Do Republicans think it helps to have such radical spokespeople?

[xr7g428]

You have some very good points.

 

However, IMHO, you are too negative when you state "Every body gets a shovel, half of you dig a hole, and the other half fill them in. "

 

Why? Because, IMHO, you underestimate how much 3 decades of Reaganomics has destroyed U.S. infrastructure. It all has to be re-built, and it's going to take years. That's a lot of employment, to replace broken, worn-out infrastructure, not just make-work. And the construction jobs will support all the "background" jobs of suppliers and manufacturers.

 

Time will tell.

 

Edstock, Where do you get the opinion that the infrastructure here is crumbling? Detroit perhaps? The infrastructure in most of the country is actually much better now than in the past. The rust belt, not so much... perhaps this summer you might want to visit the USA, and get a bit further south. Gas is less than $2 a gallon here ( yeah life sucks in the US, LOL!) In particular you need to come to Phoenix. I think you will be shocked and amazed at what you see. I have many Canadian neighbors here and they tell me that the perception of the USA and the reality that they see are vastly different. It is far more likely that my estimation of the infrastructure is accurate, because I actually live here, and travel domestically probably 20 times a year.

 

I was around during the Carter years and I think any one you ask will tell you that the only thing that makes our current situation look good is comparison to the Carter administration. God knows we don't miss 19% home mortgage rates and 20% inflation and 440 days of watching the hostages in Iran, while the US stands by helpless. How odd it was to see that a US corporation can successfully free their employees (EDS) held hostage (in prison no less) and the US military can't fly their own helicopters to a rendezvous point with out being discovered by a bus load of locals, and a mid air collision. As bad as things are right now, I much prefer our present situation to any of that.

[Versa-Tech]

well you listened too me!

so keep up the research, and the nonlistening!

Actually, I'm using you as research. I'm currently writing my dissertation on the topic of psychosis, which is characterized by a disconnection from reality.

 

What's even funnier is that I'm not kidding :yup:

[Edstock]

I think you will be shocked and amazed at what you see. I have many Canadian neighbors here and they tell me that the perception of the USA and the reality that they see are vastly different.

I am really pleased to hear that.

 

But, it's more than roads. The electrical power system needs an overhaul, new reactors, etc. A lot of homes need insulation improvements for heating and cooling — especially cooling as nearly all AC units are electrical.

 

Sure would love to visit Phoenix. Maybe next year.

[grbeck]

Why? Because, IMHO, you underestimate how much 3 decades of Reaganomics has destroyed U.S. infrastructure. It all has to be re-built, and it's going to take years. That's a lot of employment, to replace broken, worn-out infrastructure, not just make-work. And the construction jobs will support all the "background" jobs of suppliers and manufacturers.

 

Time will tell.

 

America's infrastructure today is MUCH better than it was in 1980 (the last year of Carter's term). Roads are smoother and have more capacity; many mass transit systems are cleaner and more efficient than they were back then (particularly the systems in New York City and Philadelphia); the downtowns of many cities are much nicer (I live in a small city - there is no comparison to its condition in 1980 to its condition today); and both water and sewer systems have been expanded.

 

Some cities haven't shared in the improvement. This is attributable to corrupt, inefficient local governments, not Reaganomics.

Edited April 17, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

I am really pleased to hear that.

 

But, it's more than roads. The electrical power system needs an overhaul, new reactors, etc. A lot of homes need insulation improvements for heating and cooling — especially cooling as nearly all AC units are electrical.

 

Sure would love to visit Phoenix. Maybe next year.

 

Utilities are either owned by investors or municipalities. The investor-owned utilities are regulated at the STATE level, not the federal level. They have to set out plans for generation needs. State governments are often reluctant to let them pass on the costs of upgrades to customers. That has nothing to do with Reaganomics.

[Edstock]

Utilities are either owned by investors or municipalities. The investor-owned utilities are regulated at the STATE level, not the federal level. They have to set out plans for generation needs. State governments are often reluctant to let them pass on the costs of upgrades to customers. That has nothing to do with Reaganomics.

Well, as we saw with the gang that brought you ENRON, they sure were able to pass on price increases somehow.

