austere budget; austerity budget

简明释义

紧缩财政,紧缩预算

英英释义

例句

1.The non-profit organization had to operate under an austere budget this year, affecting its outreach programs.

该非营利组织今年必须在紧缩预算下运作，这影响了其外展项目。

2.Due to economic challenges, the city council had to implement an austerity budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

由于经济挑战，市议会不得不为即将到来的财政年度实施紧缩预算。

3.The government announced an austere budget to address the rising national debt.

政府宣布了一项紧缩预算以应对不断上升的国债。

4.In response to the financial crisis, many countries adopted austerity budgets to reduce spending.

为了应对金融危机，许多国家采取了紧缩预算以减少开支。

5.The school's austere budget limited funding for extracurricular activities.

学校的紧缩预算限制了课外活动的资金。

作文

In recent years, many governments around the world have faced significant financial challenges that have led them to adopt an austere budget (紧缩预算) or an austerity budget (紧缩财政预算). These terms refer to a set of economic policies aimed at reducing government deficits during periods of financial crisis. While the rationale behind such budgets may seem sound, their implementation often brings about profound social and economic consequences that affect citizens' daily lives.An austere budget typically involves cutting public spending, increasing taxes, and implementing various forms of economic reform. The primary goal is to stabilize the economy by reducing government debt and restoring investor confidence. For instance, countries like Greece and Spain have experienced severe economic downturns that forced them to adopt austerity budgets, which included slashing funding for public services such as healthcare, education, and social welfare programs.The impact of these measures can be devastating. Citizens often find themselves facing higher taxes and reduced access to essential services. For example, in Greece, the implementation of an austere budget resulted in significant cuts to pensions and salaries of public sector workers. This led to widespread protests and a general sense of discontent among the population. People felt that they were bearing the brunt of the financial crisis, while wealthier individuals and corporations managed to evade substantial contributions to the recovery efforts.Moreover, the social implications of an austerity budget extend beyond immediate financial strain. As public services are cut back, vulnerable populations such as the elderly, unemployed, and low-income families suffer disproportionately. The lack of support can lead to increased poverty rates and social unrest. In the long run, these austerity measures can hinder economic growth by stifling consumer spending and reducing overall demand within the economy.Critics argue that austere budgets are counterproductive. Instead of promoting recovery, they may deepen economic recessions and prolong financial hardship. For instance, research has shown that countries that implemented stringent austerity measures often experienced slower recovery rates compared to those that invested in public services and infrastructure. By prioritizing short-term fiscal stability over long-term growth, governments risk creating a cycle of economic stagnation.On the other hand, proponents of austerity budgets argue that they are necessary to restore fiscal discipline and prevent future crises. They contend that without such measures, governments may continue to accumulate debt, leading to even more severe consequences down the line. This perspective emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between fiscal responsibility and social welfare.Ultimately, the debate surrounding austere budgets and austerity budgets highlights the complexities of economic policymaking. While reducing deficits is essential for economic stability, it is equally crucial to consider the broader social implications of these policies. Policymakers must strive to implement strategies that promote both fiscal health and social equity, ensuring that all citizens can share in the benefits of economic recovery. Only then can we hope to achieve a sustainable and inclusive economic future that serves the needs of everyone, not just a privileged few.

近年来，世界各国的许多政府面临着重大的财政挑战，这迫使它们采取austere budget（紧缩预算）或austerity budget（紧缩财政预算）。这些术语指的是在金融危机期间旨在减少政府赤字的一系列经济政策。虽然这种预算的合理性似乎是正确的，但其实施往往会带来深远的社会和经济后果，影响公民的日常生活。一个austere budget通常涉及削减公共支出、增加税收和实施各种形式的经济改革。其主要目标是通过减少政府债务和恢复投资者信心来稳定经济。例如，希腊和西班牙等国经历了严重的经济衰退，迫使它们采取austerity budgets，这包括大幅削减对公共服务如医疗保健、教育和社会福利项目的资金。这些措施的影响可能是毁灭性的。公民常常发现自己面临更高的税收和减少的基本服务获取。例如，在希腊，实施austere budget导致养老金和公共部门工作人员工资的大幅削减。这导致了广泛的抗议活动和民众的不满情绪。人们感到，他们在金融危机中承受了主要负担，而富裕个人和公司却设法逃避对复苏努力的实质性贡献。此外，austerity budgets的社会影响超出了直接的财务压力。随着公共服务的削减，老年人、失业者和低收入家庭等弱势群体遭受的影响尤为严重。缺乏支持可能导致贫困率上升和社会动荡。从长远来看，这些紧缩措施可能会通过抑制消费支出和减少整体需求来阻碍经济增长。批评者认为，austere budgets是适得其反的。它们可能加深经济衰退并延长经济困境，而不是促进复苏。例如，研究表明，实施严格紧缩措施的国家，其复苏速度往往比那些投资于公共服务和基础设施的国家要慢。通过优先考虑短期财政稳定而非长期增长，政府冒着创造经济停滞循环的风险。另一方面，austerity budgets的支持者则认为，它们对于恢复财政纪律和防止未来危机是必要的。他们主张，如果没有这些措施，政府可能会继续积累债务，从而导致更加严重的后果。这种观点强调了在财政责任和社会福利之间找到平衡的重要性。最终，围绕austere budgets和austerity budgets的辩论突显了经济政策制定的复杂性。虽然减少赤字对经济稳定至关重要，但同样重要的是考虑这些政策的更广泛社会影响。政策制定者必须努力实施既促进财政健康又促进社会公平的战略，确保所有公民都能分享经济复苏的成果。只有这样，我们才能希望实现可持续和包容的经济未来，满足每个人的需求，而不仅仅是少数特权阶层的需求。