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

Originally posted by beezzer

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.

I think the fact that you don't recognize he did apply selective government intervention speaks volumes. Supply-side Economics is rooted entirely in Keynesian Economics.

Look again, Keynesian Economics: "An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability."

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes (an active government intervention in monetary policy) will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending (altruistic "wishful thinking"). Over time, the [wished for] increased economic growth will generate a larger tax base, which will recoup the revenue lost from the tax cut.

I do have one issue with your provided definition; it's a bit to general. Trickle-down economics is not just belief in a reduction of taxes; it's specifically reducing, in a manner favoring the wealthy, in order for the "trickle-down" to occur.

Supply-side economics is merely a branch of Keynesian theory, that assumes those receiving the tax cuts will altruistically reinvest their return for the better good of the nation's economy. Such altruistic wishful thinking has been proven to be nothing more than a pipe dream.

What's better for the U..S. economy... a few thousand executives/C.E.O.s being able to purchase a new Mercedes, BMW, or Porsche... or a few hundred thousand workers being able to afford a new Ford or Chevy? That's what the Supply-side economics debate boils down to when it's not just "looking good on paper".

While Supply-side economics looks great on paper, in practice it is nothing more than class warfare; an economic sniper rifle aimed at the vitals of the middle class.

reply to post by wasco2

Please do not bring in the Cato Institute.
It is funded by precisely the kind of neocon globalists that basically destroy the remnants of Western democracy if we let them.
This pretty much sounds like a believer Soviet quoting the Prawda in 1982 as a source of truth to prove that Brezhniew is basically a good fellow.
Even if all the people die or sink into Third World poverty in America - with the exception of investor clubs that will have amred guards around their walled quarters - the Cato Institute will continue to champion what they take to be the truth. Except, it is the same type of baseles sideological fabrication as the Soviet "truth" was.
Also, everyone toes the line. That is pretty boring. To any right winger anywhere, Reagan was healthy and good.

When are you guys getting tired of the Party and its Sacred Icons?
I mean, the Dems are not much better but this is vicious and mindless.

Cato Institute.

OK.

I will eat Prawda paper.

I don't know whether people are seriously misinformed or seriously misinforming, but to suggest that the Reagan/ Thatcherite adoption of the Friedmanite school of economic ideology in the early 80's has anything to do with Keynes other than opposition, is quite staggering. Neo-liberalism and the concept of 'trickle down' it proffers is at odds with Keynesian theoretical models and the philosophies behind them all but diametrically opposed. If you are unaware of this then you are unaware of the economic debate that has been going on since the 70's.

All you have to do is read Friedman and Keynes to understand they are the antithesis of each other.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Look, you can make all the apologies for your messiah, but she said 'share the wealth' which is a socialist ideology and therefore she is a socialist.

Messiah? No, that's for supporters of Obama who think he is going to solve all the problems of the world and pay their mortgage and put gas in their tanks(oops gas prices are higher than ever....)

Exactly. And your attitude towards Sarah is the same as the Obamabots towards their messiah. You think she is your savior.

Alaskia has no state income, property, or sales tax I would think you liberals would lover her. taxing the oil, sharing the profit, and no property tax. Maybe it didn't increase the size of govt though, so maybe that's why libs didin't like her program.

This is what I am saying. She's a socialist. You just admitted it. The liberals should love her.

She is your socialist messiah.

reply to post by Kokatsi


Another response typical of the far left: attack the messenger when you can't attack the message. You could'nt be more wrong about the Cato Institute. Doesn't matter to me, it's your loss.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You can call it scialism but it's more like shareholders of a company receiving dividends from a stock that they own

You're saying 'the people' COLLECTIVELY own the land and it's resources? Buddy, that's socialism. You and your girl sarah are Socialists.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You can call it scialism but it's more like shareholders of a company receiving dividends from a stock that they own

You're saying 'the people' COLLECTIVELY own the land and it's resources? Buddy, that's socialism. You and your girl sarah are Socialists.

No, but nice try. Or do you consider shareholders socialist as well?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You can call it scialism but it's more like shareholders of a company receiving dividends from a stock that they own

You're saying 'the people' COLLECTIVELY own the land and it's resources? Buddy, that's socialism. You and your girl sarah are Socialists.

No, but nice try. Or do you consider shareholders socialist as well?

If you consider 'the people' of Alaska to be 'shareholders' of Alaska's natural resources, then yes, you are a Socialist.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

You can call it scialism but it's more like shareholders of a company receiving dividends from a stock that they own

You're saying 'the people' COLLECTIVELY own the land and it's resources? Buddy, that's socialism. You and your girl sarah are Socialists.

Most Americans and politicians are socialist, they just don't know it. Even Marxists are split in their methods to achieve socialism, but the main goal is to abolish private ownership of the means of production in favor of public i.e., state ownership. Transforming the economy step by step by regulating business is fully compatible with Marxism. So technically Supply-side economics/Keynesianism can be considered socialist.

peakoil.com...

some comments here on how the money from oil taxes is invested in a fund and the exra dividends from those funds given to the people in Alaska.

reply to post by wasco2

I can attack the message and I have been since 1984 when I started to wake up. Before I saw what utter destruction neoconservatism brought to America personally, I had also believed in the omnipotence of the "free market."

