The Next President of the United States: III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
When you can’t grow the government though politics, don’t worry, you always have Keynesian economics. Plus, it makes you sound smart when discussing economics over race, art history, and rescuing animals at a liberal cocktail party. [/quote]

LOL, great post. Like Ronald Reagan was an intellectual and world renown economist. But, he turned the economy around and helped create millions of jobs using common sense. And he did it with one very simple and reasonable thought. If more people get to keep more of their hard earned money the economy will grow.

Of course the opposite makes no sense at all. Give more to the government and watch it become bloated and inefficient which it has done for decades.

yeah…eggheads are pretty much worthless in the real world.

42

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
When you can’t grow the government though politics, don’t worry, you always have Keynesian economics. Plus, it makes you sound smart when discussing economics over race, art history, and rescuing animals at a liberal cocktail party. [/quote]

It has a proven track record of success. [/quote]

90 years ago… Government is not, and will never be the answer.

43


Could anybody who is certain of (New-) Keynesian economics’ vacuity give me a quick criticism of a relevant DSGE model? Let’s choose the Smets-Wouters model in its reformulated 2010 incarnation, developed in concert with Jordi Gali – the one that takes involuntary unemployment as an additional variable. Furthermore, which competing non-Keynesian model do you suggest if I’m looking to analyze…say…inflation, stimulus, and monetary policy since the Great Recession? Be specific.

Also, I’m having a spot of trouble with what’s pictured. Would somebody walk me through it?

44

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Could anybody who is certain of (New-) Keynesian economics’ vacuity give me a quick criticism of a relevant DSGE model? Let’s choose the Smets-Wouters model in its reformulated 2010 incarnation, developed in concert with Jordi Gali – the one that takes involuntary unemployment as an additional variable. Furthermore, which competing non-Keynesian model do you suggest if I’m looking to analyze…say…inflation, stimulus, and monetary policy since the Great Recession? Be specific.

Also, I’m having a spot of trouble with what’s pictured. Would somebody walk me through it?[/quote]

Crickets chirping.

Although even Keynes would be unfamiliar with some of the Keynesian claims about what to do on the economy since his time.

But more to the point, “Keynesian economics” just serves as a useful boogeyman for the lazy.

After all, even the moderate Democrat Ronald Reagan* winked at Keynes as part if his efforts to get the economy moving. Reagan cut taxes, but he boosted deficit spending and expanded the size of the federal government (and not all of which was related to defense spending).

Thus, even the patron saint of the modern GOP applied doses of Keynesianism to economy. And George W. Bush most certainly did, too. So I find it a little strange that GOPers are so anti-Keynesianism when such a philosophy has been part of the GOP’s toolkit since the modern era of the party.

*Party and ideological affiliation adjusted and revised for political inflation. Reagan wouldn’t get a hearing in today’s GOP. After cutting taxes in 1981, he signed several pieces of legislation raising taxes, including a raise in the payroll tax to improve lagging funding of…Social Security and Medicare. (I’ll set aside Reagan’s support for abortion laws, amnesty, and ban of assault weapons for now, though, and stick to economics.)

45

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Reagan wouldn’t get a hearing in today’s GOP. After cutting taxes in 1981, he signed several pieces of legislation raising taxes, including a raise in the payroll tax to improve lagging funding of…Social Security and Medicare. (I’ll set aside Reagan’s support for abortion laws, amnesty, and ban of assault weapons for now, though, and stick to economics.)[/quote]

“This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.”
Ronald Reagan-April 20, 1983

Cool- SS, Medicare and Medicaid represent close to 50% of federal spending? Yup.

And we flip out about NASA studies costing a million bucks or whatever…pathetic

46

"Keynesian economics WTF?
NOT EVEN GOING TO GOOGLE IT
pay attention smart f–ks
when i know i will have a job i spend more when my job outlook is poor i save more
when i know i will have a job i buy new car when my job out look is poor i get the car fixed
most people i know do the same thing
people i know who own a Business do the same thing the more profit they make the more they spend, less profit less spending

48

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…After all, even the moderate Democrat Ronald Reagan* winked at Keynes as part if his efforts to get the economy moving. Reagan cut taxes, but he boosted deficit spending and expanded the size of the federal government (and not all of which was related to defense spending).

