About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservative media attribute German economic growth to spending cuts that have not yet begun

September 10, 2010 2:04 pm ET — 51 Comments

Conservative media have falsely suggested that Germany's fiscal austerity policies spurred that country's recent economic growth, at times arguing that the United States should therefore have cut spending instead of borrowing to stimulate the economy. In fact, Germany -- which launched stimulus spending and increased the deficit in response to the recession -- has not yet implemented its planned cuts, and economists say Germany's recent improvement is largely due to conditions favorable to its export-based economy.  

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

German economy saw record growth in second quarter

German economy took unexpectedly large upswing in second quarter of 2010. An August 13 Associated Press article reported that after a 4.9 percent downturn in the German economy in 2009, significant growth occurred in the first half of 2010. First-quarter growth of .5 percent was succeeded by second-quarter growth of 2.2 percent (an annual rate of almost 9 percent), which, according to the AP, is "the fastest pace since reunification two decades ago." Germany's federal statistical office credited foreign trade and spending by government and households, according to AP.

Conservatives suggest growth the result of spending cuts

Barnes: Germany "cut spending and cut their deficit" and got "9 percent growth." Discussing the economic recovery with host Bret Baier on the August 30 edition of Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes attributed Germany's second-quarter growth to cutting "spending and ... their deficit." Barnes also stated:

BARNES: We know what Germany did. What Germany did was reduce their unemployment benefits for one thing; they cut spending and cut their deficit and they loosened up on the labor market -- on hiring and firing and so on -- which could be very strict in Europe.

And what happened? In the second quarter -- 9 percent growth. Unemployment is down to I think 7.6 percent. And compare that to the Obama administration that did the opposite of all of those things. And what do we get here -- 9.5 percent unemployment, 1.6 percent of growth.

NewsBusters: "Germany's fiscally responsible approach to the financial crisis has worked out much better than Obama's spending binge." In an August 29 post, NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard responded to Richard Haass' statement that Germany is "growing now, in part because they are carrying out economic policies of some responsibility and some restraint" by writing:

Indeed. As NewsBusters reported Friday, even New York Times columnist David Brooks understands that Germany's fiscally responsible approach to the financial crisis has worked out much better than Obama's spending binge.

Alas, folks like [Donna] Brazile, Paul Krugman, and Robert Reich are clinging to failed Depression Era policies that have never shown success whenever and wherever they've been tried.

Cavuto: Germany is "benefiting from cooling it on spending." On the August 13 edition of his Fox Business program (accessed via Nexis), Neil Cavuto said that France and Germany "apparently get capitalism and we do not" and claimed that they are "benefiting from cooling it on spending, and we're not benefiting because we haven't remotely cooled it on spending." After Cavuto noted that "German and French economic numbers out today look so good and ours still look so weak," Fox Business analyst Jonathan Hoenig stated that "big spending entitlement programs" can lead to "economic collapse," but since the announcement of "very painful austerity measures," the European economy and currency have "rallied."

Cato economist suggested Germany's "strict fiscal discipline" led to "robust" economic expansion. In a September 8 Wall Street Journal op-ed (subscription required), Cato Institute economist Lawrence H. White wrote that some Keynesian economists had criticized "what they regarded as Germany's overly strict fiscal discipline." White then wrote: "Yet Germany's real output expanded at a robust 9% annual rate in the second quarter, while the U.S. economy grew at an anemic 1.6% rate. So is Germany now a role model for how to recover?" In the rest of his op-ed, White detailed Germany's post-WWII price control deregulation and suggested that it is a "useful model" for current German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaüble, who is preoccupied with "the implications of excessive deficits and the dangers of high inflation."

But Germany has not yet implemented its austerity policies -- and it did use stimulus spending

Bloomberg: German austerity program begins in 2011. In an August 13 article, Bloomberg reported:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Cabinet in June approved levies on banks, air travel and nuclear-power plants as part of what she called an "unprecedented" round of budget cuts, rejecting U.S. calls to spur growth. The program, a mixture of spending cuts and revenue-raising steps, amounts to 81.6 billion euros ($105.1 billion) from 2011 through 2014.

Krugman: "Germany's austerity policies have not yet begun." Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in an August 24 blog post that it's "foolish" to hold "Germany up as proof that austerity is good," partly because "Germany's austerity policies have not yet begun -- up to this point they've actually been quite Keynesian."

Austerity program will include new taxes. Contrary to the suggestion that Germany's austerity measures only include spending cuts, The Wall Street Journal reported in a September 1 article that the set of measures aimed at reducing German deficit, approved in late August, included a tax on passenger air travel. In addition, the government is reportedly considering adding a tax on nuclear-fuel rods estimated to be worth 2.3 billion euros annually.

