If The Us Defaults On Its Debt Next Month...

[aussiebebe]

US national debt is something like $14 trillion and growing by $4 billion every day. I love reading Bill Bryson, the American travel writer; it must have been 15 years ago that he wrote about the US debt at only $3 trillion making the point that it was so mind-boggling that people just can visualize or conceive of such a number. While there are no shortage of workable ideas to reduce the US debt, which of course no politician wants to agree on for fear of political suicide, I can't forsee the government possibly acting swiftly enough because by 2015 the interest payments on US national debt will use about 85% of all federal revenue. It's interesting to guess how things might play out.

[midas]

US national debt is something like $14 trillion and growing by $4 billion every day.

and that is why Peter Schiff says this .............'Default is inevitable'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0dFFkzBaOI

[Sateev]

I still think the holder of the office of the President of the USA deserves some respect.

Doesn't the Constitution of the US similarly deserve some respect?

Certainly. What's your point?

If you mean my criticism of the cheap and cowardly slurs and name calling toward the President , please note that I didn't call for the name caller to be executed, or thrown in jail for lese presidentus (I just made that up!). And that would be a free speech issue, which is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution in any case. It's in the Bill of Rights.

I merely pointed out how declasse and low such utterances and the people who emit them are.

Or did I miss your point?

edit:typo

Edited July 14, 2011 by Sateev

[flying]

Strangely, I don't totally disagree with your assessment of his performance, and I also understand you have the right to say whatever you want about him, and the right to call him names, or make slurs about his origins, etc. However, it just puts you in the same category as the other wingnuts and assorted losers who act like kindergarteners, calling names, and saying, na,n,na,n,na,na.. Grow up, and maybe someone of substance will pay attention to you. I still think the holder of the office of the President of the USA deserves some respect. Ask yourself this: would you say those things directly to his face? You wouldn't to mine, and be able to walk away...

So many 'keyboard warriors', sh*t oh dear!

Your a contradiction..........You make posts telling me not to call folks names all the while calling names yourself like....nitwits,wingnuts,etc...

Then make a claim of being able to do something your not capable of & then immediately calling others keyboard warriors????

Puleeze ..It is only your fingers making promises your body cant fulfill

Grow up........If you have something about the topic to say then post it....Your not the hall monitor.

And Yes I do say in real life & on the computer what fits.....It would be the same if I were talking to Zobama, you or anyone's face if the shoe fits.

Edited July 14, 2011 by flying

[Sateev]

The debt ceiling will have to rise. A complete 'no brainer,' as short term obligations, which tax receipts will only cover by 60% or so, will need to be met with borrowing. To tie together, as the radical element of the Republicans demand, short term obligations with long term deficit reduction is ludicrous -- the time lines are completely out of synch. Yet, the majority of voters are against raising the ceiling. Makes one reflect back 230 years -- when voters had to be 'educated' (i.e., white, male, land owners only could vote -- Bangkok elite probably have latched onto this....). Democracy can really make you want to cry....

Yes, the deficits need to be addressed. Simpson-Bowles, or something akin, will have to be incorporated -- once the economy is off life support. Obama has already addressed going after entitlements -- to the shrieking of that bich Pelosi. But Simpson-Bowles is long term, to include its recommendations for tax overhaul that would add revenue (shrieking he-bich Cantor, at this juncture). As these deficit reduction elements are folded in, we can get down to an acceptable ratio of GDP to national debt. But, again, the time lines of deficit reduction and raising the debt ceiling are on two different planets.

The Republicans' glee that, not raising the debt ceiling will force the US to fix its deficit problems, is simplistic. First, even if the economy was in top notch shape, abruptly terminating programs -- and employment -- would in itself be counterproductive. But, now, when the economy is still on life support, short term cuts in government spending would definitely send us back into Great Recession Two. Fortunately, unlike Greece, and others, the US still has the option to prime the pump. But, unfortunately, we're stuck with a new breed of Republican -- who's rejected (although, most likely, never studied) Keynesian theory, no doubt too involved with trying to kill the teaching of evolution -- a la Michelle Bachmann.

