Paul B. Farrell: Warning: America’s new Age of Austerity starts now

[marmar]

Warning: America’s new Age of Austerity starts now
Commentary: Denials, delays will deepen the impact

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Warning, tighten your belts, America’s new Age of Austerity is already here, today. There I said it. I admit it. And you better too. Prepare now. Could be like the 1930s depression austerity.

You’ve seen the warnings all across the major newspapers about a global slowdown. But why no warnings of austerity dead ahead? Why? America’s still deep in denial. We prefer happy talk to the truth. No, nobody will get honest about austerity till after the elections. Then it’ll hit hard.

Wake up. You were warned: America’s new Age of Austerity is already here.

Till the elections, nobody else will tell you the truth about what comes with this slowdown: Plan on classic economic austerity. Maybe not austerity as deep as the euro zone’s Spain and Greece. Yet maybe deeper than the 1930s as Nobel economist Paul Krugman writes in his new book, “End This Depression Now.” ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warning-americas-new-age-of-austerity-starts-now-2012-05-29?dist=beforebell

[Pab Sungenis]

1. Austerity is the WORST way to fight an economic downturn.

That's what Hoover did. And it hasn't helped Europe.

Cut taxes and spend during downturns to get out of them, then raise taxes and cut spending during up periods.

[rfranklin]

2. The right never wants to recognize that WWII was a government program and ended the Depression...

creating virtually full employment. And it was done with deficit spending.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. So was the Reagan "revolution."

The immense Defense buildup was what rescued our industrial base and finally ended the recession of 1982. Of course, the Republicans insist it was the tax cuts, which is not the case.

And unlike FDR's or Clinton's spending programs, there were no lasting benefits from it, so the recovery was shallow and short lived.

[tularetom]

4. In 2008 I wondered why Obama or any Democrat wanted to be President

Now I'm wondering the same thing about Romney.

Bush left such a mess it was going to be impossible to clean it up in a single term. The new president was going to be blamed in the press for the condition of the economy, particularly if he or she were a Democrat.

Since then, Obama has not really taken the kind of drastic action that was needed to curb the excesses of the financial sector and the mess is still not cleaned up. Consequently he faces a competitive re election campaign and he may be unsuccessful.

If Romney is elected he will step into the same situation as Obama did four years ago. The Bush mess still needs cleaning up and it's obvious that Romney will not take the steps necessary to do so. Proposing to curtail government services in the midst of a global economic slowdown is only going to make matters worse.

Of course Romney will have the support of the media in whatever he does and the entire narrative will attempt to blame Obama for the Bush CF. But I don't think the public will continue to buy it for four more years and Romney will be lucky to finish his term let alone win re election.

[Larkspur]

5. The only ones who should be living an austere life are the wealthy who can afford it.

The wealthy elite have robbed the poor and Middle Class of much and still want all the pennies we have. They are the ones who ruined our economy and they should pay for it.

[woo me with science]

7. Thank you.

This situation was created.

The response to it will be chosen.

There will still be enormous wealth in this country after Europe collapses. We are living through a deliberate restructuring of where the money goes.

Our politicians have choices about how ordinary people will fare. Do not allow them to lie to you about the inevitability of your suffering.

[xchrom]

6. du rec. nt