 

Anyway, I sure hope the anti-nuke crowd SFU. The US and Canada need new reactors, whether privately owned or publicly owned.

[DUCKRACER]

At the moment, I own all, or at least a significant part (25% or more) or 6 companies. Collectively I employ about 30 people directly, and probably twice that counting the reps, contributors, and other free lancers that we pay on a monthly basis. We have been hiring. I supported Clinton, and then Obama because I felt that the one party system of Republican rule was out of control. You simply can not make the system fur lined for a single part of the electorate. The religious right turned the Republican party into some kind of hybrid of religion and politics, successfully combining the worst of both.

 

I opposed the Bush deficit. I oppose the Obama deficit even more. It was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now, probably even more so. Taxes do not concern me so much other than the legacy we pass to our children. In a good year, I will make more than $300K, last year I made less than $10K ( don't worry I am fine, I have been a saver for the past 30 years, no debt, lots of cash). I can pass taxes along to customers, but I cannot pass along a net loss. (When Warren Buffet tells you he should be taxed higher, he is telling you that YOU should be taxed higher, any one who owns a successful business knows that taxes are simply a cost, like every other cost, to be passed on to the customer).

 

We all behave based on our perception of reality. My perception is that this is a very bad time to have capital at risk. I see absolutely nothing that tells me that creating jobs, or building a business, is a good idea. My gut instinct is to liquidate now, get the money out of the USA ( I like Canada pretty well) and to sit this one out. If small business is the engine for growth, it should be getting a little fuel. Instead it looks like every single obstacle that can be placed in the way is being set in front of us. And most of America is oblivious to all of this... I am very hopeful that the Obama plan will work, but I have looked for historical evidence, and have found nothing to give me any hope.

 

Two Thirds of the US economy comes from consumer spending. So it seems like the thing to try to stimulate would be consumer spending. The direct approach comes in the form of tax cuts for consumers, (note: real tax cuts go to those who pay taxes; not just the poor folks): not gonna happen. Well then, would it be too much to ask for Obama to encourage the people who still have a job to buy a car, go on vacation, think about remodeling their house? I would not encourage consumers to go into deep debt to these things, just as would not encourage the government to over spend it's own income. But a little can go a long way.

 

Jobs should be the VERY top issue for government. The direct approach would be to give employers tax credits for hiring new employees. A $20K tax credit for hiring a $40K employee would go a long way to solving unemployment. And a tax credit means the company would have to be profitable to ever collect a dime. This subsidizes every company, not just the ones on the governments list of companies too big to fail. The stimulus package creates jobs at a cost of $250K each. That could provide easily tens times as many jobs if they focused directly on the problem, instead of trying to social engineer with money instead.

 

How many cars would Ford sell if there was tax credit of $5000 per car. How about 1 million? It would cost $5 billion, about what it takes GM to stay alive for a month without those sales. But a million car sales would sure do a lot for every dealership, every guy that drives a transport truck, every DMV employee, and every bank, credit union and leasing company that touched the deal.

 

None of this will happen. It would involve putting the money in the hands of the people. Instead we will get make work programs: Every body gets a shovel, half of you dig a hole, and the other half fill them in. Even on the infrastructure projects, when the project is complete, the jobs are gone, and not every one is suited to, or wants to work, construction.

 

You know, I have never owned a company. I have worked for people that own companies. I don't like it when our gov't puts big taxes on compaines. That forces the companies to either cut my pay or lay me off or send jobs to other countries. I have heard the liberal press say that the tea parties were funded by big companies so thay we can get their taxes lowered. I went to my 4-15-09 tea party for free. What liberals are trying to do is make us hate big compaines by telling us that they getting rich at our expanse. DUH!!! I want companies to get rich...so that they will have work for me and possibly a raise.

 

xr7g428 I salute you. After all the crap you have to put up with just to run your business like Eco Naxi environmental regulations Federal regulations, state taxes, state regulations , city taxes taxes, ADA, county taxes, county regulations, OSHA, affirmative action,city taxes, city regulations,workers comp etc etc etc, it amazes me how you do it. Thank you sir/madame. You indeed have a talent, maybe several talents. I wish you the best of success.