Yes, for sure we have to address -- and fix thru some hard choices -- the deficit problem. But, this can wait 'til the economy has recovered.

However, near term, the deficit ceiling has to be raised, so it will be. I just hope this brinksmanship hasn't raised the cost of servicing this debt by at least 25 basis points, as I've seen mentioned in several reports. Thus, putting us already further behind the power curve in solving our deficit problem. I can't believe I voted Republican for so many years... Certainly, we live in different times.

Finally, a well thought-out analysis.

I would only add that it's not merely a difference along ideological lines; it's a blatant and cynical attempt to hold back the economy, and place blame on the Obama administration (not that it doesn't deserve some blame). That said, some Republicans have already conceded 2012, and are looking to drag us through a protracted political war of attrition clear through to 2016. Hence the offers by McConnell to let the President raise the debt ceiling at will by veto. I also believe that not wanting to fall into that trap is why Mr. Obama will not invoke the 14th amendment to remove the Congress from the process.

Fun times ahead.

[Sateev]

Strangely, I don't totally disagree with your assessment of his performance, and I also understand you have the right to say whatever you want about him, and the right to call him names, or make slurs about his origins, etc. However, it just puts you in the same category as the other wingnuts and assorted losers who act like kindergarteners, calling names, and saying, na,n,na,n,na,na.. Grow up, and maybe someone of substance will pay attention to you. I still think the holder of the office of the President of the USA deserves some respect. Ask yourself this: would you say those things directly to his face? You wouldn't to mine, and be able to walk away...

So many 'keyboard warriors', sh*t oh dear!

Your a contradiction..........You make posts telling me not to call folks names all the while calling names yourself like....nitwits,wingnuts,etc...

Then make a claim of being able to do something your not capable of & then immediately calling others keyboard warriors????

Puleeze ..It is only your fingers making promises your body cant fulfill

Grow up........If you have something about the topic to say then post it....Your not the hall monitor.

And Yes I do say in real life & on the computer what fits.....It would be the same if I were talking to Zobama, you or anyone's face if the shoe fits.

Wingnuts, and nitwits...I left one out. Punk.

[Merzik]

A short quote from Nobel Laureate and former World Bank Chief Economist Joe Stiglitz:

"Just a few years ago, a powerful ideology- the belief in free and unfettered markets- brought the world to the brink of ruin. Even in its hey-day, from the early 80s until 2007, US style deregulated capitalism brought greater material well-being only to the richest in the richest country in the world.....The remedies to the US deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: put the America back to work by stimulating the economy: end the mindless wars: rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes- at least on the very rich. But the right is having none of this; and is instead pushing for even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, together with expenditure cuts in the investments and social protection that puts the future of the US economy in peril and shreds what remains of the social contract."

We have had 30 years of a bipartisan failed economic policy of massive tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations; combined with massive spending and EMPIRE WARS. We went from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. We spend as much money as the rest of the world combined on our military. While our official Pentagon budget is more than a staggering $ 700 billion (and just raised two weeks ago) is really far more than this already huge amount. For example, we put the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons under the Department of Energy. Add in the cost for treating vets, all the other budget tricks; combine it with our security/intelligence budget ( CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland security....) and the US spends $1.3 trillion per anumn. We wasted between $3 and 4 trillion on the needless Iraq war alone; according to Professor Stiglitz. Not to mention the dead and wounded on both sides. Enough of this madness.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Merzik

[geriatrickid]

Ever notice that the people prone to insulting the President Obama never have a viable solution? They have soundbites full of insults and misrepresentations.

The non partisan group that issued a report on the US debt said there had to be both a cut in spending and an increase in taxes. That is exactly what President Obama has proposed. The fact of the matter is that the Republicans are focused on attacking discretionary spending which forms a small part of the US budget. Serious cuts have to be made to Social Security and military spending. Cutting $100 million from ensuring the EPA protects citizens from drinking contaminated water or in being exposed to toxic waste will not achieve anything. Closing some redundant military bases which the military wants to do never gets approved since it would impact the congressman's status. The Republicans have led the way on bloated military budgets and its time they stopped funneling billions to the defense industry's pockets. They also need to let the supposedly temporary Bush era tax cuts to the very wealthy expire. And yes social security spending has to be cut. The old people collecting now never paid enough into the system to sustain the payouts. However, try telling that to a social security beneficiary. they all think they paid for it when the reality is their payments didn't even cover the liabilities.

