Rush Limbaugh Say Police, Fire-Fighters,Teachers ‘Do Not Grow The Economy’ Do You Agree? (VIDEO)

So what’s the plan? Back in 1999, when Germany was going through its own self-imposed austerity programme, US economist Paul Krugman wrote a piece with a humorous title called "Why Germany kant kompete", arguing that Germany’s obsession with discipline and sound money would lead it to become a "drag on a more unified Europe".

Exactly the opposite happened, and 10 years later, when Germany had become the powerhouse of growth, a German economist responded with a bittersweet piece entitled "What Krugman kant komprehend". The funny use of words aside, Germany’s experience of economic growth after a phase of austerity, which was painful and only hesitantly supported by a small majority of the electorate, is an argumentative stumbling bloc for those forces now arguing for a weakening of the agreed austerity programme.

So why was Germany’s own austerity plan such a success? Apart from following the much-criticised principles of "discipline" and "sound money", which clearly worked, German austerity had one unique element: it was supported by the major opposition parties and implemented and executed by a left-of-centre coalition government of Social Democrats and Greens under Gerhard Schröder.

In long-winded, tedious and painful discussions, Schröder also managed to obtain trade-union support for most of the austerity measures. These measures took years to work their way through the system and bore fruit too late for the Social Democrats to avoid losing the chancellery to Angela Merkel, but the social and political cohesion behind the austerity programme was, without a doubt, a major reason for its eventual success.

Replicating Germany’s domestic political hegemony is a requirement for the implementation of austerity measures in EU countries.

Whoever wins the presidential elections in France this weekend will have to deal with the unpleasant realities of the bond markets, the unloved rating agencies and the need to keep the financial system, and the country’s own banks, working.

France has no alternative but to join forces with the overall EU austerity effort and build a cohesive social and political platform to implement reforms. Tricky in France, this requires the buy-in from powerful unions. That will be tough. Promising the French electorate too much now, though, will come back to haunt the candidate later and rob France of a credible chance to implement much-needed reform.

When the last socialist president, Francois Mitterrand, took office at the Elysée in 1981, the ratio of French government debt to gross domestic product stood at 22%. Today it is 82%. The Dutch this week showed the way. After the government collapsed over austerity plans, Prime Minister Mark Rutte obtained majority support from all five parties in Parliament, the so-called Kunduz coalition, which allows him to push the programme through. The Socialist party, which opposed the plan, deeply crashed in Dutch opinion polls this week as a consequence. France, take note.

Germany implemented Welfare and entitlement reform, and the union workers there are far more reasonablle there than here.

The unions were destroying Germany as they are here. In the 80's and 90's, unions in Germany had a 35-hour work week, high benefits and early retirement, just to name some of the issues. The result was a rising unemployment rate that barely improved even during economic upswings. All of that changed between 2003-05, however, as German companies radically reformed labor relations.

union rank and file knew that the companies had their backs to the wall; company threats of massive layoffs and outsourcing to Eastern Europe or Asia were not a bluff. So companies worked with their unionized employees to revise both pay and work requirements.

The union workers wer eon board with this, and the corrupt goon union leaders even tried to sue their own members for workign with Germany's corporations.
As a result, companies returned to the 40-hour week (42 hours for some companies)—but it is a much more flexible week. Prewo says they now have work-hour “budgets,” which allow companies to determine work hours from, say, 28 to 45 hours, depending on demand. Extra hours were not paid out in cash but put (without overtime) into an account that could be drawn down later.

In return for wage, benefits and work rule concessions, the companies made a binding commitment (for 3 to 5 years) to not reduce the labor force except in extraordinary situations.


Again, these agreements were private sector initiated and implemented between the companies and their unionized workforces. In France, by contrast, a 35-hour workweek is the law and so very difficult to change.


One of the buffers in the German economy, which is not used extensively in the U.S., is lower-paid temporary workers. The huge cost of severance pay in the 2001-03 economic downturn that taught companies to swear to never again have 100% permanent and hard-to-dismiss employees.

In the upswing of 2005-08, many companies used about 30% temporary workers. In the recession, these were the first to go—back to the temp agencies and then in most cases to other jobs, not unemployment. In the 2009-10 upswing, they were the first to be hired again.

The country promotes vocational training, mostly run by companies rather than the government. This training is for higher trained and more skilled tradesmen and less unskilled to low skilled manufacturing (AKA low skilled part plugger unions). (The same holds for Switzerland, Denmark or other countries with similar programs).”


HERE THE UNIONS ARE NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL

The Obama administration has also used the economic downturn to reform labor relations, not as Germany did, but rather to expand union membership and power. Most of the jobs “created or saved” from the various stimulus bills have been government jobs (including teachers), which are usually unionized. Plus the president increased benefits (e.g., ObamaCare), making employees more expensive and employers even more nervous about hiring.

In the U.S. unions are funneling millions of dollars—often through shadowy advocacy organizations that are largely unaccountable to anyone—to support the president’s agenda, and they are demanding payback for that support.

I have a masters in finance and economics and do commercial lending for a living. I can promise I have a far greater grasp on economics than you do.

KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IS A SHAM AND HAS BEEN DISCREDITED:
 
 
(1) if it were true companies would make a mad dash to hire as many employees as possible because the increase in revenues would offset the costs. It does not work that way does it?
 
(2) If this were true countries like Africa that have a lot of people and no evil businesses would be the most successful. It does not work that way does it?
 
(3) Taking every dime from businesses would make them have more money to invest in R&D;, better able to compete abroad on pricing, able to hire more people, grow and expand. It does not work that way does it?
 
(4) Before a monetary system it was all business owners. People traded what they made in a barter system. So there was business before workers and without workers, but there are not workers without business.
 
(5) Has anyone ever been hired by a poor person?
 
(6) The poor rarely use American services and rarely buy American products. The rich even the Kroenkes and Lauries don't shop at Wal-Mart. it is the upper middle class and wealthy that actually hire, accountants, attorneys, landscapers, hairstylists, interior designers, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, pipefitters, remodelers, etc. Get my drift.
 
(7) There is not a fixed amount of pie. The rich expand the pie and the wealthy create more wealthy. How many people has Microsoft made rich? How many people has bob street corner hobo made rich.

(8) The wealthy got their money through productive means and taking it from them to give to the unproductive poor ensures it will not be used for productive means.

(9) The business owners take ALL the risk and the business and jobs would not have existed without them. You work for their company. When you take the risk you can have your own company as well.
 
10. Employment is a trailing indicator to profits, profits drive employment, not the other way around

Trickle down economics and capitalism is the only system that allows the poor to become wealthy just as immigrants that come here with no money and unable to even speak English do every day while democrats sit here and whine about not getting enough handed to them.
The thing that Democrats hate about capitalism and trickle down economics is it requires work.  The money does not just trickle down. You actually have to work and the more you want the harder you have to work. It is the only system where someone can be born poor and excel to wealth as foreigners come here broke unable to speak English and do every single day while Democrats whine that they are not being given enough.