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

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.

But the fact that he didn't apply the government intervention into his policies speaks for itself.

Originally posted by malcr
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.

Show me how it's failed.
Government meddling is what causes the failure.

I see much blame placed on corporations and how "they" are the evil soul-sucking paracytes of the free world.

But corporations live and die by policy set by those in DC. Get the right people in that would stop the free rides and loop holes in the tax code, hell, enact a fair tax and many of the manipulative problems caused by meddling government and corporations would vanish.

Gorgi, you certainly sound like a promoter of Socialist policies. You know that reminds me, there's a thread going on about the uprising in Spain, and it reminded me of the Kent State riots. So I did some research and found out that Bernadine Dorhn, infamous Weatherman, had spoken at Kent State at the time of the riots. SDS and Weathermen were both radical groups that started this uprising, they set fires, gave talks, handed out fliers, promoted anti-Viet Nam war rhetoric. I also happen to have read that Bill Ayers and Code Pink were over in Egypt some time before that uprising.
See a pattern here? Someone posted a manifesto for the Spain uprising movement(no it's not spontaneous) and it had UN buzzwords like "sustainability" and all the rhetoric about the rights to housing and so on. So, what I am saying is you sound like an advocate for the "right to housing". In fact your name kinda sounds Spanish or Italian. There is ample evidence that SDS and Weathermen and the Communist Party have been behind these uprisings. They are ostensibly to get rid of Imperialism. (read anti Capitalist).
SO, are you just a guy who believes in Keynesian economics or something else?

Tha Spanish thing is classic pretending to not be involved directly but just being "part of" the movement.

Many of the different communist parties and organizations active in the Spanish state have issued statements of support for the wave of occupations, dubbed the 15-M (May 15) movement, and have been active participants in these demonstrations. They view their main tasks as helping to develop and deepen the working-class consciousness of the protests and to unite the various sectors that are in motion against the capitalist austerity in order to open a broader, worker-led political struggle against the Spanish state and the two ruling parties — the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and the People’s Party (PP).

They can change their name, say they are not really communist or Marxist but they are for all the same stuff being spouted right here in the good ol USA by you know who.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by malcr
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.

Government meddling is what causes the failure.

^That's true, but you fail. Most of the deregulation that took place was launched by the Carter administration and it was completed just in time for Ronnie to take credit. In fact, under Reagan there was no deregulation, but an increase in regulation.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by malcr
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.

Government meddling is what causes the failure.

^That's true, but you fail. Most of the deregulation that took place was launched by the Carter administration and it was completed just in time for Ronnie to take credit. In fact, under Reagan there was no deregulation, but an increase in regulation.

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

How about you back up your statement with something tangible.

Deregulation was just a tiny aspect. Nice try to change the narritive though.

Reagan did something many presidents didn't do. And that is the fact that Reagan didn't create more laws to insert/involve themselves with capitalism, commerce, business.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by malcr
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.

Government meddling is what causes the failure.

^That's true, but you fail. Most of the deregulation that took place was launched by the Carter administration and it was completed just in time for Ronnie to take credit. In fact, under Reagan there was no deregulation, but an increase in regulation.

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

How about you back up your statement with something tangible.

What type of info do you want? I got this info from a book, so I don't know were to look for it online.
Here's one though.
link

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic. What point are you trying to make about deregulation?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic. What point are you trying to make about deregulation?

I'm just pointing out that Reaganomics didn't deregulate the economy, you said government meddling is what causes the failure, and I agreed. But Reaganomics didn't stop government meddling, but it increased it.

Clinton 627
Carter 454
Reagan 250
Bush 157
Obama 415

These numbers represent the number of bills that were signed into law by the presidents.

Clinton, Reagan, Bush were two-term presidents. Obama's been in 3 years!
www.whitehouse.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_Congress)

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


You're not making sense. By NOT meddling with business, you say government messed it up more?

reply to post by beezzer




cant argue with those numbers we can all see the party of big government

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

You're not making sense. By NOT meddling with business, you say government messed it up more?

No. He did meddle with businesses/the economy, with his "Tax Reform Act", his increasing of the SS tax, protectionism and through excessive fees. He just hid it well.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Reagan dropped the tax rates from 50% to 28% for the top bracket of earners.
www.infoplease.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

Reagan dropped the tax rates from 50% to 28% for the top bracket of earners.
www.infoplease.com...

Yeah, on paper he did, but in reality he increased taxes for everyone. His tax cuts were meaningless, they were offset by two forms of tax increases: bracket creep and SS tax increases, they take that accomplishment away.

We can debate Reagans actions all day long. But history has shown that under RR the economy grew.

Under Obama, with a Keynessian approach, the economy is faltering.

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

www.americanthinker.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
We can debate Reagans actions all day long. But history has shown that under RR the economy grew.

Under Obama, with a Keynessian approach, the economy is faltering.

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

www.americanthinker.com...

edit on 28-5-2011 by beezzer because: kxdfmbodktgo;m

The problem is that Reaganomists only look at the short term effects of his polices, but they ignore the long term effects they have and like I said before I consider Reagonomics to be Keynesianism. Specifically, during the recession, Reagan cut taxes and increased spending. How is that not Keynesian? You said yourself that Keynesianism doesn't work.

I think it is time to bury Keynesianism and Reagonomics/Supply-siders.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Comparing reaganomics to keynesian economics is reaching to say the least. You can believe it all you want.
It ain't gonna make it true, though.

What Obama IS doing is keynesian though.


Keynesian thought is to react to an economic state THEN manipulate the economy with tax money in the hopes of redistribution (see social justice.) and once that is accomplished, redirect any profits garnered BACK to the government.

Reagan saw a problem and fixed it with no regard to providing a sunset to his economic policy.

Thanks for playing though. Joanie? What do we have for our contestant?

reply to post by beezzer

So getting a supply sider back in power will fix our economy, right? You Tea party guys make capitalism look bad. ~_~ Crony capitalism based on supply side economics is not what the U.S needs, the right is doing more harm to liberty than the left, at least everyone knows leftist aren't for liberty. Which gives the left the ability to use rhetoric that a failure caused by the right= failure of liberty.