[Naam]

US national debt is something like $14 trillion and growing by $4 billion every day.

and that is why Peter Schiff says this .............'Default is inevitable'

what's new?

[Naam]

We wasted between $3 and 4 trillion on the needless Iraq war alone

some of my American republican friends keep on telling me that all cost will be compensated because

"we now own all Iraqi crude reserves"

[homeslice]

I am from the US and I call him "dick head". I only hope that people who afford politicians undue respect will wake up to the fact that they (politicians) are often psychopaths.

As others have said it is all a show.

Of course the debt ceiling will again be raised.

Someone like the US will never default as they can print/digitize as long as

the faith of those running to the so called safe haven of the USD continue to do so.

But.....The US is in fact bankrupt. They have as someone pointed out been operating on fumes for awhile now.

Stealing from Fed workers pensions to fuel their needs.

They make a mockery of this whole situation by having folks like Zobama & Bernanke make claims

such as the reason they need to agree to raise it is the money has been spent. Zobama

said they bought the car & drove it & now need to pay for it.

Yet raising the ceiling does nothing for paying for what they have in fact already spent.

All it does is let them continue to spend more of what they do not have.

Think of it this way..... Someone can not pay their bills...They in fact cannot barely pay the interest on their bills....Would it be prudent to give them a higher spending limit to spend even more of what they cannot pay back?

It is a joke & they use it as others said basically for political theater. They will also use it to start yet another QE-3-4-5 or TARP what ever they choose to call it this time. Maybe QE3 Light?

Result is the same they are bankrupt & sinking but trying for a controlled descent. The Euro turmoil will help them briefly as folks run yet again to what they perceive as the strongest of the fiats singing all the while....don't turn the lights on I don't want to see

I don't know if you are a US citizen, but our President's name is Obama, not Zobama. I note that mods on this forum regularly correct the spelling of Thaksin Shinawatra's name; please accord the same courtesy to the President of the United States of America. Snide and snickering slurs don't help make your arguments; rather they belie an insecurity, and the need for approbation from like-minded nitwits.

That said, Mr. Obama inherited a mess, and, unfortunately, hasn't yet done much to fix it. This is certainly by Republican/Tea Party extremist design. That he has played into their hands somewhat is regrettable, but it is NOT unprecedented. An FDR-like move to return the economy to productivity would go a long way toward mitigating the existing debt, as would modest adjustments to the tax code. People who have benefited tremendously from the system, owe it some commensurate support. Period.

Look at it this way: being in debt to the tune of a few trillion dollars, for the US in its current state, is like someone working at McDonald's being in debt on a house, car and plasma TVs. Someone, fully employed, or in a successful business might hardly feel the outlay of interest every month. And they might even take on more debt to finance their continuing education, or the expansion of their business - the goal being to be even more productive and/or marketable.

So, what I need to hear, and what has yet to come from the President, is how he plans to get America back to productivity - making things, providing real services, and not just acting as middlemen, taking a cut from both directions (Wall Street). Show me a plan, and then the (deficit) money is yours...

edit: corrected Shinawatra

[Sateev]

Ever notice that the people prone to insulting the President Obama never have a viable solution? They have soundbites full of insults and misrepresentations.

The non partisan group that issued a report on the US debt said there had to be both a cut in spending and an increase in taxes. That is exactly what President Obama has proposed. The fact of the matter is that the Republicans are focused on attacking discretionary spending which forms a small part of the US budget. Serious cuts have to be made to Social Security and military spending. Cutting $100 million from ensuring the EPA protects citizens from drinking contaminated water or in being exposed to toxic waste will not achieve anything. Closing some redundant military bases which the military wants to do never gets approved since it would impact the congressman's status. The Republicans have led the way on bloated military budgets and its time they stopped funneling billions to the defense industry's pockets. They also need to let the supposedly temporary Bush era tax cuts to the very wealthy expire. And yes social security spending has to be cut. The old people collecting now never paid enough into the system to sustain the payouts. However, try telling that to a social security beneficiary. they all think they paid for it when the reality is their payments didn't even cover the liabilities.

