-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
-
Fallacies and Charades
April 17, 2013 | 14 comments
The Obama Watch
The Disgrace of Obamanomics
Our President and all the Krugmans and Ezra Kleins out there refuse to face the fact that Keynesianism is dead.
Last Friday’s report on economic growth for the second quarter of 2011 completes the burial of Obamanomics. The economy grew a paltry 1.3% for the quarter, with reported growth for the first quarter reduced from a meager 1.8% to a negligible 0.4%. The economy for the entire year so far has actually grown less than the weak growth we thought we had for the first quarter alone.
The growth for the fourth quarter of 2010 was also reduced to 2.3%, meaning that for the last nine months the economy has grown a minimal 1.5%, barely treading water as the weekend Wall Street Journal described it. For comparison purposes, economic growth during the first seven quarters of the Reagan recovery in the 1980s boomed at an average of 7.1%. Economic growth during the first seven quarters of the Obama non-recovery has now been reduced to an average of 2.6%, barely a third as much.
Historically, as the Journal also reiterated, “the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.” So the idea that the recovery is so bad because the recession was so bad doesn’t wash. Based on the historical pattern, we should be in the second year of a booming recovery by now. President Obama instead is mired in three and a half years of stagnation with worse to come.
Keynesian Economics, RIP
This catastrophic failure for America’s working people has resulted from President Obama doggedly following exactly the opposite of Reaganomics in every detail. In particular, Obama came into office with his Rip Van Winkle attitude pretending not to notice that anything has happened since 1981, and returning to the failed Keynesian economics of the 1970s with a vengeance.
As the Journal explained it this weekend, President Obama “deployed the entire arsenal of neo-Keynesian policies to lift domestic demand,” including “nearly a $1 trillion in stimulus, plus a battalion of temporary and targeted programs: cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, tax credits for homebuyers, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, ‘clean energy’ grants, subsidies to states, and so much more.”
Keynesian economics is the doctrine that economic growth and revival is caused by increased government spending and deficits. The increased spending and deficits are supposed to increase aggregate demand for goods and services, which supposedly causes producers to produce more. If you listen to President Obama carefully, he is always saying that economic growth and prosperity comes from increased government spending.
If the idea that increased government spending and deficits create prosperity doesn’t seem to make sense, that’s because it doesn’t. Keynesian economics has never worked, not when it was born in the 1930s and not when it finally crashed and burned in the 1970s with double-digit inflation, roaring unemployment, and deep recession all at the same time. That is supposed to be impossible under Keynesian economics, because you can’t have both too little aggregate demand (the supposed cause of recession and unemployment) and too much aggregate demand (the supposed cause of inflation) at the same time.
The central fallacy behind Keynesian economics is that the money for the increased government spending and deficits has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a trillion dollars out of the private sector to spend a trillion back into the private sector, it hasn’t done anything to increase the economy on net. If it seizes a trillion dollars in taxes out of the private sector to finance the trillion of increased spending, the result is worse. The economy has not been expanded on net, and the increased taxes reduce the incentives for production, resulting in a net loss to the economy.
Keynesian economics survives not as a matter of logic, but because it provides cover for what the politicians want to do: increase spending and deficits to buy votes for their political machines. For a Chicago machine politician like Barack Obama, that is catnip.
The Failure of President Obama
What drives economic growth and prosperity, however, is not government spending and deficits, but incentives for production. That was the insight behind Reaganomics, and the reason why it was so successful.
Lower tax rates increase the incentives for production by allowing producers to keep more of what they produce. Deregulation increases incentives for production by reducing the costs of production, increasing the resulting reward. Restrained, anti-inflation monetary policy expands the incentives for investment to increase production because investors know the value of their investment will not be depreciated by inflation and a declining dollar. Reduced government spending and deficits reduce the government drain on private-sector investment funds.
Moreover, these are not policies suited for a particular time and its policy challenges. These are timeless free-market economic policies enduring for all time. As I argue in my new book, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, if we would only restore these planks of Reaganomics, within a year the economy would take off on a new, generation-long economic boom. As the Journal again said this weekend, “The only way out of this mess is to return to the growth policies that nurtured the boom of the 1980s.”
The disgrace of Obamanomics is that its rigid, unreconstructed Keynesian economics was discredited in both theory and practice over 30 years ago. The historic success of Reaganomics was a demonstrated fact for all the world to see (and subsequently imitate) over 20 years ago. But President Rip Van Winkle, playacting dumb, takes us back to the future of the 1970s, reflecting the devout prep-school Marxism of his youth.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (335) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/03/the-disgrace-of-obamanomics
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
John Daniel| 8.3.11 @ 6:48AM
Why does anybody give any credibility to Obama on economics...the guy never had to make a payroll. Clueless, utterly clueless.
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 8:59AM
JD, a very profound question you pose.
It seems to me we have economic Theories, and proponents thereof, that cleave to the political parties. Maybe that is why these last few years, the word "unexpected" is so often attached to bad reports and data.
Yesterday afternoon, I was watching CNBC for stock market reactions to this new debt deal, and they had a guy on that stated as Fact: "That it has been Proven that cutting tax rates Does Not increase funds flowing into the treasury" The perfect Democrat talking point.
Actually, I have not stumbled upon (or maybe I overlooked) a graph that shows Tax revenue inflows over the last 70 years as related to Tax Rates. A deficiency that maybe Mr. Ferrara could remedy by posting here at TAS.
Then, just a couple days ago, here at TAS, we have a Democrat supporter and Keynesian going by the moniker of Purpleguy, that posted a link to a, believe it or not, Moody's Analytics matrix that showed that the "multiplier effect" of the stimulus was like 1.61 dollars of GDP growth for each dollar of stimulus spending, verses a .32cent multiplier effect for the Bush tax cuts.
So, you have plenty of quotable, supposedly independent and reliable sources for these sorts of theories.
This is exactly why We The People can't seem to get on the same page, and develop some basic understanding of how our economy works. There are so many conflicting theories, that it is difficult for us, the non-economics professors, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
John Daniel| 8.3.11 @ 9:37AM
Actually, I've always been impressed with the ability of economists and meteorolgists to get paid while getting it wrong, but sounding terribly profound in telling us what happened.
There's no magic in this. A sound economy provides basic human needs - food, shelter and clothing - with some degree of efficiency. Our manufacturing has gone overseas and we increasingly import food (to be made worse by the midwest draught), so are dependent on a currency the rest of the world will accept. The bubble is about to burst with a collapse unimagined - and unmanageable - by the political class.
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 11:30AM
JD, agree with you that it is amazing that these failed theorists remain employed.
Also, that Moody's considered subprime MBS vehicles as AAA is shocking to me. They have lost all credibility in my book.
But I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post though.
It makes perfect economic sense to me why our manufacturing is going overseas. If I were considering investing my capital in an operation that has physical plant, I would too. The reasons are too numerous to name, but 2 of the biggest are the EPA and NLRB.
Your post on food, regarding commodities being priced in dollars, is I think correct insofar as inflation, but I think the early flooding of the Red River and Mississippi (EPA Caused because they didn't release dam overflow starting in December in response to record snow falls) in addition to diverting ( think I read) up to 40% of our crop land to corn ethanol is also a factor. Then factoring in the EPA imposed drought in California, and waa-la, scarcity in addition to inflation.
I think economic theories are multi-layered and complex, and this is not my area of core expertise. That said, I think many economists simply don't factor in the human nature equation. When you are taxed at punitive levels, and it effectively makes you a slave to the state, there is lessening of the desire to produce, as production is the cause of these feelings.
John Daniel| 8.3.11 @ 11:44AM
We've been in a world economy since 1607. Point is that your currency at some level must represent real value, i.e., the ability to trade it for something basic and tangible. If the only thing a dollar will buy within the good ole US of A is lawyers and grief counselors, we're doomed.
Alan Brooks| 8.3.11 @ 8:12PM
"We've been in a world economy since 1607. "
'We'? in 1607 'we' were British, not american.
Alan Brooks| 8.3.11 @ 8:46PM
(to be made worse by the midwest draught)
a cold draught beer made from Midwestern grain? ah, the good life.
Bottoms up.
Richard Webb | 8.5.11 @ 5:34PM
Here's a simple economics lesson:
It's all about JOBS!
Real, highly productive jobs, not politicians, not government bureaucrats, lawyers, or tax accountants -- drive the economy. Keep adding unproductive handouts and the economy collapses.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.3.11 @ 10:29AM
Why does anyone give any credibility to Obama on anything? Can you believe there are actually people who talk of Mr. Affirmative action as a Constitutional scholar? Then why couldn't he get tenure?
USSAlabama| 8.3.11 @ 11:30AM
China says we have "... failed to defuse the debt bomb...only added an inch to the fuse."
SpiralArchitect| 8.3.11 @ 1:25PM
The total amount of US debt owed to foreign sources is a bit below 13% as I read a few days ago. That is total, not to any one nation. I will doubel check and look for sourcing as you should do too - stay informed as your best defense against a tyranical Gov!
Not that the number is acceptable but it it not so crazy as to have people believe we are owned by (re:) China et al.
Certainly the dollar amount is huge even at such a low percentile. Consider the largest holder of the US debt is the US Treasurey Dept at about 12%
Patrick| 8.3.11 @ 3:09PM
I thought the greater worry about being owned by China had more to do with trade deficits and corporate espionage.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 5:57PM
Spiril:
If the debt is owned by the treasury- and I don't doubt you there- what you are noting is that we have paid our Visa with our Mastercard. How long can that last?
Dave | 8.3.11 @ 1:14PM
Speaking of debt, creditility and the clueless ...
For those who ended up a bit twisted after running the numbers and uncovering what a successful negotiation the Democrats managed with this latest budget bill, yesterday's so-called debt ceiling vote indicated, again, how financially soulless some of our political sock puppets are. Actually, the final deal it was pretty easy to accomplish when the Republican leadership ended up renegoiating with themselves. Hard left leaders, the ones currently navigating the good ship Taxsucker, clearly have the will and intimidation power to do whatever their agenda dictates. And limp opposition need not object. At least too loudly. From here, it looked like Noah rushing down the flood river with a boat load of RINOS. The elephants were left on land to fend for themselves. Those sent to D.C. to begin cleaning up that toxic dump clearly displayed they had no heart for honestly addressing our financial disintegation, and remain primarily concerned with covering their keisters until the next election. What was that line in Mel Brooks' movie Blazing Saddles? "Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phoney, baloney jobs."
As it stands today, the president now has another two trillion in pocket change to spread around to his union friends and supporters while flying across the country and bagging a billion or so in campaign cash for 2012. Meanwhile, Obamacare was left behind on the tracks, steaming full speed ahead. It seems the words defund it evaporated like Tiger Woods' putting game.
America's Joe Six Packs, the ones who actually pay federal taxes, are clearly desirous of stopping this socialist sewer from overflowing. But it already is. And unless you're still using Al Gore's fuzzy math, there's no way our current debts and entitlements can ever be brought to the black. We're already too many trillions in the hole and going ... trillioner. This is exactly what Obama meant when he said during his presidential campaign: "I want to fundamentally change this country." From here, it looks like so-far-so-good. In order to succeed, the old system needed to be completely torn down. And that's being allowed to progress as we speak.
Boehner, McConnell and the other enshrined spineless are kind of like girlfriends around spiders: The tend to throw up their hands a shriek when one crawls across the carpet. The only thing this leadership failed to do was post a sign on their office door before heading out for an elegant lunch at Cafe Visser le Contribuable.
SpiralArchitect| 8.3.11 @ 1:25PM
+1
Rich Matarese | 8.5.11 @ 12:18AM
Oh, hell, +10.
I'd give Dave's comment an order-of-magnitude bump anytime.
Alan Brooks| 8.3.11 @ 8:14PM
America will go down, Asia will go up.
beebop| 8.4.11 @ 5:35AM
I have to confess that I have never studied "economics," nor until recently did I truly appreciate the importance. Listening to Limbaugh, he stated that the premise of Keynes was to "stablize" between business cycles. It seems to me that if it "stabilizes" between business cycles, it is removing the ebb and flow that naturally occurs (what we seem to have in its stead is neverending ebb, but that isn't the point here).
I looked Keynesian economics up on Wiki and found this:
Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936; the interpretations of Keynes are contentious, and several schools of thought claim his legacy.
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a moderate role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former President of the United States George W. Bush, President Barack Obama, and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics through government stimulus programs to attempt to assist the economic state of their countries
Somebody want to tell GWB that he is a practitioner of Keynesian econ? I guess this is just more of "bush's fault."
Rich Matarese | 8.5.11 @ 12:32AM
I believe it was Richard Milhouse Nixon to whom the remark "We're all Keynesians now" is properly attributed, so the rot at the root of the Red Faction goes back a great deal further than Dubbya.
In truth, the definitive refutation of Keynesianism came in Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the 'New Economics': An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies, published in 1959.
The full text of this work is maintained online by the Ludwig von Mises Institute in HTML and downloadable in PDF and ebook formats.
Characterized by H.L. Mencken as "...one of the few economists in human history who could really write," Hazlitt's work on this subject is not only implacably logical and lucid but quite a pleasure to read.
If you want to put a spike through the heart of the Keynesian vampire, here's the weapon ready-wrought with which to do it.
Topper| 8.4.11 @ 3:53AM
Gallup Poll Results:
22% of Tea Party members disapprove of the
debt ceiling "Deal"...
58% of Democrats approve....
It would have only take $240 Billion to carry
thru til the end of the fiscal year, 10/1/11...
The extra $2 Trillion was a campaign donation
to Obama...Question:
Are Republicans in Congress that stupid, or are
they intentionally screwing us?
Mimi| 8.3.11 @ 6:51AM
Peter....Does this mean we are stuck in a lingering DEPRESSION not a recession? It sure does sound like it and FEEL like it. Who in a million years would have thought that the destruction of the country in TWO short years would be so profound! The facade is peeling from the buildings in towns across AMERICA....what once was isn't!
Look real close at the GOP presidential candidates for therin lies our HOPE for a future!
beebop| 8.3.11 @ 7:00AM
In 2008, First Spouse Michelle contended that if he was going to run, it had to be "right now, not later." Why is no one trying to figure out WHY?
SpiralArchitect| 8.3.11 @ 1:27PM
Because any more time in the national spot light would afford time to uncover his history political, academic & otherwise.
Roll back to one of the first exec orders he thrust upon everyone...his secrecy is curious, no?
Warrior | 8.3.11 @ 2:21PM
There was plenty of time during his two year campaign. It was all hidden by his handlers and a complicit media. Wright, Ayres, Khalidi and the rest were easily sourced and referenced for anyone with junior high school newspaper abilities. However, for anyone to report on it, they would have to be racist.
stephanie| 8.3.11 @ 7:04AM
Mimi, I see NO hope in any of those in the GOP lineup. Unless Palin, Bachmann or Marco Rubio win, I don't hold much hope of anything in Washington changing except the White House occupant.
Mimi| 8.3.11 @ 6:19PM
Heh Stephanie....I heard the NEW ...Newt on Hannity's radio show ...he said "immediately after the swearing in I will sign 200 executive orders...No# 1= All czars dismissed...will basically dismiss every socialist Obama program and begin returning the Gov, back to the PEOPLE..also set -up action to bring it back to the states via 10th amendment. He was the first one who is laying it out their in stark detail. I haven't been a NEWT fan I thought he blew it but this was good NEWS for me. Now if all the rest try to outdue each other we'll have lots of flavors , and they may just take down Obama to boot.
Things are dull and quiet NOW ! They will all be DANCING soon enough!
Timothy L. Pennell| 8.3.11 @ 7:30AM
It's a Perfect Storm, Mimi. The culmination of 50 Years of the Indoctrination of our Children, by the Left, in our SCHOOLS, in our Films, on our Televisions, and in our Churches and Synagogues. All that kindling, just waiting for a match.
Enter: Barack Hussein Obama.
President MATCH.
Gary B| 8.3.11 @ 9:20AM
Timothy,
Let's not forget activist judges. Without their upside-down rulings, most of the liberal agenda wouldn't have made it to first base.
In fact, I blame most of our current situation on them. From local judges all the way to the Supreme Court. Talk about violating oaths of office! Who better should know the purpose and importance of that ritual?
How many times have federal judges overturned voters on an imagined premise? Amidst all the criticism of Congress, judges are getting a pass. They should not.