Edited April 17, 2009 by DUCKRACER

[Edstock]

I have heard the liberal press say that the tea parties were funded by big companies so thay we can get their taxes lowered.

Now you can read about it, instead of hear about it.

 

http://24ahead.com/tea-parties-astroturfed...freedomworks-in

 

What hasn’t been reported until now is evidence linking Santelli’s “tea party” rant with some very familiar names in the Republican rightwing machine, from PR operatives who specialize in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns (called “astroturfing”) to bigwig politicians and notorious billionaire funders. As veteran Russia reporters, both of us spent years watching the Kremlin use fake grassroots movements to influence and control the political landscape. To us, the uncanny speed and direction the movement took and the players involved in promoting it had a strangely forced quality to it. If it seemed scripted, that's because it was.

 

...his February 19th call for a “Chicago Tea Party” was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, one in which Santelli served as a frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for the some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and

Reason Magazine to

FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred

Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.

 

...ChicagoTeaParty.com was just one part of a larger network of Republican sleeper-cell-blogs set up over the course of the past few months, all of them tied to a shady rightwing advocacy group coincidentally named the “Sam Adams Alliance,” whose backers have until now been kept hidden from public. Cached google records that we discovered show that the Sam Adams Alliance took pains to scrub its deep links to the Koch family money as well as the fake-grassroots “tea party” protests going on today. All of these roads ultimately lead back to a more notorious rightwing advocacy group, FreedomWorks, a powerful PR organization headed by former Republican House Majority leader Dick Armey and funded by Koch money.

 

...But it’s the Alliance’s scrubbing of their link to Koch that is most telling. A cached page, erased on February 16, just three days before Santelli’s rant, shows that the Alliance also wanted to cover up its ties to the Koch family. The missing link was an announcement that students interested in applying for internships to the Sam Adams Alliance could also apply through the “Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program” through the Institute for Humane Studies, a Koch-funded rightwing institute designed to scout and nurture future leaders of corporate libertarian ideology. The top two board directors at the Sam Adams Alliance include two figures with deep ties to Koch-funded programs: Eric O’Keefe, who previously served in Koch’s Institute for Humane Studies and the Club For Growth; and Joseph Lehman, a former communications VP at Koch’s Cato Institute...

 

And now you know. Astro Turf.

[methos]

Not true. According to a study conducted by the Heritage Foundation published in January 2007:

 

What do you mean it's not true? It's a given, and I am not going to waste my time finding a link, you can if you want feel free. The end result of Reagan's supply side theory was an actual decline on investment; hence the supply side by 0.9%. Look for any macroeconomic textbook or Google it. There is a ton of papers on its failure. Like I said, it's the reason they dropped the term.

 

 

- The tax cuts have not substantially reduced cur­rent tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre–tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre–tax cut baseline in 2006;

 

- The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the "tax cuts for the rich";

 

- Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and

 

- The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.

 

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts

 

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

 

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

 

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

 

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

 

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

 

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

 

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

 

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

 

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

 

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

 

Here's a link to the article, which provides further detail on the facts correcting the myths, and also cites sources, including the Congressional Budget Office and the IRS.

 

 

 

Expansionary policies that result in increased taxes will scare off investment - especially in an environment in which policy makers attempt to micromanage the economy and when no one knows what those policy makers will do next. This approach seems quite similar to the economic environment during the horribly depressed 1930s, when companies and investors were fearful of new taxes and regulations, and therefore didn't invest, and didn't create new jobs.

 

I would be curious to learn which economists (other that Paul Krugman and Robert Reich - and maybe some of the economic advisors on the Obama team) you are referring to, re: "I hardly know of any economists that would suggest otherwise." I get the impression that you must know a lot of economists!

 

I am not an economist, but Economics 101 would suggest that the mere idea of Obama's budget proposals - which would expand the public debt to over $9 trillion over the next ten years - is enough to scare the hell out of anyone considering investing in anything associated with the United States for the foreseeable future. It scares people because of the threat of increased taxes and/or monetizing the debt - printing money, or as the Fed calls it: "Quantitative Easing."

 

Television coverage of yesterday's tax-day protests showed a sign carried by a little kid that said it most succinctly: I AM 12 YEARS OLD AND $11 TRILLION IN DEBT.