The point is that they, the Social Security beneficiaries, had no choice but to pay into the system, and they are entitled (hence the word 'entitlement') to what they were promised for their sacrifice. Social Security is/was the ultimate in regressive taxing, since 7.5% of a McDonald's worker's salary is much more significant a hit than it would be to someone make a six-figure salary, at least in terms of how it impacts their ability to pay their bills, and keep a roof over their heads, and ESPECIALLY since there is a cap after which high-wage earners no longer have to pay into the system. They are still entitled, however, to collect benefits, whether they need them or not.

As for cuts to Social Security, there needn't be any. Raise the $106,000 cap on payment into the system, and/or implement means-testing. People living off investments, at some cutoff point, would hardly miss, and certainly don't need the paltry $2366/mo that is the current maximum payout. And forget the protestations of those who say it's confiscatory. The rich got so by exploiting the system, which may or not be OK (I wouldn't qualify it if it were actually a level playing field). but I believe that those of us lucky enough to have made our lives secure, regardless of how hard or not hard we have worked, owe a little something to the people on whose backs we enjoy the ride. See Merzik's excellent quote of Stiglitz above.

I guess it all boils down to what kind of world we want to live in.

[Sateev]

I am from the US and I call him "dick head". I only hope that people who afford politicians undue respect will wake up to the fact that they (politicians) are often psychopaths.

What you call him speaks volumes about who you are, and tells me nothing about him. Think about it.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sateev

[cloudhopper]

I am from the US and I call him "dick head". I only hope that people who afford politicians undue respect will wake up to the fact that they (politicians) are often psychopaths.

Watch someone from US waking up to loss of job exercising freedom of speech ...the look of shock and disdain by the MSM tools is hilarious...

[homeslice]

Fortunately, I know who I am and I am no stranger to politics, so I know who he is also. Proving it too you is a waste of time. Grow up soon!

I am from the US and I call him "dick head". I only hope that people who afford politicians undue respect will wake up to the fact that they (politicians) are often psychopaths.

What you call him speaks volumes about who you are, and tells me nothing about him. Think about it.

[Sateev]

Fortunately, I know who I am and I am no stranger to politics, so I know who he is also. Proving it too you is a waste of time. Grow up soon!

I am from the US and I call him "dick head". I only hope that people who afford politicians undue respect will wake up to the fact that they (politicians) are often psychopaths.

What you call him speaks volumes about who you are, and tells me nothing about him. Think about it.

So does that mean you are one of those 'psychopaths'?

Please, for the benefit of the already grown up members, offer some clue as to what you're talking about, and an alternative solution...

I may not be grown up, but I'll be aged by the time you come up with anything worth reading...

[Sateev]

I am from the US and I call him "dick head". I only hope that people who afford politicians undue respect will wake up to the fact that they (politicians) are often psychopaths.

Watch someone from US waking up to loss of job exercising freedom of speech ...the look of shock and disdain by the MSM tools is hilarious...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt1XefmtAGc&feature=related"]

[/url]

It never ceases to amaze me how irresponsible people whine about loss of their right to free speech, when using someone else's medium to spout garbage.

I've seen it here, in response to moderation, and I've seen it in the 'MSM' as well.

Guess what! This forum is privately owned, as is MSNBC. They are in no way obligated to allow you to say whatever comes into your mind, any more than I am entitled to take a dump on your lawn.

You have no right to free speech on someone else's medium, period. You have freedom from abridgement of your right to free speech, by the government, as provided for in the First Amendment, period. It doesn't say that you can use access to media, printed, electronic, or broadcast, provided by a third party without compensation.

