So, if I read you right, the time to open the fire hydrants and soak the house in water is the time when the house is actually on fire, not just when the pyromaniac is gazing longingly?
Me? I’m saying that you can’t keep taxes at a debt-inducing level for eternity. That would be like trying to run a business where you try to buy all of your resources for more than you sell the product for, and expecting to keep in business forever.
Hey, if one shock from a defibrilator can keep someone alive, let’s just strap that sucker on his chest and lock it for ten years.
First of all, the fannie Mae/Freddie mac line simply doesn’t work anymore. Its been discredited too many times and yet people still keep bringing it up. Its like yougo to a cocktail party where people nod their heads when you say it so you forget that we have already debunked that bullshit on this baord multiple times.
Second of all Keynes NEVER said that you should engage in stimulus spending to turbo charge an already healthy economy so that people wouldn’t notice the fucked up war you were waging in Iraq.
Really? Because I can name several instances when the federal government reduced its civilian personnel.
The payroll tax holiday was also backed by Gingrich as a form of stimulus he could support back when the Republicans were in a position to do some soul searching. Now that they tea party has come along as convinced them that they were right all along and that Obama was the one that drove the economy into a ditch with his health care bill and threats of tax increases on the richest 1%.
Its not just that their policies are wrong, its that they are so convinced that they are right that they are willing to sabotage the nation in order to get back into power to implement those policies.
Of course not, banks are one of the most regulated industries in the world. But they were DEregulated somewhat. I’m not sure what this had to do with it considering that the problem started with non-bank lenders like countrywide.
There was an article about that a cople of years ago. some whistleblowers were not protected from retaliation and others were flat out fired for blowing the whistle. I can’t remember but I don’t think it was a partisan article.
You don’t think the wars are expensive? They may have been necessary (at least the one in afghanistan) but they certainly aren’t cheap.
The incoem tax burden while overwhelmingly on the rich has been shifted to be less overhwelmingly on the rich to the point where some rich taxpayers have a lower marginal tax rate than their secretary.
Ah, the old move the goal post trick! Regulations are passed by Congress, not the executive branch, btw.
Don’t tell me… your post is your cite?
Well, since “the poor” generally pay no income taxes, I’d say that’s a fairly common occurrence whenever there is an across the board income tax cut. We’ve done that plenty of times, not just during Bush’s administration.
I didn’t say they weren’t cheap. I said “maybe” they were a significant cause of the financial collapse. But maybe not. We really don’t know. It was an admission that the poster may have gotten one point correct.
Really? You can show where the government has reduced it’s non-federal government employees? That’s more telling than you perhaps intend. 
Can you show any significant downsizing in the number of actual federal government employees or bureaucracies over the last 40 or 50 years (or for that matter, since the 30s)?
OK. Who’s in charge of enforcing regulations? If the regulations were sufficient, but not adequately enforced, who’s to blame on that one? And if the regulations were too weak to be effective, regardless of how dutifully enforced?
Well, then, the case for “insufficient regulation” is pretty much made, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Why exactly would I misdirect whether or not Bush was a Keynesian? He was. His policies were Keynesian. His economic adviser was a Keynesian. Some of his policies were also aimed at the supply side, but his ‘stimulus’ plans were pure Keynesianism.
My point was simple: Those of you who think that Bush’s attempts at stimulating the economy were an outright failure might reflect on the fact that there’s very little daylight between what he did and what Obama did. Both them tried to drive demand up. Both cut taxes on the lower and middle classes. Both offered various rebate schemes to get people to spend money. Both of them drove up the discretionary budget. Both of them borrowed money like crazy to do it. The only difference is that Obama took everything that Bush did and turned it up to ‘11’.
Just a wild guess here, but I think he might have mean “civilian” in the sense of “non-military”.
Why would you misdirect? Perhaps in a very lame and baldfaced attempt to avoid the otherwise clear evidence that conservative economic practices are really bad for the economy. Poor researchers do the same when their hypotheses are not supported; they start attacking the methodology.
It’s especially transparent since you were touting a brief period of positive economic news in 2005 as vindication of supply side economic theory.
Do you regard Paul Krugman as supportive of Keynesian economic theory? (Most would.) Was Krugman supportive of Bush’s economic practices and theories? If cutting taxes was Keynesian, why wouldn’t Krugman always argue for cutting taxes, and why wouldn’t Grover Norquist be a Keynesian?
Really? That’s the only difference? Pathetic. Try approaching this from a vastly less blindly partisan position, because this right here is pure cherry picking driven by a desperate attempt to salvage the viability of your preferred economic theories.
WTF are you talking about? I said I can point to instances when the government reduced its FEDERAL WORK FORCE.
The most obvious example that comes to mind are several instances during the Reagan/Bush era when the federal workforce was reduced.
Another example was when Clinton reduced the federal workforce.
Now perhaps they didn’t fire as many federal employees as you would have liked but there have been workforce reduction several times in my lifetime.
I think its telling that you would make such a statement without having any knowledge of the facts. Perhaps becuase it comports with your view of the world.
You know Hentor, why don’t you just take these lame attempts at personal ‘gotchas’ to the pit? You’re really stretching. You’re constantly digging through my posting history, trying to catch me in supposed contradictions or lies, then you spam productive threads with your little vendetta. Give it a rest.
To answer your specific criticisms, you apparently didn’t read my 2005 post very carefully, or you are very selectively quoting from it. For those playing along at home, what I actually said in 2005 was that Bush’s policies could be seen as both a supply-side tax cut because the rich had their taxes reduced, or as a Keynesian stimulus because taxes for the poor were cut and a ‘helicopter drop’ of money was dumped on them.
I also said that it was too early to tell if his policies would succeed or fail, and if they did it would be hard to tell if it was because of the supply-side tax cuts, or the Keynesian stimulus, or a completely unrelated factor such as a real estate bubble temporarily lifting the economy.
I think Paul Krugman is a partisan who would have defended many of Bush’s policies if they had been implemented by a Democrat.
And yes, Hentor, Keynesian economics is fine with tax cuts. Fiscal stimulus through spending is just one tool in an Keynesian’s war chest. You need to learn a bit about it. It seems that you think Keynesianism == Big spending by government. But borrowing money to finance a tax cut so that people have more money to spend is just as much a demand-side stimulus as is writing everyone a check or having the government going around buying up goods and services with borrowed money.
The car wasn’t low on gas, it didn’t need more gas, it was being driven in the wrong direction. And even so, pouring gas all over the car rather than into the gas tank is stupid.
You think Paul Krugman would have support the 2001/2003 tax cuts if they were proposed by Billl Clinton? Really?
Yes but the money goes to people with different marginal propensities to consume versus save.
What is the gas in your analogy?
Reagan asked a question when running against Carter. “Are you better off now than four years ago?”
So weask the same question about Bush. Were we better off afater Bush than before? If you can say Yes, move to the back of the class.
War in Iraq