 

You can advocate for an expansionary policy that for the intermediate term will scare off investment and therefore jobs, and for the long term will cripple the buying power of the Dollar, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you talk to your grandchildren about your advocacy of such policies, when they are the ones who must pay for it.

 

 

You're kidding right? Please, either you're one fucking idiot or you think I am. Of course revenue is going to increase, for pete's sake, he doubled the National Debt, spent more money than any president since FDR. Who had to employ an expansionary fiscal policy to grow the economy again. The end result of course is going to be more revenue, but not nearly enough to offset his reckless spending. He had a choice Obama does not.

 

I am not even going to waste my time looking for polling on economists who don't think expansionary fiscal policy is not the answer, there are very few - that I know.

[Versa-Tech]

What do you mean it's not true? It's a given...

Sounds like someone doesn't have any facts to back up his bullsh*t... again.

 

You're kidding right? Please, either you're one fucking idiot or you think I am. Of course revenue is going to increase, for pete's sake, he doubled the National Debt, spent more money than any president since FDR. Who had to employ an expansionary fiscal policy to grow the economy again. The end result of course is going to be more revenue, but not nearly enough to offset his reckless spending. He had a choice Obama does not.

 

I am not even going to waste my time looking for polling on economists who don't think expansionary fiscal policy is not the answer, there are very few - that I know.

Once again, someone doesn't have any facts to back up his bullsh*t claims... just a bunch of emotionally charged rants with absolutely no standing. People here respect arguments based on facts and logic, not unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric.

 

Oh, and if you don't stop the personal attacks you're going to find yourself banned. Nick already warned you once.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Versa-Tech

[DUCKRACER]

Now you can read about it, instead of hear about it.

 

http://24ahead.com/tea-parties-astroturfed...freedomworks-in

 

 

 

And now you know. Astro Turf.

 

I did it. I went to one. You didn't. There were all kinds of tea parties going on even before 4-15. Most were just local people organizing. Do your self a favor and watch just one episode of the O'Rielly factor and find out what is really happening on the other side. You are only getting 1/2 of the information on this.

[methos]

Sounds like someone doesn't have any facts to back up his bullsh*t... again.

 

Once again, someone doesn't have any facts to back up his bullsh*t claims... just a bunch of emotionally charged rants with absolutely no standing. People here respect arguments based on facts and logic, not unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric.

 

Oh, and if you don't stop the personal attacks you're going to find yourself banned. Nick already warned you once.

 

Facts' I didn't think I needed to offer any. I thought everyone knew it. Like I said it's in every macroeconomics textbook.

 

As far as the warning - bite me bitch.

[Versa-Tech]

Facts' I didn't think I needed to offer any. I thought everyone knew it. Like I said it's in every macroeconomics textbook.

 

As far as the warning - bite me bitch.

You've never read a macroeconomics book... obviously.

[fmccap]

Now you can read about it, instead of hear about it.

 

http://24ahead.com/tea-parties-astroturfed...freedomworks-in

 

 

 

And now you know. Astro Turf.

Excuse me but these actually started in late 2007 with Ron Paul. I know because I am a long time supporter. He brought in people from all parties that were tired of government.

 

 

Tax Protest Origins: Ron Paul Supporters Make Case On "Rachel Maddow" (VIDEO)

We thus rule in favor of the Ron Paul origin story.

[suv_guy_19]

He brought in people from all parties that were tired of government.

 

 

See, I still don't get how we're supposed to function properly without it.

[V8 Ford]

I am not even going to waste my time looking for polling on economists who don't think expansionary fiscal policy is not the answer, there are very few - that I know.

I'm sure you'll find no shortage of economists that will suggest expansionary financial policy, but they'll be a 50-50 division on recommending spending as that policy or recommending that you avoid spending like the plague.

[fmccap]

See, I still don't get how we're supposed to function properly without it.

Nobody is saying without it, just much smaller.

[Versa-Tech]

See, I still don't get how we're supposed to function properly without it.

You misunderstand. Our government is corrupt and prey on the weak minded. They must either change their ways or be replaced. We hope to influence the next elections through civil disobedience. In any case, the federal government must be downsized substantially.