Thus, even the patron saint of the modern GOP applied doses of Keynesianism to economy. And George W. Bush most certainly did, too. So I find it a little strange that GOPers are so anti-Keynesianism when such a philosophy has been part of the GOP’s toolkit since the modern era of the party.

*Party and ideological affiliation adjusted and revised for political inflation. Reagan wouldn’t get a hearing in today’s GOP. After cutting taxes in 1981, he signed several pieces of legislation raising taxes, including a raise in the payroll tax to improve lagging funding of…Social Security and Medicare. (I’ll set aside Reagan’s support for abortion laws, amnesty, and ban of assault weapons for now, though, and stick to economics.)[/quote]

I think you’re mostly correct. Problem is your correctness does little more than indict “moderate” policies and “compromise” as wholly inadequate. Yes, Reagan, when he implemented some of the things you mentioned, failed the country and failed conservatism. The proof of the pudding is in the eating in that our country continued to descend into the financial abyss after he left office.

By the way, it’s important to note that Reagan supported the “assault weapons” ban well after his presidency ended. [/quote]

The problem with this thesis is that there is nothing categorically “moderate” or “compromising” about the deficit spending ideology (and it is an ideology).

To the contrary, it was (and is) a deliberate policy direction, not a give something to get something horse trading. Republicans went all in on the (near theological) supply-side theory that had, as a corollary, that deficits are self-liquidating due to the magic of economic growth unleashed by tax cuts, any time, all the time.

(To be fair to Reagan, he wasn’t even all on board with this ideological approach, which is why he was ok with tax raises to help shore up some deficits.)

But again, that approach wasn’t developed as a result from “moderates” nor was it a function of compromising. It’s holy writ of the GOP.

And Democrats turned this ideology against the GOP - does anyone think that Obamacare would have been passed if we were still on an ideological footing (by at least one party) that you can’t enact legislation you can’t pay for? I don’t think so - but the GOP abandoned that view to replace it with the new ideology of supply-side tax cuts, and the Democrats took full advantage when they took control.

50

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It has a proven track record of success. This thread is neither the time nor the place. I just find it amusing that someone who isn’t even a dilettante is throwing stones at doctored economists. I’m a middle of the road beer man and much prefer rendezvouses in bars. Race, art history, and animal welfare never come up.[/quote]

Define success. I would call it immoral.
Say for instance you want to have sex, so you go out an rape someone. In your eyes that is a success, but what about the person that was raped?
Success isn’t based on whether the person or business receiving government redistributed or printed money benefits.

51

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But again, that approach wasn’t developed as a result from “moderates” nor was it a function of compromising. It’s holy writ of the GOP.

[/quote]

I disagree. It’s always been the moderate, compromising faction of the GOP that advocated and implemented what you mentioned.
[/quote]

Well, that’s simply not true. To the extent there was a moderate bloc, they were advocating old-school fiscal conservatism (along with Democrats who did the same
) - insist on balanced budgets and pay-as-you-go principles, and leaving everything on the table, including cuts and tax raises to close deficits (to which Barry Goldwater would have smiled). The Republicans who pushed in this direction were attacked precisely as squishy, unprincipled moderates precisely because they departed from holy writ and were open to tax raises to get rid of red ink.

The taxonomy and ideology changed - what used to be rock-ribbed conservatism (no deficits, even raise taxes to erase deficits if necessary) became the ideology of the centrists (both parties) and the new “true conservatism” became an undulating belief in supply-side magic and who cares about deficits because theybself-liquidate.

So, no - deficits as far as the eye can see are not a “moderate” phenomenon. The moderates have been begging for a return to Goldwater principles, but have been told that is a sellout position.

52

Council on Foreign Relations

Hillary Clinton on National Security and the Islamic State

http://www.cfr.org/radicalization-and-extremism/hillary-clinton-national-security-islamic-state/p37266

This is more of the learned policy depth that Republicans have to contend with. The renewed focus on foreign policy in the wake of the Paris attacks will only benefit Clinton, especially vis-a-vis the current GOP front runners.

53

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The renewed focus on foreign policy in the wake of the Paris attacks will only benefit Clinton, especially vis-a-vis the current GOP front runners. [/quote]

It really won’t though. Take the average low information voter and ask “Who is stronger on terrorism?” Almost every Republican in the field will beat her on that issue. Experience or not she comes off as weak. She can act tough against Bernie and Omalley, but to the Joe Everyman it lacks the stand most of the Republicans are taking. Perception wins in the security realm.

