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?
#62
what you wanted, but many economists are saying that it was the stimulus and the bailouts that saved the economy from total destruction
TARP certainly. The other bailouts? Maybe. The stimulus? No way. All evidence points to a multiplier less than one which means for every dollar spent, we got less than a dollar of stimulus (and more debt). The stimulus simply made our long term situation worse at the expense of fixing a few potholes.
#65
However government spending is one of the few reliable engines of economic activity in a time of recession
Ah, the ghost of Keynes. Sounds great doesn’t? Too bad it’s wrong. In the long run, racking up government debt hurts the country more than helps it.
#69
Well said.
#76
Frankly, if tax breaks do not provide stimulus and we know that government spending does not, then why don’t we simply keep the current tax breaks/increases and put that money towards debt reduction? All we are saying is that the Federal government simply does not have the power to stimulate the economy to any significant degree but there is no limit to their ability to make it worse. IMO, the best solution if we’re in a hole is to stop digging.
Stimulus doesn’t work.
Global Warming is a fallacy.
Taxes always produce additional Federal Revenue. In fact, if the tax rate were zero, the government would have 3.7 times more revenue than now.
There are too many gaps in Darwins Theory leaving us with Intelligent Design as a legitmate theory.
The rich are favored by god.
I’ve got mine, screw you.
#82
Lest we forget the liberal fallacies:
Government spending always creates stimulus
Global warming is an entirely settle discussion with clear policy mandates. We know better so who cares if everyone (except Al Gore) are poor and have live in squalor.
Tax breaks are always for “the rich”. In fact, we’d all be better of if the tax rate were 100%.
The poor are what generate tax revenue.
The government is Robin Hood. You earned yours so we’re going to take it and give it everyone else.
Thomas, and all other Pukes posting here: you really are an idiot:
#82
Lest we forget the liberal fallacies:
Government spending always creates stimulus /// Without exception, that is true. The issue you are stumbling towards is whether or not having the pay the money back later provides a net gain or net loss to society.
Global warming is an entirely settle discussion with clear policy mandates. /// Again, you confuse two seperate issue: the issue at hand with its consequences. Yes, AGW is the consensus of scientific thinking. But you don’t want taxes raised to react to AGW so you attack the theory rather than the policies. Idiot Republican.
We know better so who cares if everyone (except Al Gore) are poor and have live in squalor. /// Irrelevant as the argument is pure rhetoric and is said against both sides/all sides. Stupid.
Tax breaks are always for “the rich”. In fact, we’d all be better of if the tax rate were 100%. /// Nobody says that. Silly and really reveals the shallowness of your depth.
The poor are what generate tax revenue. /// Again, nobody says that.
The government is Robin Hood. You earned yours so we’re going to take it and give it everyone else. /// The government also creates the conditions by which there are rich and poor. Societies with a strong middle class are stable and more enjoyed by all. Societies with a wider and wider gap between rich and poor faulter and fail. Very few benefit from a failed society.
You really don’t have anything at all do you Thomas. I could make better arguments than you, but why arm an idiot? I’ll let Rush do it.
Conservative fallacy. If we concentrate the wealth in the upper 1% then self interest will keep them from fucking everyone else over.
#84
Government spending always creates stimulus /// Without exception, that is true. The issue you are stumbling towards is whether or not having the pay the money back later provides a net gain or net loss to society.
Right, because that worked out well for the Japanese I hear (debt = 200% of GDP). Only someone with their complete lack of knowledge about economics, would think that digging your hole faster will help you get out of it. It has never worked. All it does is put us deeper into debt.
Keynes was wrong. Read that again until you get through your skull. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. You can only make it worse. However, you can reduce unemployment by drafting half the country’s workforce as FDR did.
Nobody says that. Silly and really reveals the shallowness of your depth.
Yet in #82 you claim that someone wants a 0% tax rate?! It’s as if both your statement and mine were hyperboles or something…
The government is Robin Hood. You earned yours so we’re going to take it and give it everyone else. /// The government also creates the conditions by which there are rich and poor. Societies with a strong middle class are stable and more enjoyed by all.
Should I use smaller words for you or is it just that you took your meds today? I’m simply providing the opposite extreme to your rant. If you actually have a point then present it, otherwise I suggest you learn about the topics on which you are discussing instead of acting like the mirror image of Alfred 1.
#85
Liberal fallacy: Using the kindness of the government to force everyone to have the same wealth is the best way to prosperity.
Liberal fallacy #2: When you have almost as much debt as income in a given year, it is still a good idea to spend even more in order to correct the situation.
Ha, ha. I think our positions are clear to see.
Sad isn’t it that one of us is more correct than the other and no amount of introspection will prove to ourselves that we could be wrong?
How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind?
Yea, Verily.
I don’t trust government. I don’t trust religions. But it’s a conservative fallacy that combining the two into some evil god damned concoction is a good thing.
#88,#89
“We are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Does that sum up your opinions?
Uncle Dave asked: “What Should/Will The Republicans Do Now?”
Right now? LOL @ Dems.
#90 It pretty much sums it up. They’re fed up of the corp’s economical exploitations of the weak. They now want the government to do it. They feel better that way
What are Congressional Repubs doing now…
Listening to that classic tune “wipe out!”
Getting the subpoenas ready.
#91 , #92. Agree. That is exactly what they’re doing. Next on the agenda is campaigning for 2012.
#90–Doubtful about Thomas==No. Started off just fine, then veered off.
No Thomas, you and the Republican philosophy is actually fairly presented at your #86. You aren’t actually capable of thinking and responding you can only kneejerk naysay with a little assist by misrepresenting the other sides position.
Republican: short sighted stooges for the Rich
Dems: spineless.
I’m thinking spine is easier to grow than cultivating a different world view.
Silly Hoomans.
#94
If you think the conservative philosophy is presented in #86, then the liberal policy is presented in #83. It is hypocritical to warp one viewpoint and then get pissy when someone takes your viewpoint to the extreme.
Until you understand how people make decisions in the face of scarcity, you are not going to understand the world around you. You’ll happily let one party spend your money even if you have no idea whether it does any good but rail against another party that does the same.
You aren’t actually capable of thinking and responding you can only kneejerk naysay with a little assist by misrepresenting the other sides position.
AHAHAHAH. Pot. Kettle. Black.
For the record, that statement in #90 was made by Adolf Hitler in a 1927 speech. A perfect example of the destination of socialist mind.
Thomas–you expertise, credibility, and view of the world is summed up by: “Keynes was wrong.”
Anybody thinking that simplistically has nothing to offer a conversation except diversion, just as you do with your politics.
Short sighted Republicans are much like the fervent drank the Koolaide Muslims: Its righteous to lie to the infidels.
You are shortsighted in gauging your own interest much less the rest of society’s. I wish you could actually experience the world you wish on all of us, but then, we would all be experiencing it.
Happily you and your ilk are outnumbered, but not so much that you don’t wreak havoc==especially when the Dumbo’s are as spineless as Obama shows.
Politics: where stupidity and single mindedness holds on to power by appealing to dumb ass voters who can’t tell when they are being punked.
Yea, Verily. The history books will note this with awe and confusion.
#96
If you think I speak simplistically, it is because you are simplistic. I cannot remove your ignorance with respect to economics in a simple blog post. In short, you haven’t the education to understand a more detail response. Instead, I would challenge you to learn why many economists have stated for decades why Keynes was wrong. A good place to look at the result of Keynes is Japan.
Frankly, it is the liberals that are short sighted. We need only look at the trail of budgetary destruction such as California. Once CA had balanced budgets and was able to provide the basic services such as road repair for its constituents. Now it is billions in the hole and Californians drive over pot holes. Once the States were responsible for their own constituents. Years of politicians advocating strong central government have wreaked havoc on this nation.
If you think that people that oppose government spending you are in for a surprise. A large number of people in this nation do not accept wasteful government spending as a solution to the recession. We’ve had two years of this type of spending and we have 10-20% unemployment to show for it. Further, what happens in 5-10 years when the interest on that money goes up? I guess the left think we can just ignore it.
Strangely, many history books are quiet on finance. They do not mention for example that the US was on the brink of insolvency during World War II. They do not mention that the British collapsed financially and did not recover for decades (instead they assume it was entirely due to the bombing of London).You need to grow up and put away the kumbayah mentality. In the real world, there are no free lunches. If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Keynes is nothing if not a testament to those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know that ain’t so. Yea verily.
Keynes is recognized as one of the “great” economic theorists and as such is more misunderstood than most.
Keynes would be the first to agree that if you borrow money you must pay it back.
Silly to suggest simply that “he is wrong.”
Such expectoration may be accepted in your close circle jerk but as stated: too simple minded for anything except diversion.
Sure you can repeat, repeat and repeat but you have nothing to add to a discussion of any depth at all.
Maybe you used to? Maybe you still could? But we take you as your present yourself: shortsighted I’ve got mine, screw you, lower taxes will fix anything, stooge Republican.
OTOH, must feel good to be so certain?
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”
“I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”
FDR’s Treasury Secretary in 1939.
#98
Keynes is recognized as one of the “great” economic theorists and as such is more misunderstood than most.
Absolutely Keynes was a great economist just as Aristotle and Copernicus were a great scientists. Just because someone was great in their time, does not necessitate that their theories be valid many years into the future. New data comes in and we learn more about the consequences of those theories. The problem with the 1930′s depression is that US benefited tremendously from the aftermath of WWII and that glossed over the problems of excessive government spending prior to the war. We’ve relied on having booms to the economy to cover wasteful spending. Here’ s news flash: those booms are over. Now we face the Piper.
Silly to suggest simply that “he is wrong.
Again, a simplification so that you could understand. To explain the areas where Keynes is still considered correct and all the areas where he is wrong would simply take too long.
In this case, we are narrowing our discussion about using government spending, in the manner in which the Stimulus Bill was crafted, in order to get out of a recession. This was Keynes suggestion to FDR. Other countries have tried this trick. Its kind of like an addiction to pain killers. There is a short term alleviation from the pains of the recession but the real pain continues to increase due to the additional debt. Now, on top of the mountainous debt, we have the Fed pumping up the money supply to a point where we would get more value making Chinese kites out of dollar bills. In short, we’re screwed. Not because of which party won this past election. We’re screwed because the current political system rewards spending now at the expense of the next generation.
Maybe you still could? But we take you as your present yourself: shortsighted I’ve got mine, screw you, lower taxes will fix anything, stooge Republican.
So much for not misrepresenting the other sides position.
If you ever do get around to taking a class on economics, I suggest you pay careful attention to the difference between the concepts of “selfish” and “self-interest”.