It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spinalremain
 


And just who does it hurt when the wealthy buy a home? A realtor? Construction companies? Construction workers? Vendors and suppliers?


You have a point, but how many homes will each wealthy person buy?

You ave to remember that the wealthy are the vast minority in this country. As I said before, over a long enough timeline, reaganomics HAS to fail. Filtering money through the wealthy for long enough creates stagnation, and eventually the wealthy continue to grow while the middle class, the majority, get stuck in decline.


Reaganomics/Keynesian economics was never intended to work though (at least not for us), it just gives the illusion of private ownership of the means of production, but reality it increases government control over the means of production. It's corporatism, business and governmental elites partner with each other -- even Reagan's tax cuts were a fraud.
edit on 27-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spinalremain
 


And just who does it hurt when the wealthy buy a home? A realtor? Construction companies? Construction workers? Vendors and suppliers?


You have a point, but how many homes will each wealthy person buy?

You ave to remember that the wealthy are the vast minority in this country. As I said before, over a long enough timeline, reaganomics HAS to fail. Filtering money through the wealthy for long enough creates stagnation, and eventually the wealthy continue to grow while the middle class, the majority, get stuck in decline.



ah ok then what if the wealthy continue to buy produce, shoes, clothes, or any other product? Who does that hurt? I'm sick and tired of the foolish class warfare. Besides, what constitutes wealthy? Barry seems to think it;s anyone making over $250,000 a year. Considering what a dollar buys now, thats roughly lower upper class.


Again, I fully get your point. But again I come around to the point that right now, it is about looking at where the wealth is being distributed. We aren't talking about it being distributed to people who make $250,000 a year. We are talking about it being distributed to military contractors of different sorts, many of whom have no anchor in america. The Bush/Obama Keynesian policy is a bastardized version of both trickle down and true Keynesian theory. I believe Palin would follow the same path under a different name.

While I understand that some groups feel they are charged with more of the burden, at this point, it is about the greater good, and saving this country. How good is A billion dollars if the dollar is dead?

Ive said it before, trickle down does work short term. But again, over a long enough timeline, corporations and the richest 1% will not continue to spend at a high rate. It has been proven in history.

The money needs to be distributed in places where it HAS to be redistributed into the economy. Infrastructure, federally funded national projects, such as new transportation, investment in energy sources outside of oil...these are the thing that put people back to work.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spinalremain
 


And just who does it hurt when the wealthy buy a home? A realtor? Construction companies? Construction workers? Vendors and suppliers?


But how does this help the american economy if the house is outside of the US or if they don't buy anything but put it in an offshore account?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No, they can spend it any way they want to. The problem I have is when they're given tax cuts under the expectations that they're reinvesting it into the economy! If that was the case we wouldn't be losing manufacturing jobs in this country!

Our government has bailed out bankers and corporations who have taken advantage of the middle class in this country. I have a problem when these same elite take advantage of our elected officials and tax dollars to bail themselves out when they're having financial difficulties. Have you ever had a corporation or banker bail you out if you're having financial problems?

Our government officials are responsible for mismanaging our tax dollars. Yet they turn around and want to increase our taxes so we can bail them out. Heaven forbid if you don't have enough to pay your income tax. Uncle Sam will hound you and garnish your wages until they get what they want.

Why would you even want to defend the wealthy? Do you really think they have your best interest at heart?
You can defend the free enterprise, but when you let corporations lobby elected officials, it's like having a kid in charge of the candy store. You can't expect corporations to manage themselves without some kind of regulation. It's only human nature to take more if you're given the chance.

People have complained about government run health care, and amazingly support the insurance industry who will try to find the smallest loophole to avoid paying out claims. What are people to do if they have pre-existing conditions and insurance companies don't want to insure them? Do they crawl up into a corner and die?

Our government can send our young sons and daughters to risk their lives at the drop of a hat. Don't you think they at least owe citizens the right to have healthcare? It's a basic human right. It's not right that those who can afford better healtcare receive it, and those who can't, receive less or none. The rich put their pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else. How can anyone justify denying anyone a chance to live?