(We have already discussed Hilary’s “amazing” foreign policy record. This response is in regards to the common voter.)

54

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The renewed focus on foreign policy in the wake of the Paris attacks will only benefit Clinton, especially vis-a-vis the current GOP front runners. [/quote]

It really won’t though. Take the average low information voter and ask “Who is stronger on terrorism?” Almost every Republican in the field will beat her on that issue. Experience or not she comes off as weak. She can act tough against Bernie and Omalley, but to the Joe Everyman it lacks the stand most of the Republicans are taking. Perception wins in the security realm.

(We have already discussed Hilary’s “amazing” foreign policy record. This response is in regards to the common voter.)
[/quote]

So you’re asserting that the average low-information voter is likely to trust GOP candidates on terrorism over Clinton? Interesting. Regardless, polls indicate otherwise.

56

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The How to Deal with Trump saga continues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/plan-a-for-gop-donors-wait-for-trump-to-fall-there-is-no-plan-b/2015/11/25/91436a00-92dd-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html[/quote]

I think that this makes Iowa and New Hampshire even MORE fascinating.

It’s one thing to “support” someone in the abstract; it’s another to actually cast your Vote for them.

Iowa and New Hampshire should tell us a lot.

Something that I question about one of the articles points; do Bush’s people REALLY think that he would fare better against Trump than one if the other candidates? (or did I misinterpret the point being made?)

Mufasa

58

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The renewed focus on foreign policy in the wake of the Paris attacks will only benefit Clinton, especially vis-a-vis the current GOP front runners. [/quote]

It really won’t though. Take the average low information voter and ask “Who is stronger on terrorism?” Almost every Republican in the field will beat her on that issue. Experience or not she comes off as weak. She can act tough against Bernie and Omalley, but to the Joe Everyman it lacks the stand most of the Republicans are taking. Perception wins in the security realm.

(We have already discussed Hilary’s “amazing” foreign policy record. This response is in regards to the common voter.)
[/quote]

So you’re asserting that the average low-information voter is likely to trust GOP candidates on terrorism over Clinton? Interesting. Regardless, polls indicate otherwise.

[/quote]

I’m not surprised. In fact, to many liberals she seems way too ‘Hawkish’ for their tastes. Personally, I think Hillary is at least somewhat ruthless and cold or at least comes off that way and would have an aggressive foreign policy, especially compared to most democrat presidents in the modern era of politics. I’ve even talked to conservatives I know, like real conservatives not moderate republicans or what are called around here RINOs, who are really uncomfortable with putting her in charge of the military for this reason.

59

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The renewed focus on foreign policy in the wake of the Paris attacks will only benefit Clinton, especially vis-a-vis the current GOP front runners. [/quote]

It really won’t though. Take the average low information voter and ask “Who is stronger on terrorism?” Almost every Republican in the field will beat her on that issue. Experience or not she comes off as weak. She can act tough against Bernie and Omalley, but to the Joe Everyman it lacks the stand most of the Republicans are taking. Perception wins in the security realm.

(We have already discussed Hilary’s “amazing” foreign policy record. This response is in regards to the common voter.)
[/quote]

So you’re asserting that the average low-information voter is likely to trust GOP candidates on terrorism over Clinton? Interesting. Regardless, polls indicate otherwise.

[/quote]

I’m not surprised. In fact, to many liberals she seems way too ‘Hawkish’ for their tastes. Personally, I think Hillary is at least somewhat ruthless and cold or at least comes off that way and would have an aggressive foreign policy, especially compared to most democrat presidents in the modern era of politics. I’ve even talked to conservatives I know, like real conservatives not moderate republicans or what are called around here RINOs, who are really uncomfortable with putting her in charge of the military for this reason. [/quote]

I agree with you on that one particular point. She would be a breath of fresh air when it comes to foreign policy compared to our current do nothing President.

But, I would rather not have a new group of left wing judges appointed. Also, I don’t want my taxes raised yet again especially after what Obama did to me. And there are many other reasons why we don’t want her to become President…I heard she lies a lot too :wink: