Crazy Train

[pocketfullofshells]

According to Keynesian economics, there is no distinction between government spending for product X and government spending for product Y. Both are supposed to create "stimulus", and I think given the evidence lately, we can agree it has failed.

I don't quite see how you can argue legitimately that war spending has no effect on jobs, but spending on education does... that makes no sense.



Your example backs up my point. It is irrelevant what the money is spent on, because that spending is supposed to create stimulus.

I ask you this, with all of the spending...where is the stimulus? If you can agree it has been a failure, then Keynesian economics seems to have been disproved, and we need to change courses... something we do not seem to be doing.

War spending can Create Jobs...when its like WWII...When we had to put millions of Americans to work to build the new planes and tanks...this war...we dropped million dollar bombs, and Fuel costs, and Hi tech gear...but not alot of that money went back into the Econ...Now the money spend to bail out GM and Chrysler...that went right into American Jobs and the American Econ....not into Iraq's.

Not all Spending is =, regardless of Keynesian economics. What alot of Econ people said was not that we should not be spending it..but that it was two little....Now if we thought we could jump start the econ with Spending on Blackwater..

Also a little crazy idea like not lowering taxes when your fighting 2 wars that are costing billions.....or was the War spending going to offset by making the econ so great? wait I recall..Iraq was going to pay for itself....right....

 

[BigRob]

War spending can Create Jobs...when its like WWII...When we had to put millions of Americans to work to build the new planes and tanks...this war...we dropped million dollar bombs, and Fuel costs, and Hi tech gear...but not alot of that money went back into the Econ...Now the money spend to bail out GM and Chrysler...that went right into American Jobs and the American Econ....not into Iraq's.

Who built the bombs? Who built the high tech gear? Who did we buy the fuel from? Chevron? Exxon? Shell? You telling me those companies don't put money into the American economy?

Not all Spending is =, regardless of Keynesian economics.

Well, according to the theory, it is.

What alot of Econ people said was not that we should not be spending it..but that it was two little....Now if we thought we could jump start the econ with Spending on Blackwater..

Too little? To honestly make that argument, (and believe all the rhetoric about the multiplier effect that supposedly occurred) you have to believe that the economy was going to contract something like 10% before the stimulus. There are very few in the mainstream making that argument.

Also a little crazy idea like not lowering taxes when your fighting 2 wars that are costing billions....

That is interesting since Obama came in and "cut taxes for 95%" of the country while those wars are still ongoing.

.or was the War spending going to offset by making the econ so great? wait I recall..Iraq was going to pay for itself....right....

What I know is that we are trillions more in debt that we were during the last eight years, and no one has any clue how to get us out of that situation... except the White House who apparently thinks the cure is to "spend more."

 

[orogenicman]

"...and homosexual marriage isn't in all 57 states."

Erm, there are 57 states?

 

[GenSeneca]

"...and homosexual marriage isn't in all 57 states."

Erm, there are 57 states?

I know, rediculous right? Everybody knows there are 58 states... Duh!

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." - Obama

 

[Pandora]

I know, rediculous right? Everybody knows there are 58 states... Duh!

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." - Obama

hahah thank you for the correction

yes 58

but.... really isn't there 60 because he said not including Alaska and Hawaii

 

[Gipper]

its coming...thanks to foolish liberal economic policies...

All this suffering will have a silver lining (I hope and pray)...the death of liberalism.

Obama and the Democrats argue that extending the Bush tax rates would "cost" the government revenue needed to cut the federal deficit. But the deficit is primarily their doing and is projected to average in excess of $1 trillion annually for the next decade. The way to reduce deficits is to cut federal spending and leave the Bush tax rates in place to generate additional government revenue. As Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster points out, when they were implemented, the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues by sparking new growth in the economy. "The 2008-2009 recession reduced tax receipts dramatically once again, yet Obama administration figures indicate that even absent any tax increases federal receipts would reach $3.7 trillion by 2016, more than a trillion dollars above their previous highs," Foster said.

As detailed in this space on Friday, Obama and congressional Democrats are also moving to enact onerous new tax increases on the energy industry. Those increases will come on top of the job-killing Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium they've already imposed on the industry, which is projected to cost another 23,000 energy jobs.

So, hold on to your hats, folks, because it looks like Great Recession, Round Two is headed this way.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...is-coming-617734-101660483.html#ixzz0y0lgTOEl

 

[Pandora]

its coming...thanks to foolish liberal economic policies...

All this suffering will have a silver lining (I hope and pray)...the death of liberalism.

You know, I do not think it wlil be the death of liberalism, Its been around for ages and at best will subside a while.

I am not even sure I believe it will subside a while though if we get a republican house in November.

Things are bad and getting worse but not enough people are suffering to a great degree yet. If November is a republican sweep and they stop health care in its tracks and the other things that are hurting us, not enough people will have really felt it. Stuff like that fades out of memory if one doesn't feel it deeply.

I almost think it would be better to let egg head have two terms with control of the house and senate and let him drive us as deep as he can. At that point I think it would be 40 years or more before enough of us would be stupid enough to let them have control again.

 

[Gipper]

The 1994 elections gave Republican control of both the House and Senate. They held a majority for a decade. The 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That's a 60 percent increase in federal spending, closely matching the profligacy of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...blicans-save-us--101015494.html#ixzz0zbXtDYs9

And libs and independents think W was a conservative.

On Monday President Barrack Obama released the $3.8 trillion budget that will be forwarded to Congress for review and consideration. The final budget will be enacted on October 1, and projects a hefty $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010 that will be reduced to $1.27 trillion on 2011 and approximately $700 billion in 2012. The plan outlines $1.2 trillion in reductions over a ten-year period.
http://www.onlineforextrading.com/articles/2011-federal-budget

So, W increased federal spending 60% during his progressive disastrous reign and BO's budget for 2011 is nearly a 30% increase over W's last outlandish budget. Crazy Train keeps on rolling...

But hey, just tax the rich...thinks a fool.

 

[PLC1]

And libs and independents think W was a conservative.

Can you find one post anywhere on this forum saying that Bush was a conservative?

I know you consider me to be a "liberal", and I consistently referred to our former pres as a liberal Republican.

 

[GenSeneca]

Can you find one post anywhere on this forum saying that Bush was a conservative?

Just one? I'll toss two in there...

I agree that the President is Conservative

Hate to break it to you. Bush is conservative. Just because he's an eff-up doesn't mean he isn't a conservative.

He sure ain't no liberal.

Honestly was shocked to see Andy call Bush a Conservative... I know Shaman, Popeye and Top Gun have all called Bush a Conservative many times but those were the first two hits I got on the search.

 

[PLC1]

Just one? I'll toss two in there...





Honestly was shocked to see Andy call Bush a Conservative... I know Shaman, Popeye and Top Gun have all called Bush a Conservative many times but those were the first two hits I got on the search.

I should have known better. All kinds of crazy things have been posted on this forum.

Wasn't Andy a self described conservative?

Whatever happened to Andy, Popeye, and Top Gun? We lost a lot of good members when the site was attacked by viruses.