What is Keynesian Economics and why is it so destructive to America’s recovery?

Ah yes trickle up. Why is economics the only thing in the world that is better if it starts at the top and works its way down?
Do you build a house starting with the roof?
Do you grow a garden with the vegetables fully grown?
To build upon something requires a strong foundation, but in economics it's just the opposite? Explain?

 

Well it shouldn't be long for another housing boom to come along and make those numbers look good. Right?
Base sound economics on a housing boom. We should give it a try, don't ya think?

 

Declining deficits? How is starting with positive and then going negative declining? Unless you think the further in red we go is declining.

 

Just a solid turn around would help and if Obama would get out of the way and let that happen we would be much further along. His policies are making it worse and have been utter failures.

 

He started with a slowdown and negative before he even took office and a recession within weeks, the negative was happening no matter who had won the election.

 

So what if Bush started with a slowdown?

Are you claiming if a president starts with a slowdown or worse its fair to ignore the economic data his first 3 years in office? Is that why you start in 2003 when you argue data for Bush?

 

And the tout the housing boom, because that's exactly what we had, not real growth, as a successful growth.

I don't count booms as real economic growth, do you?

 

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -7% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and we were headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for almost two years, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year and a half, stock markets are up about 70% from their recession lows, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to just above 9%, with 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes could claim Obama's policies have made it worse and are an utter failure.

 

Bush, as you claim, started with a slow down and accelerated a housing boom. Bama starts with a housing bust, IMO much worse than a slow down, and you expect to turn it around, how fast?

This unwinding of the boom cycles we've had will go on for a decade or more. Probably more. No matter who's running the show.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html

Now that GDP has stabilised somewhat we need to reduce the deficit. A massive part of the deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts :




So it makes sense to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes on the wealthy somewhat. Obama only wants to put taxes on top earners back to where they were under Clinton, a time when you'll remember we had good economic growth and balanced the budget.

 

Mr. Shmenge is inaccurate on a number of points.

The stimulus did create 2-3+ million jobs, according to mulitple independent analyzes.

Corresponding with big increases in Govt spending under FDR, the economy began growing strongly, and unemployment in the GD fell from 25% in 1932 to 15% until a cutback in Govt spending in 1936-37 sent the country back into a recession and the unemployment rate up.

Also, some economics have pointed out those numbers are skewed because workers on non-permanent Govt programs were not considered employed.

The Romer paper on the stimulus based the 8% prediction the recession being (based on partial 2008 data then available) much less severe than it was. The economic forecast was wrong, but the stimulus created 2-3 million jobs, roughly in line what was predicted.

 

Are you saying the economic conditions a President inherits are of no bearing?

No and No. I often cite 2001, every time I note that the economy was in a downturn and how his first round of tax cuts helped to limit that downturn I am starting at 2001. I also routinely note that revenues were 35% higher by 2007, you know that why do you pretend that I don't reference 2001. 2003 was the bottom of that slowdown recession and the year his main tax cut went into effect and revenues grew 44% by 2007.

 

Depends on the boom. Booms are just one component of overall growth. And growth is a cycle. Bush handled the recession he inherited, which included the dot come bust, correctly. Obama has totally failed to handle the real estate bust and recession he inherited.

 

After the tax cuts revenues rose 44%, 35% from the start of his term and before the recession hit. The deficit fell in 2005, 2006 and 2007 down to $161 billion. A TENTH of where Obama and the Democrats have taken it.

So what on earth are you talking about?

 

Yes and his policies have made it worse.

It has been hanging on by a thread with GDP so far this year under 2% growth. You brag about less than 2% growth? How laughable. But then you proclaim 9% unemployment as Happy Days Are Here Again!

They didn't in August.

Seen it lately?

How long has it been at or over 9%, what is the projection into 2012?

Why do you pick Jan 2010?

jan 2007 - 114993
June 2011 - 108997
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

We still have a net loss of jobs.

And all Obama will propose is more of his failed policies.

Tell if everything is as rosy as you pretend then why do we need another half trillion dollar jobs bill?

 

Math errors

Year - Revenues
2000 2025.2
2008 2523.6

24.5% increase.

Pathetic compared to the 85% attained under Clinton and the major reason while the surplus Bush inherited evaporated and turned into trillions more debt.

 

A) this is the most sluggish recovery since the great depression
B) the stock market is still at the same level it was in 1999 or close to it.
C) unemployment is still at 9%

You call this a recovery?

 

Not at all. I'm saying you apply double standards by cherry picking dates for Bush ignoring his first 3 years after he took office but apply a different standard to Obama.

Math error:

Year - Revenues
2000 2025.2
2008 2523.6

24.5% increase.

2003 was not the bottom of the slowdown. Fact check:

Year - % chng real GDP
2000 4.1%
2001 1.1%
2002 1.8%
2003 2.5%

But I'll hold you to the Bluesguy rule and we can start comparing Obama's performance beginning with FY 2011.

