If you can't [deficit] spend your way to prosperity

[The Rabbi]

Umm yes the debt, the same thing that the right and most are ragging on Obama now about.

Defecit = debt.

I think I'll let The Man himself explain it to you. If you're concerned about the deficit then you can thank the Democrats in Congress, who spent more than revenues brought in.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrjxcccJuCc[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find it odd that people fully understand that the supply side needs enough money to create good and services, but they cannot also understand that the demand side needs money to buy the stuff the supply side makes.

And what I find most troubling about this blindsidedness is that these people think they understand economics, too.

There is a school of economic thought that believes that supply causes demand. When supply is large enough, prices fall and demand is stimulated.

Called Say's Law.

"A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.
Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.

“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds ? may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”

“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
ON THE CONTRARY; In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - New York Times


In economics, Say’s Law or Say’s Law of Markets is a principle stating that production, or supply, constitutes its own demand for what is produced. An important implication of Say's Law is that recessions do not occur because of inadequate demand or lack of money. According to Say's Law demand will grow as supply grows. For this reason, prosperity can be increased by increasing production, not consumption. Another implication of Say's Law is that the creation of more money simply results in inflation; more money demanding the same quantity of goods does not create an increase in real demand.

Following John Maynard Keynes, modern Keynesian macroeconomists argue that Say's Law only applies when prices are fully flexible, and an economy is self-regulating provided that all prices, including wages, are flexible enough to maintain it in equilibrium.In the short run, when prices are not flexible, a drop in aggregate demand can cause a recession.
Say's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

The SS withholding was also increased too much giving Congress access to those surplus funds to spend.

How many spending bills did Reagan veto?

"How many spending bills did Reagan veto?"

From an earlier post:

b. “Ronald Reagan sought- and won- more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last [forty-five] years to cut inflation adjusted nondefense outlays, which fells by 9.7 percent during his first term.” Veronique de Rugy, “President Reagan: Champion Budget-Cutter,” AEI - Papers

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

The SS withholding was also increased too much giving Congress access to those surplus funds to spend.

How many spending bills did Reagan veto?

"How many spending bills did Reagan veto?"

From an earlier post:

b. “Ronald Reagan sought- and won- more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last [forty-five] years to cut inflation adjusted nondefense outlays, which fells by 9.7 percent during his first term.” Veronique de Rugy, “President Reagan: Champion Budget-Cutter,” AEI - Papers

Overall spending went up every year of Reagan's presidency so whatever was cut somewhere was being spent elsewhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

If you're criticizing Reagan, the response is, well, Congress controls the purse strings.

If you're praising Reagan, then that doesn't come up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

Why did Reagan agree to tax cuts when he knew they weren't being paid for by spending cuts, and in fact when Reagan himself wanted more and more and more spent on defense?

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

Why did Reagan agree to tax cuts when he knew they weren't being paid for by spending cuts, and in fact when Reagan himself wanted more and more and more spent on defense?

I'm sure that you understand, but by playing dumb, you allow an important discussion.

1. While the WH can ask of bills to be written, the Congress does so.

2. Political necessity requires the give and take that we see in spending, and, rarely, cutting.

3. I have no doubt that the best way of having you wander off, aimlessly, is to let the NYTimes explain it to you:

“No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program. There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE6DA173BF932A25756C0A
960948260&pagewanted=2
(emphasis mine)


There seemed to be a bit of a sneer when you referred to the great man...did this wipe the sneer off your face?

 

[JBeukema]

I find it odd that people fully understand that the supply side needs enough money to create good and services, but they cannot also understand that the demand side needs money to buy the stuff the supply side makes.

And what I find most troubling about this blindsidedness is that these people think they understand economics, too.

There is a school of economic thought that believes that supply causes demand. When supply is large enough, prices fall and demand is stimulated.

Called Say's Law.

Funny, for all the sand in the world, nobody really wants any

Simply increasing how much there is of something on the shelves doesn't make people want it

In economics, Say’s Law or Say’s Law of Markets is a principle stating that production, or supply, constitutes its own demand for what is produced.

Which is why any failing product becomes a huge seller if you just keep producing it

Say's Idiocy is Labour Theory of Value's even more retarded cousin

 

[The Rabbi]

I find it odd that people fully understand that the supply side needs enough money to create good and services, but they cannot also understand that the demand side needs money to buy the stuff the supply side makes.

And what I find most troubling about this blindsidedness is that these people think they understand economics, too.

There is a school of economic thought that believes that supply causes demand. When supply is large enough, prices fall and demand is stimulated.

Called Say's Law.

Funny, for all the sand in the world, nobody really wants any

Simply increasing how much there is of something on the shelves doesn't make people want it

In economics, Say’s Law or Say’s Law of Markets is a principle stating that production, or supply, constitutes its own demand for what is produced.

