Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

280 Views
Message 61 of 280

@Richva wrote:


The non partisan OMB seems to think it worked. I can also give you studies that show it did not work but all depend upon the impact of "multipliers".  If you spend a dollar in a grocery store, how many other businesses eventually benefit.  I can say, the proof is in the results. We are out of the "Great Recession" and still use the Free Enterprise economic system.  You may not remember but there was an awful lot of talk about that system being outdated and the destruction of the U.S. economy would have given that argument a lot of credence. 

 

Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points.


First of all, the OMB did not run a comparison of us vs the Europeans to compare economic planning which was the comment I was responding to.

 

Second, the OMB did not run a comparison to what would have been the result if the free market had been allowed to self-correct. Obviously they couldn't but as a result, assumptions are made.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Esteemed Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

285 Views
Message 62 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 


@pc6063 wrote:

Sp362-- see how a little common sense goes such a long way? Thank you for your post,  and your common sense.


So what would you have done?  Would you rather be living through our economic recovery, or the economic recovery going on in the European Union, which took a different approach?

 

If that is the post you were "kudo-chasing" about, what was the common sense? I did say that the approach of Keynse was useful in the short term, not as a continuing process. So, the issue has not to do with dealing with a recession. It has to do with a permanent economic model.

 

The Keynse approach was tried by Obama but became politicized and, as a result, was only marginally successful.


So, your new trick is to edit together different posts while leaving out the "meat" of the conversation?  It must work since two posters whose economic insights would fill a thimble have you given kudos for it.


Ha! More like their economic insights couldn't overflow a thimble.

 

The electrical contractor will be here in a couple of hours. Gonna be sure to ask if they ran my credit first.

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ (13 pages of lies and growing)
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

288 Views
Message 63 of 280

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 


@pc6063 wrote:

Sp362-- see how a little common sense goes such a long way? Thank you for your post,  and your common sense.


So what would you have done?  Would you rather be living through our economic recovery, or the economic recovery going on in the European Union, which took a different approach?

 

If that is the post you were "kudo-chasing" about, what was the common sense? I did say that the approach of Keynse was useful in the short term, not as a continuing process. So, the issue has not to do with dealing with a recession. It has to do with a permanent economic model.

 

The Keynse approach was tried by Obama but became politicized and, as a result, was only marginally successful.


The non partisan OMB seems to think it worked. I can also give you studies that show it did not work but all depend upon the impact of "multipliers".  If you spend a dollar in a grocery store, how many other businesses eventually benefit.  I can say, the proof is in the results. We are out of the "Great Recession" and still use the Free Enterprise economic system.  You may not remember but there was an awful lot of talk about that system being outdated and the destruction of the U.S. economy would have given that argument a lot of credence. 

 

Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points.


Richva, Personally, I think the recovery was longer and less energetic than it would have been if there was a more aggressive stimulus from the start (which was proposed and reduced).

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

286 Views
Message 64 of 280

Richva-- Obama saved this country from a depression. I seriously can't understand why there is even any discussion about this.

 

Our economy is strong, and was strong,  before little donnie took office.   I've often wondered what would have happened to our country had any other president been in office when our country was faced with this terrifying economic situation.

 

I thank God Mr. Obama was in office, and handled the situation through his stimulus programs, cash for clunkers program, and the other programs,  along with his savvy business sense that save this country from economic downfall. 

 It is true that Europe recovered from the near depression, but every time economic reports were given, our country was far ahead of the trend back to a stable economy. 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

284 Views
Message 65 of 280

@rk9152 wrote:

 


@pc6063 wrote:

Sp362-- see how a little common sense goes such a long way? Thank you for your post,  and your common sense.


So what would you have done?  Would you rather be living through our economic recovery, or the economic recovery going on in the European Union, which took a different approach?

 

If that is the post you were "kudo-chasing" about, what was the common sense? I did say that the approach of Keynse was useful in the short term, not as a continuing process. So, the issue has not to do with dealing with a recession. It has to do with a permanent economic model.

 

The Keynse approach was tried by Obama but became politicized and, as a result, was only marginally successful.


So, your new trick is to edit together different posts while leaving out the "meat" of the conversation?  It must work since two posters whose economic insights would fill a thimble have you given kudos for it.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

287 Views
Message 66 of 280

@rk9152 wrote:

 


@pc6063 wrote:

Sp362-- see how a little common sense goes such a long way? Thank you for your post,  and your common sense.


So what would you have done?  Would you rather be living through our economic recovery, or the economic recovery going on in the European Union, which took a different approach?

 

If that is the post you were "kudo-chasing" about, what was the common sense? I did say that the approach of Keynse was useful in the short term, not as a continuing process. So, the issue has not to do with dealing with a recession. It has to do with a permanent economic model.

 

The Keynse approach was tried by Obama but became politicized and, as a result, was only marginally successful.


