Sarah Palin, Keynesian Economics, Suppy-Side Economics and Ronald Reagan

Recently, I was in a debate with another member over the definition of capitalism in relation to Sarah Palin thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=11455010#pid11455010

I am not an economist. But I do know how to read. Here is my premise. Sarah Palin is about as 180 degrees from Obama as anyone can get in terms of the economy.
Obama is a Keynesian Economics follower.

What Does Keynesian Economics Mean?
An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Investopedia explains Keynesian Economics
A supporter of Keynesian economics believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation.

www.investopedia.com...

Palin is a suppy-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics follower.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin said Friday night that the U.S. has veered too far from the values of President Ronald Reagan and warned that government overspending will lead to "decline and defeat."

Speaking at an event to celebrate Reagan's 100th birthday, Palin launched a broad attack on big government and increased federal spending.

"This is not the road to national greatness, it is the road to national ruin," Palin said at the event, which was sponsored by the conservative Young Americas Foundation in Santa Barbara. "American exceptionalism is not exceptionally big government."

abcnews.go.com...

What Is Supply-side Economics?:
Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. Over time, the increased economic growth will generate a larger tax base, which will recoup the revenue lost from the tax cut.

useconomy.about.com...


The point I'm trying to make is this. We have, now, a president who espouses a Keynesian policy of social justice
www.jstor.org...
A "share the wealth or redistribution of wealth."

Or we have Sarah Palin. Whom the left and some of the right vilify at every turn, supporting a supply-side economic plan that gave us years of prosperity all through even Clinton's years in office.

If you want social justice, government control of the economy, then go ahead and vote for Obama again.

But if you want freedom from government intervention, you really may want to take a look at Sarah Palin.

Comments are always welcome. Please forgive any errors.

reply to post by beezzer


A "share the wealth or redistribution of wealth." although I don't believe he is distributing the wealth because as a middle class person I am just not seeing it...maybe the lower class are getting a leg up and that's great but it should not be at the cost of anyone else...I can't say I dislike Obama as much as I did a year ago because his republican side of security is coming through loud and clear and for petty reasons I dislike Sarah Palin and wish her not to be president...Talk about a SH*T sandwich...I think if Obama started with less pschotic administration i.e. Pelosi and Reid and a few other dingbats we would be in much better shape...I always believe it's the cabinet who shapes the country not necessarily the President...good post though...and I personally do not think she is a good fit or representative for the tea party but who else is there...

I do not believe in supply side economics.
It was just a theory when Reagan put it into practice and it has been shown to not work time and time again.

When the wealthiest individuals are receiving tax breaks and there are no guidelines or mandates for them to invest that money back into the country, they don't. Workers are hired abroad and they have shown they do not use the monies for what the economic plan calls for.

When you give the rich a tax break, they're going to buy another home. They're not going to give their employees better benefits. This is pure fantasy and I am actually confused as to why so many people believe in Supply Side economics.

In theory it sounds wonderful, yes, but we all know that reality is a different scenario. This type of economic plan is only as effective as the morals of the individuals receiving the tax breaks. If those individuals are selfish, the plan does nothing.

I'm not an economist either obviously, and I don't have any of my own ideas how to create jobs. I don't like the sound of Keynesian economics either though.

It doesnt seem like you understand Keynesian economics very much. It is not about the government redistributing wealth. Im not sure how you came to that conclusion. Pat of it is that the government will spend extra money to boost the economy. This idea has worked since Keynes made it popular way back when.

Supply side economics is cutting taxes so that the extra money will cause jobs to grow. this doesn't not really work. No company is going to hire extra people because they now have extra money or spend it. they pocket it.

Companies hire people when they need them not because the tax rate was cut. That money goes tot he bank .

Palin will not give more freedom, her policies will bankrupt the country. The country is not bankrupt yet to dont say it.

reply to post by spinalremain


I have to disagree. The boon in the 80's, the 90's can be directly attributed to those policies.

It's the government intervention of those self-same policies that has led to our collapse.

reply to post by chrismarco


What you call his republican side to security, others may call tyranny.

But appreciate your reply.

reply to post by beezzer


Well myself and millions of others wholly disagree with you when it comes to Supply Side economics.

Anyone can spin anything. I see it as a fact that they don't work. Not a debate. We can stay disagreed on that though.

