Before Roosevelt cut spending in 1937, unemployment dropped by 10%, from about 25% to about 15%. Then in 1937 Roosevelt did exactly what you are suggesting, tightened the belt and cut government spending. Unemployment promptly rose back up to 19% in 1938.
Show me evidence that unemployment dropped 10% due to his spending vs. due to people who stopped looking for work and thus were not counted. Also show me the recession of 37/39 wasn't due to the anti business climate, the rise of the AFL and CIO. Your proclaiming it was due to spending is nothing short of speculation. You have been brainwashed by the Keynesian rhetoric.
It certainly is sustainable. The bond market is hardly fearful of the levels of debt that we've amassed. And again, if you're that concerned about debt and deficits you wouldn't support cutting revenues, but you do!
Again moron... the long bonds have been plummeting in value and rates have spiked over 50 bps in the last two weeks. Due tell us why that is occurring despite the Fed announcing it was buying treasuries.
Again... you are pretending that tax cuts lead to loss of revenue. If the tax cuts spur growth and promote real job growth then revenues will increase as the jobless rate goes down.
Also... you again pretend that I haven't said five billion times that we MUST TAKE THE PAIN NOW, TIGHTEN OUR BELTS AND MAKE THE CUTS.
No matter how many times you want to change what my position actually is, it doesn't change the reality of the matter and anyone that reads this thread can see that.
The debt is most certainly NOT sustainable you twit. But I know, you will take us all the way down the path that Europe took until we reach the end and then you will say... 'why didn't they warn us the debt levels were unsustainable' and then you will try to find a way to blame Republicans for your sides idiocy.
Inflation is not a concern at all. Interest rates on treasury notes have been at historic lows and have only spiked recently because of the tax cut compromise which will result in less revenues.
Show me what trash you are reading to suggest treasuries are spiking due to the tax cut compromise.
No, when you cut taxes for the rich they are tax cuts for the rich. I mean, even the rich benefit on the lower and middle class tax cuts. They get lower rates on the first $250,000 they earn. The cuts above that level only benefit the rich and are tax cuts for the rich. On a per capita basis, they make out a whole lot better than the poor and middle classes.
On a per capita basis they pay a whole lot more than the poor and middle class. Again, if the top half pay 97% of all federal income taxes then they are of course going to benefit.
Also, no matter how much you cry whine and stomp your feet, the BULK of the compromise goes to benefit the poor and lower classes. Those making under $250k. While you are obviously correct in stating that the rich get a portion of those cuts, they are only 5% of the population, thus only about 5% of that total actually goes to them. The BULK of the tax cuts in real dollars goes to those making less than $250k.
But do keep pretending otherwise. It is the same stupid shit that got Dems crushed in the House and Senate this year and will do so again in 2012 if they continue with the horrid and failed economic policies they have implemented in the past four years controlling Congress.