The Economist's Avent: Germany's stimulus spending "was quite large by developed nation standards." In an August 30 post on The Economist's Free Exchange blog, economics editor Ryan Avent wrote that "Germany's stimulus spending was smaller than America's, but it was quite large by developed nation standards." He continued:

Germany is one of the few euro zone countries to increase its budget deficit from 2009 to 2010. And planned 2011 cuts are quite small relative to those in countries pursuing crash austerity programmes, which are also suffering very weak recoveries (Greece has yet to get out of recession, and Spain may be heading back in).

This doesn't mean that stimulus is the key to German success. But Germany is absolutely not an example of strong growth despite austerity.

German stimulus included "cash for clunkers" program and another that paid companies to retain workers. According to the Brookings Institution, Germany passed two stimulus packages -- the first in November 2008 and a second, larger one in January 2009. The total package amounted to approximately $130.4 billion, 3.4 percent of Germany's 2008 GDP, and included tax cuts, as well as spending on public infrastructure and a program similar to the U.S.' "cash for clunkers" program. Germany's Spiegel Online reported that the stimulus "helped Germany's substantial auto supplies industry to offset the sharp decline of the previous year with shipments to those foreign automakers benefiting directly from the scrapping premium." Spiegel also described the "short-time working program" through which the government subsidized companies who chose to reduce employees' hours rather than lay them off. In a Guardian op-ed, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot also wrote that this program "saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany," keeping its unemployment rate "at or below pre-recession levels."

Economist Mark Weisbrot: The "Germans definitely did not cut their budget deficit during recession." In his August 30 Guardian op-ed, Weisbrot explained that, thus far, Germany's recovery formula "has not included pro-cyclical policies -- fiscal tightening when the economy is contracting or barely growing." He further wrote that "the latest budget figures released this week show that Germany's budget deficit for the first half of this year has doubled as compared to one year ago. At 3.5% of GDP, it is still lower than that of many other European countries. But the Germans definitely did not cut their budget deficit during recession."

German budget deficit has doubled since same time last year. The International Business Times reported on August 24 that Germany's deficit spending has "spike[d]" because of its stimulus package. According to the Times, which cited Germany's Federal Statistical Office as its source, "net borrowing for the first six months of the year amounted to 42.8 billion euros -- more than double the 18.7 billion euro figure from a year ago." That amounts to a deficit that is 3.5 percent of GDP, compared with Germany's 2009 first-half deficit of 1.5 percent. The Times noted that the European Union forbids deficits of more than 3 percent of GDP.

German growth attributed to export economy and weak euro

Germany is benefiting from increasing global demand and a weak euro that makes its exports more competitive. The August 13 Bloomberg article explained that the German economy "is benefiting from a recovery in global demand after last year's recession just as the euro's 10 percent decline against the dollar this year makes its exports more competitive outside the region." On August 14, The Wall Street Journal reported that German growth in the second quarter "was spurred by exports of equipment and autos to Asia and other emerging markets, as well as investment" and the resumption of construction projects delayed by Germany's harsh winter.

The article also reported: "The weaker euro -- which lost about 15% against the dollar as the crisis unfolded between December and June -- boosted German exports, while investors seeking the safety of German bonds drove borrowing costs lower, making it cheaper for companies to invest." Agence France Presse further reported that Germany was "particularly well-placed to cash in" on the "strong demand for imports in emerging markets, notably Asia" that is driving European economic growth.

Weisbrot: German growth "was driven mostly by exports." In his Guardian op-ed, Weisbrot also wrote that Germany's "record second quarter growth -- 2.2% over the previous quarter, or 9% at an annual rate -- was driven mostly by exports, which grew 8.2% over the previous quarter, or 37% annualised. As the South Centre has noted, for 2002-2007, exports accounted for 143% of Germany's growth -- meaning that the German economy would have actually contracted over these years if not for export growth."

Krugman: Germany decline and recovery due to export-oriented economy. In his August 24 post, Krugman further wrote:

Basically, here's the German story: it's an economy that didn't have a housing bubble, so it wasn't caught up directly in the bust. But it's very export-oriented, with a focus on durable manufactured goods. Demand for these goods plunged in the early stages of the crisis -- so that Germany, remarkably, had a bigger GDP decline than the bubble economies -- but has bounced back since summer 2009. This has pulled Germany back up; exports to China have done especially well.

If there's a slam-dunk argument for austerity in there, it's remarkably well hidden.