Mike D.| 8.3.11 @ 9:43AM
The founding fathers underestimated the tryanny of a idealogic dominated judiciary.
Kishego| 8.3.11 @ 10:47AM
I think they understood it very well. The uninformed citizens of this country are the ones who misunderstand and underestimate.
Gary B| 8.3.11 @ 11:49AM
I agree. I think the Founding Fathers were just as worried about a runaway judiciary as the other two branches of government. And, there are mechanisms for getting rid of rogue judges. We just need to do it.
Mike D.| 8.3.11 @ 2:17PM
Its a lot easier to get rid of a rogue politician than a rouge judge and that to me is a flaw. Politicians don't get lifetime positions. That is a not a flaw.
Stormzeye| 8.3.11 @ 4:01PM
The Founders regarded the Judicial Branch as the least important of the three which is why it was placed under the control of the elected members of Congress and appointments must be "vetted" by the Senate. The extreme politicization of the courts began, in my opinion, with Ted Kennedy's show trial and public vilification of Robert Bork during Reagan's absence. This has resulted, more than ever, in appointing judges based upon their perceived agendas rather than their intellect. Chalk up one more act of utter destruction to the worst Senator in the history of the United State.
The Bruce| 8.3.11 @ 11:56PM
I blame the 17th Amendment as a root cause for getting such poor "Senators."
Timothy L. Pennell| 8.4.11 @ 6:29AM
Actually, I believe that some of the Founders thought of the Judiciary, as the most DANGEROUS Branch of Government, and feared that, in the end, it would RULE over us all.
Mimi| 8.3.11 @ 6:24PM
Tim .....We are putting his FIRE out with a bang.
Every step he takes he lands in a manure pile!
His KARMA is gone...outta LUCK! Have Faith TIM...love your posts!
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 7:38AM
I'm constantly surprised by the parallels between our current situation and the (last) Depression.
It started with an overreacting RINO President. Hoover with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff - Bush with the bailouts. It picks up steam when the hard-left President takes over with a big majority in Congress.
From there, the Constitution is ignored and government is vastly expanded. "Surprisingly" all that government intervention never makes a dent in the unemployment rate and destroys business growth.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 10:17AM
Old Soldier....You nailed it.
This is a rerun of the 1930's just as the Time cover art of Obama as FDR foretold.
The Depression Era economic and social policies of Socialism have been implemented by Obama and the Democrats.
The result is the same as in the 1930's.
A 2nd Great Depression was deliberately started leading to the rise of a quasi- Fascist monster in the Middle East and a rising Oriental power in China.
Our economic fall and the economic rise of others can only bring a seismic change desired by the Ruling Class.
You and I are redundant to Ruling Class desires.
The Bruce| 8.4.11 @ 12:02AM
And today's economic numbers parallel the Depression as well. Today's real (U6) unemployment rate hovers at around 17%, and economic growth is just as anemic, averaging 1.6%.
The only thing that is different is the stock-market, which remained retracted during the Depression, but is being artificially inflated today by misguided Fed policy (printing money out of thin air).
But the stock market differences between then and now don't amount to a hill of beans to the average Joe, especially if that average Joe lost his job.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 9:55AM
Mimi.... You are an optimist in believing there will be town or city standing after Obama.
Obama is the latest in a trend that started back in the 1920's when Socialism was the hot, new intellectual fashion.
The Ruling Class took to Socialism with a vengeance as it feed their vanities, delusions and self importance.
After nearly a century of centralized Socialist misrule, our once great cities are crumbling ruins where packs of feral children roam the night.
Productive family farms have reverted to woodland because Washington prized picturesque depopulated wasteland is the preferred playground for the Ruling Class.
Small towns are closing up shop as the population moves to the suburbs as the land has been rendered non-productive and non-supportive by governmental dicta.
Ruling Class Socialism has always prized the intellectual skills and the high arts over the mundane practical skills that keep a civilization running.
You need only to look at TV commercials to see what the Ruling Class considers important.
A Paris Hilton lifestyle is prized while being a skilled machinist and family man is not.
The Ruling Class has decided to cash out America to fund their entertainment enthusiasms.
Obama is only the latest of their tools.
old white guy| 8.3.11 @ 12:39PM
and yet the people still ignore the second amendment.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 2:55PM
Greetings OWG
A local pharmacist and family man was pulled over for a traffic violation.
An argument broke out about the validity of the offense.
The pharmacist exercised his 2nd Amendment rights against tyrannical and arbitrary government and shot the police officer dead.
The state executed him a few weeks ago.
You can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights anytime you care to do so.
Just remember you will have even worse luck than the Japanese Kamikazes had at the Battle of Okinawa.
The Kamikazes had much better and more powerful equipment and the backing of an entire nation.
What will you have when the blue lights flash.
W| 8.3.11 @ 5:06PM
Dixie, what are you talking about? You do not argue with a police officer and shoot him. You argue in court.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 7:31PM
Greetings W
It is always a pleasure to hear from you.
I am totally against using violence to effect political change in any form.
I will therefore argue against it whenever possible so as to not discredit the Conservative cause.
When someone mentions that the 2nd Amendment is a check on a tyrannical government, I will continue to point that path can only lead to one conclusion using case studies, history and logical projection of events.
The above is an example using a local case history.
At the very least I am trying to keep my fellow conservatives from throwing their lives away in a totally stupid and futile act.
An act the Liberals are quick to take political advantage of, even if imaginary.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 7:56PM
Dixie, W, and all:
Should the ballot box fail us, what alternatives are left? If we lose the war of words. what follows?
I do fear that eventuality.
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 9:36PM
Greetings Al Adab
History has a entire toolbox of strategy and tactics for dealing with a Ruling Class gone Mad.
I am just against the violent ones.
W| 8.3.11 @ 10:38PM
We have to change the culture just as the left has done. We have to teach our children, grandchildren, and anyone who will listen, about what happens when government keeps growing and growing, and taking more of your money each year, and attempting to control your life. The left was very good, they controlled the media and Holllywood, but that is changing with the Internet, cable, Fox, etc.
We can do, we are smarter than the left, but they were determined because they love government and love the power to control. We conservatives do not want to control others and don't want to make government our life, like the lefties did. But we have to get more involved, like the Tea Party movement. It will take time, but we will do it.
Dixie Pixie| 8.4.11 @ 1:42AM
Greetings W
Change the Kultursmog?
Sounds like a decades long march though the Media and Academia system.
Sounds like a plan, you have my support for what that is worth.
Mimi| 8.3.11 @ 6:34PM
Dixie...what are the odds that this country would elect a downright lefty-liberal? what happened was a fluke!
In a way he was GOOd for lighting the flame of LIBERTY...we were taking our great country for granted, working hard, and not paying attention.
Man, we woke up fast! Now we're VIGILANT...he's scared the pants off this PATRIOT! It won't be easy but the GOOD PROVIDENCE is with us...and I have no doubt will turn her around!!
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 7:49PM
Greetings Mimi
LOL....What is the probability of the Democrats nominating a Socialist as their candidate...100 percent.
The Socialists in the Democratic Party have run everyone else out of the Party.
How else did they come up with Pelosi, Reid and Obama as their Leadership?
Or have you heard of a secret rumor that a conservative will challenge Obama in the Democratic primary?
Care to share with us that rumor.
Lieberman vs Obama, perhaps?
Michael Tomlinson| 8.3.11 @ 10:31AM
We are in the midst of the Obama economic, political, social, spiritual and foreign policy depression. The nation needs a good enema next November to flush its system or Obama and Democrats.
pas cher new era | 8.3.11 @ 6:51AM
cool!!
jppc| 8.3.11 @ 6:59AM
As bad as things are though, Barack the Magic Mooooslim will probably still be re-elected.
Why? Well, incumbants hold the advantage - especially when the vast majority of the news media and show business are actively supporting him.
The media rules.
Mike Hawk| 8.3.11 @ 7:51AM
UHHH. The Jimmuh was not re-elected and neither was Bush 41. Your premise is WRONG.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 8:48AM
I disagree.
You have no business voting for this guy unless you (a) are up to your elbows in government largess, (b) you work for the government or (c) you belong to a union - but that will fade as private sector jobs dwindle along with private sector union members.
I trust even the dumbest among us who are not listed above will have no choice but to read the ((blaring)) , and larger by the day, writing on the wall. This writing will appear when they buy gas, look at their energy bills, the cost of food, the dwindling consumer choices. When they continue to see in real time their, and those around them, standard of living fading to dust.
This has a psychological effect even the Katie Couric', Brian Williams', and Bob Sheifer's of the world can't manipulate.
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 9:12AM
BobG, I absolutely concur. Everybody, regardless if they follow the news or have any basic understanding of our economy, feel these burdens at a very personal level.
We just hope they can tumble to the reasons, by connecting the dots right to the Obama Administration. It will take some dot connecting, but most of our population does know that Obama is the president.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 9:23AM
And the primary job of the republican party and the nominee are to be the Dot Connectors.....24/7.
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 10:26AM
Bob - the problem is that your a, b, and c add up to damn near half the population.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 10:55AM
True. Obama has created a California-type problem for entire nation and the plethora of stupid people will always be an issue. Let's just hope those stupid people will forget what day it is and not vote.
Here's the difference:
*Citizens can escape the California cesspool for brighter futures. Americans, as a nation, cannot vote with their feet so they take their rage out in the ballot box
*Obama's dollar-killing policies will out pace his give-away policies and as a result less spending power even among the "parasites" . They will either be so pissed at Obama and not vote or, mabe, just maybe, some of them will finally see the light.
It will be close but I think we win in a squeaker.
SpiralArchitect| 8.3.11 @ 1:58PM
Bunk conclusions derived from how you feel the populas should/will act.
The only predictable element in the equation you provide is the unpredictability of man.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 2:22PM
Just based on human nature my friend. After all, everyone, even Obama followers, act in their own Rational Self Interest.
Claypoole| 8.3.11 @ 4:55PM
A week or so ago, an elderly woman called Rush Limbaugh in fear that her Social Security check would not be sent. She was frantic, almost in tears, and indicated (I paraphrase) that her life would be ruined without that money. Rush reassured her that she would, indeed, receive her check; then tried to question her to find out where she got the idea that her SS would end. After some thought, she did allow that the threat had come from the president, and then she said (are you all sitting down?), "I'm sure he's a wonderful man in his personal life."
These are the idiots who voted this contemptible scum into office.
Stormzeye| 8.3.11 @ 4:09PM
The Demo-rats plan has always been to have everyone either 1. dependent on the government, 2. employed by the government or 3. supplying the government. Their constituency will always support expanded government. This is why you can't get rid of rent control when there will always be more tenants than landlords.
The Bruce| 8.4.11 @ 12:14AM
I totally disagree. While an incumbent president might have the advantage of a bigger war-chest (money), all the political ads in the world aren't going to convince a would-be voter that he's doing great, if he knows he isn't.
His base is demoralized to a certain point -- they don't think he's liberal enough -- and the Independents have all but ditched him -- they found him to be too liberal, and focused on the wrong thing (health care) when the country was screaming for jobs, jobs, jobs. And they're seeing the rate of debt accumulation increase exponentially under this president, a substantial portion of which was to fund shovel-ready jobs that the president later admitted were never there in the first place.
If Obama is reelected, then I'll be convinced that I've woken up in an alternate universe were Spock has a beard.
Timothy L. Pennell| 8.3.11 @ 7:00AM
He is genetically incapable of creating Jobs.
I've gone over his Genealogy, his Upbringing, and the list of his Life Long Acquaintances and Influences. NONE of these people is a BUILDER. None of them ever Created ANYTHING.
Obama has never, ever, even HAD a Job.
Marxism, Communism, Maoism, Progressivism. These are philosophies that TEAR THINGS DOWN. They don't BUILD. They DESTROY. They TRANSFORM people of free will and innovation, in to Wards of the State. Numbers on a Government ledger.
He's a student of Saul Alinsky. A street Radical who's Philosophy is learned from his Book: Rules For Radicals. A Book dedicated to LUCIFER.
He SAYS he wants jobs. But, his "insides" won't let it happen. He MUST destroy any and all Wealth, that he cannot control.
BOEING is being SUED by his NLRB, because they want to open Plants where THEY want to.
GE paid NO TAXES, on $5 BILLION in Profits, this years.
"We REWARD our Friends, and PUNISH our Enemies."
He sold out the people of the GULF, and is blocking the creation of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of JOBS in the OIL and GAS Industries, for the Campaign Contributions of the Environmentalists.
He sold out the Poor Minority CHILDREN, of D.C. for the Campaign Contributions of the Teachers Union.
He's selling out our NATIONAL DEFENCE, for some more Walking Around Money, for buying votes from the LOWEST COMMON DEMONINATORS. Those who add NOTHING to Society.
Obamanomics is only about ONE THING.
Obama.
And, it's about ONE JOB.
His.
Take care of your families. Stock up on things that you need. Make sure you're able to PROTECT your Family.
It's gonna be a rough one, come next Summer.
jppc| 8.3.11 @ 7:44AM
You are correct. Moooslim Boy in Chief has bascially NEVER worked in his life. A "professional student", a "community organizer" (agitator), a governement worker (politician) is NOT work, not a career.
He is an economic illiterate. And anti-American at his core to boot.
cuban pete| 8.3.11 @ 8:42AM
What do you mean he's an "economic illiterate and anti-American"?
He was a friend of Bill Ayres and his charming wife,Bernadette.
Haven't you seen his undergraduate and law school grades? Read his law review articles and the extensive interviews with his former classmates who recall his brilliance?
Oh,wait a minute.....
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 8:58AM
You forgot to mention his closest confidant - Valerie Jarrett - is cut from the exact cloth he his. She's arguably more radical of the two. The AmSpec is a great primer on this scary lady.
Yet curiously, we are told he's not like those he chooses to have surround him.
old white guy| 8.3.11 @ 12:43PM
all you have said is true and yet no one is doing anything about it.
Teaghan| 8.3.11 @ 1:11PM
Impeachment? No one has the cajones to tackle that one. Not on a "man of color".
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:31PM
President Biden?
skip| 8.3.11 @ 7:15PM
How could he possibly be worse?
I think he would be an improvement. He has zero accomplishments over a 36 year career in the senate. Sounds too good to be true.
No change we can believe in.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 7:58PM
That is a point Skip.
W| 8.3.11 @ 7:59PM
President Biden would be funnier. ?At least he has a sense of humor, and usually says whatever is on his mind, and apologizes later. It is impossible to be worse than Obama. Biden is not an idealogue.
The Bruce| 8.4.11 @ 12:29AM
"How could he possibly be worse?"
I absolutely agree. We've hit rock bottom here. Anyone in the White House would be an improvement. And (this is scary) when you hold Obama up along side the previous two occupants to the White House, he makes them both look worthy of placement on Mount Rushmore by comparison.
George S| 8.3.11 @ 7:30AM
Keynesian economics was not used by Obama as an applied science, it was used as an excuse to loot the treasury of a trillion dollars in order to funnel money into the pockets of the Democrat party and its ground troops (public employee unions). Keynes at least attempted to back his theory with scientific methods; arguing its failure on Obama's sleight of hand is a bit unfair to Keynes.
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 7:46AM
Exactly - a raid on the Treasury to pay off political allies is not a policy worth any debate.
I must be getting old - I was taught small scale Keynesian economics in school. When the economy goes into a recession, government should borrow for a while instead of raising taxes or cutting spending. When the recession is over, that debt should be paid off - so that ability to borrow is available for the next recession.
The current Democratic polices have nothing to do with this - just spending and borrowing as far as the eye can see.
The Bruce| 8.4.11 @ 12:35AM
And Keynes, later in life, admitted that his economic theories didn't work. This is why I'm completely dumbfounded by the fact that government schools, to this day, still teach the mindless skulls full of mush that FDR's policies pulled us out of a Depression.
I think you're right. Democrats use Keynesian economics as an excuse to spread the wealth around and buy votes. They have to know by now that it won't save an economy.
DRed| 8.4.11 @ 1:13AM
Maybe you can help me-I can't find any evidence of Keynes admitting that his economic theories don't work. I've seen a quote suggestion he might have been wrong about some of his ideas for the British economy, but when did he say that he was wrong about everything?
martin j smith| 8.3.11 @ 7:50AM
So where was the Republican Leadership ? Huh ?
