The Obama Economic Rebound

Ah, this time the Libertarians have their revisionist history ready ahead of time. I guess we can call it previsionist history. Or as is more accurate; preventionist history.

What they're trying to prevent is another resounding success for Liberalism, burying them and their close kissing cousins, the R's, into political obscurity for another 30 years.

Good luck! :clink:

are you aware just how close classic liberalism and libertarianism really are?
 
What the Democrats are doing with this stimulus plan is a Keynesian scheme. I can point out several times in history where governments have tried this and failed, most recently, Japan. Can you point out a single instance where it was successful?

this porkulus bill is not even close to keynesian. what tax cuts are associated with this huge spending bill? this so called stimulus package is nothing more than an excuse to line the pockets of democratic aligned business and labor parties through pet projects of the politicians.
 
...begins. The Messiah!

I think this was caused in part by all of the give Bush the Boot parties that took place in January. I know I attended a few. And in New York, Salons were running "Bye Bye Bush" specials for waxing. They were selling like hotcakes!

I feel as if I'm in Xanadu! Oh the righties must be steaming! That makes it even better!

U.S. consumer spending rebounded in January, snapping six months of declines, and incomes rose unexpectedly, boosted by salary increases for government employees, a government report showed on Monday.

The Commerce Department said spending rose by 0.6 percent, the largest increase since May, after falling by an unrevised 1 percent in December.

Incomes advanced by 0.4 percent, also posting the biggest increase since May, after December's 0.2 percent decrease.

The department attributed to rise in income to pay rises for federal civilian and military employees, as well as cost-of-living adjustments to several government transfer payments programs. It said excluding these factors, incomes would have increased by 0.2 percent in January.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast spending rising by 0.4 percent and incomes slipping 0.2 percent.

Savings jumped to an annual rate of $545.5 billion, the highest level since monthly records began in 1959. The savings rate surged 5 percent in January, the biggest advance since March 1995, as households uncertain about the economy prefer to conserve their cash.

Please don't be offended, but I'm waiting for January's revisions before I jump to conclusions like so many others. :pke:

Government employees get wage increases and you believe that means the economy is doing great? that's so woefully ignorant it's sad.

Wouldn't that be the increase Congress voted for themselves?

Immie
 
Ah, this time the Libertarians have their revisionist history ready ahead of time. I guess we can call it previsionist history. Or as is more accurate; preventionist history.

What they're trying to prevent is another resounding success for Liberalism, burying them and their close kissing cousins, the R's, into political obscurity for another 30 years.

Good luck! :clink:

The USA is an economic power not because of government, but because of the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. This country was built on free markets. Only when the 20th century rolled around did liberalism in its present form begin to influence economic policy. Prior to that time, recessions were short-lived and markets recovered quickly. That is no longer the case.

Government is not the solution to our economic woes. Government only makes the problem much, much worse.

As a liberal you want the government to stay out of our personal lives, but somehow you find it acceptable and even desirable when they interfere in how we conduct business. Look, either you believe in freedom or you do not. This is an inconsistency within modern liberalism as well as the religious right - they always want it both ways.

The only legitimate roll of government in the economy is to create an environment where business can flourish. Artificially propping up failed businesses is counterproductive and will ultimately cause greater harm than good. You do believe in natural selection, don't you? It is a scientific fact. The weak must be allowed to die out.
 
this porkulus bill is not even close to keynesian. what tax cuts are associated with this huge spending bill? this so called stimulus package is nothing more than an excuse to line the pockets of democratic aligned business and labor parties through pet projects of the politicians.
Since when does Keynesian policy require tax cuts? It implies demand-side economic policy, where the government creates a demand for services by spending money. FDR tried it and extended the Great Depression to ten years. Japan has tried it, and is now more than ten years into economic doldrums. Now its Obama's turn.
 