Originally posted by gorgi
It doesnt seem like you understand Keynesian economics very much. It is not about the government redistributing wealth. Im not sure how you came to that conclusion. Pat of it is that the government will spend extra money to boost the economy. This idea has worked since Keynes made it popular way back when.

Where does government get "extra money"? Higher taxes. And Keynes certainly made that popular. Tis why I linked social justice to it in my OP.

Supply side economics is cutting taxes so that the extra money will cause jobs to grow. this doesn't not really work. No company is going to hire extra people because they now have extra money or spend it. they pocket it.

It did work. Jut look at the 80's and 90's. Please provide some reference to this assertation.

Companies hire people when they need them not because the tax rate was cut. That money goes tot he bank .

Palin will not give more freedom, her policies will bankrupt the country. The country is not bankrupt yet to dont say it.

Companies hire people to create larger companies to increase profit.
Obama and yes, Bush have already bankrupted this country. We need to recover now.

all i know is the lazy bums and the elderly and disabled do not create wealth in this country.

all i know is that govenment is the problem in this country

all i know is that it is not the governments job to control the economy.

obama =big government
palin= small government

the fact is wealth is being destroyed in this country just depends on who you blame.

i blame the government.

trickle down does work i work i get paid and then i go buy something anywhere and in turn those people do the same and it snowballs and snowballs and ends back up at the governent.

reply to post by neo96


Thank you. It's hard to argue when you put it in terms like that.

'The most important initiative you could take to improve the world economy would be to stabilize the dollar-euro rate.'....
....As it turns out, Mr. Mundell—the Columbia University professor who advocated the hard-money, low-tax policy mix that broke stagflation in the early 1980s, and who received the Nobel Prize in 1999 for his work on exchange rates....
...What advice would you give to Washington that would help turn around our moribund economy?"
He pauses to think, but only for a moment. "Pro-growth tax policies, stable exchange rates."

www.bordergold.com...
Mundell was one of the engineers of the temporary good times, along with Dr PC Roberts Reagans under secetary of the treasury

here is a really good step by step history of the reagan economic policy:
www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by Danbones


Thanks for the input-homework!

Originally posted by beezzer
The point I'm trying to make is this. We have, now, a president who espouses a Keynesian policy of social justice
www.jstor.org...
A "share the wealth or redistribution of wealth."

It is silly to argue against redistribution of wealth as it is inevitable. The differences between the right and left is not whether redistribution of wealth is justifiable, it's where that wealth distributes. Under the Kennedy administration and even that of the Clinton/Obama administration, distribution of wealth was focused more towards social services. Under the Reagan and Bush administrations, wealth was distributed mainly towards the military. Somehow, it's perfectly fine to throw billions into the military industrial complex, but it's a crime against the constitution to do so towards programmes like medicare for seniors.

Sarah Palin supports wealth distribution, she supported it when it was going into the Iraq war, she supported it when it meant detaining terrorist suspects at guantanamo. Patriot act? Well she's been largely silent on this nations wealth funding of that policy.

Again, it's pointless to argue on where Palin stands of distribution of wealth. Unless she's an anarchist, she supports it toward her point of view. For a tea partier you certainly have no issue supporting this woman, considering her support for the Bush adminstration all these years. It just astounds me.

Whom the left and some of the right vilify at every turn,

Why do you vilify Obama?

Is it because he has supported the continuation of the Patriot act? Where does Sarah Palin stand on the Patriot act?

Do you vilify Obama on the war in afghanistan? Where does Sarah Palin stand on the war in Afghanistan?

What seperates Palin from Obama? And I'm not talking about what policies she supposedly supports right before election time, I'm talking about her past actions and comments. Is the only reason you support Palin because she supports Reaganomics and privatization? Everything else we must sweep under the rug?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You have a point. We aren't discussng whether to redistribute, but "how much" should we redistribute. We've skipped over that salient point years/decades ago.

And we need to return focus to that core issue! We have become an "entitlement nation". It's now a "given" that you will receive something from Uncle Sam (Uncle Sugar).

That has to stop. We can't just continue along these lines of entitlement-redistribution-reallocation of the remaining nations wealth.