That such a wide spectrum of opinion IS allowed by media organizations (some, at least, Fox notwithstanding) is a testament to the ethics and good citizenship by which they operate. The have the absolute right, and should exercise that right, to maintain standards of ethics and comportment as they see fit.

Sorry to say so, but you're in WAY over your head. Go play elsewhere.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sateev

[midas]

I still think the holder of the office of the President of the USA deserves some respect.

Doesn't the Constitution of the US similarly deserve some respect?

Certainly. What's your point?

If you mean my criticism of the cheap and cowardly slurs and name calling toward the President , please note that I didn't call for the name caller to be executed, or thrown in jail for lese presidentus (I just made that up!). And that would be a free speech issue, which is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution in any case. It's in the Bill of Rights.

I merely pointed out how declasse and low such utterances and the people who emit them are.

Or did I miss your point?

edit:typo

Yes you missed my point

You argue that the person holding the office of President deserves respect from people? And yet this

person has displayed virtual contempt of that document on several occasions and has failed to uphold

its principles - after taking an Oath to defend it !

He has acted as if he is above the Constitution regarding the GM bondholders,

the health care law and the total disregard for the U.S. Congressional authority to be

contacted about the War Powers Act.

To get respect you have to earn it

[Sateev]

Yes you missed my point

You argue that the person holding the office of President deserves respect from people? And yet this

person has displayed virtual contempt of that document on several occasions and has failed to uphold

its principles - after taking an Oath to defend it !

He has acted as if he is above the Constitution regarding the GM bondholders,

the health care law and the total disregard for the U.S. Congressional authority to be

contacted about the War Powers Act.

To get respect you have to earn it

These four cases you cite: is it your learned legal opinion that the President has acted unconstitutionally? Because I know of several hundred members of Congress who would like nothing better than to impeach the President on grounds like those, IF there were substance to your claims. Perhaps you should present your case in detail, in some forum that might get their attention...

What? Just your baseless opinions? Ah, I thought so...

When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.

[cloudhopper]

Well this is all over my head but someone here can explain it...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-cds-jumps-highest-february-2010-debt-ceiling-worries

[ozsamurai]

Addicted To Money worth a watch

In episode two of Addicted To Money David McWilliams reveals how Australia and many other nations have become ‘one-trick’ economies, vulnerable to the inevitable sudden shocks that are a by-product of a fragile, globalised economy.

In Australia’s case, we have become totally dependent on Chinese resource demand, putting our future in the hands of “a party-state dictatorship with a very big cheque book” says McWilliams.

China in turn has marched itself up an economic cul-de-sac, becoming overwhelmingly dependent on demand for its exports and in the process accumulating masses of potentially volatile US dollars.

McWilliams predicts that the US is headed for de facto default of its sovereign debt, and this has consequences for all of us.

Oz

[ra1n85]

The exchange rate should be the last thing you're worrying about in the case of a default...

Anyways, it won't happen. Too much vested interest in things the way they are.

[midas]

Yes you missed my point

You argue that the person holding the office of President deserves respect from people? And yet this

person has displayed virtual contempt of that document on several occasions and has failed to uphold

its principles - after taking an Oath to defend it !

He has acted as if he is above the Constitution regarding the GM bondholders,

the health care law and the total disregard for the U.S. Congressional authority to be

contacted about the War Powers Act.

To get respect you have to earn it

These four cases you cite: is it your learned legal opinion that the President has acted unconstitutionally? Because I know of several hundred members of Congress who would like nothing better than to impeach the President on grounds like those, IF there were substance to your claims. Perhaps you should present your case in detail, in some forum that might get their attention...

What? Just your baseless opinions? Ah, I thought so...

When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.

no need for me cite legal opinions although as you probably know a Florida Federal District Judge has already declared the health care law to be Un-Constitutional.

But look what Obama said himself about how he regards the Constitution...............

" “The original Constitution, as well as — as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time….I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. [The Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

so why didnt he refuse to swear the Oath to uphold it if he thought it was an " imperfect document " ?

[sbk]

Lets drop the insults people. If you can't discuss the topic in a civil manner then don't post at all.