Since when does Keynesian policy require tax cuts? It implies demand-side economic policy, where the government creates a demand for services by spending money. FDR tried it and extended the Great Depression to ten years. Japan has tried it, and is now more than ten years into economic doldrums. Now its Obama's turn.

keynesian demand side theory doesn't work without tax cuts engineered to a consumer oriented economy. I think we're arguing the same theory, just with different angles. FDR extended the depression because all of the spending resided within the government and not consumers across the country. Tax cuts to the individual that gives them extra to spend and that is the only way to spur a recovery.
 
keynesian demand side theory doesn't work without tax cuts engineered to a consumer oriented economy. I think we're arguing the same theory, just with different angles. FDR extended the depression because all of the spending resided within the government and not consumers across the country. Tax cuts to the individual that gives them extra to spend and that is the only way to spur a recovery.
Perhaps. I'm not a student of Keynesian economic theory, and perhaps I have the incorrect idea, as I'm defining it as it has been employed by FDR and now Obama, with the government deciding what gets spent and where, which is really just the Democrats finding a method to consolidate power.

Reagan used "supply side" theory, that cut taxes and provided investment and purchasing power to the private sector, letting market forces decide what gets spent and where, and I've never heard that referred to as "Keynesian".
 
Perhaps. I'm not a student of Keynesian economic theory, and perhaps I have the incorrect idea, as I'm defining it as it has been employed by FDR and now Obama, with the government deciding what gets spent and where, which is really just the Democrats finding a method to consolidate power.

Reagan used "supply side" theory, that cut taxes and provided investment and purchasing power to the private sector, letting market forces decide what gets spent and where, and I've never heard that referred to as "Keynesian".

maybe i've been getting bad info then, because I was under the impression that Reagan used keynesian, which is what they ended up calling voodoo economics.
 
maybe i've been getting bad info then, because I was under the impression that Reagan used keynesian, which is what they ended up calling voodoo economics.

No. Keynseian is not the same as Reagonomics/Voodoo Economics/Supply Side/Trickle-Down. Keynseianism is dead, and so is Trickle Down now.
 
maybe i've been getting bad info then, because I was under the impression that Reagan used keynesian, which is what they ended up calling voodoo economics.
That's not my memory, and I was politically aware back then (paying income and real estate taxes). But lets' read from someone who was actually there at the time:

By Larry Kudlow

Back in early 1981, when I went to Washington to work for President Reagan, one of the architects of supply-side economics, Columbia University’s Robert Mundell, visited my OMB budget-bureau office inside the White House complex. At the time we were suffering from double-digit inflation, sky-high interest rates, a long economic downturn, and a near 15-year bear market in stocks.

So I asked Prof. Mundell, who later won a Nobel Prize in economics, if President Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts would be sufficient to cure the economy. The professor answered that during periods of crisis, sometimes you have to be a supply-sider (tax rates), sometimes a monetarist (Fed money supply), and sometimes a Keynesian (federal deficits).

I’ve never forgotten that advice. Mundell was saying: Choose the best policies as put forth by the great economic philosophers without being too rigid.

Of course, John Maynard Keynes was a deficit spender during the Depression. Milton Friedman warned of printing too much or too little money. And Mundell, along with Art Laffer, Jack Kemp, and others, revived the importance of reducing high marginal tax rates to reward work, investment, and risk. The idea was to make each of these activities pay more after tax, and in the process boost asset values across-the-board. This incentive model of economic growth was used effectively by President John F. Kennedy and the great 1920s Treasury man, Andrew Mellon.

During the 1980s Reagan enacted Mundell’s three-legged approach. He slashed tax rates on the supply-side and was not afraid to run budget deficits in the Keynesian mold. At the same time, Reagan gave Paul Volcker carte blanche to practice the tough-minded monetarism that curbed excess money and vanquished inflation. This eclectic policy mix reignited economic growth, and it ushered in a three-decade prosperity boom that revived free-market capitalism.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmM2ZDkzODA4NWMyZDdkMGJhNDJmZjliYWIzYzA4ZGE=
 
So I guess the correct term for what Reagan did was "Keynes-Friedman-Mundell-Laffer-Kemp" isnian. :cof1:

No wonder the Liberals are so confused about it.
 
Back
Top