[Roadtrip]

What do you mean it's not true? It's a given, and I am not going to waste my time finding a link, . . .

 

OK. Fine with me, but this seems like a strange way to win debating points.

 

The end result of Reagan's supply side theory was an actual decline on investment; hence the supply side by 0.9%. Look for any macroeconomic textbook or Google it. There is a ton of papers on its failure. Like I said, it's the reason they dropped the term.

 

First, supply-side economic theory was not a concoction of Reagan or his advisors. According to Raymond Keating, chief economist for The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, ". . . the seeds of supply-side thought were firmly planted by such classical economists as Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say, with strands of supply-side ideas dating back literally thousands of years. [1]

 

Second, wish as you might, but there was no decline in investment as a result of Reagan's policies. The S&P 500 index can be used as a gauge for investment, since it reflects 75 percent of all U.S. stock market capitalization, as well as the 500 largest U.S. companies in the 10 most important sectors in the U.S. economy - and capitalization of equities in these companies represents ownership and therefore investment in them. In 1989, the year Reagan left office, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 was $2.326 trillion; today, the market cap of the S&P 500 is $7.555 trillion (in constant dollars). That's an increase in market capitalization - investment - of 325 percent over the past 30 years. [2] Standard & Poor's does not provide any market cap data pre-1989, but it's reasonable to assume that market capitalization of S&P 500 companies also grew significantly during Reagan's term of office, especially since he inherited a nasty recession.

 

Third, you suggested that I look through any macroeconomics textbook, so I dusted off the only macroecomonics textbook in my library (referenced below), and it didn't really have anything negative to say about supply-side economic theory. The author descibes supply-side theory as just another name for the long-run framework with which economists use to analyze the economy (and suggest policy), as opposed to the short-run framework, which addresses the demand side of the economy. To quote: "Because supply is so important in the long run, policies that affect production—such as incentives that promote work, capital accumulation, and technological change—are key." (p. 153.). Sounds pretty good to me! On the other hand, demand-side economists (and policy makers who listen to them) like to use monetary and fiscal tools to manipulate the economy in the short term. Here's a longer quote from the author regarding demand-side (Keynesian) policy:

 

The macro intervention tools—monetary and fiscal policy—are tools governments use on the aggregate demand side of the economy to deal with recessions, inflation, and unemployment. . . .

 

Economists debate the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy. Some favor intervention; some don’t. While the problems of a recession are serious, so too are the problems with government policies. The debate among economists is about whether the cure (intervention) is worse than the disease.

 

Even if the non-interventionist economists were to convince all other economists that government should not intervene with monetary and fiscal policy, the odds are that government would still intervene. As I’ve said before, the reality is that politicians make policy; they listen to economists only when they want to. And whenever the economy faces the threat of a recession, politicians’ focus inevitably changes from long-run supply issues and growth to short-run demand issues and stabilization.

 

Consider September 2001. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. government turned its attention away from concern about inflation, growth, and supply-side policies to the aggregate

demand-side policies—both monetary and fiscal policy—that would keep the economy from going into a deep recession. It worked, at least temporarily, and the recession that followed the attacks was the shortest on record. (p. 207). [3]

 

In other words, George W. Bush, like all presidents post-Calvin Coolidge (exception: Ronald Reagan), was an adherent to demand-side policies - a.k.a. Keynseianism - thus debunking the myth of Bush as a laissez-faire capitalist.

 

Fourth, let's get back to Reagan for a minute. You mentioned that "there is a ton of papers on [supply-side] failure." I Googled it, as per your suggestion, and found this little gem on the first page of returns:

 

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

 

- Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

 

- Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

 

- Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

 

- The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.[4]

 

This is just one paper (which you can access below). You claim that there is a "ton" of papers that describe supply-side failure. I'm still waiting for the document dump. . .

 

Fifth: No one has dropped the phrase "supply-side economic theory," and the theory is not dead - far from it. One only needs to tune in to Larry Kudlow on Bubblevision at 7:00 p.m. ET weekdays to get a full analysis of the macroeconomy from a supply-side perspective - along with opposing views and debates. From an economic standpoint, I find it entertaining and educational.

