|
On January 20 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 04:55 Hider wrote:On January 20 2012 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 04:29 liberal wrote:
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture. /applauds This guy gets it. Let me just clarify one additional thing regarding the political parties and their approaches to fixing our fiscal issues. I honestly am not convinced that republicans (the ones in federal office) as a whole are serious about our fiscal problems. There are some that clearly are (Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and "tea party republicans"), but some of the other leaders such as Boehner and McConnell have done nothing to suggest to me that they are serious about fixing our fiscal problems beyond using the issue as a political tool for their own ends. This worries the hell out of me, especially because the republicans, as bad as they are on the issue as a whole, are still leagues ahead of democrats, who have done absolutely nothing to suggest that they are serious about fixing our fiscal issues. When I see democrats finally put trillions of dollars (or hundreds of billions annually) of social spending budget cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc) on the table, then I'll know that they're serious. But according to Keynesian logic we just got trapped if we decrease spending. I mean either your a keynesian and think spendings can cure depressiosn or your not. This current economic mess is doing a number to Keynsian theory. When it's all said and done, economists are going to look far less favorable upon Keynsianism than they do now.
Don't get your hopes up. The theories of Keynes was already dealt a serious blow in the '70s, but that didn't stop the Keynesianists now did it?
|
I don't want to "protect" the keynesian idelogy (i prefer it over austrians but i also prefer breaking my leg over breaking my arm).
last time i checked keynesian are supposed to save up money/payback their debt during times of growth (and invest during bad times..).
Next to no country has done that.
This crisis has not that much to do with Keynesian logic, because there never was a truely Keynesian system involved.
But at least we can now be sure about 1 thing:
Just spending at infinitum leads to crashes/crisis.. Who would have thought -.-.
|
On January 20 2012 05:14 Velr wrote:
I don't want to "protect" the keynesian idelogy (i prefer it over austrians but i also prefer breaking my leg over breaking my arm).
last time i checked keynesian are supposed to save up money/payback their debt during times of growth (and invest during bad times..).
Next to no country has done that.
This crisis has not that much to do with Keynesian logic, because there never was a truely Keynesian system involved.
But at least we can now be sure about 1 thing:
Just spending at infinitum leads to crashes/crisis.. Who would have thought -.-.
from what I can gather, USA was already deficit spending in the "good years". when the crisis hit, they was already deep in debt.
|
On January 20 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 04:55 Hider wrote:On January 20 2012 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2012 04:29 liberal wrote:
xDaunt's delivery here might be very questionable, but I agree with his general notion that the most important issue in US politics is preventing economic failure. Because you can't achieve any political ends, whether liberal OR conservative, if the nation does not have the money or the means to reach them. I don't believe that having a generally balanced budget is either a Republican or a Democrat issue, it should be a common sense issue. I would support Keynesian style deficit spending in times of economic recession, but the level of deficit spending the US has reached is extreme and unsustainable. The solution can only lie in a decades long combination of tax code simplification, loophole elimination, military spending cuts, and social/public service union spending cuts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the individual voter, selfishness and self interest has trumped civic duty or public interest. We have a moral duty to not fuck up the world too much for our own children, I believe that transcends every culture. /applauds This guy gets it. Let me just clarify one additional thing regarding the political parties and their approaches to fixing our fiscal issues. I honestly am not convinced that republicans (the ones in federal office) as a whole are serious about our fiscal problems. There are some that clearly are (Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and "tea party republicans"), but some of the other leaders such as Boehner and McConnell have done nothing to suggest to me that they are serious about fixing our fiscal problems beyond using the issue as a political tool for their own ends. This worries the hell out of me, especially because the republicans, as bad as they are on the issue as a whole, are still leagues ahead of democrats, who have done absolutely nothing to suggest that they are serious about fixing our fiscal issues. When I see democrats finally put trillions of dollars (or hundreds of billions annually) of social spending budget cuts (social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc) on the table, then I'll know that they're serious. But according to Keynesian logic we just got trapped if we decrease spending. I mean either your a keynesian and think spendings can cure depressiosn or your not. This current economic mess is doing a number to Keynsian theory. When it's all said and done, economists are going to look far less favorable upon Keynsianism than they do now.
No they're not. The stimulus package contained spending measures FAR below what Keynesian economists advised. Care to list any other policies you think were Keynesian and failed?
|
I realize that I too am a guilty party in all of this, but can we get mod intervention here to shut down out of control topics? I liked reading about the nomination process ><
|
On January 20 2012 05:14 Velr wrote:
I don't want to "protect" the keynesian idelogy (i prefer it over austrians but i also prefer breaking my leg over breaking my arm).
last time i checked keynesian are supposed to save up money/payback their debt during times of growth (and invest during bad times..).
Next to no country has done that.
This crisis has not that much to do with Keynesian logic, because there never was a truely Keynesian system involved.
But at least we can now be sure about 1 thing:
Just spending at infinitum leads to crashes/crisis.. Who would have thought -.-.
