I Can Think Of Nothing Good From Hillary Becoming President, You?

[NoHitlery]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

A problem with Keynesian economics is its inefficiency. It appeals to people like Hillary that believe in big government. She believes that it is only through big government that the economy can be stimulated, but I believe it is only through the free market. Only businessment and consumers can determine what products and services are wanted and needed. When the government starts a big program to stimulate the economy, the money gets diverted to areas in which consumers might not prefer to spend their money. Because their money is drained in the form of taxes, that money doesn't get to go where businessmen and consumers would prefer it to go.

On the Money Herb: They also are big believers in deficit spending which Bush hasn't done such a great job of holding the line. I'll give him a pass, since he's fighting a major war, 9-11- coming out of the Clinton recession, and Katrina. Taxes Destroy-Profits Employee. John Kennedy got it you would think that the Socialist posers licking the boots of all who tilt left would get it as well. I think JFK was secretly a conservative Republican, much like Bill was a moderate one, but both their wife's had them by the short hairs don't cha know. Good bye Norma Jean!

[drig23]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

Drig23,

I didn't know anybody still believed in Keynesian economics. Demand economics does nothing to build capital. We need capital to build more factories which create more jobs and more consumer goods. Supply side economics has worked in this decade. Bush's tax cuts has resulted in the shortest recession in modern history.

Bruce Bartlett was the staff economist for Jack Kemp in the early days of supply-side economics. He has a good article on it at [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.


Yes, supply-side economics is good for building factories and filling inventory. But, at the end of the 1990's, we had a different situation. We had more than enough manufacturing infrastructure. We had full inventories. Almost all companies had just upgraded their computer infrastructure to prevent Y2K. But, we had a populace that was under educated and in debt. The country had plenty of jobs, but we had to fill them with people from China, Japan, India and Russia because we didn't have the skills needed domestically. That's where demand economics, or Keynesian, comes into play.

The blind following of the supply-side religion is damaging. As is the blind following of the demand-side. Democrats have learned from past mistakes (anyone remember stag-flation? I do. So does Hillary and Barak). It's time Republicans realize that not every tax cut increases revenue. It's just logic...if taxes reach 0, tax revenue reaches 0. Crazy wingnut fundamentalism doesn't change basic economics.

[NoHitlery]

Originally Posted by drig23

Bruce Bartlett was the staff economist for Jack Kemp in the early days of supply-side economics. He has a good article on it at [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.


Yes, supply-side economics is good for building factories and filling inventory. But, at the end of the 1990's, we had a different situation. We had more than enough manufacturing infrastructure. We had full inventories. Almost all companies had just upgraded their computer infrastructure to prevent Y2K. But, we had a populace that was under educated and in debt. The country had plenty of jobs, but we had to fill them with people from China, Japan, India and Russia because we didn't have the skills needed domestically. That's where demand economics, or Keynesian, comes into play.

The blind following of the supply-side religion is damaging. As is the blind following of the demand-side. Democrats have learned from past mistakes (anyone remember stag-flation? I do. So does Hillary and Barak). It's time Republicans realize that not every tax cut increases revenue. It's just logic...if taxes reach 0, tax revenue reaches 0. Crazy wingnut fundamentalism doesn't change basic economics.

Very interesting take and welcome back drig23. I don't agree with your hypothesis. The lack of skilled workers has nothing to do with the economic equasion per se but is absolute proof of our woeful education system in this country. Our Universities turn out kids in the majority of cases that majored in nice touchy feely liberal majors that would allow them to stay in school, graduate, yet have nothing to offer an employer. I know, I was one of both, a child of the 60's then got my education from inquiry, was successful in business, and interviewed so many college graduates that couldn't pass a government test to deliver mail. Keynesian economic theory also preaches the value of deficit spending. Check out Samuelson's text that is still used in most Econ 101 classes. I was floored to see that the same text I used was updated of course, but taught the same nonsense to my daughter as a college freshman thirty years later. You want demand side economics, go to the countries of Western Europe and Canada where socialist policy has created both shortage and demand. Also the demand you talk about at the end of the 90's was the beginning of the typical cyclical recession that happens in a market driven economy. Note I do not blame the Clinton's nor give them credit for the boom while they were President. I thank supply side economics, and the Contract with America for cutting taxes, doing away with welfare, etc. after Mr and Mrs. Slick passed the largest tax increase in history after promising not to raise taxes.

[drig23]

I know you think it's clever, but it's just sick. My family's name is written on the walls of the synagogue in Prague. My family was forced-moved out of Krakow, never to be heard from again. Had not my immediate family moved to the US just a few decades earlier, I would not be around. My father was born 3 nights before Krystalnacht. This casual joking about Hitler isn't funny. It denegrates those who died in the Holocaust. It makes the genocide a joke. It shows your complete disregard for human life.

But, it goes beyond that. The casual disregard for human life, in Gitmo, Iraq and New Orleans, is a Republican disease. The infant mortality rate dropped under Clinton, but rose under Bush (not that that's such a great thing for Clinton...it rose every year since WWII until GW Bush). The poverty rates for children dropped under Clinton and rose under Bush. The violent crime rate dropped under Clinton and rose under Bush. It's a typical Republican attack to claim that the Democrats are guilty for all of the Republicans' transgressions, but worse. GWBush is responsible for 600,000 Iraqi deaths, so it's Hillary that is most like Hitler? Or, are you claiming that Hitler protected children and the sanctity of life, and that, like Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust was a hoax?

You disgust me.

[NoHitlery]

Dude: It didn't take much to uncover you. Take a chill pill, read up on your facts and figures. Please feel free to share what you are smoking with the rest of us. You don't disgust me, I find you and all left wing loons entertainment. It is funny to make somebody so completely ignorant come unhinged with just a few words. Well, since you have nothing to contribute, you probably can get a job at the DNC. Caio!

[nohil-billy]

Really Drig, if you're going to rant at least get your facts straight and don't come at as with left-wing talking points. I've heard of no massive casualty count at Gitmo but I do know of one that was caused by many of the detainees there. And according to the UN's most recent casualty count of the Iraq war, it's more in the 50-60 thousand range. As for Katrina, pre and post storm help was refused by Louisianas democrat governor and New Orleans democrat mayor was too busy high-tailin' it out of there to help his own constituents. He took the democrats mantra "What's in it for me" to a whole new level.

Do you really believe you can misqoute the facts on this form and get away with it?

[Herb Schaffler]

JFK's tax cuts created more revenue, Reagan's tax cuts created more revenue, and Bush's tax cuts created revenue. I don't know of any cases where tax cuts didn't create more revenue.

[nohil-billy]

And as for the Hitler comparisons, why don't you start on the democratic side of the aisle with Dick Durbin and go from there.

[NoHitlery]

Don't worry about Drig, he's sucking his thumb like most liberals when confronted with fact, probably hiding under his bed or in a dark corner somewhere. The thoughtful person that I am, I found a nice little stuffed animal for him to cuddle with so he won't be to scared.


Stuffed with Bull Cra=p

[nohil-billy]

You never cease to amaze me.