It really comes down to this, free enterprise will work if the people who are in charge of corporations value their workers. They have to believe in paying people who make their corporations successful a fair and livable wage. Unfortunately, greed will keep it from ever happening.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi
reply to post by beezzer
 


Raising the highest tax bracket is not a bad thing. Since when has the idea of "the more one makes the more one pays" become so evil?


As long as it's a hard number, it's not evil or unfair. But since the rich pay a higher percentage they pay proportionally more, which is evil and unfair.

Progressives harp and whine about making sure everyone is treated equally and fairly. Unless they're rich. Can't have anyone living that silly "American dream" thing, can we?

/TOA



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

There is Orwellian word play here.
Actually, there is no such thing as "defense" in America.
"Defense" is an Orwellian word - Orwell attributed it to imagined English Socialists, but today's right-wing in America uses precisely these kind of word plays. (As does the PC platform.)

It is simply making war in foreign lands that is today called "defense".
How are we defending American lives and soil in Iraq, Afghanistan, and recently, Pakistan?
The same way as we defended America in Vietnam.
There is only one big problem with this. Neither Vietnam, nor Iraq are in the US. Period.
America has the biggest military budget and we often act on other nations' and groups' preceived interests - like a world military # police force.
This is what we call "defense."

No country has attacked the US on her home soil since Pearl Harbor, except for the single event of 911, where it is still highly debatable whether our own Soviet-style government had some part in it. I think it did.

Another Orwellian cheating hidden in a m,anufactured word is "entitlements." There are no entitlements, it is simply what any decent group of people do to provide for the babies, the old, the decrepit and the sick.
Only Fascist societies will criticize that.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I hope you know Reagan's main economic advisor was a keynesian economist and supported the fed reserve heavily.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by beezzer
 


I hope you know Reagan's main economic advisor was a keynesian economist and supported the fed reserve heavily.

Reagan, the murderer, is beezzer's fave president. He will never admit that he was a fraud. Reaganomics failed, but the republicans will never admit it because it might hurt RR's feelings. Reaganomics/Keynesianism both heavily merge corporations and the State, Democrats do it under the guise of "anti-corporatism" and Republicans do it under the guise of "anti-Statism", but both economic theories are basically the SAME thing.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by gorgi
 


what you call facts is bs show me where the right has killed old people etc.

taxes are theft read the constitution will you like that part where it says ALL TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY MUST BE UNIFORM throughout this land.

the only person lying here is you man

i am not buying what your selling.


Actually this is what the 16th amendment says.




Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Doesn't look like theft to me they have the law backing them. The provision your talking about doesn't say you don't have to pay taxes but everyone should pay the same percentage that is the only way it can be uniform.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Supply side economics has been shown to fail time and time again. What it does do is pamper to the emotion of greed which is why it it keeps cropping up again and again.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Another monster reaganomics created by its largely irreversible deregulation policies is our present globalist model wherein no nation could defend the economic interests of its honest workers. The flood of cheap substitute goods from China (the Chinese get less than one tenth of the price) as well as the total inflation of the money markets (speculative capital making up more than 90% of stock exchange items).

We should say: Never again! because the social costs of all this "supply side" economics nearly finished off our great country.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96
 


It's part of their meme to bash the rich, bash the successful, bash the folks that work.

When the entitlement population is growing in leaps and bounds due to poor mismanagement of the economy BY government, then the only enemy you have left is the wealthy.

No, it is not the rich. If there is anything that should be bashed it is the soulless smooth machine of multinational corporations and investor clubs over which the owners of capital have precious little control.
These days a rich person does not even know what their money is doing around the world each month.
While many decent individuals work in multies, any collective humane act - such as fair compensation of victims of environmental destruction by said corporations - is perceived by their own systems of rules as unforgiveable acts of weakness they must prevent. If a CEO changes his mind and says - hey folks, we do have way enough money to pay these victims and it is us that screwed up their lives - he is fired.

This is the kind of psychopathic monster mentality neo-conservative economics helped to create. I guess one more president like that - this Palin looks no better than Bush Jr. - and the country is forever ruined, divided, deprived of all its greatness for several generations and even the rest of the world can barely take the problems caused by the Western right wing. (Not to speak about the childish fundamentalism it fostered which is no better than the Islamic radicals they constantly trash).