There are and were many issues they should have come out to attack ( aka criticize ) Obama's economic policies but they are too shy --right ?
Sorry, we need new leaders on our side--the sooner the better--ones who are not afraid to call it as it is--always with a smile !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike Hawk| 8.3.11 @ 7:52AM
Keynesian Economics has failed everywhere it has been tried. The Oborg collective is just going for the most colossal failure possible.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.3.11 @ 7:58AM
Obama is simply the last in a long line of Presidents who increased government authority and power.
It's a disease called elitism that drives these people on and it leads to the greatest disease of all, central planning by the federal government.
Obama is an easy target because he's the President.
In reality, he only seized the reigns of the horse that had been driven on by both parties in a race between the political parties and the private sector.
Big government won that race.
Dai Alanye | 8.3.11 @ 10:15AM
Kings "reign," horses have "reins."
Dixie Pixie| 8.3.11 @ 10:29AM
Does it really matter when you have the governmental bit in your mouth.
Then both words have the same meaning.
PS.... The English and PC Police have been banned from the TAS Posts by informal and unspoken agreement.
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 12:44PM
Dai Alanye,
You have much work to do over at TheHill.com.
The posts here are by and large, head and shoulders above most comments areas around the web.
I even caught myself a few days ago typing reign for rein, Facepalm. Stuff happens.
Bill S| 8.3.11 @ 8:02AM
Liberals will never accept that fact that their policies didn't work. All it proves to them is that they didn't spend enough. Liberalism is either a mental disease or it's a religion. Take your pick.
MacDaddy| 8.3.11 @ 8:32AM
Calling Liberalism a religion gives religion a bad name.....but I take your point, mate.
Gary B| 8.3.11 @ 9:23AM
And calling The Muslim an empty suit is to insult the suit.
Mike D.| 8.3.11 @ 10:15AM
There are two kinds of Liberals/Socialists. One kind are the pure as the wind driven snow, self appointed morally superior, academic and entertainment limosine leftists who actually believe this utopian b u lls h i t. We call them the "useful idiots" The other kind view this whole government thing as simply an avenue for wealth, power and control. The second kind are the ruthless and when need be, murderous kind that always ends up at the top of the heap when power is at stake. The first kind are always the first ones that end up in the labor camps after the second kind achive total control and the police state is born. Same old process, same results, destruction.
Dave Williams| 8.3.11 @ 12:20PM
And the jug-eared narcissist currently defacing the White House is type two, make no mistake. Be afraid...be VERY afraid...Or, engage in the debate, send money to worthy candidates, and send the pampered man-child into retirement in 15 months.
Mike D.| 8.3.11 @ 12:34PM
The type 2 leftists adhere to only one rule, there are no rules!
UnemployedNotOverjoyed| 8.3.11 @ 8:08AM
Kenynesian economics applied to a recession is equivalent to applying bloodletting to an illness. I would like to sue federal government for malpractice.
HaveYouSeenJunior'sGrades| 8.3.11 @ 1:35PM
What would you give right now to see the excrement filled cranium petulant dithering idiot liar in chief's academic transcripts, and how much could a pool to collect what everyone would give to see it reduce the debt?
Redstateboy| 8.3.11 @ 8:19AM
Hussein and his ilk must actually believe a Money Tree DOES exist.
Another Proof that Liber-ulism IS a Mental Disorder.
Ground Control| 8.3.11 @ 11:09AM
Actually the "money tree" really does exist. It's called the US Mint. Is there any functional difference between money just plucked from a tree, and money printed by the Mint? Both have no backing. Both flood the market with valueless paper.
Nunya| 8.3.11 @ 12:28PM
Not to nitpick GC, but it's NOT the US Mint that prints US Dollars, it's the Federal Reserve. The Mint makes coins, including ones out of precious metals (you know, the stuff our Founding Fathers authorized in our now-defunct Constitution).
The Federal Reserve prints bills, then turns around and "lends" them back to our Treasury Department WITH interest. It's a good gig if you can get it. Their cost is miniscule, and they get the money back with interest over time--print a few billion, get back several billion. I just wish I could put a business plan together like that... ;-)
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 12:32PM
One of my favorite editorial cartoons from years back showed two blue collar guys walking out of the factory with their lunch pails. Over the door the plant was labeled U. S. Mint- printing division. The first guy said, "I sure like all this overtime." The second says, "Yeah, but the inflation is eating it up."
There is truth.
Dixie Pixie| 8.4.11 @ 1:54AM
Greetings RedState Boy
Actually, I would like Obama's magic credit card where one can borrow indefinably, pay off the current interest payments with borrowed money and spend Trillions with no thought about tomorrow.
BackToBasics| 8.3.11 @ 8:34AM
He refuses to admit the failures of it because Keynesianism is another word for Marxism. It may be Marxism-lite but it will get us to total governemnt control eventually which is where he wants to go. He does not care whether it works or not. To ponder or ask about his intransigence in the face of Keynesian's failures really misses the point to what he is all about and what he wants which is dictatorial control.
Louis Jenkins| 8.3.11 @ 8:38AM
And the stock market, the business world, the young turks, waited with baited breath while Congress worked out a budget deal. Once it was passed they could begin to reap the benefits of a sound government. They started out of the gate with a resounding jump, and then they plunged. Never before have we seen such figures, at least not in my lifetime (57 years). Those guys took one sniff and rolled over dead. Call Obama a Kenyesian work, or dumb, and name Congress for what it is. As I said yesterday, better start putting together a plan if you haven't already. Things are not going to go well in the next year or so. "Aside from that tragic incident Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play."
The Bishop| 8.3.11 @ 8:39AM
There's just no other way to express it. This President is a turd in the punchbowl of the body politic.
Gary B| 8.3.11 @ 9:26AM
You're right. There is no other way to express it. The turd in chief is in a class by himself.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 9:51AM
The problem is that too many Americans either like the taste of shit or want t force you to taste it.
JohnC| 8.3.11 @ 8:57AM
Obama is undoubtedly a domestic socialist, but the Wall Street pundits embrace socialism and are now moaning that reduced government spending will hurt the stock market. And these brainless talking- heads are now demanding a QE 3 from helicopter Ben (the king of socialists) thereby printing more monopoly money to further inflate their portfolios.
In addition, Obama is working behind the scenes with GOP leaders to enact another suicidal free trade deal to export any remaining manufacturing capability and American jobs. These sweetheart free trade agreements are nothing more than government / corporate international socialism which both Parties embrace.
Wall Street demanded the first Bush TARP and pushed for all the rest of the bailouts. We now have fiscal and trade policies that bolster multinational firms while screwing America’s middle class. GE who paid zero taxes and benefited from the bailouts is now taking taxpayer money and sending a green factory to Communist China.
Until the stupid Party realizes that the liberal Wall Street globalists are no longer a friend of Main Street our near depression-like economy will never recover. The fallout of all these treasonous failed economic policies will be Donald Trump running as an Independent on a pro-American message and he will resonate with many patriots across the political spectrum. .
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 9:13AM
One could argue how Obama should have proceeded to cure the economic problems soon after he took office.
What's undeniable is the uncertainty he's created due to his extreme anti business and domestic energy policies. He could cure much of what ails us simply by sending positive signals to these two entities which would, in effect, create a more predictable and stable environment.
That alone would go a long way toward recovery but when his actions are so arbitrary, punishing, incoherent, and on-the-fly, businesses adopt a "What's Next?" mindset which has a paralyzing effect on the economy.
Is he just stupid, diabolical, or a little of both?
This is the only piece of the puzzle left for me about him.
jppc| 8.3.11 @ 9:23AM
How to reverse and economic downturn? Generally speaking, you reduce government, reduce spending, reduce regulations, etc. This sends a signal to all, that it is in their own rational self-interest to invest in either starting firms or expanding existing firms. This means more business enterprise. This leads to increased employment.
Don't they teach this in the Ivy League schools, where Barry was "educated"?
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 9:31AM
Methinks Barry spent much of his college years hanging out in student union halls smoking cigarettes and honing his rabble rousing skills.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 11:18AM
He probably spent as much time smoking reefer as cigarettes. In any case, regardless of the prestigious institutions he passed through, he is very poorly educated.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 1:46PM
Well indoctrinated, but poorly educated.
Ground Control| 8.3.11 @ 11:15AM
When O'Bozo took office, an easy fix to the economy would have been to simply forgive all federal taxes for one year. It would have resulted in a drop in federal revenue of about 1 trillion dollars, the same as the "stimulus package." So our debt would be about the same, but he resultant increase in economic activity would mean lower unemployment and more tax revenue after that first year. But O'Bozo and the trolls of socialsim cannot admit such things, even to themselves. It removes THEM from the process of providing prosperity ("panem et circenses"). This they can not allow.
The Bruce| 8.4.11 @ 12:54AM
"Is he just stupid, diabolical, or a little of both?"
I'll choose answer number two, as nobody can really be that stupid. He wants this. He's got a 400 year old chip on his shoulder, and he's patiently waiting at the cashier's cage to cash that chip in.
POST American| 8.3.11 @ 9:29AM
---Off point complacency ALERT!----
The REAL disgrace certainly spans a
steady stream from Bush Sr --from Reagan
(the first trillion dollar budget).
FACT IS Rockefeller/CFR Globalist front
op Obama's no different.
The REAL disgrace cosmically is, and remains,
creation and God mocking USURY administered
by actuarial psychopaths, at the service of a
self-appointed, dominant, EUGENICS feuled
'E---leeet'.
Conjuring something out of nothing. The very
definition of necromancy.
The NOW emerging iworldwide state of
nter-generational debt serfdom.
And, not incidentally, against the carefully
engineered backdrop of nearly complete,
TOTAL cultural degradation, also worldwide.
Profoundly NOT GOOD.
--------------------PROFOUNDLY-------------------
Frank Natoli| 8.3.11 @ 9:31AM
If Liberals came out point blank and said "you've got it, we want it, and we're taking it", just enough presently entitlement bound people would have just enough a flicker of conscience to say "no thanks, not me".
So Liberals don't say that. They quote Keynes, "fairness", "corporate jets", "rich corporations", racism, sexism, etc., and that flicker of conscience blows out.
This happens everywhere, all the time, in all pursuits of life. People make emotional decisions and then reverse engineer "objective" rationalizations to satisfy their conscience. Poke at their rationalizations, show how they're baseless, and all you get in return is resentment.
cuban pete| 8.3.11 @ 11:47AM
Nice to hear from you again, Frank.
On the money as usual.
Frank Natoli| 8.3.11 @ 1:32PM
Ah, Pete, the sisters told us that despair was the worst of all sins, and I'm afraid these days I am despair.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 1:48PM
Frank, feel free to treat your dispair with some of that 16 year old barley water imported from Scotland. Laguvulin or Laphroigh would work.
Frank Natoli| 8.3.11 @ 2:43PM
Somehow, I will not say how, all the Bruichladdich and all the Laguvulin has returned to Mother Earth. I must content myself this day with Dalwhinnie 15. Cheers!
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:33PM
Enjoy and think of me while you do.
Butch | 8.3.11 @ 5:55PM
I'll drink to that, too!
JimH| 8.3.11 @ 9:39AM
I’m a bit rusty on my Keynesian economics. I spent more time studying the Austrians. To fair to Keynes though, I recall reading somewhere that policies now called Keynesian would not be recognized as such by him. On another point remember that for the left it is not results that are important, but intent. That is part of the reason that they insist on raising taxes on the ‘rich’ knowing that during a recession raising taxes is the worst thing you can do. It is all in the cause of what they call ‘fairness’ which is really envy.
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 10:31AM
You are right.
Keynes recommended borrowing during a recession instead of raising taxes or cutting spending in order to hold spending steady. (He has a little supply-side flavor to him)
He never recommended running up a debt in excess of 100% of GDP just for the hell of it.
Cabermon| 8.3.11 @ 9:41AM
College econ profs have it easy - they use the same test every year, the just change the answers.
jppc| 8.3.11 @ 9:44AM
Barry, at his core, is a progressive/socialist, which basically means that he believes government "overseers" should "over-see" just about every aspect of life (including most of all, business).
They want to do this because in a free enterprise system, inequality is created because human beings are different - different talents, different ambitions, different work ethics, therefore, different outcomes result.
Socialists believe in "equal outcomes", therefore, government "overseers" must change the rules in order to ensure equal results.
It's all about control.....socialists do not believe in letting people run their own lives'.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 9:49AM
I'm surprised the trolls haven't been deployed over here yet. I guess they're still in their morning meeting in which they're trying to figure out how to sell the horse shit of the Obama economy as a beautiful new pony today.
The idealist in me thinks that perhaps it's because this is one of the most succinct, cogent refutations of Keynesianism I've ever read. However, the first rule of being a liberal is to deny the reality of reality.
The second rule of being a liberal is that, when empirical evidence contradicts pet academic theory and abject abstraction, it is the empirical evidence that must be jettisoned; the false consciousness of the liberal mind must remain pristine, unsullied by the dirty, chaotic reality of the universe. That's why socialist theory is so pretty.
The third rule of liberalism, of course, is to lie whenever you must, because the highly-evolved "truth" to which you aspire is “truer" than the cause-and-effect facts on the ground (hence aphorisms like the Washington Post’s, "the narrative is right, it's just that the facts are wrong.")
Liberalism IS religion and Keynes is its John the Baptist, who posthumously anointed Obama - and the disciples who predate him, like John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman - such that the crooks in Washington have intellectual cover under which they can steal your money while the academics ceaselessly masturbate in religious rapture over their theoretical fantasies.
Unfortunately, Keynesianism will never die because it is the Rosetta Stone that translates capitalism into socialism – the perfect marriage of the blind idealism of theory and the corrupt cynicism of reality.
Its overarching charter is, "wouldn't it be pretty to think so."
And so Keynesianism DOES work - it takes healthy capitalism and transforms it into toxic parasitism. It is the apotheosis of theft as the highest good government can achieve. It is the institutionalization of corruption.
And history proves that human nature is susceptible to corruption, which finds a nice little incubator in the home of the Democrat party –the party of nihilism –which is composed of four disparate personality types – all of whom embrace destruction over creation:
The fools: The relatively affluent true believers, the "social justice" Don Quixotes, the ignorant, the perpetual do-gooders who view humanity as a mosaic of abstract, helpless dupes who are exploited by white American capitalists - who must be deleted from the picture with extreme prejudice. The idealistic fools commit hubris by denying their own humanity, believing instead that they can purchase a ticket on the train to secular salvation and expunge their own flaws simply by projecting them onto others.
The Pawns: The mythic "black community," the equally chimeric "Hispanic" dependent class, the illegal aliens and the uneducated who only see a gold-plated boot sole filled with goodies - without ever noticing that it is pressed against their collective throat by the full weight of an amoral, indifferent State.
The Warriors: The vengeance-seeking thugs, the chip-on-their-shoulder, sullen, angry individuals who believe that the world is aligned against them, and that their right to have whatever they want has been thwarted by evil capitalists. Like urban vandals, the only mark they want to make on civilization is a destructive one. And so they seek to slash our institutions, tear down our edifices and loot the wealth of the country in order to get their share of the pie. This is the category under which Obama falls.
The crooks: Most of our ruling class, the politicians, the elites, the crony capitalists like Jeffrey Immelt, Michale Moore, the puppets at GM, most of Wall Street, Hollywood's panjandrums: These are the people who make money off of the wrong-headedness of the prior three categories of people.
And because liberalism, the welfare state and our Marxist propaganda arm - which used to be called “education” - have turned out so many of all of these types like a factory churns out toothpicks, we are doomed.
I disagree with Ferrara's assertion that if we returned to Reaganomics immediately we could right the ship of state (and, in any case, the Keynesian genie is forever out of the bottle; the free market has been sufficiently demonized such that it has too few defenders left).
We have over $100 trillion in unfunded mandates; there is simply no way we are going to get out from under that without grinding the middle class between the twin millstones of taxation and a debauched currency, precisely as Lenin prescribed.
No, the Titanic has taken on too much water now to stay afloat. So it's time to either get into a lifeboat or go down with the ship.
And so the cancer of socialism has claimed yet another victory – an America that no longer exists.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 10:28AM
Wow. A two-fer.
I get a great primer on the fallacies of Keynes- ism AND a great primer on the destructive nature of democratic socialism.
