Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Austerity is Counterproductive. We N.E.E.D. Growth

Posted 2 years ago on May 23, 2012, 2:30 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

“Today’s CBO report backs up what economists have been telling us since 2008. Austerity does not spur the economy or create jobs. Cuts slow the economy, and a slow economy results in less government revenue. Austerity creates a downward spiral and reduces the standard of living for working and middle class Americans.

“On the other hand, government spending stimulates the economy. When the economy is moving, people shop, invest and trade, which creates revenue for the government. According to Moody’s Mark Zandi, a $1 increase in food stamp payments boosts GDP by $1.73.

“The question shouldn’t be ‘should government invest in America?’ the question must be ‘what are the best investments for government to make?’

“According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we need to spend $2.2 trillion over the next five years just to make our domestic infrastructure safe. We have bridges collapsing in America and Americans who need jobs now. Austerity is counterproductive to our economic recovery and counterproductive to the development of our nation.

“There is a simple way to invest in our economy. We can invest in our infrastructure, put Americans back to work and pay off our debt as it comes due. Congress has the power under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to originate money.

“H.R. 2990, The National Emergency Employment Defense Act (The N.E.E.D. Act) enables money to be issued by spending it into circulation on programs approved by Congress – without taxing or borrowing.

“We can use the authority that we have to reinvigorate the economy, spur the next generation of green energy, rebuild our infrastructure and put Americans back to work.

“What’s standing in our way?”

-Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Learn more about The N.E.E.D. Act here - http://kucinich.house.gov/theneedact/

WHAT IT DOES:

Puts the Federal Reserve (Fed) into the Department of Treasury (Treasury) to make our monetary policy truly accountable to Congress and the American people. Just like in the constitution.

Ends the banks’ special privilege by no longer allowing them to create our money supply when they make loans, through a simple and non-disruptive accounting change.

Invests money to renew our crumbling infrastructure, making it fit for the 21st Century; creating real wealth and millions of good jobs at the same time.

The Federal reserve created 16 trillion dollars in 2008 for the banks and corporations... the GAO audit exposed this... so that's the national debt gone immediately, if we had that power instead of the banks using it to finance their quest to own the world. If the government doesn't need to borrow money... how will the debt increase? Debt increases from borrowing money from the federal reserve, the banks, and China. Not to mention the debt to the fed will disappear as will the interest our tax dollars are paying. Read the bill. It talks about how inflation will not occur. The money would be used for job creation as well to help boost the economy which in turn provides more tax dollars coming in.

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

This is among the best suggestions that I've seen here yet. One of the main problems is that environmentalists often want to stand in the way of development projects. Besides just repairing our old stuff we need to build new infrastructure as well, that is, first world, high-tech infrastructure.

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'm not a Kucinich fan but for chrissakes................you have to be an imbecile not to get this.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Dennis Kucinich is the best! He's been telling it like it is for years.

He voted no on the Financial Modernization Act.

He voted no on the Patriot Act.

He voted no on the NDAA of 2012 and 2013 because the wars need to end and he doesn't believe the US government should have the power of indefinite detention of US citizens.

And now he has a solution to take our freedom back from the Federal Reserve and the big banks all while creating jobs.

Dennis Kucinich is a great man!

"Is this the united states congress or the board of directors meeting for Goldman Sachs?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dkZShYP78

But hey! I'm glad you at least support his solution here!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no argument but always suspicious

H J Res 114 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voting Record Date: Oct. 10, 2002

OH 10 Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich Democratic Nay

http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/12790

[+] -5 points by factsrfun (5952) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ds 64 yea, 113 nay, Rs 192 yea, 3 nay this is how I became a D

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22239) 2 years ago

This is a no brainer. Good post, Trevor.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

austerity Look up austerity at Dictionary.com

mid-14c., "sternness, harshness," from O.Fr. austerite "harshness, cruelty" (14c.) and directly from L.L. austeritatem (nom. austeritas), from austerus (see austere). Of severe self-discipline, from 1580s; hence "severe simplicity" (1875); applied during WWII to national policies limiting non-essentials as a wartime economy.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=austerity

I wish politicians would say what they mean

I for one am against government cuts

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Politicians being honest?