I lived through Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton (that was really a Republicrat) and by the time Bush Jr. came I decided to leave and live as an expat.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96
 


It's part of their meme to bash the rich, bash the successful, bash the folks that work.

When the entitlement population is growing in leaps and bounds due to poor mismanagement of the economy BY government, then the only enemy you have left is the wealthy.


I gotta scratch my head here. Wealthy people are not my enemy. I think you are presuming a bit much.
I am simply for the growth of the middle class, not the disappearance of it. I am 100 percent for those who wake up everyday and break their ass so they can afford to eat and pay their mortgage. Unfortunately, the middle class is disappearing at an alrming rate. It's a big problem.
- I don't claim to have the answers, but I'll be damned if a Reaganite is going to tell me the wonders of supply side economics while most Amercans know full well that it does nothing but create even more distance between the rich and middle class. In theory it sounds great, in practice it's a greedy scheme.

Obama extended tax breaks. Where are the jobs? I see the same amount of unemployment throughout NYC's labor community as I have seen 5 years ago, if not worse.


edit on 28-5-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


yeah there is a thing called defense in this country as guaranteed by the us constitution.

thats your definition of what "Defense" has become wasnt always that way doesnt mean it will always be that way.

"too provide for the common defense" and those people who are trying to get rid of defense in this country are those "socialists".

and stop with the right wing bs take a good look at the military usage under democratic control still in those countries and now a 4th.

some people will argue that a country did attack us on 9-11 just depends on if you think it was bin laden or saudi arabia.

YES there are entitlements the very definition is PEOPLE ARE OWED something or that they are ENTITLED to something.

fascist societies take what they want they dont criticize anything.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





Doesn't look like theft to me they have the law backing them. The provision your talking about doesn't say you don't have to pay taxes but everyone should pay the same percentage that is the only way it can be uniform.


it is theft when half this country is paying taxes and the other half isnt and thats is what i am talking about.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Our entire economy is based on keynesian economics. While there may be some differences on hot button issues Voting Palin in will do nothing to change the root problems. Although she would probably be better then obama on things like health care and taxes. However voting in Palin will not bring us prosperity. By the way GWB claimed to be a supply side economics advocate also and even ran on a platform similar to Ron Paul's. It's a puppet show and when people get tired of the show TPTB change the puppet but the show goes on. It is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it continues to sink... Gotta love oligarchy disguised as socialist democracy... RIP free Republics...
edit on 28-5-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by beezzer
 


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

.


Well, of course you do. The far left still hates Reagan and still lies about his accomplishments. I know facts are an anathema to a liberal but here's a whole bunch of them showing reagonomics did in fact work:

www.cato.org...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by beezzer
 


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

.


Well, of course you do. The far left still hates Reagan and still lies about his accomplishments. I know facts are an anathema to a liberal but here's a whole bunch of them showing reagonomics did in fact work:

www.cato.org...




What did Reagonomics do besides destroy all future chances of a free-market, increase taxes and increase government spending? The article you link to is a lie, Stephen Moore is a lie.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Again, I fully get your point. But again I come around to the point that right now, it is about looking at where the wealth is being distributed. We aren't talking about it being distributed to people who make $250,000 a year. We are talking about it being distributed to military contractors of different sorts, many of whom have no anchor in america. The Bush/Obama Keynesian policy is a bastardized version of both trickle down and true Keynesian theory. I believe Palin would follow the same path under a different name.


But there has been no evidence that Palin would follow through with the same Bush/Obama policy. There is mass speculation, fueled by the biased media in its portrayal of Palin.

Just no proof.

While I've provided at least evidence that she would follow a Reagan-isque approach that would have the government have a hands off policy towards commerce.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by beezzer
 


No, they can spend it any way they want to. The problem I have is when they're given tax cuts under the expectations that they're reinvesting it into the economy! If that was the case we wouldn't be losing manufacturing jobs in this country!



Reinvest or not, it's their money to do with what they want. Regardless. And we are losing manufacturing jobs because of government intervention in the form of tax laws, environmental laws, and entitlement programs to workers that have left the builders no other choice.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join