Which is why any failing product becomes a huge seller if you just keep producing it

Say's Idiocy is Labour Theory of Value's even more retarded cousin

I seem to recall people in New Orleans and Idaho just before the flood had a tremendous demand for sand bags. What do you suppose is inside sand bags?

 

[JBeukema]

There is a school of economic thought that believes that supply causes demand. When supply is large enough, prices fall and demand is stimulated.

Called Say's Law.

Funny, for all the sand in the world, nobody really wants any

Simply increasing how much there is of something on the shelves doesn't make people want it

In economics, Say’s Law or Say’s Law of Markets is a principle stating that production, or supply, constitutes its own demand for what is produced.

Which is why any failing product becomes a huge seller if you just keep producing it

Say's Idiocy is Labour Theory of Value's even more retarded cousin

I seem to recall people in New Orleans and Idaho just before the flood had a tremendous demand for sand bags. What do you suppose is inside sand bags?

your brains, judging by the idiocy you post here

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny, for all the sand in the world, nobody really wants any

Simply increasing how much there is of something on the shelves doesn't make people want itWhich is why any failing product becomes a huge seller if you just keep producing it

Say's Idiocy is Labour Theory of Value's even more retarded cousin

I seem to recall people in New Orleans and Idaho just before the flood had a tremendous demand for sand bags. What do you suppose is inside sand bags?

your brains, judging by the idiocy you post here

Wrong, as usual.
Sand.
I won't go into all the industrial uses for sand, all of which are beyond your understanding.

 

[JBeukema]

You can put all the sand on the shelves at WalMart that you want- people aint gonna buy it

Of course, as usual, the entire subject is way above your head

 

[kiwiman127]

Maybe I missed something when I was reading the posts in this thread. I kept on reading Reagan had cut taxes and that's why our economy grew, but there were also six tax increases during Reagan's eight years.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

 

[Two Thumbs]

It never stops amazing me just how much dems have to ignore to view Reagan in a negative light.

It must suck to have to pick and choose such tiny windows every time, and still not be able to prove you know what you are talking about.

is this some reaction to finally figuring out that obama will replace Carter as the worst ever?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Maybe I missed something when I was reading the posts in this thread. I kept on reading Reagan had cut taxes and that's why our economy grew, but there were also six tax increases during Reagan's eight years.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

When Reagan took over the DOW was under 800.

Try to imagine how hard it was for any business to get going under that circumstance.

When he left it was over 11,000.

That's 13.75 times more.

Technology sprouted to life and laid the ground work for the NASDAK.

you all can keep saying it didn't work, or he did this or he did that, all you want.

But you can't say it didn't work. unless you like lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe I missed something when I was reading the posts in this thread. I kept on reading Reagan had cut taxes and that's why our economy grew, but there were also six tax increases during Reagan's eight years.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

What are you questioning?

Whether or not the economy grew as a restult of Reagan's policies?

Whether or not they were efficacious in foreign policy terms?

Whether the size of government grew under President Reagan?

BTW, all three are 'yeses.'

 

[thereisnospoon]

All of these threads starting and in which liberal posters participate end up with a monolithic idea. That being support of high taxes and statist central planning.

 

[uscitizen]

Maybe I missed something when I was reading the posts in this thread. I kept on reading Reagan had cut taxes and that's why our economy grew, but there were also six tax increases during Reagan's eight years.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

When Reagan took over the DOW was under 800.

Try to imagine how hard it was for any business to get going under that circumstance.

When he left it was over 11,000.

That's 13.75 times more.

Technology sprouted to life and laid the ground work for the NASDAK.

you all can keep saying it didn't work, or he did this or he did that, all you want.

But you can't say it didn't work. unless you like lying.

Yep the rise of bogus gains ,leveraged buyouts, layoffs to raise stock price, offshoring, and hedge funds.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can put all the sand on the shelves at WalMart that you want- people aint gonna buy it

Of course, as usual, the entire subject is way above your head

You can put all the tantalum on the shelves at WalMart that you want too and I doubt you'd sell any. But that doesn't mean tantalum is worthless.
Of course for someone who cannot think beyond what he sees this whole concept would be alien.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All of these threads starting and in which liberal posters participate end up with a monolithic idea. That being support of high taxes and statist central planning.

So true....conservatives hate Keynes, because they result in high deficits, and liberals hate supply-side economics beause it gives tax cuts to 'the wealthy,' and if envy and greed are your main motivations, there is nobody better to hate than the wealthy.

It's always fun to ask, after a liberal begins the rant, who, exactly are the 'rich' and at what point is one considered so.