 

You're kidding right? Please, either you're one fucking idiot or you think I am.

 

I have been accused of being an idiot more times than I care to remember. I never called you one, though, nor did I mean to imply that you are one.

 

But to answer your question: No, I wasn't kidding. If you want to make outrageous claims based on (as yet) questionable or zero data, then go for it. From my view, you are publishing incorrect information on a publicly accessible Web site, and I feel an obligation to set the record straight. If you think I'm wrong, then prove it by presenting some facts.

 

Of course revenue is going to increase, for pete's sake

 

Yep, when Bush cut taxes, tax revenue increased, which can arguably be attributed to the Laffer-curve effect. If you are so enamored of expansionary policies (which will require increased tax revenues long into the future), then I have to wonder why would you be so opposed to long-term tax-reduction policies (a supply-side measure) that would help to increase tax revenues over the long term and pay for the government programs (expansionary policies) that you support.

 

[bush] doubled the National Debt, spent more money than any president since FDR. Who had to employ an expansionary fiscal policy to grow the economy again. The end result of course is going to be more revenue, but not nearly enough to offset his reckless spending. He had a choice Obama does not.

 

Obama has a choice, alright. His budget proposals far outweigh the deficits incurred during the Bush Admiistration. You utterly ignored what I had to say in my previous post about our country having a $9 trillion budget deficit under Obama's budget proposals. Obama has a "choice," almost like you have a say over spending in your own household, except the big difference is you are spending your own money, where Obama is not only spending other peoples' money, but he's spending other peoples' grandchildrens' money.

 

Oh, and in case you didn't know it, when you talk about "expansionary fiscal policy," you sound like George W. Bush.

 

I am not even going to waste my time looking for polling on economists who don't think expansionary fiscal policy is not the answer, there are very few - that I know.

 

OK. No problem. I remain unconvinced.

 

References:

 

[1] Keating, R. J. (1995, June). A walk on the supply side. The Freeman Ideas on Liberty. Retrieved from: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/a...he-supply-side/

 

[2] Standard & Poor's.com. (2009). S&P 500 Index Data, sortable by date. Retrieved from: http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/si...,0,0,0,0,0.html

 

[3] Colander, D. (2004) Macroeconomics (5th ed.). Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Burr Ridge, IL

 

[4] Nickason, W. A., & Moore, S. M. (1996, October 22). Supply-side tax cuts and the truth about the Reagan economic record. The Cato Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

[joihan777]

Oh, and the name calling they do....is beyond banter.

 

I listen to Rush every once in a while, but I don't recall him ever calling anyone names. In fact, some conservatives think Rush is too soft.

 

There is one thing he does: He pays a third-party company to fact check everthing he says on the air. He hovers between 97-99% accurate with a majority of his errors related to sports, not politics.

 

I have yet to hear a lib come on the air and prove him wrong, and he has a standing invitation. He's even invited Obama for a debate (after Obama tried to publicly demonize him).

 

Rush & Sean don't divide people either. They simply reverberate and amplify conservative thinking & ideals. That is something that cannot be found in mainstream media, thus they have a niche market in an otherwise liberal biased industry. How can NOT buying the democrat speil be considered devisive? Only a dem can truly believe that. For the rest of us it isn't devisive, it's called logic.

 

BTW- Bill O'Reilly is pretty good watching too. He nails 'em as he sees them (just ask Barney)!

Edited April 18, 2009 by joihan777

[suv_guy_19]

I have yet to hear a lib come on the air and prove him wrong

 

He usually just cuts them off....and if you agree with him, you would have a hard time seeing them as having won....sometimes the right is left...sometimes the left is right...how you see it is a matter of perspective.

 

 

Rush & Sean don't divide people either.

 

Yes, they do.

[V8 Ford]

In other words, George W. Bush, like all presidents post-Calvin Coolidge (exception: Ronald Reagan), was an adherent to demand-side policies - a.k.a. Keynseianism - thus debunking the myth of Bush as a laissez-faire capitalist.

That's not entirely true.