Exactly my thoughts. I think Keynesianism received big hits because politicians simply lack discipline with spending other people´s money.after they spent stimulus money MOST of the time they "forget" to CUT after the economy is growing because they want to be reelected.
|
On January 20 2012 05:18 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:14 Velr wrote:
I don't want to "protect" the keynesian idelogy (i prefer it over austrians but i also prefer breaking my leg over breaking my arm).
last time i checked keynesian are supposed to save up money/payback their debt during times of growth (and invest during bad times..).
Next to no country has done that.
This crisis has not that much to do with Keynesian logic, because there never was a truely Keynesian system involved.
But at least we can now be sure about 1 thing:
Just spending at infinitum leads to crashes/crisis.. Who would have thought -.-. from what I can gather, USA was already deficit spending in the "good years". when the crisis hit, they was already deep in debt.
No, that's not true. Pres. Clinton (Dem.) paid down the national debt, or at least enough of it that Bush was handed a surplus upon being elected president. Bush then went ahead with tax cuts while fighting two land wars in the Middle East/Asia, all concurrently. Deficit spending was obviously necessary during his 8 years and Obama inherited not only the deficit but the financial mess from the recession.
|
Can anyone here explain me, why Obama is seen as a bad president? Nearly everything he wanted to achieve in his presidency was blocked by Republicans. It's the biggest blockade-period by the non governing party in the history of the USA. How can you expect a president to work up to the expectations under these circumstandes? Seriously.
Apart from that, I'm pretty dissapointed, that Huntsman gave up so fast. Till now he seemed to be the canditate with the smallest amount of shit around him. Perry and Ginrich are just unbearable. Santorum will never get enough votes in states which are not deeply infested by rednecks and hardcore religion parties. So there is only Romney left - a candidate, most Republicans won't be satisfied with.
|
On January 20 2012 05:32 Doublemint wrote:
After they spent stimulus money MOST of the time they "forget" to CUT after the economy is growing because they want to be reelected.
Without going into the whole economics debate, I'm fairly certain that the accumulated deficit during the "boom", so to speak. was comprised of mostly three things:
1: The Bush tax cuts
2: Iraq and Afghanistan
3: Medicare Part D
In terms of importance, the first two are well ahead of the third one.
On January 20 2012 05:39 SkyTheUnknown wrote:
Can anyone here explain me, why Obama is seen as a bad president? Nearly everything he wanted to achieve in his presidency was blocked by Republicans. It's the biggest blockade-period by the non governing party in the history of the USA. How can you expect a president to work up to the expectations under these circumstandes? Seriously.
If you're talking about the long view, politicians are largely not judged on what they try to do or what they do, but what happens during their presidency. All this chatter over socialism and failure is merely a reflection of this.
To put it simply: It's the economy.
|
On January 20 2012 05:39 SkyTheUnknown wrote:
Can anyone here explain me, why Obama is seen as a bad president? Nearly everything he wanted to achieve in his presidency was blocked by Republicans. It's the biggest blockade-period by the non governing party in the history of the USA. How can you expect a president to work up to the expectations under these circumstandes? Seriously.
Apart from that, I'm pretty dissapointed, that Huntsman gave up so fast. Till now he seemed to be the canditate with the smallest amount of shit around him. Perry and Ginrich are just unbearable. Santorum will never get enough votes in states which are not deeply infested by rednecks and hardcore religion parties. So there is only Romney left - a candidate, most Republicans won't be satisfied with.
He has full and total control over armed forces.
He campaigned on stopping the idiotic wars.
We are involved in more idiotic wars through his presidency, then when he started.
|
On January 20 2012 05:42 AcuWill wrote:
He has full and total control over armed forces.
Nobody in government has full and total control over the armed forces. Don't be silly.
|
On January 20 2012 05:44 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:42 AcuWill wrote:
He has full and total control over armed forces. Nobody in government has full and total control over the armed forces. Don't be silly.
He does for 60 days.
|
On January 20 2012 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
He does for 60 days.
60 days after the conflict begins. Did Iraq and Afghanistan start in 2009?
There's this weird belief that the President can do anything and everything with the armed forces at will. It's getting more that way, to be sure, but it's still untrue. And that's without going into circumstances outside of US government.
|
The question is: Would any other president have acted otherwise under the circumstances of 911(like leaving Afghanistan way earlier)? I highly doubt that, especially regarding a Republican president.
|
|
|
On January 20 2012 05:40 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:32 Doublemint wrote:
After they spent stimulus money MOST of the time they "forget" to CUT after the economy is growing because they want to be reelected.
Without going into the whole economics debate, I'm fairly certain that the accumulated deficit during the "boom", so to speak. was comprised of mostly three things: 1: The Bush tax cuts 2: Iraq and Afghanistan 3: Medicare Part D In terms of importance, the first two are well ahead of the third one. Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:39 SkyTheUnknown wrote:
Can anyone here explain me, why Obama is seen as a bad president? Nearly everything he wanted to achieve in his presidency was blocked by Republicans. It's the biggest blockade-period by the non governing party in the history of the USA. How can you expect a president to work up to the expectations under these circumstandes? Seriously. If you're talking about the long view, politicians are largely not judged on what they try to do or what they do, but what happens during their presidency. All this chatter over socialism and failure is merely a reflection of this. To put it simply: It's the economy.
