the government to take over that duty. We have had that before during other presidencies. Right now we have an infrastructure that needs fixing/repair. Then the government will have to invest on that. Our taxes right now are being wasted in subsidies to help companies move overseas. Ex: Bain Capital company Sensata in Freeport, IL moving to China in a month.

Congress MUST GET RID OF THAT LAW THAT HELP THOSE WHO MOVE and have a new law that help those who hire here. If we use that money to fix our infrastructure we would be contributing to a better economy.

Government hires companies to do the work, those will hire workers, they get paid with our tax dollars but at least 40% comes back in revenues ( when we give it in subsidies, it never comes back to us, it only benefits the stock holders of the companies who receive the subsidy to move overseas).

But also those workers will demand other goods and services. It is said that even restaurants do better around constructions sites. When people make good money they spend they save and the economy improves. This has always worked. Always.

Remember when you talk to an investment company, the first thing they tell you is that "you need to invest money to make money". Infrastructure is better than gambling with our money because there is revenue coming to our tax coffers.

They say Bush created jobs, yes he did in China and India. And then he created military jobs which salaries came from our coffers and it was not enough to help the economy because the cost of military equipment was too large. The profits of that went to the stock holders of the Military Industrial Complex. What the Bush administration did was to transfer funds from our coffers to the military equipment vendors which in turn made their stock holders rich. Oops I think I wrote too much.

Sorry, I have spent so much time in Twitter with their 140 character maximum that I had so much to say over here.

Paying for 2 wars and raising defence spending 100% while preaching austerity to everyone else makes as much sense as the rest of the Shooter gop economic/budget plans

The issue is that Dan Cathy DID cross that line, and has the money to do so. If you don't approve of how he uses/spends/donates his money, then don't give him any of your own. If enough people make that decision, then he won't have enough of your money to put toward causes with which you disagree.

Hate to say it, but Chik-fil-a are some of the most busy, and efficent fast-food establishments I've been in. Every young person I see behind the counter I KNOW will not be there for long.

I've cut them out of my options entirely, for months now. Just like I do with any company who does similar things, if at all possible.

Easily,

The ONLY time Germany faced real "austerity" was when it had to per the Treaty of Versailles - which gave rise to Hitler. Do you not know history OR economics??

Germany isn't doing "austerity" and hasn't had to do so for a LONG LONG time, certainly not what it is attempting to force onto other countries!!!

"

The main alternative proposed to the imposition of austerity regimes in order to balance state budget deficits is to reduce debt through inflation. This, however, is impossible unilaterally within the common currency. Collectively it is also impossible because, for very solid historical reasons, it is unthinkable for Germany. But Germany has offered few alternative solutions beyond fiscal austerity and borrowing to pay off debt, demanding of other countries adherence to fiscal rules she has a record of not adhering to herself. Eamon Dyas, writing recently in the Irish Political Review, noted that Germany’s Europe policy in reaction to the crisis demonstrates no trace of what we have come to understand as the German social model.[6]

The German rational for this austerity driven recovery strategy is that austerity played a crucial role in rebuilding post-war Germany, particularly East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But this argument fails to remember one extremely important fact; that West Germany was only in a position to develop East Germany because of a number of injections of external capital and easily available and cheap credit. While it is true that austerity was a tool used in East Germany, this was done alongside an extensive privatisation campaign beyond any that would be possible in a modern capitalist state. This meant that a vast amount of foreign capital was injected into Germany from the early 1990s through the sale of East German property and businesses to foreign investors. It is fictitious to assume that privatisation in currently indebted countries could result in such an inflow of foreign capital as these states hold a minute proportion of the country’s property and wealth compared to East Germany’s communist economy before the 1990s."

From:http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/05/austerity-growth-and-germanys-europe-policy/

Hope that helps. (I ain't no economist)

Paul: No buyers to sell our assets?

Paul,

You need to include the fact that although Germany was "lukewarm" to the euro up to the point it assimilated East Germany, it pushed the euro through so that it could have better access to European markets for its exports. Germany was stagnating after the assimilation of East Germany; it wasn't "asuterity", but the euro helped it to grow again.

As to fear, why fear the unknown?

Because the unknown is sometimes dangerous. Fear is the body's way of preparing you to fight or flee just in case that rustling in the bushes is a saber-toothed tiger about to jump out and eat you. It's a survival mechanism. Sometimes the unknown turns into certain danger too quickly for a thoughtful reaction. Most people calm down very quickly when the unknown turns out to be harmless. Some people have a hard time doing that, and some people are always afraid and make up stories to explain why. The more persistently afraid a person is, the more they are pulled to the right (to be very simplistic about it).

Fight or flee, where have I heard that uh, something about a fight flee or f.. response.How can you assess the "danger" of an unknown? A rustling in the bushes is a known since you would not fear it if you did not know it happened. Knowing it happened reasoning takes over and you reason out that either the wind blew harder than you thought or something moved around in the bushes. Knowing there are no Saber tooth tigers around here today my fear might be presumptuous however caution would be advised since we do have bobcats and skunks.

Most of the time it is our reaction to danger that sets things in motion. A man holding a gun is a threat , a man shaking like a leaf while holding a gun pointed at you is a cause for fear in fact freezing in fear might save you quicker than trying to play hero. But then again is that fear or respect for the gravity of the situation?

Eh, I can climb up a forty foot ladder all day but coming down is a different story. Fear of heights? Or appreciation of the fact that I ain't the most coordinated sucker around?Tomato toma(y)to.

I ain't a philosopher either. But I do so like playing one.

The economies of Europe are faltering because they are practicing the AUSTERITY program your GOP wants to make the rule of law in the US. It's not "government overspending" that's the problem, it's the government not spending enough. Take a look at Canada ... we've got the same international monetary restraints that everyone else does yet our economy is in good shape and our unemployment is around 7%. The government cautiously spends to stimulate the economy and voila! the economy is surviving.

Vote Rmoney! That will fix everything except for the poorly spelled protest signs of the stupid, which may even go unrecognized as misspelled as time goes on! Winner!