The non partisan OMB seems to think it worked. I can also give you studies that show it did not work but all depend upon the impact of "multipliers".  If you spend a dollar in a grocery store, how many other businesses eventually benefit.  I can say, the proof is in the results. We are out of the "Great Recession" and still use the Free Enterprise economic system.  You may not remember but there was an awful lot of talk about that system being outdated and the destruction of the U.S. economy would have given that argument a lot of credence. 

 

Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

291 Views
Message 67 of 280

 


@pc6063 wrote:

Sp362-- see how a little common sense goes such a long way? Thank you for your post,  and your common sense.


So what would you have done?  Would you rather be living through our economic recovery, or the economic recovery going on in the European Union, which took a different approach?

 

If that is the post you were "kudo-chasing" about, what was the common sense? I did say that the approach of Keynse was useful in the short term, not as a continuing process. So, the issue has not to do with dealing with a recession. It has to do with a permanent economic model.

 

The Keynse approach was tried by Obama but became politicized and, as a result, was only marginally successful.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

301 Views
Message 68 of 280

Sp362-- see how a little common sense goes such a long way? Thank you for your post,  and your common sense.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

300 Views
Message 69 of 280

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

First, if you want to get into an Economics discussion, you will want to read John Maynard Keynes and others who say the easiest and cheapest way to stimulate an economy is from the bottom up, not the top down.
Yes, to "stimulate" the economy (when needed). The Dems have perverted Keynes concept into a permanent condition.
I personally believe that the free market has natural flows and government interference only tends to stifle the natural corrections a healthy economy needs.

You'll have to be more specific.  What has happened to pervert Keynes concept into a permanent condition.  The free market has been allowed to self correct. The last time the Government stepped in to stop a correction is when we were the verge of an economic collapse.


As I am sure you have seen, there are posters calling for major increases in taxes so that there can be massive increases in spending on a permanent basis. That goes well beyond Keynes.

 

Janet Yellen has been interfering with the natural correction of the market for years.


Or, they are calling for additional taxes in order to pay down the debt that was run up in part to keep the economy moving.  In basic Economics, there are 3 major spenders, consumers, businesses and government.  If consumers and businesses stop spending, then the government needs to increase spending to keep the economy afloat.  So, when times are bad, spending increases, when times are good, the debt needs to be repaid.

 

Yes, that is the Keynes approach. However, in his thinking it is a short term "boost", not a continuing part of the economy. As to paying down the debt - if there were to be a guarantee that such would be the use of a temporary increase, I would support it. But, history teaches us that increased revenue manages to find it's way into new spending.

 

Yellen controlling the money supply is more of a Monetarist economic action (Miltion Friedman) than a Keynesian one.  But the goal of controlling the money supply has been to stimulate the consumer economy by keeping interest rates low.  The main purpose has been to keep us out of a recession, not to stop corrections, which have happened.

 

I know that theoretically was the goal. But her QE did nothing but get money to the banks that (due to her low interest rates) opted to invest rather than loan and most of the money went to Wall Street building an artificial bubble. And you know what happens to bubbles.

 


 


So what would you have done?  Would you rather be living through our economic recovery, or the economic recovery going on in the European Union, which took a different approach?


Sorry, I can't answer you - 321 will shout at me (but only me). Start a new thread and we can pursue this.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly

Re: Democratic socialism

299 Views
Message 70 of 280

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Let's get one thing perfectly clear:

REAGAN ONLY CUT TAXES ON THE RICH.

In 1981, he cut the TMR from 70% on income above $400,000 (married filing jointly) where it had been from 1965 thru 1980, to 50% on income above $85,600. Then from 1981 until 1987, he kept increasing the level at which the 50% applied, reducing taxes for all those at the top. In 1987, he cut the TMR to 38.5% on incomes over $90K and in 1988, had only 2 rates - 15% on income 0 to $29,750 and 28% for amounts above $29,750.

 

To get a feel for how much he jacked taxes on the 99%, consider: In 1980 a person with taxable income (AGI) of $1,000,000.00 would have paid about $540,000 in Federal Income taxes. In 1988, that same $1,000,000 AGI would pay $276,132.50 BUT as wingers love to point out, the total revenue from taxes was HIGHER.

 

So, if in 1988, the people with million dollar AGIs paid HALF of what they paid in 1980, and a bigger total was collected, WHO PAID THE INCREASE?

 

I don't have a problem with tax cuts. What I TOTALLY object to are wealth redistributions FROM the bottom 99% TO the top of the 1% disguised as tax cuts.


Once again, many numbers, much rhetoric, and little logic.

 

Let's cut to the chase, since 47% of the population pays absolutely no federal income tax, it is totally impossible for the 99% to have their taxes "jacked" as you claim.

Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask?

Check out the Health Tips discussion board today!

Top Authors