They won control of the House, but not the Senate. There was a lot of rhetoric and hot air about they’ll do this or that to cut, cut, cut spending. It’s all about that new fangled concept called CHANGE. But what do you think they’ll really do or even be able to do? Given how many have ties to the businesses that got us into this mess, how much change is possible? Are we about to experience a new day in Washington, or just more of the same, different players?
Have we been fooled again?
Thomas–your summary of Keynes is that it doesn’t work because his name was applied to some action in 1930′s and we are now in a recession with the dollar weakening. That makes for good dogma and bumper stickers but is plainly inchoherent. I don’t think you have enough dots to connect your theory regardless of how much time you might take.
My longer comments and even short summations go to being both selfish and lacking self-interest. What else do you think “short sighted” means except shorting one’s own self interest?
You fail economics, history, and the direct meaning of common English words.
Total fail all around. The effects are against your own longer term self interest and could well be a result of you being overly self involved, not cognizant of the help you have had from others including the government, or even maybe just being selfish.
Complicated issues are not “simple.” Its simple minded to argue so.
#101
your summary of Keynes is that it doesn’t work because his name was applied to some action in 1930′s and we are now in a recession with the dollar weakening. That makes for good dogma and bumper stickers but is plainly inchoherent.
Keynes is *the* economist in whose name this government spending is being justified. Keynes test experiment was the 1930′s depression. They are all correlated. It is sophistry to argue otherwise.
My longer comments and even short summations go to being both selfish and lacking self-interest. What else do you think “short sighted” means except shorting one’s own self interest?
You may be selfish but I fail to see how that relates to the discussion at hand. You continue to want to vilify anyone that argues against the administrations current approach as being selfish. In short, you are irrational. How do we best serve the interests of the country over the long term. You cannot be more short-sighted and selfish than to endorse the idea of accumulating more debt now in the vain hope of easing the affects of the recession in the short term at the expense of the next generation.
So, when I run into someone that fundamentally lacks any understanding of the root elements of economics and history but exclaims how wrong I am, you might understand how little that affects me.
Complicated issues are not “simple.” Its simple minded to argue so.
Indeed complicated issues by definition lack simplicity, but by the same token complicated issues cannot be explained to simpletons.
The cat’s cradle: no damn cat, no damn cradle.