FT columnist: "Germany is recovering faster this year because it contracted faster last year." In his August 29 Financial Times column (registration required), Wolfgang Münchau wrote that "it is important to keep some perspective and not draw false inferences from the 9 per cent annualised growth rate during the second quarter" in Germany. He continued:

If you look at the period since the beginning of the financial crisis, Germany's economic performance has been dismal. If you compare levels of gross domestic product between Germany and the US since the crisis, you find the US significantly outperformed Germany during that period. That situation may still be reversed if the US were to go into a double-dip recession. But the best judgment we can make now is that of Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, in her recent interview in the Financial Times: Germany is recovering faster this year because it contracted faster last year, when GDP fell by 5 per cent. So far, this looks like classic dead-cat bounce.

McKeown: "German recovery will weaken as global demand slows and its own fiscal consolidation begins next year." Economist Jennifer McKeown reportedly said that the "German recovery will weaken as global demand slows and its own fiscal consolidation begins next year." BBC News also reported that Carsten Brzeski of ING Financial Markets said, "Looking ahead, it is almost needless to say that the current growth momentum is hardly sustainable in the coming months. With the one-off impact from the construction sector and normalising of export growth, German growth will return to more ordinary numbers."

Reuters: "Many economists" expect pace of German growth to slow again. In an August 13 article, Reuters reported: "Many economists were surprised by the size of the surge but expect the pace to slow again in the second half of 2010 and beyond, when austerity measures in Germany and several weaker economies could lead to a deceleration, especially if some slowing in China lowers Asian demand for European goods."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (September 10, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
      4  
      "Germany's federal statistical office credited foreign trade and spending by government and households, according to AP."


      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (September 10, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
      7 1
      So, it looks like it took the rightwing media 1-3 weeks to come up with this distortion of reality in order to spin the results in Germany to their benefit.

      And once again we see that they can't actually use facts to support their political philosophy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 10, 2010 5:18 pm ET)
        1  
        And just wait for the rest of the media to jump on board the austerity wagon. First CNN, then the L.A. Times, then the NYT. Within a few months all we're going to be hearing are condescending and false stories about the "new" Europe.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by What Happened to Gannon (September 11, 2010 11:06 am ET)
             
          Yeah, that's what we need: Austerity. ;)

          Fox News honks want America to fail.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (September 10, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
      5  
      Conservative claim: "There is nothing more stimulative to a sagging economy than government shutting its doors."

      If you believe that, I'll go fetch your nookie and ba-ba, 'cause you WERE born yesterday.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (September 10, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
      2  
      Well this must be proof that their schnitzengruben industry is healthy again. Whew.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MaineiacMan (September 10, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
        11
      It is possible. Here is an example. A new highway is proposed. A developer buys a few parcels adjactent to the highway route. The property values of the land along the highway go up. That is called economic growth without anything having actually been done or taken effect, all it took was the knowledge that something is going to happen.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (September 10, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
        7  
        That is called insider trading and is illegal.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (September 10, 2010 3:55 pm ET)
          4  
          And BTW the budget cuts were announced in June which is at the end of the 2nd quarter of the year, so it wouldn't have much effect on that quarter, but would affect the 3rd quarter.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (September 10, 2010 7:42 pm ET)
            6  
            Hey ! That's a new idea! Artificially inflated real estate prices, that sounds like a winning path to economic stability.

            It's Ground Hog's Day again.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (September 10, 2010 3:55 pm ET)
        6  
        Ummmm... but this post is regarding spending CUTS that haven't taken place yet.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MaineiacMan (September 10, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
            1
          It isnt insider trading to act upon a PUBLICLY known event that is coming but hasnt happened yet.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (September 10, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
               
            Uh Oh! I missed your point. I apologize.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by papa bear3 (September 11, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
              1  
              . . . wrong words maybe, 'gambling' 'speculation' all of which are based on a rumor. Let's sell some 'rumors' to the Eurpeans like Citibank and Lehman Bros did.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (September 10, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
        4  
        >>Here is an example. A new highway is proposed.

        Ironically, your example proves the opposite--that government spending would spur growth, which in fact it does. It is not possible that budget cuts announced in June would have affected the 2nd quarter. It is also known (as Krugman continues to point out) that deficit spending does help the economy recover from a recession or depression, and since the German gov't is claiming the same, it seems logical to attribute the growth to Kensyian economics.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (September 10, 2010 7:41 pm ET)
          3  
          ... it seems logical to attribute the growth to Kensyian economics. - funnymanpants

          To anyone with common sense and knowledge it's an inescapable conclusion.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MaineiacMan (September 11, 2010 10:37 am ET)
            3
          You are too funny. Change my example to a new shopping mall is proposed for a large parcel on the outskirts of a city. Developers act on the news by purchasing parcels in the area. There is economic activity taking place BEFORE the event actually happens and this time the government (highway) IS NOT involved.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (September 11, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
               
