>>>>>>The proponents of spending cuts assure us it will trigger growth as the private sector steps up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ireland has imposed draconian cuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Has it worked
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11397875
>>>>>
>>>>>Did I miss something? The article seems to be mostly about fears surrounding "Subordinated" debt and lenders not having the government's backing as was previously promised. The spread between it and Germany seems to have to do with those fears and the German government stating it would would cut its supply of new bonds for the rest of the year by a quarter which then led to a rally in German government bonds.
>>>>>
>>>>>What cuts by Ireland and where? No mention of that here in this article that I read...
>>>>
>>>>1st paragraph
>>>>
>>>>The Irish Republic's economy shrank in the second quarter from the previous three months, surprising analysts who had been expecting growth.
>>>>
>>>>Ireland made huge cuts in public expenditure. The sort of cuts that monetarists assure us are necessary for the private sector to operate. The private sectors answer seems to be a big fat farting noise.
>>>>
>>>>We're about to go off down this road in the UK with our new government falling over themselves to see who can make the biggest cuts.
>>>>
>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126037743802583835.html
>>>
>>>Economists generally agree that is exactly the wrong thing to do in a recession. The government should be spending more money, not less.
>>
>>Tell that to the tories.
>
>Understood. We have our version of the tories. Their idea is to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which are due to expire. We still have unemployment around 10% (much higher in some areas), with hundreds of thousands of people having lost their houses. The rich are not losing their incomes or their houses. Most of them don't even spend that much money -- that's one of the reasons they are rich -- so I don't buy the argument that if we give them more money it will trickle down to the less fortunate. Give the money directly to those who need it, I say.

You consider small businesses making 200,000-250,000/yr the "Rich?"

The mantra was something to the effect of: the fewer taxes businesses have to pay, the more they will increase employment and R&D...

There is a difference between personal taxes and small business and corporate taxes though and that doesn't get mentioned much. For larger businesses, corporate taxes count (as far as keeping employees here and R&D here) but for many small businesses (the biggest employer in the U.S.), personal taxes count. They use "pass-through" entities, meaning they don't pay taxes themselves, but instead pass the income through to their owners. They include partnerships, Subchapter S corporations and limited-liability companies. " [from the link below] Many small businesses earn 200,000-300,000/yr and file personal taxes (as pass-through entities) so those tax increases can reduce employment among the biggest employer here in the U.S. (small businesses who employ fewer than 100 and are personally owned)

There needs to be a way to differentiate those tax increases between individual taxes and taxes small businesses pay.

This explains it pretty well (and shows both arguments):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704858304575498122278468594.html