As for your other points on the different issues shared/contrasted by Palin and Obama? Still doing my homework.

reply to post by spinalremain


I agree with everything you said. Reagan's trickle down economic has proven time and time again it doesn't work. You can't control how the rich will spend their money. To think they would put that extra money back into the economy is just speculative economics.

The corporations have been getting tax breaks for years, yet their main priority is to make a profit and to satisfy their investors. If trickle down economics really worked, we wouldn't be losing good paying manufacturing jobs to Mexico, India and China. Corporation greed will always try to find the cheapest workers so they can fill their pockets. Why else do corporations support breaking organized labor? It cuts into their CEO's multi-million dollar salaries and their investors returns.

I always find it kind of rediculous when CEO's get benefits like free seasonal professional sports tickets, free tickets to entertainment events and yearly bonuses etc, etc.... They can easily contribute to the economy by purchasing it themselves with their outlandish salaries! In the mean time, the average Joe will pay out of their measly salaries for bleacher reserved seats.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by gorgi
It doesnt seem like you understand Keynesian economics very much. It is not about the government redistributing wealth. Im not sure how you came to that conclusion. Pat of it is that the government will spend extra money to boost the economy. This idea has worked since Keynes made it popular way back when.

Where does government get "extra money"? Higher taxes. And Keynes certainly made that popular. Tis why I linked social justice to it in my OP.

Supply side economics is cutting taxes so that the extra money will cause jobs to grow. this doesn't not really work. No company is going to hire extra people because they now have extra money or spend it. they pocket it.

It did work. Jut look at the 80's and 90's. Please provide some reference to this assertation.

Companies hire people when they need them not because the tax rate was cut. That money goes tot he bank .

Palin will not give more freedom, her policies will bankrupt the country. The country is not bankrupt yet to dont say it.

Companies hire people to create larger companies to increase profit.
Obama and yes, Bush have already bankrupted this country. We need to recover now.

The government can get extra money a number of ways. Selling bonds, raising taxes, temporary deficit spending ect...

The 1990's boom had nothing to do with supply side economics and the 1980' did not do very well. It was Volker who got rid of the high inflation not Reagen.

Companies hire people that they need. They are not going to hire people simply for the sake of hiring them. Companies are not going to hire more people because of a tax break and now that they have more money to throw around does not mean that they will hire people to just sit there, if there is nothing for them to do.

i have read too many posts on here way to many regarding entitlement programs vs defense.

general welfare is a "interpretation" of the general welfare clause however the defense of the nation is CLEARLY spelled out.

for all those constitutionalists.

as long as nations exist
as long as borders exist
as long as there are haves and have nots

the military will always be needed.

when the focused shifted from reagans military to clintons entitlements 9-11 happened

most people will never get the fact as long as the us exists there are people who hate us and will do anything to kill us.

but forget all that common sense talk lets just spend the entire gdp on the people so they dont have to work and do nothing that is unil some one nukes us, detonates a chem bio attack or marches across the southern border.


us defense is in dire need of reform and rebuilding but so is the enitlement programs

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by spinalremain

 

I agree with everything you said. Reagan's trickle down economic has proven time and time again it doesn't work. You can't control how the rich will spend their money.

Why should you want to control how the rich spend their money?

I find this post very illuminating. So you think that there should be some authority that would control how the wealthy spend their money?

Originally posted by neo96
all i know is the lazy bums and the elderly and disabled do not create wealth in this country.

all i know is that govenment is the problem in this country

all i know is that it is not the governments job to control the economy.

obama =big government
palin= small government

the fact is wealth is being destroyed in this country just depends on who you blame.

i blame the government.

trickle down does work i work i get paid and then i go buy something anywhere and in turn those people do the same and it snowballs and snowballs and ends back up at the governent.

Let me help you out and educate you.

Killing the old and the disabled is not the answer.

The government is not the problem. The lack of a proper government is the problem. We would not have had these kinds of problems if the government was more involved.

Palin is not for small government.She is for the same kind as bush was. Bigger and no way to pay for it.

That is not how supply side works. The rich get the tax break and the excess money that they now have trickles down to us common folk.

reply to post by gorgi




you educate me? tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stop regurjitating main stream bs

the government is the problem

who the hell are you or government to tell anyone how much they can have since you nor the government worked their azzes off for it.


this is a republic and property rights(money) is THEIR PROPERTY noone in this country has the right to steal from minorities and give to the majority.

theres some education for you.