            Since developers announce the building of a new mall, then they probably already own the land, so again you fail.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by usappa00 (September 10, 2010 9:18 pm ET)
        3  
        Hey genius, wouldn't a new highway being built be the opposite of spending cuts? You should think before you write.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
        1  
        It is possible. Here is an example. A new highway is proposed. - MaineMan

        Really? You just used government spending as your example. Sometimes, your far righties make mocking you a little too easy. Time to privatize the highways, dammit!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 12, 2010 2:33 am ET)
           
        First, reasoning by analogy. Spending cuts that haven't happened yet aren't in any way the same as proposing infrastructure. In fact, they're kind of exactly opposite, as one is the government spending less, and the other is the government spending more. Not a good argument.

        Second, you obviously don't know anything about government appropriations. A developer would only make a killing on land speculation if the proposed highway were only known to him. Otherwise, the property values would go up at about the time when the highway plans were announced publically. So unless your theoretical developer had illegally obtained pre-announcement information about the proposed highway, the economic growth would be spread out amongst the various landowners along its route.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (September 10, 2010 6:28 pm ET)
      3  
      You can cut spending and hinder growth but is it even possible to cut spending to produce growth? I don't think anyone can show a correlation between the two.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (September 10, 2010 6:36 pm ET)
        1 8
        If you're talking about government growth, No. If you cut govt spending, in other words if you have less tax money to work with, govt will reduce, streamline and become more efficient - it has too. Just like when you reduce your own spending to necessary levels you are more careful and prudent in your spending choices - you have too. As a result of less income redistribution and less wasteful dollars for government to spend, that means more money in the pockets of those who earned it. They will spend and invest in the economy and as a result it will grow and everyone benefits from a healthy economy. More demand means more jobs. And more jobs means the tax base is expanded and more revenue for the government.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (September 10, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
          5  
          You went off on some tangent. I asked how could spending cuts produce growth.

          On another note, I have no problem with middle class tax cuts (very few Democrats do) and they can produce growth if people actually spend the money. Bush and the Democrats tried tax rebates in 2008 and they didn't work because people either saved the money or paid off debts. The stimulus had tax cuts and credits and I'm not sure if they're doing anything. That's the problem with tax cuts - people may choose not to spend the money. We can get much better returns from direct spending. Also, the rich already have money to spend so why do you think a tax cut for them would change anything?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (September 10, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
          5  
          One other thing: What do you propose we cut?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (September 10, 2010 7:02 pm ET)
          6  
          I disagree. All spending is equal. A dollar spent is a dollar spent whether it's the govt spending it or a private individual. When economic hard times are upon us though the individual is more likely to save for a rainy day while the govt will keep on spending. That's what the economy needs.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 12:15 pm ET)
               
            Some types of spending multiply through the economy more than others. I believe tax cuts for the wealthy are very inefficient compared to spending that directly employs people and creates infrastructure that supports further economic development.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2010 2:42 pm ET)
              2  
              There is no question. I am able to buy pretty much anything I want or need with my current salary. I save the rest. The more money that I make, the more I save at this point. It is great for my personal finances, but a tax cut for me would do almost nothing to stimulate the economy. That is just reality.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Missouri Democrat (September 11, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
            2  
            While theoretically all spending is equal I know of some circumstances some spending is unequal. Not long ago I read that for every dollar "spent" with Food Stamps it returns 1.72 to the local economy. Seems like a pretty good return on investment so to speak.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (September 10, 2010 7:47 pm ET)
          3  
          If you cut govt spending, in other words if you have less tax money to work with, govt will reduce, streamline and become more efficient - it has too. - right ON

          Of course, if government is already operating efficiently and fulfilling its functions, cutting funding will leave them short on resources and reduce their efficiency and effectiveness.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (September 10, 2010 8:05 pm ET)
          4 1
          Yet again another dishonest post.

          If that "spending" is spent with deficit funds, there is NO restriction in the money that the private sector has! It doesn't mean "more money in the pockets of those who earned it".

          You just CAN'T allow yourself to be honest on some topics here, can you?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (September 10, 2010 9:03 pm ET)
          1  
          Comparing people/families budgets and spending with government budgets and spending is facetious at best. Government is a contrived mechanism that exsists to serve society. We can debate if it is actually serving that function.

          Everyone wants to have a government that is as efficient and lean as possible, getting there is the charm.

          As a result of less income redistribution and less wasteful dollars for government to spend, that means more money in the pockets of those who earned it.


