There's no need for all this economic sadomasochism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/no-need-for-economic-sadomasochism
The intellectual justification for austerity lies in ruins. It turns out that Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, who originally framed the argument that too high a "debt-to-GDP ratio" will always, necessarily, lead to economic contraction – and who had aggressively promoted it during Rogoff's tenure as chief economist for the IMF –, had based their entire argument on a spreadsheet error. The premise behind the cuts turns out to be faulty. There is now no definite proof that high levels of debt necessarily lead to recession.
Will we, then, see a reversal of policy? A sea of mea culpas from politicians who have spent the last few years telling disabled pensioners to give up their bus passes and poor students to forgo college, all on the basis of a mistake? It seems unlikely. After all, as I and many others have long argued, austerity was never really an economic policy: ultimately, it was always about morality. We are talking about a politics of crime and punishment, sin and atonement. True, it's never been particularly clear exactly what the original sin was: some combination, perhaps, of tax avoidance, laziness, benefit fraud and the election of irresponsible leaders. But in a larger sense, the message was that we were guilty of having dreamed of social security, humane working conditions, pensions, social and economic democracy.
The morality of debt has proved spectacularly good politics. It appears to work just as well whatever form it takes: fiscal sadism (Dutch and German voters really do believe that Greek, Spanish and Irish citizens are all, collectively, as they put it, "debt sinners", and vow support for politicians willing to punish them) or fiscal masochism (middle-class Britons really will dutifully vote for candidates who tell them that government has been on a binge, that they must tighten their belts, it'll be hard, but it's something we can all do for the sake of our grandchildren). Politicians locate economic theories that provide flashy equations to justify the politics; their authors, like Rogoff, are celebrated as oracles; no one bothers to check if the numbers actually add up.
If ever proof was required that the theory is selected to suit the politics, one need only consider the reaction politicians have to economists who dare suggest this moralistic framework is unnecessary; or that there might be solutions that don't involve widespread human suffering.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But the fatcats are doing just fine, thank God.
In the war on terror the people who actually commit terrorism are the ones who actively work to suppress an entire population economically. One of Osama's stated goals was to bankrupt America. Well the scumbag billionaire class beat him to it. Charles and David Koch have done more damage to America than Al Qaeda could ever dream of. 
The mom on welfare working three jobs to put a roof over her kids' heads? Not a threat. The deregulated multi billion corporation looting our treasury through tax loopholes and subsidiaries while raking billions in profit? Who are the real takers here??
ignore Robert Reich and Paul Krugman economic Nobel laureates and Phds. Not to mention ignoring history staring you right in the face the Great Depression and the Keynesian policies that finally pulled us out of it. The history of the Great Depression also clearly demonstrate that Hoover's austerity policy's were a failure. Cherry picking is too kind, it's a Pete Peterson/Koch financed criminal conspiracy.