I am not sure maybe I was misunderstood, Bush´s fiscal policies during his Presidency(apart from TARP and bailing out banks) were not meant to be an example in any way to be influenced by Keynesians. The 700Billion/year for the richest/"job creators" are simply "trickle down"/special interest money, the wars were chosen to be fought to this extent, there was not a necessity for them(especially in hindsight, outside of america there were some critical voices) and as to the medicare/medicaid - I am generally interested in american politics but at that time was simply too young as to be interested into such detail in american internal matters outside of the "mainstream". But as I can imagine they are underfunded and the demographic changes in society add to the problem - as is the case in other countries as well)
|
On January 20 2012 05:14 Velr wrote:
I don't want to "protect" the keynesian idelogy (i prefer it over austrians but i also prefer breaking my leg over breaking my arm).
last time i checked keynesian are supposed to save up money/payback their debt during times of growth (and invest during bad times..).
Next to no country has done that.
This crisis has not that much to do with Keynesian logic, because there never was a truely Keynesian system involved.
But at least we can now be sure about 1 thing:
Just spending at infinitum leads to crashes/crisis.. Who would have thought -.-.
True, but most modern economics suggest we spend a lot in bad times. When times get even worse, we spend even more. Do you agree with that kind of policy. Or how should we (read: government) spend. What factors does the government spending depend on?
|
On January 20 2012 05:40 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:32 Doublemint wrote:
After they spent stimulus money MOST of the time they "forget" to CUT after the economy is growing because they want to be reelected.
Without going into the whole economics debate, I'm fairly certain that the accumulated deficit during the "boom", so to speak. was comprised of mostly three things: 1: The Bush tax cuts 2: Iraq and Afghanistan 3: Medicare Part D In terms of importance, the first two are well ahead of the third one. Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:39 SkyTheUnknown wrote:
Can anyone here explain me, why Obama is seen as a bad president? Nearly everything he wanted to achieve in his presidency was blocked by Republicans. It's the biggest blockade-period by the non governing party in the history of the USA. How can you expect a president to work up to the expectations under these circumstandes? Seriously. If you're talking about the long view, politicians are largely not judged on what they try to do or what they do, but what happens during their presidency. All this chatter over socialism and failure is merely a reflection of this. To put it simply: It's the economy.
How did US budget deficits lead to the housing boom? Can you explain the proces?
|
On January 20 2012 05:36 Xivsa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 05:18 Undrass wrote:On January 20 2012 05:14 Velr wrote:
I don't want to "protect" the keynesian idelogy (i prefer it over austrians but i also prefer breaking my leg over breaking my arm).
last time i checked keynesian are supposed to save up money/payback their debt during times of growth (and invest during bad times..).
Next to no country has done that.
This crisis has not that much to do with Keynesian logic, because there never was a truely Keynesian system involved.
But at least we can now be sure about 1 thing:
Just spending at infinitum leads to crashes/crisis.. Who would have thought -.-. from what I can gather, USA was already deficit spending in the "good years". when the crisis hit, they was already deep in debt. No, that's not true. Pres. Clinton (Dem.) paid down the national debt, or at least enough of it that Bush was handed a surplus upon being elected president. Bush then went ahead with tax cuts while fighting two land wars in the Middle East/Asia, all concurrently. Deficit spending was obviously necessary during his 8 years and Obama inherited not only the deficit but the financial mess from the recession.
Clinton had a budget surplus. Us liabilities were still in the red when Bush began as president.
|
On January 20 2012 05:39 SkyTheUnknown wrote:
Can anyone here explain me, why Obama is seen as a bad president? Nearly everything he wanted to achieve in his presidency was blocked by Republicans. It's the biggest blockade-period by the non governing party in the history of the USA. How can you expect a president to work up to the expectations under these circumstandes? Seriously.
Here are just a few reasons that come off the top of my head. One thing I will say though is that Obama has accomplished quite a bit.
1) Obama is seen as a weak leader. He doesn't take charge of anything decisively, whether it be the stimulus package, Obamacare (oh the irony), and foreign policy (classic leader from behind).
2) People perceive that his economic policies have been failures, ranging from the stimulus package all the way to blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Let's not forget about his organized labor fetish that has pissed off numerous states -- most notably South Carolina.
3) Obama has clearly failed to live up to his campaign. In fairness, though, no one can lower the seas and heal the planet as he promised.
4) Obama's fiscal spending is perceived as reckless. He's running up the debt at a record pace without even blinking an eye.
5) oh yeah... OBAMACARE. This thing is hugely unpopular.
On January 20 2012 05:39 SkyTheUnknown wrote:
Apart from that, I'm pretty dissapointed, that Huntsman gave up so fast. Till now he seemed to be the canditate with the smallest amount of shit around him. Perry and Ginrich are just unbearable. Santorum will never get enough votes in states which are not deeply infested by rednecks and hardcore religion parties. So there is only Romney left - a candidate, most Republicans won't be satisfied with.
Just out of curiosity, is there really any non-republican who would vote for Huntsman over Obama? If so, how is Huntsman materially different from Romney?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