Good read. Thank you.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:28AM
Wow. GRZ, what a history lesson and economic textbook. So what if the post is longer than the article that prompted it (LOL)
You and Bob are in great form today. With Occam out of town I'm glad you two are filling in.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 11:52AM
Thanks, Al Adab - I AM conscious of the length of some of my posts - I try to make up for it by being judicious about how often I engage.
I suffer from logorrhea - which, as any liberal ought to know, makes me a helpless victim of my own keyboard (surely there's a government program out there that can thow, say, $2.5 million my way to make my boo-boo all better for me).
I agree, Occam and Bob can both do some seriously heavy lifting on this site & I'm honored to be mentioned in the same breath.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 11:32AM
I wish I could write as eloquently as you, Griz. You have a way of distilling things down to their essence.
This debt will mostly go away in just a few short years. The runaway spending at astronomic levels will cause a catastrophic devaluation of the dollar. Once the tumble starts, the dollar will lose between one third and two thirds of its value. That's how the debt will be funded. Each of us personally will pay part of it, in the form of our money buying only half or a third of what it does now.
The unfunded mandate of social security will be slashed in size by up to two thirds in this same way. Everybody will still get their check, it just won't buy half what it did before.
Late in his life, John Maynard Keynes admitted that he had been wrong about almost everything.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 12:02PM
Thanks, George - and I agree. That's how countries always deal with insurmountable sovereign debt.
And inflation is so insidious because trolls like "Tolerance" will see bread go up past $5 or even $10 a loaf - and promptly blame the grocery store's "greed."
That's the brilliance of the theft that is inflation - the consumer usually doesn't blame the culprit.
Which is why every time oil goes up, we get clowns (I won't mention Bill O'Reilly by name, but you know who I mean) blaming "big oil" instead of placing the blame squarely where it belongs: on government's corruption - first by devaluing the dollar, (in which currency global oil is traded), second by taxing the shit out of oil, and third by refusing to allow drilling to increase domestic supply.
I didn't know that Keynes repented later in life. I guess that's good, but it's like my formerly conservative best friend who became intoxicated by Obama and the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" - he may repent once the Obama bubble is burst, but he's still guilty of treason for voting for him.
Todd S| 8.3.11 @ 1:41PM
Looks like Tolerance got his talking points from Soros and is here to repeat them like a good parrot. I used to like to watch Bill O'Reilly but his ignorant populist attacks against speculators and oil companies turned me off permanently. The 3 points you mentioned are exactly correct. If we had a responsible fiscal policies and fully developed our natural resources, oil would likely be less than $50 per barrel and we would have alot more jobs and have to send much less money to foreign countries for oil. Too complicated for O'Reilly to comprehend apparently.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 6:40PM
I've always thought O'Reilly was obsessed with the "indpendent two-step" - One conservative tenet forward, two liberal tenets back. Repeat ad nauseam.
He's bent over so far backward to be "fair" to Obama that he's accidentally kissing his own ass every night.
That he is not only Fox's crown jewel, but the highest ratings getter in cable, is NOT good news for conservatism.
But he does have some decent guests. Too bad none of them gets to say more than, "Well, Bill. . . ." before he bullies them into silence.
W| 8.3.11 @ 8:02PM
G-Man, O'Reilly is like Clinton with the triangulation. He says he is not a conservative or liberal but watching out for us. He does not take criticism well, watch him with Rove, Laura Ingraham, and Krauthammer, they are smarter and he gets frustrated with them.
Todd S| 8.3.11 @ 10:49PM
I remember Neil Cavuto gave Bill an ass kicking on the subject of oil speculators a few years back, quite sure he never got invited back. Too busy trying to get Obama on his show and having his fake feud with Jon Stewart. I did enjoy his ambush on Barney Frank though, that was quite enjoyable. Safe to say no Congressman has done more damage to this country than that queer lying piece of crap.
Dagny Taggert| 8.3.11 @ 11:35AM
Well done Grzmlyk.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.3.11 @ 12:33PM
Keynesian economics is like a perpetual motion machine, a device that would have to break fundamental laws of nature to work.
Yet that does not stop tinkerers and charlatans from claiming they actually have a functioning mechanism. Obama is one of these tinkerers that never was vetted or discredited, and now he's forcing a failed gargantuan perpetual device onto us all.
Vote this clown out of office.
W| 8.3.11 @ 1:16PM
Why do both parties insist we have to cut Medicare, Social Security, and Defense? Regardless of the waste in these programs, they are essential programs. The ruling class never proposes to lay off the countless employees at the Commerce Dept, Education Dept, Interior Dept, Agrigculture, HUD, Transportation, and the numerous agencies, and all the speechwriters and staff for Congress, the President, VP, First Lady, etc.
A 10% across the board layoffs in these departmetns would save a lot, and would not be missed.
Both parties threaten to cut Medicare and Social Security to scare us into more taxes and more debt. If they were serious and honest they would cut the most obvious expense that they can control: federal employment. But they never ever discuss that.
Todd S| 8.3.11 @ 1:29PM
One of your best yet, you nailed it about who comprises the support for the Democrat Party and their motivations for doing so. I think you are correct about the trolls, haven't yet got the proper talking points on how to blame the crap economy on Bush still. They will be back soon enough with their lies and distortions because that is what they do.
Came across a video from Judge Judy which displays the outrages forced upon taxpayers to support the welfare state in one particularly obnoxious person. If only this was an isolated case but there are millions of others like him raping taxpayers thanks to the Democrat Socialist Party. Damn them all to hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7XA2UUpXRk
George True| 8.3.11 @ 5:22PM
Absolutely unbelievable. I know quite a few people on social security disability. At least half of the are not really disabled. They could work if they chose to. In fact, they do work - side jobs, for cash. While continuing to collect the extra $600-$1300 per month from Uncle Sugar.
Pecos Pete| 8.3.11 @ 3:56PM
GRZ: Well done. Thank you.
And thanks to all commentators for keeping this thread educational.
The Bruce| 8.4.11 @ 1:02AM
I'm chalking your post up as the Read-O-the-Quarter. I loved every paragraph of it.
Tolerance| 8.3.11 @ 9:52AM
Trickle Down has not worked! Jobs are created from supply and demand, not from putting more money in the pockets of rich people. If the great American middle class isn't buying, companies aren't supplying - that's capitalism!
Would someone please tell me the difference between:
a) PAYING MORE IN TAXES and
b) GETTING YOUR BENEFITS CUT?
Both actions result in the same thing: A DECREASE IN CASH, either from paying a higher tax rate or from receiving less in benefits.
You can try to make them different by saying one is raising taxes while the other is reigning in expenditures, but to those families they’re identical – loss of money. There is no difference except that one is being protected by the Tea Party and Republicans under their ‘no new taxes’ mantra while the other is being targeted by the Tea Party and Republicans under their ‘cut spending’ cry.
Oh, the other difference:
THE GROUP TEA PARTIERS WANT TO PENALIZE IS THE GROUP THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE THE MONEY.
WHILE THE GROUP TEA PARTIERS ARE SO DESPARATELY PROTECTING FROM PAYING HIGHER TAXES CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR THAT PROTECTION.
SOMETHING SMELLS! YOU DISINGENUOUS LIARS OUT THERE WHO SO RIGHTEOUSLY CLAIM TO BE TRYING TO FIX OUR FINANCIAL MESS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! DON'T TELL US YOU HAVE SOME HIGHER GOOD IN MIND – IT DOESN'T FLY! YOU LIE, YOU LIE, YOU LIE!
Indiana Alex| 8.3.11 @ 9:59AM
What right do you have to my property?
Tolerance| 8.3.11 @ 10:10AM
What right do YOU have to MY property?
I've paid school taxes for decades to give your children an education but I have no children. Part of my urban taxes are given to rural areas that otherwise can't afford roads, fire, police, parks. Redistribution at its best, so don't tell me I'm taking YOUR property!
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 10:40AM
Typical liberal - just throw around dung until we are all cover.
You are confusing your town and state tax policies with federal issues - which we have been discussing exclusively until now.
I don't know where you live, but in NJ the urban areas suck up taxes from the suburbs and rural areas.
If actual productive people pay more in taxes, they become less productive. Rather than saving and / or investing in valuable businesses, the goverment absorbs most of the tax dollars and passes a little back to useless people - rewarding them for their laziness.
tolerance| 8.3.11 @ 11:00AM
So what you're saying is that it's ok to redistribute our local wealth but not federal? Come on! New Jersey gets back 61 cents for every dollar you give the federal govt. so I'd say your wealth is being redistributed to a whole bunch of other states. If you live in NM, MS, AK, LA, WV, ND, AL, SD, KY, VA, MT, HI, AR, ME, OK, SC, MO, MD, TN, ID, AZ, KS, WY, IA, NE, NC, VT, PA, UT, OH, IN, OH, GA your state is on the dole! Where's your indignation!
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 11:25AM
No. I'm saying that is a different subject.
I am indignant, but that is totally off-topic.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 10:50AM
Hey, moron: Which party do you suppose it is that has ladled on property taxes to impart liberal propaganda onto kids?
Hint: It's the Democrats.
At least you have no kids. That's a plus. Maybe there's something to this Darwinism after all.
Just so you know, you are right that jobs are created by supply and demand; in fact, that's what creates an economy; but you need to have a relationship between supply and demand.
The Keynesians believe that if you create demand, voila! You automatically have supply - which, if you look around you after $2 trillion in stimulus and $3 trillion in new money being printed - you'll see hasn't worked.
Free-market capitalists (I like to call them "the sane people") believe that you can have all the demand in the world - I mean, primitive man had lots of needs, right? Food, shelter, warmth - but if the supply ain't there, guess what? Demand goes unmet. Which is why life for primitive man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
It wasn't until people had the wherewithal to become merchants that people's needs were met en masse.
And you aren't going to have supply if the guy down the street from you can't raise the capital to open a store that will meet your demand for groceries.
Why don't you have somebody with some degree of literacy read this article to you again? Preferably someone with more than the third-grade education you appear to be proud of.
tolerance| 8.3.11 @ 11:20AM
See what you righty radicals do - you label anyone who doesn't agree with you as a liberal. I'm non-partisan. I voted for W the first time. I voted for Reagan. And I may have voted for McCain if he hadn't picked Sarah Stoopid!
As an independent I'm allowed to have my views too and I view you as extremist and blinded. My point is redistribution cannot be a battle cry. It exists everywhere in our land. So please stop blaming the needy because they're getting your property. You're getting someone elses property too, one way or another!
As for capitalism, it doesn't matter what you call it. If there are too few people with money to buy, selling won't occur. Giving the rich more money isn't going to stimulate mass buying or mass production. It just hasn't worked. Taking money away from the middle class isn't going to stimulate mass buying or mass production either. PERIOD!
Dagny Taggert| 8.3.11 @ 11:50AM
Tol, the "cut spending" mantra of the Tea Party doesn't mean cutting the $$ to the pensioners. What fiscal conservatives truly want is to deliver the services in a more efficient manner, thus cut the budget of these govt entities by, say 50%.
What EVER happened to Obama's oft-quoted $500 billion in waste & efficiency savings he was ready to apply to Medicare when he was selling his healthcare plan back in 2009?
NOBODY has the political balls to dig deep into HOW we deliver these services to reform the systems and do more with less. The "less" part of that equation is what Pelosi et. al. focus on when they demagogue the cuts. Raise the retirement age. Get rid of unions. Figure out a better way to gatekeep welfare rather than electronically filling someone's EBT card so they can blow it on things other than the "necessities" it was intended for. Companies and families have to tighten their belts when things get worse. Companies come out of recessions more efficient, because as business picks up, hiring lags--they figured out how to do it more efficiently with less people. Does 50% of aggregate education spending REALLY need to go to administration?
You're following the soundbite simplicity of the discussion, Tol. Real change comes from restructuring HOW services are delivered.
Tolerance| 8.3.11 @ 12:06PM
Dagny - I totally agree!
We need to be a more efficient government. But we're still a government, and we have a long way to go. It isn't going to happen overnight on the heels of the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression. And frankly I'm terrified of what the outcome will be from forcing severe cutbacks too quickly! We can use the money from the expired tax cuts!
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 2:15PM
Dagney, sorry, but I have to disagree with you.
The federal government is not supposed to be involved in anything outside of the Enumerated Powers as defined in the US Constitution.
Healthcare, Education, HUD, Welfare, Energy, etc. are all outside of these powers as intended by our founders.
Now you can make the argument that the states have every right to do these things, and I will agree with that. I am of the 9th and 10th Amendment school of thought.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 12:05PM
Gracias, Dagny.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 12:37PM
I don't care what you were before - you're a fool now, and I'm guessing you've been a fool your entire life. You are just a rudderless fool.
So, according to you, whatever job you have - and that's a stretch, I'm sure - your salary is not determined - nor should it be determined - by what your employer is willing to pay you for whatever your labor is worth to him. Your salary is - and should only be - determined by what the government thinks you should have.
That is the de facto logic of your saying "giving the rich more money." Just so you know, government is not "giving it to them". They earned it.
But you’re one of the good ones, I guess: If you have to work an extra 20 hours a week so that some bureaucrat can make a political decision as to what to do with that money as opposed to an economic decision made by YOU, well, you're only too happy to work that extra 20 hours a week so that some unemployed SOB can sit on his fat ass and play video games, or some perpetual college student can study the grooming habits of left-handed, blue-eyed Appalachian housewives, I’m sure. Yeah, that makes for a productive economy.
Let's see, how'd the philosophy of government owning the means of production work in the Soviet Union? East Germany? Eastern Europe? North Korea? Can you tell me?
But THIS time, it’ll be different. THIS time, government will be a beneficent doler out of other people's money - in total contradiction to empirical historical evidence and human nature. Nah, our government isn't a corrupt kleptocracy! It's all good! The bounty of the Nanny State delivers a cornucopia of goodies to everybody! Hallelujah, the Rapture is at hand, praise be to the altruism and Goodness of Our Government!
You seem to think that a totalitarian tyranny is better than having a society with EVIL rich people who have more than you do. I’m just wondering - can't you see the resentment that oozes out of your posts?
I know, I know: By what right do the EVIL RICH have larger incomes than you? More than they need? Wah! Wah! It’s not FAIR! I mean, really. You were born, you breathe, just like they do - surely you deserve - by dint of your very existence - a wonderful standard of living, a nice house, air conditioning, internet access, a nice car, maybe a couple of vacations a year, real leather furniture. I mean, that's your God-given right, eh?
That’s even in the Constitution, isn’t it? Hell, I’m waiting for my supermodel to arrive in the mail, because I have a right to pursue happiness, and a supermodel would make me very happy.
Again: There can be no demands met unless there is supply to meet them. And the only thing that creates supply is available capital.
That's money, FYI. I don’t see too many schmucks with no capital starting businesses.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 12:46PM
Don't forget, those tax rates are set to expire just in time for the new administration to be blamed for another economic downturn. It took Reagan three years to overcome the damage Carter did. It will take us longer following this experiment in central planning and socialism.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 1:19PM
By the way, it's not the evil rich that the Obama administration is out to destroy - in case you haven't noticed, a lot of the super-evil super-rich are in BED with the Obama administration.
The entire purpose of these policies - and EVERY socialist policy - is to DESTROY THE MIDDLE CLASS. Not the wealthy. Because that's where the real wealth and freedom lie.
You really have to put down the class-warfare goggles and view economics more dispassionately.
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 1:10PM
Keynes did not believe that if the government creates demand, there will be supply. Try again.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 1:37PM
Okaaaaaay - Maybe you should send an alert to Paul Krugman, et al.
Gee, I thought Keynes thought that any increase in aggregate demand increased the national income.
From Wikipedia:
Keynes contended that a general glut would occur when aggregate demand for goods was insufficient, leading to an economic downturn resulting in losses of potential output due to unnecessarily high unemployment, which results from the defensive (or reactive) decisions of the producers. In such a situation, government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation.
You raise a good question: So, under the Keynesian universe, where DOES supply come from?
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 2:10PM
Oh, shoot.
I forgot - Obama's black.
As such, neither he, nor his administration (which I had thought was cumulatively a sociopathic entity) is capable of doing anything wrong, illegal, immoral, ignorant, foolish, vengeful, destructive or puerile.
My bad.
Hey, everybody! It's morning in America! Goodies for EVERYONE!