If we only had such a world.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

words are often chosen to obscure

[-] 2 points by Shule (2221) 2 years ago

Great idea. Now if we can combine that with stopping the shipping of our money overseas for wars and paying off bribed alliances, we might even have enough to avoid having to print up inflationary money.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

According to Moody’s Mark Zandi, a $1 increase in food stamp payments boosts GDP by $1.73.

the GDP is poor measure of trades for goods and services as it includes money grafted through transaction that exchange no good or services

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

We Need Growth

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

and whr is the money for all this infra investments gonna come from?

and the so called accounting change u r ssuggesting is crazy and stupid?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

read the bill. The answers to your questions are there.

[-] -1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

No thanks mate. I got better things to do with my time.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Lulz. Like what? Asking me the same question when the answer is right in front of you?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Creating more money out of thin air reduces the value of all other dollars and dollar denominated assets. It steals the most money from those least able to afford it.

Got a hundred dollars in your wallet? Bam, it just lost 10% of it's value. The retired person on a fixed income with $10,000 in a savings account. Bam, it just lost 10% of it's value. Got a half million shares of stock? Bam, nothing happened. It's value remains.

If you want to jump start the economy, get it from the people who have money to spare, not from those that don't.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The Federal Reserve has done that with over 10 trillion over the years for their own private interests. All this bill is saying is we could use that for us instead of the big banks like the constitution clearly states.

Read the bill. It talks about how inflation will not occur.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Our financial problems are the result of too much spending. Spending more money on new plumbing and wiring for the house will not cure a problem related to a huge balance on our national credit card.

In the 80's Reagan made us spend an extra nickel a gallon to repair our infrastructure. Why is it still crumbling? The more we build, the more we have to maintain. A vicious cycle can't be cured by building more.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Austerity doesn't work.

The Federal Reserve has created over 10 trillion over the years for their own private interests. All this bill is saying is we could use that for us instead of the big banks like the constitution clearly states. That would wipe out our debt and the interest on our debt that our tax dollars have been paying this entire time.

Read the bill. It talks about how inflation will not occur.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

$15 trillion national debt. Each man, woman and child owes $50,000 of that federal debt. A family of four $200,000. How long will that take to pay off? Don't forget just like a credit card we are paying interest on the debt as well.

So we will pay off this huge debt by printing money to pay for it while not creating inflation? No chance.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Well like I said the FED created over 10 trillion dollars over the past 5 years... so that's two thirds of the debt gone in 5 years if we had that power instead of the banks using it to finance their quest to own the world. If the government doesn't need to borrow money... how will the debt increase? Debt increases from borrowing money from the federal reserve, the banks, and China.

Not to mention the debt to the fed will disappear as will the interest our tax dollars are paying.

Read the bill. It talks about how inflation will not occur. The money would be used for job creation as well to help boost the economy which in turn provides more tax dollars coming in.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

man i couldn't disagree more with the post above. Spending money is taxing...no matter how you do it....if you print or create it...it's an inflationary tax that hurts and middle and lower class citizens. It may temporarily spur economic growth....but economic growth based on a fraudulent foundation that will eventually come crumbling down like it always does with Keynesian "stimulus". Every dollar you take from the people to spend (whether through taxes or money creation inflationary taxes) is money that is funneled to lesser productive parts of the economy than if spent by individuals.

Government stimulated housing....and first we get skyrocketing prices and a subsequent housing bubble with an eventual housing collapse...government stimulates medicine and what do we get...rising costs with lower quality...government stimulates education and what do we get...rising costs and lower quality with a subsequent student loan bubble that will eventually burst as well.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

when a share holder makes money off my labor, that is taxing

[-] 1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 2 years ago

Not true. Taxes are involuntary, you are welcome to tell the shareholder to get lost and start an Ebay store for around $100.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

you're also getting paid for your labor (i hope). By buying into your company a shareholder is also increasing job security for you by creating a higher value company....it's an indirect benefit to you.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

True, but that doesn't make Matt's statement any less true.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I don't see what's wrong with making money with shares of a company....matt is also more than able to buy shares in the same company and see his investment increase in value on the back of his labor.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Yeah, You'd be an idiot to buy stocks today, and if you are a said idiot, I have some Face Book stocks I'd like to sell you. Are you game? Face Book, the new euphemism for hustled. When you buy stocks, you have the potential to get Face Booked.