 

a. The 2001 tax cuts were a "supply side policy", aimed at increasing long term growth, not stimulating short term output. They had very little immediate impact, and were criticized by democrats at the time because of this- the dems wanted a short term stimulus like what was handed out a couple month back. In hind sight, the recession bottomed out before the tax bill was passed, so a stimulus package would have been the wrong policy.

 

b. Keynesian policy isn't as simple as demand side policy. Strictly speaking, the goal is economic stabilization, but Keynesian policy is very specific in the prescription of fiscal policy (spending) instead of monetary policy (Fed interest rates). Keynes's foil, Milton Friedman, holds that stabilization policy should be monetary rather than fiscal. Conservatives tend to follow Friedman, and use monetary policy as stabilization; it holds works better for long term growth. Democrats tend to follow Keynes, spending as stabilization fits better with their government programs.

Edited April 18, 2009 by V8 Ford

[stephenhawkings]

OK. Fine with me, but this seems like a strange way to win debating points.

 

 

 

First, supply-side economic theory was not a concoction of Reagan or his advisors. According to Raymond Keating, chief economist for The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, ". . . the seeds of supply-side thought were firmly planted by such classical economists as Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say, with strands of supply-side ideas dating back literally thousands of years. [1]

 

Second, wish as you might, but there was no decline in investment as a result of Reagan's policies. The S&P 500 index can be used as a gauge for investment, since it reflects 75 percent of all U.S. stock market capitalization, as well as the 500 largest U.S. companies in the 10 most important sectors in the U.S. economy - and capitalization of equities in these companies represents ownership and therefore investment in them. In 1989, the year Reagan left office, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 was $2.326 trillion; today, the market cap of the S&P 500 is $7.555 trillion (in constant dollars). That's an increase in market capitalization - investment - of 325 percent over the past 30 years. [2] Standard & Poor's does not provide any market cap data pre-1989, but it's reasonable to assume that market capitalization of S&P 500 companies also grew significantly during Reagan's term of office, especially since he inherited a nasty recession.

 

Third, you suggested that I look through any macroeconomics textbook, so I dusted off the only macroecomonics textbook in my library (referenced below), and it didn't really have anything negative to say about supply-side economic theory. The author descibes supply-side theory as just another name for the long-run framework with which economists use to analyze the economy (and suggest policy), as opposed to the short-run framework, which addresses the demand side of the economy. To quote: "Because supply is so important in the long run, policies that affect production—such as incentives that promote work, capital accumulation, and technological change—are key." (p. 153.). Sounds pretty good to me! On the other hand, demand-side economists (and policy makers who listen to them) like to use monetary and fiscal tools to manipulate the economy in the short term. Here's a longer quote from the author regarding demand-side (Keynesian) policy:

 

The macro intervention tools—monetary and fiscal policy—are tools governments use on the aggregate demand side of the economy to deal with recessions, inflation, and unemployment. . . .

 

Economists debate the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy. Some favor intervention; some don’t. While the problems of a recession are serious, so too are the problems with government policies. The debate among economists is about whether the cure (intervention) is worse than the disease.

 

Even if the non-interventionist economists were to convince all other economists that government should not intervene with monetary and fiscal policy, the odds are that government would still intervene. As I’ve said before, the reality is that politicians make policy; they listen to economists only when they want to. And whenever the economy faces the threat of a recession, politicians’ focus inevitably changes from long-run supply issues and growth to short-run demand issues and stabilization.

 

Consider September 2001. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. government turned its attention away from concern about inflation, growth, and supply-side policies to the aggregate

demand-side policies—both monetary and fiscal policy—that would keep the economy from going into a deep recession. It worked, at least temporarily, and the recession that followed the attacks was the shortest on record. (p. 207). [3]

 

In other words, George W. Bush, like all presidents post-Calvin Coolidge (exception: Ronald Reagan), was an adherent to demand-side policies - a.k.a. Keynseianism - thus debunking the myth of Bush as a laissez-faire capitalist.

 

Fourth, let's get back to Reagan for a minute. You mentioned that "there is a ton of papers on [supply-side] failure." I Googled it, as per your suggestion, and found this little gem on the first page of returns:

 

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

 

- Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

 

- Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

 

- Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

 

- The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.[4]

 

This is just one paper (which you can access below). You claim that there is a "ton" of papers that describe supply-side failure. I'm still waiting for the document dump. . .