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:36PM
Racist dog. And coming from me that's saying something. (LOL)
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 3:48PM
Where does supply come from? From producers.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 6:52PM
Wow, you're a genius! And here I thought that brain was only good for absorbing kiddie porn.
And how do producers produce? Do they just cross their arms and blink and, lo and behold, a factory appears? Wiggle their nose and employees appear who are willing to work for nothing until revenue starts coming in? And how are they going to comply with onerous requirements brought on by the likes of Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank? That requires resourses.
I'll tell you how they do it: They need CAPITAL. And capital is not money taken from the government from other producers at the point of a gun. It is INVESTMENT money that comes out of people's SAVINGS.
But apparently you don't understand that. You don't understand the economics is the allocation of scarce resources, and that wealth is put to work in this country just as surely as a road laborer wields a jack hammer. No, you subscribe to the puerile image of Mr. BigBucks sitting on a pile of money and counting it.
You deserve to live in the world you prescribe for others, you know that? And thanks to your piece of shit president, you're about to get it.
But I have no illusions that you'll ever become acquainted with reality.
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 7:10PM
So you think the wealthiest Americans and corporate America aren't investing to create more jobs now because they don't have any money? You can't possibly be that stupid.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 10:46PM
No, many are not investing now because they know there will be no return on investment thanks to Obama's thugs. See, when you invest, you expect a return on that investment. Not much point in investing if the government's just going to punish you.
Nothing like burgeoning regulation and onerous taxes to kill the goose that laid the golden age.
But we were talking about capitalism per se - not the fascism/kleptocracy that that has been a creeping sclerosis on Washington for the past 40 years, and which Obama and his fellow crooks have accelerated.
And, just so you know, there is some investment going on - the stock market has been on a tear since around 2009 - until the debt ceiling canard failed to fool anyone with a brain.
I don't know if you realize it, but that's investing. I know what you're thinking, and I agree: The only reason it's been as robust as it is is because we have a Keynesian asset bubble going on - people have fled to the stock market thanks to Helicopter Ben's loose money policy and the $3 trillion he's poured into the economy.
That IS investment, foolhardy though it may be.
DRed| 8.4.11 @ 1:05AM
But if corporate profits are high, there obviously is a return on investment, no? And if profits are high, how can it be that regulations and taxes are so onerous that businesses can't make a profit? They ARE, factually, in the real world, making profits. Your argument is nonsensical-you admit the stock market is on a tear, but at the same time you claim investors can't make any money because of the 'fascist kleptocracy', which causes investors to flee the very market that they're making money in. You're talking nonsense.
Have you considered| 8.4.11 @ 10:06AM
I would be interested in a breakdown of the NYSE between wholly domestic profits vs. the multinationals.
Also, I have read over the last two years that the new offerings (IPOs) for trading on the NYSE are way down.
And those that have been offered have very little physical plant, like Groupon. They have servers and printers, but they manufacture nothing.
Ground Control| 8.3.11 @ 5:24PM
Free Market types believe that where there is a need (demand) there will be someone to fill that need (supply) and make a profit in the process. Necessity is the Mother of Invention, as they say. Leftists believe that if the government creates a supply through "targeted investments" (subsidies) that demand will follow. Like, ethanol subsidies have created this great demand for ethanol fuels (NOT!) This is the "Field of Dreams" economic model: "If you build it he will come." Only in this case, it's "If you build it someone will buy it." And government subsidies at taxpayer expense make sure someone will build "it" even if "it" is something no one wants.
Have you considered| 8.4.11 @ 10:02AM
In the case of ethanol fuels, the demand has been manufactured by our EPA.
They Require that it be used by every person who drives a gasoline powered vehicle.
The interesting part will be, if these subsidies really dry up, will that .47cents per gallon be passed on to the consumer? I'm thinkin' ya.
Indiana Alex| 8.3.11 @ 11:15AM
My children don't attend public school.
btims| 8.3.11 @ 10:04AM
Government dependent gadfly....... a momma's boy no doubt. Educated in govt. schools by govt. employees (teachers).
Butch | 8.3.11 @ 10:14AM
You might want to reconsider that screen name.
Dai Alanye | 8.3.11 @ 10:34AM
Try to remember that the term "trickle down" was invented by David Stockman, a traitor within the Reagan administration. It belongs neither to Reagan nor Arthur Laffer.
As far as taxing the rich, if it would fix the problem I'd be for it... but it won't. Since we're using income taxes rather than wealth taxes, the rich have many ways of avoiding them, via loopholes passed by the rich men and women in Congress. I refer to trust funds and other tax shelters.
And it's not "reigning in expenditures" but "reining in." Remember, kings reign while horses wear reins. Sheesh!
And for someone who uses the moniker TOLERANCE this guy has a lot of hate bubbling within him.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:24AM
Good memory re: Stockman. What we have now is a situation in which our government intends the current state of the economy- the current condition of our national wealth- to be considered the norm, the baseline. Every increase in productivity or wealth is to be confiscated either through taxation, regulation or mandates. This current economy then becomes the status quo and all new wealth becomes the property of government to dispose of as it sees fit, presumably to its dependants and favored friends. Under this scenario all economic growth expands the public sector while the private sector stagnates under theweight of ever increasing demands.
It is being done by design, not necessarily to bring our nation down, but rather to centralize authority and entrench the power of the federal government. This is theft and it is immoral.
tolerance| 8.3.11 @ 11:52AM
Sorry for misspelling in my haste. I'm not 'blaming' trickle down on anyone - I'm just saying it doesn't work!
As far as letting the tax break on the wealthiest expire, of course it won't fix the problem but that doesn't mean it won't help.
Jon Stewart said:
"Many Republicans supported extending the largest contributing policy piece to our deficit - the Bush tax cuts. What are you so angry about? Government still exists. We still have traffic lights. We're sorry. Not everybody defines freedom as the ability to not pay taxes. Government isn't perfect but some people wish it was better, not gone."
But I'm fairly certain you're good with making the tax cuts permanent no matter what.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 12:44PM
Two points here "Tol":
First is that Conservatives do not wish to end government. Nor do they wish to make it more efficient. They wish to make it smaller and fit it back into the Constitutional reasons for its' creation.
Second it is a misnomer to call it, "making the tax cits permanent". Progressive income tax (if income tax at all) treats one persons proerty, their income, as distinct from another persons simply by virtue of its volume. That is immoral. It is a respecter of persons and creates classes which are antithetical to the American ideal. Additionally it suggests that the money belongs to government except for that which we are allowed to retain. Clearly that is incorrect. It belongs to us except for what we allow the government ot have for its legitimate purposes. Those purposes are enumerated in the inconvienient document once called the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Todd S| 8.3.11 @ 2:04PM
Anyone that quotes Jon Stewart as some kind of authority is a dumbass. Try John Stuart Mill instead
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
I know that is hard for an ignoramus like you who watches Jon Stewart to understand but he is basically stating that giving authority to the government for anything other than for protection (ie police, fireman, military) takes away from liberty. He would surely weep to see what has happened to America today and the tyranny imposed by the government on its citizens through excessive taxation and spending.
cuban pete| 8.3.11 @ 2:38PM
Bingo!!
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 2:43PM
Todd, you ROCK.
Game, set and match.
Well done, sir.
cuban pete| 8.3.11 @ 2:53PM
Wow, I beat the avatar of intelligent insight to a response. My day is made.
The G-man, my role model.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 3:32PM
Thanks, Cuban Pete - you are no slouch yourself. :-)
Todd S| 8.3.11 @ 11:06PM
Thank you Grzmlyk. He set me up with his Jon Stewart quote like a big meatball across the plate and I batted it into the upper deck. A rather perfect example of how shallow liberal thinking is today, they will quote Jon Stewart as some great authority but don't have a damn clue about true great "liberal" thinkers like John Stuart Mill.
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 2:45PM
Trickle down economics is in fact the way a free market, capitalist system works. The term seemed to offend everybody but me.
Have you ever heard the old maxim that "it takes money to make money" ? This is trickle down in a nut shell.
Lets say I want to open a corner florist shop. I need money (capital) to buy the permits, pay the attorneys, to set up a phone line, stock my shelves, buy a cash register, pay the rent, and on and on and on. This is my capital investment.
When my new business takes hold, and my sales justify, I can now hire someone.
Now my new employee benefits from my investment, as he now is earning a pay check. So my capital has now trickled down to him.
I don't know how you can argue that working for a paycheck does not benefit my new employee, or how my investment did not trickle down to him.
Grz and several others have made correct and solid arguments, but this is a stripped down explanation in layman terms that may shed some light.
RichTex| 8.3.11 @ 10:36AM
I wish Tolerance would tell us how much, in dollars, he believes that he is undertaxed. Because there is an easy solution to that problem; one which doesn’t require any action by Congress. So, Tolerance won’t be stymied by the Tea Party members of Congress he bemoans so much.
All he has to do is calculate the amount he has been undertaxed since the institution of the Bush tax cuts, or maybe even go back to the Reagan tax cuts. Then simply write a check payable to the United States Treasury and mail it to:
Gifts to the Untied States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsviile, MD 20782
I’ll tell you what, Tolerance, if you write a check for 7 figures or more, I’ll spring for the stamp.
Oh wait! You think that someone else’s taxes should be raised, not yours. Well, I think other people’s taxes should be raised, not mine either. I think that taxes should be raised on Democtrats.
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 10:43AM
He believes we are under-taxed - and he is under compensated by the government for breathing.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 2:47PM
RichTex, I think we need to circulate that address to Matt Damon and Ben Stein, to name just two. And of course Michael Moore, whom I SURE is eager to get rid of his three or four homes, his private jet and the private school he sends his daughter to.
These guys are dying to give up all of their excess wealth (I mean, as Obama says, at some point you've made enough), hand it over to government and live on $50k a year.
They just didn't have the address.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 10:40AM
Can't you get your point across without the ALL CAPS?
One deniable fact in your ramblings: Government can't grow the economy. Government can only collect and redistribute wealth. It's a zero sum game. If government could grow the economy, I'd be all in, but it doesn't. That was the point of the article.
It has nothing to do with "TEA Partiers" attempting to hold on to more of their money. I would suggest you attend a TEA party rally and you will soon discover most of these people are from all strata of the middle class.
These people want jobs and opportunity and are not in bed with big business.
Here's your homework assignment for the week:
*Go watch Marco Rubio's floor speech from yesterday
*Learn about General Glut theory and Say's law
*Read The Road to Serfdom
When done, get back with me and we can have a nice little discussion............with no caps.
Now get lost!!!!!!!!!!
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 11:34AM
Paying more in taxes is confiscation of property.
Giving up (a misnomer) benefits means releasing an immoral claim to other peoples' money.
Local taxes and even state taxes are a different issue from federal taxes and mandates which serve no local purpose. Review the debate from the early 1800's about what was then called "internal improvements".
That being said, calm down a little and enjoy the debate.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 11:48AM
You are quite confused about how the economy works in the real world.
First of all "trickle down economics" is a term invented by leftists as a perjorative of the free market. Vladimir Lenin did the same thing when he coined the term capitalism. In any case, what you described in your first paragraph is not the free market enterprise we are talking about, it is CRONY CAPITALISM. Obama/Reid/Pelosi looted the US treasury of trillions and gave the money to their cronies: The banksters, GE, GM, the unions, and a variety of other Democrat bundlers and supporters. The banksters then spirited the stolen money out of the country where it can be invested in more business friendly environments. Some of the money they have parked in gold and silver, and they are just waiting for the dust to settle before they come back in and buy up properties for pennies on the dollar. Pennies on the extremely devalued dollar.
There is something called the Laffer Curve which, like the Austrian school of economics, has been proven empirically to be the way things actually work in the real world. Simply put, lowering taxes stimulates economic activity, which causes profit, which creates more tax and more taxpayers. Lowering taxes increases net revenue to the treasury. This is not theory, it is known fact.
Your last few paragraphs were nothing but boilerplate leftist class warfare claptrap, and thus not worthy of a response.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 11:50AM
Above comments of mine directed to the one calling himself Tolerance.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 12:48PM
Thanks George, I got confused there for a minute.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 12:36PM
Utter stooge claptrap from you as usual George. Hayek and his followers have always been wrong - the real proof lies in the outstanding performance of the Nordic countries, which have high taxes and low unemployment and crucially, are far more equal, productive societies.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 12:51PM
It is obvious that you do not really understand much about real world economics. Hayak and Von Mises have been proven to be absolutely accurate. Every time a truly unfettered free market is allowed to operate, it creates prosperity at all income levels. Every time government gets involved with so-called stimulus, and tax-and -spend redistributive schemes, it has failed spectacularly.
You cannot name even one time any stimulus anywhere has succeeded, because it has never happened. There is no time in history where a government that has engaged in runaway spending and deficits has not crashed their currency and tanked their economy. Your sad devotion to this fundamentally flawed religion of Keynesianism is based in both willful ignorance and covetousness.
Your vaunted Nordic countries are having all the same problems we are now.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 1:04PM
Nonsense George, Do you ever check anything you write? The Nordic countries are outperforming most others in the West. Sweden is now the second most competitive nation after Switzerland, and has a highly efficient government despite the large tax take.
See http://www.swedishwire.com/eco.....titiveness
George True| 8.3.11 @ 1:29PM
You are citing myths. Sweden's welfare state has imploded. Their job creation has flatlined for the last several decades. In the 1970's, Sweden was ranked 5th place among European countries in prosperity. It has now fallen to 14th, with only Finland being lower. The reason is the high tax level.
The Scandinavian nanny state experiment is now known to be a failure. You might try reading up on these things yourself, instead of just parroting 'wisdom' received upon high from leftist propagandists.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:40PM
GT, Sweden has been actually trying to institute more market driven measures and reforming its educational system with vouchers....they are moving in many conservative directions. They are experiencing a severe drain on the economy due to muslim immigration and the explosion of a welfare state..the dole to support this group.
Ground Control| 8.3.11 @ 5:37PM
George,
Ioannes Londinium knows only myths, no facts. I have suggested Thomas Sowell's "Baasic Economics" as reading material, but I have little faith he would ever read it or understand it if he did. For some, government-centric economic "theory" is a religious experience. It gives them purpose in life to believe they are part of a great government crusade to right wrongs and enforce economic fairness. Londinium's rants add up to a rather simple process called "economic democracy" which really just means "I get to vote on how WE spend YOUR money!" To expect more advanced thinking from this poor fellow is just too much.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:35PM
Once again, half truths, misdirection, and false premises. First, many of the Nordic countries are experiencing serious economic issues due to their socialistic experiments. Yes, Sweden has largely been an exception. Why? Well, hmmm...because Sweden (the government) does not attempt to control business or the market and lets the trade unions and business management drive the innovation and decisions. Second, it supports full employment not welfare and develops policy to support this. Its government is dedicated to limited EFFICIENT government and returns 75 percent of every tax dollar back to it citizens. It does not grow the size of government nor its reach. It also encourages school vouchers and competition in both industry and education. It also attempts to keep its tax rates stable and does not tax its industries to death. The recent troubles many of these nordic countries are experiencing is also largely due to the growth of a welfare state that is draining these countries dry. Muslims are entering these countries in the millions and refusing to integrate and are going on welfare. Have you ever heard the phrase, 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'?
skip| 8.3.11 @ 1:48PM
Equus Asinus Enthalpy London
Why has Sweden privatized their industries?
Why was Sweden's suicide rate highest among first world nations, or second or third world nations for that matter, at the height of its socialism 'success'?
Why would anyone think you are anything other than an idiot when you recently posted:
"FACT: Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits creates $1.61 in economic growth."
How do you have the audacity to post on this particular thread demolishing the very topic you continually spout stupid lies on, Keynesian economics?
How are you going to survive when the lot of us ensure you no longer receive any more of the fruits of our labors?
You are an idiot.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 2:14PM
To compare pissant Nordic countries to the United States is to compare a child managing his/her piggy bank to their parents finances.
Many more costs and worries to deal with and a much more complex economy overall.
Take you're hackneyed arguments and go back to watching the John Stewart or Keith Obermann show(s).
Indiana Alex| 8.3.11 @ 3:01PM
Nordic countries? Really? Do you think there could possibly be a difference in the dynamics of countries of less than 10 million people who all share the same thousands year old culture?
