Reply With Quote
How misleading and dishonest. Bush was the biggest deficit dove ever, until Obama.
Bush was a deficit hawk compared to Obama.
How misleading and dishonest. Bush was the biggest deficit dove ever, until Obama.
This is the one good thing about congress not being able to get done. Now they can't renew the stupid Bush tax cuts for people making 250+k.
Last edited by DMX7; 02-03-2010 at 05:08 AM.
Also interesting that this article has been retracted by Reuters... maybe because...
Obama's 2011 budget calls for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for individuals making $200,000 or less and couples making $250,000 and for the AMT patch to be extended at its 2009 parameters through 2020.
We really need to put the screws to people that hire other people. It's good for job growth.
I missed the part where you quoted politicians talking about "miraculous multipliers"... I did see you ranting about spending multipliers. I was under the impression you didn't think they existed or worked.
BTW, Spending Multipliers are not merely a construct of Keynes economics.
Last edited by ElNono; 02-03-2010 at 12:26 PM.
Dems didn't vote for budgets to pay for the war because the wars were not budgeted. They did approve supplemental spending packages which is how the wars were funded back then.
You're missing the point though... I'm not defending the democrats. But you simply can't defend Bush's socialist spending spree either.
Talk about revisionist history. Bush ran the largest deficit of any president before him. Democrat or Republican. Some hawk he was.
Bush was horrible - but compared to Obama, he was a deficit hawk.
Even if your comment was intended as a witticism, it could hardly be more misleading. It is true in no objective sense that Bush was a deficit hawk.
Tendentious comparisons, lame appeals to authority, fiat reasoning, name-calling, cir locution, talking down to posters, flat out incoherence twinned with overbearing arrogance -- it sure is impressive what you bring to the table, mogrovejo.
Keep up the good work.
I think I even used the word miraculously. I think it's obvious multipliers exist by definition, the contention is if and when they actually promote growth.
Keynes was a man of his time. What worries me are politicians and economists who seem to believe we're still in 1936. Btw, Keynes wasn't even the pioneer of spending multipliers.
And the idea that spending multipliers are virtuous and promote long-run economic grown (or stuff like the Hansen-Samuelson model) is essentially Keynesian and supported by neo-Keynesians.
I think you have problems reading and/or comprehending. This is what I wrote:
I missed the part where you quoted politicians talking about "miraculous multipliers".
I asked quotes of politicians because eventually they are the ones that ins ute the economic model we're using (Keynesian or not). I don't think anybody claimed that multipliers work, or factually disproved that they do not work. Much less that they're miraculous. So I was wondering who you were specifically ing about.
Well, the Keynes model has certainly been applied before and successfully spurted growth, not merely in the US, but in other countries as well, such as Japan or Brazil. It's a proven model in the real world. It's efficiency is certainly debatable, and I've criticized before the fact that most governments that applied it, did so only halfway, neglecting to pay off debt accrued once the economy was growing again.
It's easy to criticize Keynes economics, but critics don't really have or offer any other real world tested alternative to spur growth in a depression/recession. Monetarism only takes you as far as you can adjust the interest rates. Once they hit virtually zero, there's no other button to push.
Really?? That's... extraordinary , to say the least. You don't think anybody claimed that the multiplier mechanism works? I'm not even sure what to say. What's your basic bibliography on the multiplier-accelerator model and growth?
ing? I was mocking the voodoo economics and everybody who believes in that spending multipliers exceed one. You can include every politician that voted for the stimulus package in that one. If I get really specific, I'd need to cite thousands of politicians.
Challenging the critics of the neo-Keynesian model to offer an alternative to spur growth via government intervention is a "when have you stopped beating your wife?" trick.Well, the Keynes model has certainly been applied before and successfully spurted growth, not merely in the US, but in other countries as well, such as Japan or Brazil. It's a proven model in the real world. It's efficiency is certainly debatable, and I've criticized before the fact that most governments that applied it, did so only halfway, neglecting to pay off debt accrued once the economy was growing again.
It's easy to criticize Keynes economics, but critics don't really have or offer any other real world tested alternative to spur growth in a depression/recession. Monetarism only takes you as far as you can adjust the interest rates. Once they hit virtually zero, there's no other button to push.
Let's see the quotes. Don't be shy.
In other words, you don't have any real world tested alternatives to the Keynesian economic model to spur growth during recession. That's what I thought.
All presidents have had a keynsian type model except for reagan. Of course politicians like a model that says if we take money that we don't have and spend it - you will create jobs. That's a no brainer. However when has the keynsian model worked?
Delete "except for Reagan" and you'll have made a good point.
Quotes of what? That are multipliers above 1? Is this serious? Why the heck do you think people defend it? The entire point of anyone who defends "stimulus packages" and keynesians policies is that spending multipliers are above 1. I mean, that's Keynes point.
Are you really familiar with the fiscal spending and growth theory?
Here, the study by Christina Romer, chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the Vice President's chief economist: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
Page 13, Appendix 1 - they have the valus for multiplier for government spending and for tax cuts.
What the heck is "real world"? As opposed to the "unreal world"? It's not only that I haven't tested alternatives, it's that I simply don't agree with the premise.In other words, you don't have any real world tested alternatives to the Keynesian economic model to spur growth during recession. That's what I thought.
The most "tested" method of promoting growth has been around for millenniums, well before Keynes and even the modern government.
Y = F(K, H, L), or Y/L = F(K/L, H/L, 1)
Besides many pre-Roosevelt presidents, like Harding, Eisenhower is a classic example of an Administration (or 2) that consistently refused to adopt the Keynesian crazyness to "cure" the economy of recessions.
Impressive deficit... unimpressive president and congress.
TARP, when passed, on the loans, when paid back, was suppose to be used to pay down the deficit. Therefore, except if some money wasn't recovered, it wasn't suppose to be a big hit on the deficit. The democrats now, rather than using the money paid back to reduce the current deficit, want to spend it as well!
This is flat out illegal by the law they passed. They claim they will rewrite the law. I really doubt TARP would have passed without that provision. Even if the democrat congress passed it, I think president Bush would have vetoed it without that provision.
Shame on you democrats.
TARP is now Axelrod's personal slush fund. The spending powers used to rest with the Congress, now they rest with the President's boss.
Very provocative. Can you back that up, or is that more big talk?
Have Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner got anything to to with it anymore?
Just curious, Profe. it is sometimes hard to follow the twists and turns of your mind.
You say that David Axelrod, has all the money and power now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
