America will never elect a socialist

[Cheerful Charlie]

Keysnes stated deficit spending is necessary to break depressions and get economies moving. If people have no money, they cannot spend and producers suffer. That was his advice to break out of the big depression.

BUT, when out of depressions, one has to eventually get back to a balanced budget. That is where Keynsians and Supply-siders part company. Supply-siders have convinced themselves that big tax cuts pay for themselves. It never has. The Laffer curve is bunk.

The depression was a special case.

Poster child for Supply Side failure, Brownback and Kansas.

And 2007 was a failure of Kenesian policy at the federal level. For all the policies we have examples of where they worked and where they didn't work. Keynes said that the government that could borrow long term could handle the deficits, states can't for very long. And I agree about Kansas, a 1% cut wasn't going to bring Kansas to the other side of the Laffer curve.

Keynsian economics had NOTHING to do with the bust of the real estate bubble and massive collapse of the economy that resulted. That had to do with the lack of regulation that allowed that house of cards to develop and then fall apart. Keynes would never have suggest that was a competent way of doing business. This was rather a lack of regulation of dangerous practices and speculation. When the GOP that controlled the presidency, Senate and House preached the gospel that regulation is bad, and shirked their duty we got what was in hindsight, a totally preventable problem. This ideological based failure is in no way something Keynes can be held responsible for.

As for the Bush tax cuts, the CBO has told us that these tax cuts were responsible for 30% of the deficits under Bush. Today it is 24% because Obama could not cut back on them thanks to GOP intransigence, they wanted to make these tax cuts permanent despite the deficits. Obama only could get a minor nick on these tax cuts. Supply-Side economics still gives us toxic deficits.

Keynes would have never approved of this madness.

 

[arkirk]

And 2007 was a failure of Kenesian policy at the federal level. For all the policies we have examples of where they worked and where they didn't work. Keynes said that the government that could borrow long term could handle the deficits, states can't for very long. And I agree about Kansas, a 1% cut wasn't going to bring Kansas to the other side of the Laffer curve.

Keynsian economics had NOTHING to do with the bust of the real estate bubble and massive collapse of the economy that resulted. That had to do with the lack of regulation that allowed that house of cards to develop and then fall apart. Keynes would never have suggest that was a competent way of doing business. This was rather a lack of regulation of dangerous practices and speculation. When the GOP that controlled the presidency, Senate and House preached the gospel that regulation is bad, and shirked their duty we got what was in hindsight, a totally preventable problem. This ideological based failure is in no way something Keynes can be held responsible for.

As for the Bush tax cuts, the CBO has told us that these tax cuts were responsible for 30% of the deficits under Bush. Today it is 24% because Obama could not cut back on them thanks to GOP intransigence, they wanted to make these tax cuts permanent despite the deficits. Obama only could get a minor nick on these tax cuts. Supply-Side economics still gives us toxic deficits.

Keynes would have never approved of this madness.

So true! And it was all neatly cloaked as faux racism toward Obama. That seemed to be a big enough confuser for most of the American people. Obama has actually proven out to be a case of NeoCon lite and PNAC lite with touch of "pivot to Asia." The huge cost of our Military makes most of our problems seem larger by swallowing up what little money the supply siders have allowed to reach our government. Sanders can at least make an argument for eliminating the tax cuts on the 1%. Everybody else is kissing their butts.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And 2007 was a failure of Kenesian policy at the federal level. For all the policies we have examples of where they worked and where they didn't work. Keynes said that the government that could borrow long term could handle the deficits, states can't for very long. And I agree about Kansas, a 1% cut wasn't going to bring Kansas to the other side of the Laffer curve.

Keynsian economics had NOTHING to do with the bust of the real estate bubble and massive collapse of the economy that resulted. That had to do with the lack of regulation that allowed that house of cards to develop and then fall apart. Keynes would never have suggest that was a competent way of doing business. This was rather a lack of regulation of dangerous practices and speculation. When the GOP that controlled the presidency, Senate and House preached the gospel that regulation is bad, and shirked their duty we got what was in hindsight, a totally preventable problem. This ideological based failure is in no way something Keynes can be held responsible for.

As for the Bush tax cuts, the CBO has told us that these tax cuts were responsible for 30% of the deficits under Bush. Today it is 24% because Obama could not cut back on them thanks to GOP intransigence, they wanted to make these tax cuts permanent despite the deficits. Obama only could get a minor nick on these tax cuts. Supply-Side economics still gives us toxic deficits.

Keynes would have never approved of this madness.

Yes it did. The government lowered interest rates and kept them that low that long to stimulate demand. The banks product was response to take advantage of that demand. Tons of things had to happen for the housing bubble to happen.

And for cuts, Keyenes didn't worry about the long term deficit, he said deficits were okay. The problem is that in good times we have a hard time cutting things to balance it out.

 

[untermensche]

Keynsian economics had NOTHING to do with the bust of the real estate bubble and massive collapse of the economy that resulted. That had to do with the lack of regulation that allowed that house of cards to develop and then fall apart. Keynes would never have suggest that was a competent way of doing business. This was rather a lack of regulation of dangerous practices and speculation. When the GOP that controlled the presidency, Senate and House preached the gospel that regulation is bad, and shirked their duty we got what was in hindsight, a totally preventable problem. This ideological based failure is in no way something Keynes can be held responsible for.

As for the Bush tax cuts, the CBO has told us that these tax cuts were responsible for 30% of the deficits under Bush. Today it is 24% because Obama could not cut back on them thanks to GOP intransigence, they wanted to make these tax cuts permanent despite the deficits. Obama only could get a minor nick on these tax cuts. Supply-Side economics still gives us toxic deficits.

Keynes would have never approved of this madness.

Yes it did. The government lowered interest rates and kept them that low that long to stimulate demand. The banks product was response to take advantage of that demand. Tons of things had to happen for the housing bubble to happen.

And for cuts, Keyenes didn't worry about the long term deficit, he said deficits were okay. The problem is that in good times we have a hard time cutting things to balance it out.

Where exactly did Keynes say all this?

Which book and page?

http://www.amazon.com/John-Maynard-Keynes/e/B001H6SS5A

 

[ksen]

And for cuts, Keyenes didn't worry about the long term deficit, he said deficits were okay. The problem is that in good times we have a hard time cutting things to balance it out.

In good times the cuts pretty much take care of themselves as infrastructure spending winds down when projects are completed and less people apply for welfare programs since they no longer need them.

What doesn't happen during good times, that Keynes would advocate, are tax increases because for some reason the Republicans are in thrall to unelected Grover Norquist.

 

[untermensche]

And for cuts, Keyenes didn't worry about the long term deficit, he said deficits were okay. The problem is that in good times we have a hard time cutting things to balance it out.

In good times the cuts pretty much take care of themselves as infrastructure spending winds down when projects are completed and less people apply for welfare programs since they no longer need them.

What doesn't happen during good times, that Keynes would advocate, are tax increases because for some reason the Republicans are in thrall to unelected Grover Norquist.

Norquist just advocates things that make the rich very happy.

That in turn makes him rich and gives him a huge voice in the Republican Party.