Wow, you must be angling for the Krugman Nobel Prize
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 1:29PM
According to the OED, the word capitalism was in use before Lenin was even born, so I find it hard to believe that he coined the term.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 2:35PM
I meant Marx, not Lenin. Sorry.
Yes, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first time the word "capitalism" appeared in print was in 1854 in a novel written by William Thackaray. In 1867, Karl Marx published his work "Das Kapital" in German. Subsequent translations introduced the word 'capitalism', and it was from this source that the word went viral.
Although Marx did not coin the term himself, it was his manifesto that gave the word to the world.
W| 8.3.11 @ 1:28PM
Tolerance, your name is different, but your message is the same old lefty message of economic stupidity.
The extent of your economics knowledge is the words supply, demand. Trickle Down is a Democrat bumper sticker, not economics.
If the government takes money from you through taxation then you do not have that money to spend on goods and services. You seem to understand that the production of goods and services creates jobs. The government should take only what is necessary to provide services that only the government can provide,such as national defense as the primary example.
When you favor the government taking as much as possible then you are saying the government can spend that money more wisely and efficient than you, and you believe that government spending is more efficient at creating jobs than if you spent the money on goods and services. Do you really believe that?
Kevin Dunn| 8.3.11 @ 10:03AM
I wasn't around during World War II, but my guess, and one can see the supporting evidence in things like the movies of the day, is that the mental attitude of the comunity was different - the low standard of living was disguised because everyone was caught up, consciously or not, in the great patriotic adventure. There was no time or inclinatioin to contemplate the failure of Keynseanism, and at least there was full employment, and, as in Israel today, a feeling that "We're all in this together." This doesn't refute this author's points, but reinforces them.
Old Soldier| 8.3.11 @ 10:48AM
It wasn't all happy people rowing together. The Democrats lost a huge number of seats in the 1938 mid-terms as people got fed-up with FDR's nonsense.
The Twenty-second Amendment was passed because people recognized FDR's abuse of power. Too bad they didn't include all of Congress.
martin j smith| 8.3.11 @ 10:12AM
Hey Tolerance-NOT Go to Europe you would love it there where Greece,Portugal,Spain,Italy and the whole EU are going to implode. Tolerance --NOT you are the problem --I think you are a paid operative of Obama--OK--and anything you say will not persuade me. You are the liar, you are the
kind who are trying to bring down this nation. We have you number and it is below zero. Besides, if you think "we are liars why spend time on a site of liars( if that were so ) its like spewing hot air. But in truth, you are the liar, you spew hot air and by the way tell your buddies who call people who disagree with them "terrorists" show how weak and how unstable as people they are. They cannot be trusted at all. And, that means that any SOCIALIST CANNOT BE TRUSTED. When your "side" behaves like a Normal" human being then we can have a reasonable conversation. Till then
I await your trip to Europe and will gladly wave
good bye .
Oldefarte| 8.3.11 @ 10:45AM
Excellent article, Peter, as usual! Liberals, Democrats and government ARE THE PROBLEM, not the solution; since they take away dollars from the private sector of the economy in order to mostly provide their favored WELFARE. Instead of the economic theory of GUNS & BUTTER, they believe it to be GUNS OR WELFARE, and with them, the former is always shorted at the expense of the latter. A dollar within the private sector extrapolates into many additional dollars of increased investments, whereas a dollar within the public sector of government deliniates/decreases into the welfaric funding of illegal drugs, liquor/tobacco and food/medical services necessary to sustain their indigent recipients. The Democratic Party has sadly imploded into its current state of existence by radicals and extremists, with governmental welfare providing as their battle cry, and SOAK THE RICH [ANYONE WITH INCOME] AS THEIR SOURCE OF FUNDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wayne | 8.3.11 @ 11:20AM
Keynesian may be dead, but for a Marxist and Leninist, that is trivial. The goal is a centralization of power and a ruling elite. Now we have an oligarchy formed in this 12 member panel. It is modeled after the inner party of the soviet.
A depression is a small price to pay for total power.
Indiana Alex| 8.3.11 @ 11:24AM
A major difference in the economy today versus that of the golden era of the 1950's is that living standards are incredibly higher today than they were back then for everyone.
Far more people lived in what would be described as poverty today, but was not considered poverty at the time, becuase poverty then was more a state of mind rather than a lack of the material.
Louis Jenkins| 8.3.11 @ 11:29AM
To quote a saying from another blog:
"If you have the right to free Obamacare at my expense, then why shouldn't I have to pick your cotton." Food for thought.
Howard| 8.3.11 @ 11:48AM
Well written article. One factor that Klein, Krugman and others of similar ilk fail to factor is the extremely negative ramifications on business of sudden growth of government and regulations. This will result in a "capital strike". We have this now, and we had it in 1937-1939. So even though government is active, it scares the crap out of the productive sector. "Atlas Shrugged" was based in part on such behavior.
The other problem is that these government gimmicks, and these go back as far as President Ford, do not change behavior. A temporary tax cut will not cause you to buy a house or car. You need some level playing field to base decisions on. Sometimes it would be better if Congress and the president did less than more.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 11:54AM
You lost me there - I thought cutting rich people's taxes immediately trickled down to the little people so they can buy a BMW.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 1:15PM
Those wascally wich peepol. Let's take everything they have. In the interest of 'fairness' of course.
Shamus| 8.3.11 @ 1:16PM
You've spend too long in the great white north.
Little people apply to the green energy czar if they want a BMW.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 3:42PM
BMWs should be outlawed, right Jack?
Well, right after your union pension fund gives you one.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 11:52AM
Who said:
“The debt explosion has resulted, not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead because of the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”
He also said on “60 Minutes” last fall, “Scratch the average Republican today, and he’ll say, ‘tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.’ ” He added that it was “rank demagoguery ... to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment,” and that the Republican Party should be ashamed of itself.
Give up? Well it's David Stockman, Reagan’s architect of Reaganomics from 1981 to 1985.
Indiana Alex| 8.3.11 @ 12:11PM
Stockman was not a Classical Economist and didn't believe in the principles of Classical Theory.
Neither did Darman, Brady and that other fool in HW's economic team.
As for cutting rich people's taxes, are you of the mind that a couple earning $251,000 are rich? If you are taxing income, you aren't taxing the rich. All you are doing is encouraging people to engage in the economic activity of avoiding taxes, which hurts productivity and living standards.
The only people not hurt by this are the truely rich that have the means to avoid income.
BTW, you are aware of the tax increases associated with Obamacare aren't you?
What rate do you think is proper for the highest marginal rate?
Todd S| 8.3.11 @ 2:14PM
Jack London is a communist supporter like his namesake. The author spoke often about how great socialism was but he was more than happy to keep the money he made and spend it on himself for his debauchery. Fact is he was a bastard with no morals whatsoever and was a very unhappy person, a good socialist in other words.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 3:45PM
Amazing how that exact same story plays out over, and over, and over, and over.
Grzmlyk| 8.3.11 @ 3:45PM
So are you saying deficits are bad?
Huh. Who would a thunk it. A socialist saying deficits are bad?
Can I quote you as saying deficits are bad?
Wait - there's a catch, right? Let me guess - the $500 billion deficit Bush left us with was bad - but the $1.4 trillion deficit (and counting) run up by Obama?
Happy Days are Here Again!!!!!, right thief?
Mark Jeffery Koch| 8.3.11 @ 11:54AM
A country that no longer manufacturers anything is a country that will continue to decline. You cannot purchase a television, computer, DVD player, mp3 player, cellphone, fax machine, or article of clothing that is made in this country anymore. People wait in line to purchase the latest iPad, iPhone, and iPod that are all manufactured in China as and all the new android phones are either from South Korea or China. Washers, dryers, and refrigerators from China and South Korea are available at appliance stores. There are now a dozen Tablets on the market that compete with the iPad. NONE of them are manufactured here. When you call Dell, Toshiba, Sony, Comcast, Apple, or HP for support you are routed to either the Caribbean, Philippines, or India. It's almost impossible anymore to buy a toy for your kids that was made here.
China and India are growing because they are manufacturing products. What, besides agricultural and food products says "Made in America" ? The U.S. economy will not have a strong recovery because an economy that does not produce or manufacture anything is an economy that will never be #1 ever again.
Democrats and Republicans need to revise the tax code to end any benefits U.S. companies have from maintaining operations overseas. We should do everything we can to encourage American companies to bring all of their manufacturing and outsourcing here. I know there are some readers of these post who will think "who wants to work at a call center making $25,000 a year" but if that's how you feel go to the unemployment line near where you live and tell the folks in line that's how you feel and see how they respond.
Indiana Alex| 8.3.11 @ 12:18PM
First of all, for US companies to be successful in a global economy they must truely be a global company.
Oracle doesn't really manufacture much at all, but they have a presence in just about every country that has an economy and some that don't.
Secondly, why is it that we should have more manufacturing jobs in the US?
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 3:51PM
Of course organized labor pushed all of good jobs out of the country. THEY refused to compete in the global market. They chose to push and push and push for more even though their jobs were becoming safer and easier at the same time.
THEY chose to kill THEIR golden goose and have paid an expensive price for it.
Alhad Sathe | 8.3.11 @ 12:14PM
You claim Keynesian does not work. The largest exapnsion of US economy took place during Roosevelt administration. Clinton also used the same approach by increasing revenues using taxes. We had best market and economy in recent times during Clinton administration.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 12:36PM
John Maynard Keynes, late in his life, admitted that he had been wrong about almost everything. The inventor of Keynesianism himself said it does not work.
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 1:01PM
When did he say that?
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:17PM
Look it up yourself, you lazy commie. GT could bring the guy back from the dead, put him on national TV, and you would deny it, ignore it, and change the subject and distract with more lies, historical revision, and if all else fails, blame Bush.
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 1:25PM
I have tried to look it up, my friend. But I can't find it. So I was asking for help.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 1:34PM
Shortly before he died he's said to have said: "I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago."
But that was hardly a repudiation of his work, which has been misunderstood in any case - he was not a socialist and advocated spending in recession purely to boost capitalism.
See http://www.maynardkeynes.org/j.....k-imf.html
George True| 8.3.11 @ 2:04PM
"Where Keynes Went Wrong - And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Bust" -by Hunter Lewis
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 4:01PM
I would like you to give me the direct quote from Keynes, if you can.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 1:27PM
Hey George look at this - the BBC is having a Keynes vs Hayek debate today. Wonder if we can listen to it or replay it here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012wxyg
George True| 8.3.11 @ 1:45PM
I would not want to be the person taking the side of Keynes in such a debate, as he will have great difficulty pointing to an example where it has ever worked in real life.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 2:19PM
The thing is George I doubt you actually know what Keynes wrote or did - all you parrot is the spend side, and you ignore his focus on balanced budgets, full employment and his huge contribution to macroeconomics in general. If GW Bush had had Keynes as an advisor we would not be in this mess now.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 2:41PM
I have read four different books on Keynes. Have you?
I still haven't heard any examples from you of when and where full-on Keynesian economics has ever produced anything but mayhem. I am reminded of something Reagan said that about sums it up: "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so".
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 4:03PM
What do you mean by full-on Keynesian economics? I doubt there's an economist alive who thinks Keynes governments should follow all Keynes ideas. He's been dead for almost 70 years-I would imagine our understand of economics has advanced somewhat in the interim.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:12PM
Why bother with this complete idiotic revision of reality and history. Why not just grunt out some marxist slogans and be done with it? A child could just pick up a history book and discover that the Roosevelt administration oversaw a shrinking economy that fell into severe depression and stayed there for 9 years despite all the spending. The economy did not turn around until 1941 and declaration of war which brought about a war economy driven by bond investments and private investment in the private sector to produce war materials and vast new employment in the private sector to produce these war materials and products. The expansion actually occured in the 1950's under Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy who cut taxes to stimulate growth. Clinton did not use spending to stimulate the economy as he had to live with a Republican congress who actually forced him to reform entitlements and balance the budget. The growth experience in the 90's was due to the explosion of wealth and revenues driven by the IT industry and the deregulation and tax cuts started in the 1980's by Reagan. You can just keep making up your own history. While you at it stay there in that world you created and do not come out here and post such nonsense.
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 1:39PM
What do you mean by a shrinking economy, ST? GDP under Roosevelt grew between 1933-1937. Between 1937 and 1938 there was another recession (in what might have been a coincidence, by 1937 Roosevelt had been persuaded to balance the budget, and reduced federal spending), and then the economy started growing again. Not that it really has much to do with Keynsian economics. But I just wondered what you meant.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 1:52PM
Now, just how could that be when there was an unemployment rate of 14 t0 25 percent most of these years. There was a further downturn in the depression not another recession. The world itself was suffering from severe economic depression and unemployment rates remained high, real spending (THE MONEY IN PEOPLES POCKETS, not government dole) did not increase, nor did the economy grow with greater per capita income of households. Roosevelt never reduced spending. What the hell are you talking about?
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 2:41PM
OK Simon - over the last 25 years or so what's happened to the value of the average person's income and what's happened to rich people's incomes?
George True| 8.3.11 @ 3:10PM
A far more important question, Jack,is what has happened to the value of the dollar over the last four years? What will be the value of the dollar and thus its purchasing power in another two or three years?
This is the cruelest tax of all, and it hits the poorest among us, whom you claim to care about so much, harder than anyone else. When a loaf of bread is five or ten dollars, people like you will rail against the grocery store for their 'greed'. But you won't say a peep about the government that caused it.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 3:56PM
Once again, ignore, misdirect, another false premise, another smarmy ignorant and misleading question. We could do this all day and into the next century. It's pin the useful idiot liberal question on the conservative elephant and whatch him go! You are not here to learn anything, concede anything, nor debate the issues.
Start answering your own questions, start looking up your own claims, start answering some of our criticisms for once, start taking responsibility for your own education..or better fu%$#ck off..you are wasting time and brain cells that could be used for better use. You are here to distract, aggravate, and manipulate. Your comments are classic liberal progressive smarmy rubbish and nothing more. In fact, I could argue a better case for increased spending and taxes than you could...even though I am not advocating it nor do I believe in it. Your not even good at what you think you do.
DRed| 8.3.11 @ 4:13PM
http://tinyurl.com/3nmr6fl;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp29-41.jpg
It's a sad day when you need to rely on a lazy commie to do all your work for you, isn't it?
Shamus| 8.3.11 @ 1:22PM
It's hard to understand cause and effect, so here's a slight clue.
After the second world war the productive capacity of almost the entire world other than the US had been destroyed. When the war ended the US enjoyed a boom, as it exported products to growing global markets. In addition, the destructive policies of the FDR administration were repealed by Congress, further adding to prosperity. FDR was a reassuring voice on the radio, but his policies were mostly nonsense.
Nick| 8.3.11 @ 2:59PM
Alhad Sathe,
Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Have you ever heard of the Great Depression? Brought to us by the Polio Prince, FDR?
And, the market under Bubba 'the pervert' Clinton should be known as the Enron market or the WorldCom market. It was as big a lie as Bubba's statement, "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Bubba's market crashed, just as he and Shrillary the Hut were looting the White House.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 7:56PM
You cannot claim Clinton's tax increases caused economic growth during the 90's. Those two events happened concurrently but there is no proof that tax increases affected economic growth. Economic growth occurred during that time because of the Peace Dividend, the technology (personal pc sales, and online activity) boom, and the beginning of the housing market boom caused by Clinton's unleashing of Fannie May/Freddie Mac. The stock market exploded because many were flush with cash. All of the fundamentals set years before ensured an extended period of economic growth . Granted, Clinton was responsible for the prosperity of the 90's mainly for what he did not do but increased taxes was not the driver.
Incresed taxes have minimal effect on revenues as a percentage of GDP. That number generally stays the same regardless if the marginal tax rates are 90 percent or 25 percent. It remains basically a flat line.
Clint| 8.3.11 @ 12:26PM
"In the 1930's, FDR used excessive Federal spending, a cornerstone of Keynesian Economics, in an attempt to revive the U. S. economy during the Great Depression. It failed. At the same time, Europe recovered much quicker without the spend-thrift precepts of Keynes insanity. In retrospect and in a futile attempt to save Keynesian Economics from the trash heap of economic theory, those "apostles of John Maynard Keynes" have concluded that Federal spending during the Great Depression didn't produce the intended results because FDR didn't spend enough; and, because he tried to cut spending at the same time."
