This is because even during bad times, they're still making money. It's a skewed view of economics because they don't understand economics in the first place. The majority of these supply-side, austerity people were born half-way between third base and home plate, so of course they believe the supply is always there and is there for everyone.
It is the same with this austerity mentality. When their money isn't making as much as they think it should, they shift their spending to balance out their over-all yield. So, on a personal level, austerity gives them a positive outcome. The problem is they are operating from the supply-side of the fence. They have plenty in reserve so shaving a few dollars here and there isn't hurting them personally. They can still jet to one of their multiple houses, visit their money in the Cayman islands, or run for federal office for nine years...
Austerity assumes there is a built in surplus or wealth in the overall governmental system. Cutting from the bottom is alright because, those near the bottom of the economic ladder will receive some phantom assistance from the rest of society and the rest will take care of itself. The main fault with this premise is those with the wealth aren't going to distribute that wealth into the system. Even if they do, the concentration of wealth causes a distribution problem. Fewer hands are sending money into the economic system.
How many cars can one person (realistically) buy? How many shirts, etc.? Having wealth in a very few hands reduces demand. Reduced demand means reduced production, which means reduced employment. Reduced employment further reduces demand and you eventually get economic depression.
Now, before the "wealth distribution-ist" start calling me names, what I am talking about isn't the old chestnut of take from the rich and give to the poor. Sorry, that's not what I'm advocating. It has to do with economic balance. What does that mean? Well, for starters economic balance is based on the principle that money is a constant in economics. By that I mean there is no more or less money, just where it is and how many many have it. The tax system was created to make sure we could maintain a balanced system. Those with less are taxed less and those with more are taxed more, period.
Economic balance is also known by another more familiar name, The Middle Class. When taxes are distributed fairly and evenly, this benefits everyone across the entire economic scale. When the middle class shrinks and they end up paying most of the taxes you have what we have now.
If you're one of the ones standing atop a pile of money and think by just moving the fulcrum of the economic scale closer to you (austerity), this can get the economic system to balance. All this does is shift the scale to where most of the middle class are on the poverty side and end up paying the majority of the taxes. You'll achieve balance, but at an extremely high cost, for the middle class.
Fair distribution is what is needed to maintain our country's infrastructure. When wealthy people are paying half of what the middle class are paying, there is something wrong. Fair share of the tax burden, that's what is needed, not a reduction of governmental services.
The middle class have become too soft. The middle class have allowed themselves to be lured in by the siren call of the wealthy. You too, can eventually pay less and keep more. The lower class are willing to murder the middle class to achieve the false promise of wealth. Look at any tea party gathering and tell me I am wrong. Austerity is just a tool to starve the government to the point where we'll accept any savior. Even some Austrian failed painter...
= new reply since forum marked as read