[Sateev]

Yes you missed my point

You argue that the person holding the office of President deserves respect from people? And yet this

person has displayed virtual contempt of that document on several occasions and has failed to uphold

its principles - after taking an Oath to defend it !

He has acted as if he is above the Constitution regarding the GM bondholders,

the health care law and the total disregard for the U.S. Congressional authority to be

contacted about the War Powers Act.

To get respect you have to earn it

These four cases you cite: is it your learned legal opinion that the President has acted unconstitutionally? Because I know of several hundred members of Congress who would like nothing better than to impeach the President on grounds like those, IF there were substance to your claims. Perhaps you should present your case in detail, in some forum that might get their attention...

What? Just your baseless opinions? Ah, I thought so...

When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.

no need for me cite legal opinions although as you probably know a Florida Federal District Judge has already declared the health care law to be Un-Constitutional.

But look what Obama said himself about how he regards the Constitution...............

" "The original Constitution, as well as — as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time….I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. [The Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

so why didnt he refuse to swear the Oath to uphold it if he thought it was an " imperfect document " ?

Weak, and taken out of context, although now I see where you get your 'original' reasoning:

"Glenn Beck portrayed Pres. Obama as a Constitution hater because Obama referred to the Constitution’s original support for slavery “imperfect.” On face, this kind of criticism is hateful and disturbing. Also disturbing is the degree to which Glenn Beck distorted Obama’s words in order to push the meme that the current President of the United States hates the Constitution because he criticized the document’s initial support for slavery."

In any case, it has nothing to do with either my statement that disrespect for the President reflects badly on its perpetrator (which is, in itself, off topic (sorry)), nor with the original topic.

At this point, your particular axe-to-grind is painfully clear. Nothing more for me to say on this sidetrack.

[midas]

What makes you think they will default?

If need be they have enough income to service the debt so it's mostly a lot of political talk about nothing.

And if income ain't enough they can always sell off things like Government assets such as land, buildings and what have you.

The strategic petroleum reserve alone is worth about a trillion dollars.

Gold is another thing. Not sure how much they have but believe it's something like 300 billion worth.

All in all I don't think they will default.

If they do I owe you a beer

In fact today Sen. Mitch McConnell on behalf of the Republicans offered to give full powers to the White House to increase the debt ceiling without the involvement of Congress so for the Democrats it's party time

when I posted this comment the other day about Mitch McConnell I never thought this would was a seriuos option:blink:

but can you believe this is actually being discussed on MSM as a serious possibility to end the debt ceiling crisis

this means $2.5 trillion increase but with no significant spending cuts. .

Surely no one contributing in this thread thinks this is a good idea for the future of America?

Edited July 15, 2011 by midas

[cloudhopper]

Surely no one contributing in this thread thinks this is a good idea for the future of America?

5000 quatloos say you will be proven mistaken before dawn.

[ddharder]

The US can never default on a dollar-denominated debt. You may default after they dilute it though.

[JimGant]

Surely no one contributing in this thread thinks this is a good idea for the future of America?

Sorry to repeat myself on this thread.... Increasing the debt ceiling is required to meet our short term obligations. But, yes, our deficit problems also have to be addressed -- but this is a long term, winding down scenario. Simpson-Bowles, or something similar, will have to be adopted.

Not increasing the debt ceiling is not equivalent to an orderly, albeit painful, winding down of future spending. Actually, it would be equivalent to a train wreck.

But, in fairness, the Republicans have pushed the Demos towards a Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction solution.

[midas]

Surely no one contributing in this thread thinks this is a good idea for the future of America?

Sorry to repeat myself on this thread.... Increasing the debt ceiling is required to meet our short term obligations. But, yes, our deficit problems also have to be addressed -- but this is a long term, winding down scenario. Simpson-Bowles, or something similar, will have to be adopted.

Not increasing the debt ceiling is not equivalent to an orderly, albeit painful, winding down of future spending. Actually, it would be equivalent to a train wreck.

But, in fairness, the Republicans have pushed the Demos towards a Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction solution.

But to me it just seems so odd that European countries have a similar problem and yet are going in totally the opposite direction to the USA by enforcing austerity?