          Hey, something we can agree on. If we can work on slowing or stopping the redistribution of wealth from the lower 95% of the population to the upper 5% of the population, maybe we can bring some stability to our economy.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 10, 2010 10:48 pm ET)
            4 1
            Rachel Maddow had a great graph on her show tonight.

            Look at slide ten, but look at all of them.

            http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jaguarundi (September 11, 2010 10:50 am ET)
              5  
              No, let's divert the conversation away from Real Income Statistics. What about Security, God and Flag waving?? Please let's not look at how stupid you have to be to vote Republican when you don't earn seven figures. Oops, wait they even did better under Democrats than Republicans.

              My grandfather told me that the Republican Party is a party strictly for rich people in 1971. Looks like nothing really changes with Conservatives. Before 1980 nay 1968, they at least stood for some sort of fiscal responsibility but what is the actual reason to support their policies now? For the American Empire? To subjugate the less powerful? or to stop pre-marital sex, masterbation, evolution and abortion?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jaguarundi (September 11, 2010 11:00 am ET)
                2  
                Let the diversion begin . . . . .

                http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/

                Or will this post just get the crickets chirping?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by jaguarundi (September 11, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
                2  
                Come on Floyd, MaineiacMan, RightOn, . . .
                Waitin' on Rush or Glenda to program your rebuttal?

                Crickets chirping . . .
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (September 12, 2010 1:40 am ET)
                     
                  Well, RightON is a paid troll who only works Monday thru Friday, part time, and his day ends around 6:45 Eastern time.

                  But the other ones? They don't actually come here interested in participating in a fair and reasonable debate!

                  So why would something that refutes all they say drive them to comment?
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (September 11, 2010 7:36 am ET)
          3  
          That is supply side economics which simply doesn't work. When people lose their jobs they can't keep up demand and more jobs are lost. You could open a Porsche dealership in Rwanda but you wouldn't have many takers. The economy has picked up slightly from Obama's mild stimulus and slowed slightly when the spending stopped. Much like with FDR. It's not doing a lot on its own.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by papa bear3 (September 11, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
             
          . . .maybe on Mars, but most likely these jobs are going to Asia. The tax base is getting smaller.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 12, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
             
          You're just running on fumes right now, huh? Trickle-down platitudes that were proven wrong in Hoover's day, and repeatedly proven wrong under Reagan and Bush II. That's the absolute best argument you have. Now that's just sad.

          And it's so damn easy to refute:

          [http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/]
          Report Abuse
      • Author by MaineiacMan (September 11, 2010 10:39 am ET)
          5
        Duh,

        Cut GOVERNMENT spending, reduce taxes, put more money in peoples pockets, growth. Why is that growth = more government to you people?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jaguarundi (September 11, 2010 10:55 am ET)
          3  
          You want to put more money in peoples pockets?

          http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/

          "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana
          What about those who refuse to learn from the past?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by armadillo (September 11, 2010 12:16 pm ET)
          4  
          Duh,

          The problem with concentration of wealth is that eventually you run out of people with enough money to buy anything.

          But more to your assertion, the govt doesn't take tax money somewhere and bury it. It gets spent. Local stores and manufacturers treat all money the same. This was in all the papers. And when the private sector runs out of money due to GOBP policies, who is left to spend besides the govt? What you advocate is an inverse feedback loop: low demand, so let's cut demand. When has that ever worked?

          Duh, indeed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (September 11, 2010 1:00 pm ET)
               
            I was thinking about the government asking businesses to hire people with the government footing the bill but that would have drawbacks. Some businesses would probably start letting people go and then rehire them just to get the government to pay the employee's salary.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by armadillo (September 12, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
              1  
              loonz- now that's thinking like the GOBP! Paging Rick Scott! He's the expert at ripping off taxpayers.

              I'm sure they've already thought of this and have ways to prevent it. But you make a point: the govt (aka taxpayers) doesn't commit fraud, it's the private sector committing fraud. Odd that some people still blame the govt for what people like Rick Scott do to the govt.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (September 11, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
          1  
          What you're basically trying to say with your broken English is that tax cuts equates to growth which can be true on occasion but not in this case. We've already had tax cuts and people are choosing to save the money rather than spend it. We need government spending to get people employed again and get the rolling. Once the economy is at full steam and people are more willing to spend, we can look at ways to cut taxes to further growth. I think that's what Germany is looking to do.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by papa bear3 (September 11, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
            1  
            . . . and Germany's social safety net, although expensive, kept their economy running during a bad period
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 11, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
          3  
          Putting more money into the pockets of people who are already saving the majority of their income does almost nothing to spur growth. That is actually just common sense.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.