David| 8.3.11 @ 12:39PM
No matter how much people say it's dead - Obamanomics will always be alive because the press/media will keep telling you that it is.
Shamus| 8.3.11 @ 1:23PM
Obamanomics is too grand a name. Poverty is what I would call it.
JFGalt| 8.3.11 @ 12:47PM
Who is John Galt?
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 12:49PM
Ask Dagny above.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 12:53PM
I did a little more reading about Keynesian economics and discovered that it was never intended to be an economic policy to be used in all circumstances and economic conditions. Yes, as many of you have pointed out, the economist later in life, recanted his belief that it could stimulate enough demand to turn an economy from depression to growth and stability. He settled for very limited use of government spending in rather specific downturns to balance out the ups and down cycles of capitalistic economies. I think this is worth pointing out because what we are dealing with here is really not Keynesian economics but Marxism. The american left which controls the democratic party and the progressive movement of today are attempting to establish a permanent socialistic economy of permanent government control and spending. As usual, they begin arguments with false premises and we unwittingly accept them. Like the useful idiot above, they continue to rewrite history to support their false claims and cover their true agenda. Just as they pretend to be good old democrats like Truman and Roosevelt, they are not. They are not seeking keynesian economics as misguided it is but rather a major TRANSFORMATION away from free market capitalism to a socialist state controlled corporatism.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 1:41PM
Sorry Simon but really you're indulging in hyperbole - the main debate at present is between setting a federal presence more or less at previous levels when we were more prosperous, including under the GOP, and an ideology to dismantle government, which we have not seen before. If the former is Marxism then I have news for you - you've been living in a Marxist state all your life.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 2:11PM
Simply amazing. Simon had made an erudite, eloquent, and factually correct summation of the issue, and you simply dismiss is as hyperbole. If you want to see a hyperbolist, sir, take a look in the mirror.
Nobody is talking about dismantling government. But considering that our goverment is 30% bigger than it was four years ago, and 100% bigger than it was in 2000, sensible people would say that it needs to be scaled back. The purpose of our government is to govern, not to be an adult jobs program.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 2:32PM
Government spend as % of GDP has gone up in the last few years as we tackle the recession but it has not made it 100% bigger than 2000 George. That's just silly.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 3:04PM
Exactly how is the recession being "tackled"? Everything that has been done so far has been the exact opposite of what needed to be done.
Our government is spending twice what it was in 2000. So fiscally, it is now twice the size. And still getting bigger.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 5:38PM
Oh go on George I'll bite. Give me say your five point plan for recession busting.
DaveD| 8.3.11 @ 8:55PM
Check it out. Total Govt. spending (revenue plus increase in National Debt) in 2000 : 1,985 billion.
In 2010: ~ 3,995 billion. Slightly more than doubled.
simon templar| 8.3.11 @ 2:15PM
Once again false premise, misdirection, and historical revision.
The main debate as you stated is a false premise. Your marxist messiah is not advocating returning to previous tax rates or previous goverment reach, he left tax rates twice where they are. He is advocating nationalization of companies, spending levels never seen in the history of the country, greater regulation and interference in business private sector, control of one sixth of the american economy by government via nationalized health care, and on and on.
No one is advocating dismantling of the government.
You as usual are indulging in your usual false premises, misdirection, propaganda, lies, historical revision, and smarmy useful idiot attitude. Look, it is quite simple. I am advocating limited Republican government, an ideology that is pure traditional Americanism, our founding fathers philosophy, and representative of the values of most Americans. You are a statist socialist (progressive) that seeks to destroy the above and you will do it with no regard for truth, facts, reality, or morality. You have boiled the frog for nearly a century slowly and incrementally.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 2:36PM
No - you're advocating going far beyond Reagan and anything we've done in modern times. The reforms under Obama are conservative - eg healthcare mandates were mainstream GOP policy – and he extended the Bush tax cuts. What nationalization do you mean? As I said if this is Marxism then really you have no understanding at all.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 2:49PM
You are a true believer in the religious cult of statism. Why do you come here? As we are grounded in reality, we will not become devotees of your cult. As you are fully indoctrinated, we are also not going to change your mind. So what is the point, Jack?
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 5:17PM
OK George T - what proportion of GDP do you think we should operate our government at, what would you cut and what would be the social and moral consequences?
George True| 8.3.11 @ 5:50PM
Historically, at least since the end of WWII, our federal government has operated on anywhere from 18-24% of GDP. We are currently at around 24-25% and rising. I would be very content if it were scaled back to 18%, which would be an actual cut of 25%. That would be a very good start.
We have entire departments of government that did not exist 40 years ago. That 's where I would start. Dept of Energy, Education, Commerce, just to name a few. Somehow, we managed to get along just fine before these came into existence. So absolutely, if I were in charge, probably 10-20% of all federal employees would lose their jobs. That is where the hurt would be. Cruel, you say? Well, better that than everybody else lose half of their savings and income, which is what the current level of spending will cause.
Then I would reform the entitlements. Not do away with them, and not take away the promised benefits for those who have paid in over a lifetime (SSI) or who have earned them (VA). I know several dozen people who are on social security disability. At least half of them are not really disabled. They are gaming the system. I am sure the percentage is about the same everywhere.
If we do not make the unpopular choices, we will all pay for it in a very personal way, through the loss of at least one third to two thirds of our savings and our income within the next few years. It happened in Argentina ten years ago for much the same reasons. Life changed radically for everyone there. They still refer to it as TEOTWAWKI. The end of the world as we know it.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 6:46PM
Dept of Commerce has been around for 100 years. And I really do not think that any nation now can ignore the strategic importance of energy and education. The only thing that will happen is that we'll end up funding at higher cost private agencies to do the same indicators and projects.
It's also a fallacy to think there are huge pickings to be had on entitlements - we are not a generous nation with them as it is and the extent of fraud is grossly exaggerated by conservatives.
And as you concede, we'll have a lot of jobs lost (and half a mill public sector have gone already), and the overall result will be a return to recession as spending in the economy will drop off further, including projects such as those funded by Dept of Energy, which are badly needed.
The problem is you see these as bad assets that need to be liquidated - the Hayek way. But there is true economic value in what you would cut with no analysis.
I'm not suggesting we have no cuts of course.
DaveD| 8.3.11 @ 8:59PM
At one time I read that the bureaucratic overhead in entitlement spending at the Federal level was approximately 78%. If that is true, we could save a bundle by block granting the money to the States and eliminate the Federal bureaucrats.
George S| 8.3.11 @ 3:13PM
Yes, health care mandates are a staple of conservative policy -- but not the way you think. Government tax policy not associated with raising revenue (a very small part) is supposed to either discourage certain anti-social behaviors (sin taxes) or encourage positive social behavior with tax credits (marriage, mortgage deductions, college education, energy conservation, charitable contributions, military service, etc.).
Now, if we carry health insurance, that should be a tax credit. So, conservative policy is to encourage (yes, maybe even mandate) health insurance by making everyone becoming involved in the cost of their own health care, and passing the tax benefits to the people instead of employers.
George S| 8.3.11 @ 2:57PM
Jack:
Would you say that a piece of paper that begins with:
"When in the course of human events..."
reflects an ideology NOT to dismantle government?
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 3:40PM
It says something about "alter and abolish" also does it not?
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 5:25PM
So you're in favor of anarchy then?
Of course, nothing in the declaration says anything about no government and the very bit after alter and abolish is about new government. You can't have rights without a collective way to recognize them.
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 6:24PM
Jack,
You were good until the last sentence. Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights which exist independently of any government. As such they are needed to provide for civil society. When governments trespass on their legitimacy then citizens retain the right to create anew a government more likely to improve their happiness.
No one said anarchy, not even the most ideological Libertarian proposes that.
Jack London| 8.3.11 @ 6:31PM
But I thought you hated the UN declaration of human rights, which is the government independent rights we have in the world.
W| 8.3.11 @ 8:11PM
Jack, "anarchy" is a belief in essentially no government, and not a belief in changing or abolishing an existing corrupt unrepresentative government to replace it with a fair representitve government as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Examples of anarchists today would be the rioters at the G-10 economic summits who vandalized the cities. If you want to look at anarchists in history, there was an Anarchist Party in Spain during its civil war from 1936-1939. They were mostly trade union members,and they were all killed by the Communist party.
JohnC| 8.3.11 @ 12:58PM
Yes I agree, until we start making things in this country again our economy will never recover. Both parties have greased the skids for political donations and kickbacks to allow multinational corporations to outsource our vital manufacturing base along with good paying American jobs to Communist China and Third World countries.
This transfer of our wealth overseas for cheap labor is international socialism and would be considered treason by our Founders. Because of libertarian economic globalism our once sovereign country is now at the mercy of foreign powers, even lowly Greece.
Uprooting entire companies nurtured and bred by middle class Americans and sending them overseas is not even trade (which is a movement of goods). Until this outsourcing insanity gets reversed we are in a race to the bottom.
Delta Zelda| 8.3.11 @ 1:07PM
Jimmah was not re-elected because the Repubs had a nominee who would be a great improvement over him.
The Repubs have no such candidate for 2012. Romney=Romneycare. Newt, Herman, and Bachman don't have the chance of a snowball in the oven. Pawlenty is not well known and the Repubs will not hire an Obama-type press machine. Palin is out because the Establishment Republicans (McConnell, McCain, Rove) will not back her. They claim her lack of experience and knowledge of foreign policy. If Perry runs, he won't have a chance either unless he hires an outstanding marketing machine. Chris Christie is the only potential candidate who could beat Obama, but he he says he won't run in 2012. If he does not and Obama wins (and he will) there will not be a country left to rebuild.
The only sure way to keep Obama from winning in 2012 is for the Syrians to take over the US embassy.
Paul from SA| 8.3.11 @ 3:22PM
Agree. There's a huge leadership void in the Republican party. I know the times and circumstances are a little different than 1980, but maybe one will emerge. It will not be Mitt Romney or Newt or Michelle, though I like her.
I predict the GOP nominee will be Rick Perry.
Who Knows?| 8.3.11 @ 1:17PM
There you go again, Mr. Ferrara, using facts about history, as well as logical deductions, to prove how destructive Keynesian policies are.
Oh, so many people are trying to close the barn door, long after the cattle have not only run away, but also been butchered AND eaten!
I think the agonizingly protracted contest in DC that just concluded in a sort-of draw for the GOP is all the real PROOF America needs---SNAFU!
In Egypt, something like 90% of the women have ALREADY had their genitalia mutilated.
In the USA, the Destroyer Party aka the Democratic Party has ALREADY mutilated America’s “balls”!
MEGO is the overwhelming acronym for our profligate times.
However, the escalation from million, to billion, to trillion to whatever is next has reached just about the end, as a merely rhetorical flim-flam-man device.
Here’s a real easy way to understand the accelerating-into-default situation---
The federal government is spending $4 BILLION of borrowed money every day!
That’s the amount it costs for one AIRCRAFT CARRIER!
Just think---if America were at war, she could make 365 of them a year!
Also, $4,000,000,000 divided by every American employed worker (including, don’t forget, government workers!), about 100,000,000, means that EVERY DAY $40 is spent per worker!
Staggering!
Buy gold, pay off your debt, and cut back on your own superfluous expenses, if you want to weather the ongoing debacle.
We ain’t seen nothing yet!
Also, fundamental always trumps technical analysis, at some point. All bubbles MUST burst.
Ergo, given that a country is basically the sum total of its citizens, well---two thirds of Americans are ALREADY overweight or obese, and just as each day another $4 billion is pissed away, more and more of us eat more and more junk foods, and keep on getting bigger and bigger.
Hey, Americans are PHYSICALLY bubbling up---and, it sure seems unimaginable that a steady state plateau will be reached, and maintained.
What? Will a “new” normal weight scale be reached, so that, say, a man who’s 6 feet tall will weigh 300 pounds, and that will be healthy?
NOT!
If Americans were cars, they’d need a total overhaul of ALL systems, which have been pushed beyond their tolerances. To boot, the “fluids” specific to each system have become saturated with poisons! And, don’t forget all that excess “baggage”, the fat itself, which causes the “engine” to have to work way harder than it would if carrying a light load.
YES—we are PHYSICAL beings, fundamentally, despite all the flashy words and concepts oh so dazzling, and seemingly constantly in our faces.
It’s “change, or die” time!
Actually, with “die” extended to its more enveloping meaning, there is wrenching “change = die” ALREADY happening.
Enjoy it ALL.
William L. Gensert| 8.3.11 @ 1:59PM
Barack Obama, Krugman and Klein, sounds like a rock band, doesn’t it? The first two are men of big brains; Klein is a sycophant who just wants to sit at the table with the other two. Krugman and the president, have always been told all their lives how brilliant they are, didn’t they both nobly win Nobels? Each is too much the genius to ever believe that what they have decided is the answer, is not the answer, no matter what the evidence says.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 2:56PM
“an enduring weakness of Democracies is their lack of accountability…..”
A Universal Truth.
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams.
The 16th amendment decoupled the self-regulating restraint that goes along with the exercise of power at the polls. We see the result of letting people vote for something someone else will pay for…. No one is now responsible for and can be held to account for widespread fiscal buffoonery and the outcome of that.
The 17th amendment finished the job of destroying “states rights” and thus a fundamental check and balance on the Federal government started by Lincoln the 1st. State and Local governments are now redundant minor league recruiters for a central government that has the power to print money to buy votes. The “several states” serve not constitutional purpose any longer. People worship Lincoln without having even a fundamental knowledge of what he started and how the ten years following his death set the stage for what we now find ourselves having to face, the very same kind of centralized power we had a revolution to overcome.
This will not end well. History is clear where Democracies end up. That’s why Franklin said, “a republic if you can keep it”. The differences between a Democracy and a Republic are profound not unlike the difference between a dime store politician and a statesman. There are few of the latter left in this nation. “good men” took the last train out of town a long time ago….and evil runs amok.
A Democracy and a debtor nation are a self-fulfilling prophecy joined at the hip. It won’t be long now. Capital is fleeing too…..
Have you considered| 8.3.11 @ 4:53PM
Thom, you are exactly correct. The beginning of the end was the 16th followed by the 17th amendments.
Those of us who argue for repeal are called right wing extremists verses being correctly described as strict constructionists.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 5:45PM
The way the 14th amendment was ratified was the beginning of the end but most Lincoln the 1st worshipers won’t accept that Lincoln set the example “by force of arms” that brought on the Reconstruction tyranny that gave the 10 southern states that did not ratify it on the first take the choice of either do it or be reduced to Federal occupied territories by force of arms (again). This what MOB rule or what Democracy looks like as John Adams noted. This set the precedent that some animals are more equal than others and the Pigs tend to rule….the enumerated words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned. The Founders understood the way of the Pigs…..
I used the 16th and 17th amendments as a reference point because most Americans are blazingly ignorant of anything that went on in the 18th and 19th centuries beyond the clef note version. An extremist today is anyone with a copy of the Constitution and dares quote it…. It didn’t matter in 1866-67 time period why would it matter today?
Al Adab| 8.3.11 @ 6:29PM
The victorious Union government mandated that states seeking re-admission (and they were mandated to do that as well) needed to ratify the 14th in order to be re-admitted. Even though Lincoln, dead by then, maintained the states were never out of the Union- they were treated as conquered territories. Could the states make a case of ratification under duress?
The other amendments grew from the "Progressive" era of William Jennings Bryan, Theo Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. There were mistakes made then for sure.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 6:44PM
"Could the states make a case of ratification under duress?" Yes but who would enforce a ruling?
More important the 11 “states” voted in the first attempt in 1866 thus by the Constitution they had to be "states" already to meet the ratification requirement. What took place in the second attempt was essentially a threat to "succeed them" by force of arms back into Federal territories. I’ve made this case before that the ultimate outcome of the Civil War was that “Might makes right” and the Constitution went down the toilet as a result. That precedent has been built upon ever since to our collective loss of Liberty. One institution of slavery was replaced by another one over time.
LarryK| 8.3.11 @ 2:57PM
Sorta reminds me what my dad used to say,
"Those that can't do, teach"
In Obama's case,
"Those that can't run a business, go into government. ( And run business into the ground).
Paul from SA| 8.3.11 @ 3:18PM
Keynsian economics will return in about 30 years, coinciding with the next major climate scare (the Ice Age is coming and we must raise taxes).