The Cato Institute is a Friedmanite think tank, funded by some of the richest industrial and media magnates - some of whom are actually fundamentalist Christian.

I am not a "far left" person, you appear to be "far right" though. I despise your word play.

What I merely want is freedom for the average man from the tyranny of the corporations the same way the Founding Fathers declared freedom from the English Monarch and its tax system.

Friedmanian economics - despite all your word play - will put the average man at the mercy of the corporatocracy - so all the results of the American Revolution are undone. If not the Monarch, then BP and Enron and the rest will keep people in slavery.

What neocons want is unlimited freedom for corporations, capital and investor clubs, while limiting the freedom of the average citizen - in this scheme the oppressive State will execute the will of corporate power against the average voter citizen. This is clearly the undoing of democracy - we choose our leaders but we do not choose the leaders of corporations.

Period.

See, that's^ exactly what I mean. Reagan destroyed all trust in the self-regulating nature of the marketplace, and its ability to deliver goods without government intervention. With that trust gone corporatism becomes not only what the people want, but psychologically necessary "to stop corporatism". This thread is essentially pointless, since you all advocate the exact same thing, just different methods.

Originally posted by Kokatsi
reply to post by wasco2

 

I can attack the message and I have been since 1984 when I started to wake up.

Wow! Hate to break it to you but you didn't wake up, you just became delusional.


You still haven't said anything to contradict the message and you won't You won't because you can't. Despite all the lies and spin from the left about the Reagan era the facts are on record for anyone that cares to look. You claim you are not a far left ideologue. I say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck I'm going to believe it's a duck. Oh, and I'm done with you. Liberals cannot abide facts, logic, and reason so further discussion is pointless.

Originally posted by wasco2
You still haven't said anything to contradict the message and you won't You won't because you can't. Despite all the lies and spin from the left about the Reagan era the facts are on record for anyone that cares to look.

As if the government has never fudged numbers and lied to you.

Get past the left/right BS cause they are both the same. Reagan handed out amnesty to around 3 million illegals. Isn't that something the right is supposed to be against? Maybe he was a liberal.

I will cast a write-in vote for Bozo the Clown before I vote for Caribou Barbie. Or King Oreo. Hmmm, I only get to choose from whom "they" tell me to.

This thread is funny. None of you really know what you are talking about. I could explain it, but it would just confuse you. Carry on.

Originally posted by daskakik
. Reagan handed out amnesty to around 3 million illegals. Isn't that something the right is supposed to be against? Maybe he was a liberal.

edit on 1-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

No, he was a politician and a pretty good one. He was able to get a Democrat controlled House, and Senate for two years, to pass more of his legislation than anyone ever thought possible. His charisma and effectiveness on TV was part of the reason but his willingness to work with Democrats on key issues was also a big part. That same law that granted amnesty to some illegals also imposed, for the first time, penalties on employers for knowingly hiring illegals. Enforcement has been poor by both Democrat and Republican presidents. This is one of the laws people against illegal aliens, like me, mean when we say, "Just ENFORCE existing laws!".

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.

In brief the act:[1]

required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status.
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously.

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

It looks like George Soros loves the - big government - option.
He is not hiding.
George Soros says the U.S. Government should grow the economy NOT the private sector.
BTW, how many times has George Soros visited the White House?
----------------------------------
By looking at the recent economic data clearly Keynesian Economics has failed miserably.
So, should we just keep doing the same thing or switch Plan B - Sarah Palin Economics?
- small and limited government -
- pour high octane capitalism into the U.S. economy -
- remove uncertainty by repealing ObamaCare -
- reduce the price of gas to $2 a gallon with - Drill - Baby - Drill - executive order
- reduce the size of the U.S. Government - Abolish & defund the EPA - that will
kill the back door Cap & Tax trick used by the Obama administraton.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

So, should we just keep doing the same thing or switch Plan B - Sarah Palin Economics?
- small and limited government -
- pour high octane capitalism into the U.S. economy -
- remove uncertainty by repealing ObamaCare -
- reduce the price of gas to $2 a gallon with - Drill - Baby - Drill - executive order
- reduce the size of the U.S. Government - Abolish & defund the EPA - that will
kill the back door Cap & Tax trick used by the Obama administraton.

On what precedent do you think any of those are reality-based statements to think Palin would/could implement?

Originally posted by beezzer
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.

the national debt can be attributed to it, the debt model of Reagan, supply side and trickle down was the
birth of the modern national debt model.

Over $8,000,000,000,000.00 of the current national debt is to service Ronald and Georges' I contribution to the national debt and the related compounding interest.

The concept is a fallacy Beezzer, the grandfather of all this rhetorical fluff was the initiator of exactly what he preached against. Sarah Palin, is a corporatist just like Reagan, they preach about things that make people feel nice.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
peakoil.com...

some comments here on how the money from oil taxes is invested in a fund and the exra dividends from those funds given to the people in Alaska.

edit on 30-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

So she believes in redistribution of wealth???

Socialism, maybe?

Personally, I like this policy, labels be damned, it is not very small government or very conservative however...