 

No, what I said was:

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -7% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and we were headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for almost two years, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year and a half, stock markets are up about 70% from their recession lows, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to just above 9%, with 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes could claim Obama's policies have made it worse and are an utter failure.

 

Year - % cng real GDP
2009 -3.5%
2010 3.0%

Only to the partisan invested in failure for political purposes is +3.0 worse than -3.5%

I didn't brag about 2% growth, nor proclaimed happy days about 9%.

You are resorting to fabrication again. How unusual.

Been listening to Sean and Muchdoch propaganda for your worldview again, I see.

Total private employment
109153 Jul 2011
109170 Aug 2011

19th straight month of increases.

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

Yes, they are up about 70% from their recession lows.

It has fallen from over 10%.

To show the performance since the recession year 2009.

Why do you pick 2003 when you post data from Bush?

So now under the "Bluesguy rule," it's OK to look at jobs loss from the beginning of the presidency?

(*)(*)(*)(*), its hard to keep track of how the Bluesguy rule is applied.

Net private sector job loss thru August of third year:

Obama
Jan 2009 110981
Aug 2011 109170
Net loss under Obama: 1.8 million

Bush
Jan 2001 111634
Aug 2011 108266
Net job loss under Bush: 3.4 million

This from a guy who defends Bush who lost almost twice as many jobs as Obama at this point in his presidency.

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -7% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and we were headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for almost two years, the private sector has created jobs every month for more than a year and a half, stock markets are up about 70% from their recession lows, and the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to just above 9%, with 5 million private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes could claim Obama's policies have made it worse and are an utter failure.

Especially one who defend's Bush's miserable record.

Offset the damage to confidence from the Republican Tea Party debt ceiling fiasco.

 

That is because in their world history only begins yesterday; forget all of their BS, lies and distortions they spew in the past. They wish to be judged, not by their accomplishments because there are few, but rather by how much more they care.

It is an arrogant pompous mindset that calls for centralized powerful "deciders" who know better what we need than we do. The irony and ignorance of such ideologies is that they ironically only think BIG Government works when THEIR "deciders" are in charge.

It is the same idiot argument that without massive tax increases on those evil rich, revenue will not grow. It is the same ignorant and arrogant mindset that suggests we forget how the Government wastes our hard earned wealth and send them even greater sums to pizz away.

To expect more from such an ignorant, naive, pompous and arrogant mindset is truly expecting more than they could ever hope to achieve.

 

Truly you wallow in blissful ignorance to make such analogies. Economics doesn't start at the top; that is the idiot tome and talking point of the progressive leftists.

It starts with supply, demand and RISK taking on the part of those who wish to tap that supply to meet the demand; hardly a trickle down situation.

Trickle down is the idiot theory of the progressive leftists who argue that centralized "deciders" in a powerful central government are better equipped to decide what it is society needs and wants better than individuals operating in their own self interests and having private property rights.

History is littered with the failures of well intentioned misguided progressive liberal ideology yet the ideologues on the left want to keep stealing everyone else’s wealth with their idiot experimentation by convincing the gullible this is better for them.

Trickle down is BIG Government stealing the hard earned wealth of others in an effort to pander to idiots who will vote for politicians who promise them something for nothing; how has that worked for us?

 

Another historically challenged liberal who can only remember what happened yesterday while desperately trying to make a coherent argument using deflections.

9-11 occurred in 2001 and we also voted to go to war by overwhelming margins in Afghanistan and Iraq. Please show me one time in history where ANY nation who went to war did so on a balanced budget or with surpluses.

But even with all that, by the time Americans gullibly fell for the idiot DNC talking points of the leftist media, the deficit had been reduced to about $161 billion. The following year with the fiscally challenged morons on the Democrat side in charge, the deficit ballooned to over $460 billion and now accelerates to over $1.6 trillion.

Carry on.

 

Pretty tough to do as only one president in the past several decades had a surplus budget.

But the war in Balkans war was in that time period.

Given Bush inherited a +236 billion surplus, you proclaiming a $161 billion deficit as an accomplishment?

Another illustration of the warped conservative mind.

$1.6 trillion? Making stuff up again, are we?

 

So what if Obama started office with a slowdown?

I never saw Bluesguy make such a claim; got strawman?

Is this why you end your data in 2005 when you argue data against Bush?

What was the average unemployment rate for Bush's term versus Obama's? What was the average deficit over Bush's term versus Obama's?

Why is it Obama and Democrats get a pass from you for NOT passing your beloved tax increases which you seem to claim are the panacea of deficit spending yet you continue to rail about the Bush tax cuts.

If someone were rational, they would be outraged that Obama pilfered an opportunity to raise taxes when he had vast majorities in both houses of Congress; yet not a peep.

If someone were rational, they would be outraged that after spending $1.6 trillion more than they took in, we still have massive unemployment, malaise and increasing poverty.

But alas, when dealing with Obamafools, this is what we can expect from them; parroting idiot DNC talking points in a vacuum of the facts or reality.