Pat| 8.3.11 @ 4:01PM
Obama may be from Chicago but he’s a Californian in spirit. Out here on the Coast, among the fruits, nuts and illegal immigrants, politicians borrow money the government needs. Taxes aren’t raised to pay down the enormous debt California’s politicians have incurred on our behalf – we average Californians resent paying even more toward our already outrageous taxes, for some strange reason no one wants to discuss. But our state government workers, Friends of the Local Democrats and lovers of other people’s money refuse to vote for politicians who won’t feed their habit, for another strange reason no one will talk about. What to do in the face of irate voters, needy government employees and dwindling tax revenues – borrow, then borrow some more seems to be the working plan.
Does this so-called “borrow but don’t tax” insanity actually work? Amazingly, it works quite well – but only for the politicians and their loyal supporters. Politicians keep their jobs, bank their modest graft along the way, slowly grow wealthy and then retire after a long and distinguished career in “public service”.
And no one seems to notice what’s happening right under our noses. Media pundits blather on and on about “Tea Party Jihadists” or Republican “terrorists”; words even the pundits don’t believe but feel compelled to write. We frantically look in every directions for someone to blame, but we still can’t grasp Politics 101. And we threaten to “throw the bums out” come next election, content to patiently wait on our remedy while another trillion dollars is borrowed without raising the taxes needed to pay it back. Where will Obama retire after his second term is up? Probably in California, a place where he’ll feel right at home.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.3.11 @ 5:11PM
You guys have to check this out. (Required reading).
http://www.theonion.com/articl.....hoo,21059/
Paul from SA| 8.3.11 @ 5:18PM
Read it. Thanks. That is not at all encouraging.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 5:50PM
Ken, the "other" stories on this site seemed a bit off......too.
??
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 6:11PM
Could it be that the Onion is a parody news site? It goofs on the news of the day. I didn't go to the site but assume its' the same.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 6:06PM
Well, the rich and the corporations are sitting on a ton of money. Let it trickle down, let it trickle down, let it trickle down.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 6:18PM
I'm sitting on a lot of money by the standards of what most individuals have in their bank accounts thus should the government command me to spend my money so you can benefit Mike? Neither corporations nor individuals can just print more money when they need it. Individuals who act like government bring ruin and wide scale chaos to the economy every time that is tried. Spend your own money Mike. Nobody owes you a dime of theirs…..just because you wish it.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 7:07PM
I'm sitting on great deal of money too. In case you haven't noticed, nobody is requiring either of us to spend our money. Printing money? WTF? I spend my money as I choose. You have intentionally missed my point. You are an idiot.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 8:11PM
You made no point at all. You simply invoked a sorry case of sarcasm that has nothing to do with Laffer's theory. Laffer’s theory works in a free market economy. That is not what we are operating under now in case you haven’t noticed why corporations aren’t hiring and spending. If you aren’t spending like you did in 2006-2007 don’t blame Laffer. It is the government that is sucking the life out of future potential earnings and constricting the economy.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 8:52PM
I made three points. You chose to ignore them. The rest of your post is bs.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 9:34PM
"Well, the rich and the corporations are sitting on a ton of money. Let it trickle down, let it trickle down, let it trickle down."
You made no points as all.... except inside that illusion of a brain you think you have.
Paul from SA| 8.3.11 @ 6:22PM
Trickle how? By gov't force? Even if the money is not spent, it is being used for investment (as long it's not held in cash in a private safe).
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 7:10PM
No clown,
This is Laffer's theory.
axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 12:22PM
You are such a bore. God, there is nothing more insipid than a f^*king novice at prog propaganda. You are light years from prime time, but you certainly qualify for a position with the current administration, that is if you're not already in their employ.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 6:11PM
“The central fallacy behind Keynesian economics is that the money for the increased government spending and deficits has to come from somewhere.”
While true where the mechanics of Keynesian economics are concerned, the central fallacy of Keynes is that government can command the economy to do things against its self-interest and ultimately fix things in something as complex as an industrialized economy. The psychological or human nature of economic downturns or upturns for that matter is beyond a command and control approach. I believe Keynes actually understood this at some point.
When you relieve individuals of the responsibility to act in their own self-interest you short circuit the natural tendency of individuals to act to save themselves which is the basis of our entire free enterprise system and how it works. We have tens of millions of able bodied people sitting around day in and day out waiting for “government” to provide. Every time government provides a little “stimulus” for the short run it creates a little bit more permanent subsidy of a portion of the population. Eventually, the subsidized outnumber the producers. A good deal of our population has a lot of Pavlov’s dog in them.
Steve G| 8.3.11 @ 7:17PM
The problem with trickle down economics is that it doesn't trickle down. Rich men become tycoons while working men stay poor working for whatever wages the lords of commerce see fit to pay them. Reaganomics didn't help me at all.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 10:18PM
So-called 'trickle down economics' is a perjorative term for the free market. Call it what you will, the free market, supply side, trickle down, whatever, it is the only economy there is. It is what is. It is what is in operation whether you believe in it or not, and whether you like it or not. You might as well say you do not believe in gravity. It is still in operation regardless, and you ignore it at your peril.
In any case, rich men have no obligation whatsoever to spend one thin dime of their money on you, me, or anybody else. They have no obligation whatsoever to provide jobs. The purpose of any business is to make a profit, NOT to provide a job for anybody.
The business owner also has no obligation whatsoever to pay anybody one thin dime more for their labor than what it is worth to him. If someone doesn't want to work for the offered wage, he can take a hike. We are all free agents in life, free to make the best deal we can for ourselves in the job market. If the business owner can't get people to work for a given wage, guess what, he has to offer more. Voila! The free market determined how much that job is worth, without any government involvement needed,
This is life. This is how things work, it is how they have always worked, and how they always will. And it does not matter if you do not approve of it. It is what it. It is the only game there is. It's the real world. Grow up.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 7:17PM
Nobody is talking about relieving people of individual responsibility. Forget your racist welfare queen driving a Cadillac bequeath to us by Reagan.
Your message to the unemployed. Tough it out. The market will take care of you (maybe or maybe not - if not, just die and leave the rest of us "responsible people" in peace). You are a moral cretin.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 8:29PM
"Nobody is talking about relieving people of individual responsibility"
What do you call paying people to not work at anything at all three years in a row if not relieving them of their individual responsibilities?
Somebody is going to pay for all this debt and it won’t be those you are concerned about. I’ve been unemployed and collected 4 weeks unemployment once in 38 years. I’ve been unemployed and collected nothing for months once. I got loans which I’ve had to pay back in lieu of waiting for government to provide me with the same income level free of charge. There are jobs in this country that millions of illegal aliens now do that those unemployed won’t even consider because unemployment provides a better deal. What you and your mindsets don’t grasp here is that the entire economy is at stake trying to subsidize your sense of compassion for a few.
Children think that way and that’s why we generally don’t let children vote.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 8:56PM
People not working for three years. Unemployment rate 9.2%
Guess you are too f^*king stupid to connect the dots. I won't bother to try.
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 9:32PM
You won't try because you can't understand the most basic Econ 101 concepts and all you know is what DNC talking points you receive and how to call people names you can’t carry on an intelligent conversion with. Contrary to your moron level understanding of economics, this Keynes thing has a history and a very solid record of not doing what it is claimed to do. On top of that we have a decade of data on FDRs attempt at this and it did exactly the same damn thing in spades which naturally kept unemployment very high. By the standards of the United States, our unemployment rate is only 4.2 percent higher than the norm if you believe the BLS stuff. That level of unemployment does not account for the revenue loss we see by about a 30 to 1 ratio. Get that Comrade Mike. That 4.2 percent increase only reflects a fraction of the problem and when your Lord and Savior King Obama spends 478,000 dollars per job saved or created without anything to back that up with, people with an ounce of common sense take notice that the government makes a drunken sailor look like a saint whereas allocation of scarce resources is concerned. As long as your Lord and Savior is in office the “economy” is not coming back and if the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013 for the upper 3% and King ObamaCare tax increases and cost of doing business kicks in, that 9.2 percent rate is going to be the previous low so get a clue here Comrade Mike, tens upon tens of millions of working people who happen to pay the bulk of the tax burden see your Lord and Savior as a “clear and present danger” to both the Republic and their prosperity. These people aren’t going to invest and spent unnecessarily in an environment where your Lord and Savior wants to confiscate even more of the fruits of their labor for as far as the eye can see……. Robbing one citizen to give to another is not an act of compassion but I won’t expect a member of the Jackass Party to understand that biblical concept.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 10:32PM
Everybody has to tough it out. That's life. Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. And people sitting on their arse collecting unemployment for a year, two years, three years is stupid on their part and on our government's part. There are jobs available. It's just that people won't work at a job that pays $300 a week when Uncle Sugar will pay them $300 a week to do nothing. They have been given a powerful incentive not to work.
You are the morally deficient one if you think that those of us still hanging on have any obligation to contribute to others getting free money, free health care. Slavery may be too strong a word for that, but at the very least, it is indentured servitude, which is a form of slavery.
Truth to Power| 8.3.11 @ 7:50PM
You and your stupid friends should call for higher taxes. We won't be joining you. An honest debate will be refreshing. Try doing a little math for your various ideas and then let the middle class know what you have in mind for them. If you are honest you will have to admit that you are declaring war on them. You are nothing but a corrupt thief. The fact is that you and and your stupid friends are unsustainable. Do the country a favor and go away.
jackc| 8.3.11 @ 8:21PM
Obama and his cohorts are playing Robin-hood.
While playing dice with the economy, they are promoting poverty, under the pernicious guise of 'welfare'.
Power corrupts absolutely.
No artificial stimulation will work.
Its unnatural.
No entity under the label of 'government' or 'business' or 'title' can claim infallibility.
Government should be self-sustainable, and minimalist, without crippling regulations and taxes.
Every endeavor should be privatized and decentralized, with enabling opportunities for all - not handouts, or entitlements.
Free markets, with all the imperfections, are the least of all evils, since the markets will naturally arbitrate 'bad' behavior, with adequate decentralization and limited size of business.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 9:01PM
You are such a bore. God, there is nothing more insipid than a f^*king novice at right wing propaganda. You are light years from prime time, but close to qualifying for a job at AmSpec.
Bob Grant| 8.3.11 @ 9:13PM
I've read your drivel and you have gall. I'll just leave it at that.
Now go watch the Al Sharpton Show on MSNBC and learn how it's done. Heh, heh.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 10:42PM
You're a johnny-come-lately to the troll party today, Mike. You 'll have to get up before noon to get a jump on things here.
And why specifically have you come here? You are a true believer in the religious cult of statism. Well, we 'novices' are grounded in reality, so we aren't going to become devotees of your cult. And since you are a fully indoctrinated member of the cult, it is unlikely that we will change your mind. So what is the point of coming here? To force us to see how oh-so-much-smarter-than-thou you are? Or is it simply to disrupt and derail any real exchange of ideas. Go away, troll.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 9:30PM
Oh, fuck you Bob. Heh, heh!
Thom| 8.3.11 @ 9:38PM
Didn't take long to bring out the true "democrat" ass.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 10:45PM
There's the ad hominem attack. It's fun to flush out the leftist trolls! But this time it was too easy.
Mike| 8.3.11 @ 11:35PM
George, Flushed out the leftist troll? I call you a right wing idiot and you flushed out the leftist troll? God, you're dumb. You make Palin look like a member of Mensa. I mean, tell me that you are not really that retarded.
George True| 8.3.11 @ 11:54PM
Verily thou dost protest too much. You've been punked. Troll.
POST American| 8.3.11 @ 10:44PM
-------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------
The Rockefeller/CFR/RIIA/Chatham House
et al 'continuity of agenda' for the sellout and
take out of America and its economy remains
impeccable.
The Globalist RED China sellout and TREASON
op is working like a dream.
---An absolute CHEM-trails, weaponized injections, tainted and
poisoned food, and Rockefeller meds 'assisted' dream.
HAD ENOUGH----------------------------------?
HUAC meets NUREMBERG ------is waiting...
Glein| 8.3.11 @ 11:14PM
The Republican elites and RINOs just handed Obama everything he wanted including the 2012 election and the American Specatator does a dance about the end of Kenesyian economics! Hey guys I don't know what drugs you are smoking at the Amer Spec but the Republicans folded like a circus tent and we are spending 100% of GDP on debt service. Obama got the debt ceiling raise, new taxes in January and major defense cuts. Why should we be celebrating? Pop the champagne and I will meet you all on the bread line in a year!
George True| 8.3.11 @ 11:58PM
I haven't seen any indication that anybody here is celebrating. We agree that the Repubs rolled up like a cheap carpet. It was predicted here that they would. So this article today is rather appropriate, talking about how the massive spending that will now be allowed to continue unabated will visit financial destruction on us all.
Glein| 8.4.11 @ 10:26PM
Mr. True,
I appreciate your position and agree in part. The Amec Spec has also lifted the spin that the Tea Party won this round and that the debate about debt and spending has changed to the Tea Party position. I beg to differ. Both Repubs and Demos have doubled down on debt and spending putting us closer to the edge. Keneysian economics won the day with Republicans willingly going along if not cheering. It is a disgrace and the country will long pay for the failure.
POST American| 8.4.11 @ 4:26AM
------------------BOTTOM LINE P.S.-------------------
Latest from our sources, a whole string of
holding and interrogation facilities are being
constructed all along the US side of the Canada
border.
-------------------WHY there?
There's NO problem of illegals coming down
from the north. The ONLY explanation we
can find is that they're expecting a
mass flight ---out of the US into Canada
sometime in the near future.
Remember too, RED China's getting that
50 square miles of territory south of Boise.
This on top of those bases on BOTH coasts,
the Panama Canal ----connecting with the
NAFTA super highway ----AND that massive
'one of a few' North America/Asia undersea
tunnel project in Pigeon Lake B.C..
Glein| 8.5.11 @ 11:09PM
Please try to make sense!
JeffT| 8.4.11 @ 4:58PM
I will NOT cut Obama any slack. All of this ruination is being done on purpose. His transformation is well under way, to the point we will not recognize our country at the end of his first term. I shudder to think what we'll be if he gets a SECOND term.
Erik Osbun| 8.4.11 @ 5:37PM
This Obama has no command of economics beyond that of the Secretary of a Communist cell.
setpoint| 8.4.11 @ 7:45PM
Obama could have taken a page from Milton Friedman's books and learned more about free market capitalism than any of his college lectures. Friedman was at the U. of Chicago so he would have had no problem if he was the least bit interested. As it is we have a Marxist in the White House committed to the idea of making everyone poor so that people like Joe The Plumber can't buy a larger plumbing business.
Richard Webb | 8.5.11 @ 5:21PM
What evidence do we even have that he was actually AT the University of Chicago. All his records are either falsified or buried, and it is difficult to find anyone who remembers him even though he was supposed to be such a superstar.
Richard Webb | 8.5.11 @ 5:19PM
Thanks for a thorough and well explained refutation of failed Keynes folly. Keep hammering on why politicians genuflect at that bloody altar -- it allows them to buy votes. Never think Obama is inept, he is PURPOSELY destroying the economy to force Americans to accept ONE WORLD CURRENCY.
POST America| 8.6.11 @ 12:01AM
------------------BOTTOM LINE--------------------
Globalism/FREE TRADE (ie monopoly controlled
CAP-IT-ALLL --ism) = EUGENICS = USURY
ALLLLL eventually managed, boiled down and
CON-trolled by 'SO--SHALL---ALLLL--ism'.
Almost all eventually to be standardized and reduced to
sudra status and to be exterminated ---uh, we meant 'eased out'.
IT IS, always was, and cosmically always will be
so.
"-------And David counted the tribes."
-Scripture
----------------YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE
Buck Ofama| 8.6.11 @ 10:09PM
Qualifications for the modern American presidency:
Running a popsicle stand.
Being a "community organizer"
Being a mere adjunct "professor"
Associating with far left political radicals
Being supremely egotistical and arrogant
proreason| 8.7.11 @ 10:45AM
All of the "growth" and more is 100% attributed to federal spending that has done nothing but increase the debt burden on future generations. It is 100% wasted and hasn't stimulated an ant.
We are in a severe recession or depression that has been deliberately hidden by government policies that warp and manipulate existing reporting methods
Obama Rules| 8.8.11 @ 2:55PM
I had forgotten about this web site. I used to comment here quite a lot. Who remembers me?