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I believe the term is"Zucked", (as in Zuckerberg).

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yep, you run the risk of losing money....but it's a choice...just like the person taking a risk to invest in your company through stocks is taking.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no risk of losing money on the labor end

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What did they add to the product?

What did they do to make the job itself more profitable?

more importantly, how much did it add to inflation?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

They added a lot to the product....they created value in the company creating job security for all its workers. Look at the demand for google stocks (now worth $600+) because of the companies success and what it has done for the employees there......they work in a semi-paradise. It doesn't add to inflation...inflation comes from money creation via fractional reserve banking or being printed by the federal reserve.

If you're a worker...you want every investor in the world to buy your companies stock...it absolutely helps you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You never answered what they added to the product.

Google ain't what it used to be anyway, so they actually detracted from that particular "product", though I'm referring more to tangible products.

They always demand more, so eventually the product suffers in the long run.

Eventually, wages and benefits suffer.

Look at the crap they sell at Wallworld. Look what they pay their employees.

No, they created the inflation.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

What they added to the product....how about the funds to put forth to future products or improvements on existing products.

how did they create inflation? They didn't counterfeit money and distribute it into the economy.

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell you would want to go work for a company that isn't attractive to shareholders....because it would be worthless.

You can argue whether it's a noble profession making money from stocks...but that doesn't deter the fact that having people buy your companies stocks is very beneficial to you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why would a successful company need that?

You still can't say what they added to the product.

What tangible value did they add?

How is someone who added NO value to any product beneficial?

How is a board of directors on WallStreet laying folks off to improve their profit a good thing?

How is that same board of directors demanding jobs be sent overseas, so they can maintain their constant demands for a rising profit margin a good thing?

You never did say what tangible value they added to the procuct.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

They add tangible value in the form of capital...if there wasn't capital there would be no product. I challenge you to go work for a company that doesn't have anyone to invest in its stock....you won't find it..because it doesn't exist.

If someone in a company on wallstreet has to lay people off to make a profit they are providing value by redesigning the company in a profitable way...if the company isn't profitable why the hell would it exist at all? By laying people off and restructuring the company it allows the people still there to keep their job...rather than floating a non-profitable company that will eventually collapse and put everyone out on the street.

You didn't answer me about the inflation now that i've answered your questions.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, what tangible value did you say capital adds to the product?

How that did add value for the consumer or the worker that made the product.

It actually sucked value from the product and the employee in order to provide constantly rising profits for WallStreet, and by doing so adds to inflation.

The bots have collapsed this thread to the point that it's silly to continue.

If you wanna go ahead and think you won something, go right ahead.

[-] -1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Austerity is not counterproductive, it just needs to be targeted. Pay outs to military contractors could be cut as well as foreign aid while we put a new focus on building our own economy. Subsidies to big oil and big ag could be cut as well (oh no, more austerity) while addressing our tax code which makes us less competitive in the world. No, cuts can, and should be made, just not cuts to programs that actually benefit the American people. Add that to a revamping of the tax code that is flatter (relatively) and fairer and we could enjoy economic good times again. Unfortunately, both parties are too cowardly and too much on the take to their special interests to make any real changes needed. Austerity is needed against the "well being" of those who have been fleecing the people for more tax dollars for far too long.

[-] -2 points by chile73 (-88) 2 years ago

oh yeah that 15 trillion deficit isn't enough , let's spend more.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Actually this bill would reduce the debt because we wouldn't be borrowing money from a place that stole that power in 1913 with a bought congress. Also we could lower taxes for all classes as well.

The federal reserve has created over 10 trillion dollars over the years... you do understand that is more than half of our nations debt right?

That debt could be gone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (5952) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good post, sorry about the trolls, they follow me everywhere these days....