 

Fifth: No one has dropped the phrase "supply-side economic theory," and the theory is not dead - far from it. One only needs to tune in to Larry Kudlow on Bubblevision at 7:00 p.m. ET weekdays to get a full analysis of the macroeconomy from a supply-side perspective - along with opposing views and debates. From an economic standpoint, I find it entertaining and educational.

 

 

 

I have been accused of being an idiot more times than I care to remember. I never called you one, though, nor did I mean to imply that you are one.

 

But to answer your question: No, I wasn't kidding. If you want to make outrageous claims based on (as yet) questionable or zero data, then go for it. From my view, you are publishing incorrect information on a publicly accessible Web site, and I feel an obligation to set the record straight. If you think I'm wrong, then prove it by presenting some facts.

 

 

 

Yep, when Bush cut taxes, tax revenue increased, which can arguably be attributed to the Laffer-curve effect. If you are so enamored of expansionary policies (which will require increased tax revenues long into the future), then I have to wonder why would you be so opposed to long-term tax-reduction policies (a supply-side measure) that would help to increase tax revenues over the long term and pay for the government programs (expansionary policies) that you support.

 

 

 

Obama has a choice, alright. His budget proposals far outweigh the deficits incurred during the Bush Admiistration. You utterly ignored what I had to say in my previous post about our country having a $9 trillion budget deficit under Obama's budget proposals. Obama has a "choice," almost like you have a say over spending in your own household, except the big difference is you are spending your own money, where Obama is not only spending other peoples' money, but he's spending other peoples' grandchildrens' money.

 

Oh, and in case you didn't know it, when you talk about "expansionary fiscal policy," you sound like George W. Bush.

 

 

 

OK. No problem. I remain unconvinced.

 

References:

 

[1] Keating, R. J. (1995, June). A walk on the supply side. The Freeman Ideas on Liberty. Retrieved from: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/a...he-supply-side/

 

[2] Standard & Poor's.com. (2009). S&P 500 Index Data, sortable by date. Retrieved from: http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/si...,0,0,0,0,0.html

 

[3] Colander, D. (2004) Macroeconomics (5th ed.). Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Burr Ridge, IL

 

[4] Nickason, W. A., & Moore, S. M. (1996, October 22). Supply-side tax cuts and the truth about the Reagan economic record. The Cato Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

i dont know what i love more, republicans in a panic mode, kind of like a cocroach when you turn the light on, that reach back to the heyday of regan, as if there isn't a better republican president. eisenhower, or nixon, where just as good if not better. that is assuming there are any good politicans! perhaps it is time for one of the perties to die off, and be replaced, maybe the republicans aren't conservative, in the true sense of the word, not the angry child sense, and they should be replaced by the libertarians. but i doubt that will happen.

or replying to an idiotically long piece that we brushed over in about 15 minutes in my first ecocn class.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Oh, and the name calling they do....is beyond banter.

 

Who's they?

 

Are you talking about that Janene Garofalo, have you heard her comments?

 

What about those douchebags on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS. and the rest of the lefties in the news media. Oh, I forgot. You live in Canada so you get state sponsered CBC bullshit which is just as useless as the forementioned media mucus.

 

What a stupid topic this truly is. Radical spokespeople? Define radical for me.

[suv_guy_19]

Oh, I forgot. You live in Canada so you get state sponsored CBC bullshit which is just as useless as the aforementioned media mucus.

 

Canada's public broadcaster (which should get more than the $1.1B that it does) is an excellent services that is completely free from government control. It's much like the majority of public broadcasters around the world even if it's funding formula is a little different. It isn't our only broadcaster either.

 

As for CNN, I usually think they do a good job, but they do tend to sensationalize (though that reporter who confronted the protester at the tea party should be fired as far as I'm concerned)....MSNBC and FOX are a different matter altogether.

 

Radical spokespeople? Define radical for me.

 

People who insult and berate others that don't agree with them. People that are completely unwilling to bend...even a little...people who almost never allow dissenting opinions (Limbaugh and Levin for example), people who think that the other side is wrong no matter what it does, and people who think the other side is evil.