Trump Brings Back Keynesian Economics

Ah yes, the right wing should be so proud of themselves. When Obama did this the Republicans would not cooperate. Now it is Trumps turn, and they are gleeful:

Obama's plan did not work because Republicans would not cooperate. Trumps plan will not work because it is bull (*)(*)(*)(*):

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-stimulus-trump-20161109-story.html

"Has John Maynard Keynes just won a ticket back to the White House?

Keynes was the British economist who advocated government deficit spending to stimulate moribund economies. And that seems to be the principle undergirding the $1-trillion infrastructure construction plan that President-elect Donald Trump proposed shortly before election day. Trump outflanked a $275-billion plan offered by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — though he asserted that his plan would require only $167 billion in actual government outlays via tax credits to private construction companies.

The program was a linchpin of Trump’s promise to pump up U.S. economic growth to 4% a year and create 25 million new jobs. He gave it prominence in his victory speech early Wednesday morning: “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” he said. “We are going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. We will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”

Many economists doubt that Trump’s plan would put infrastructure construction where it’s most needed, or that the program is affordable. But the prospect of a surge in government spending may have helped buoy the U.S. stock market in the early days after his election."

 

I do not support infrastructure spending, especially at the Federal level, so I cannot support Trump as anything more than the lesser of two evils.

It sure makes sense from a political strategy perspective: slash entitlements, boost infrastructure. Conservatives (who are very poor at laissez-Faire anyway) will jump on board and never look back. The Democrats won't really know how to combat this for a few election cycles.

More than that, it forces a repolarization. The parties now have to realign around these ideas, lest they lose support.

 

Obama and nancys plan failed miserably.Nothing was accomplished, I guess the money ended up vanishing into thin air just like the 6 billion Hillary 'lost" while she running the State Department. Maybe trump can do better, but in the end the President can only propose so it wil be Congress that decides whether to spend the money or not. Funny how libs here think the PoTUS is omnipotent. Too many years of Obama running the country like a 3rd world dictator with his executive orders I suppose

 

Allowing private companies to keep more of their money via "tax credits" is hardly Keynesian.

His proposed tax plan of lowering the corporate tax rate will however not only provide a welcoming environment for business' but actually create wealth, as opposed to reducing and redistributing it in the name of "fairness" to made up victim groups who are economically ignorant.

The infrastructure spending though, no matter who it's proposed by is BS as it never quite gets to the promised intended recipient, I see it as shuffling other peoples money to other people. Not to mention, we don't (never have in the past either) have $1 trillion laying around collecting dust, and never will.

I will remain as skeptical of how government spends the money they get from us for the next 4 years as before.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dailyd...ders-per-president/?client=ms-android-verizon

Where the (*)(*)(*)(*) were you for all the other executive orders?

Partisan hypocrisy.

 

Total nonsense. No one is complaining about the number of executive orders they are complaining about the usurping of power through executive orders. But nice try. No matter a few of those are about to disappear.

 

It always cracks me up when some pen pusher tells us the reason for the surge or fall in the market.

As far as infrastructure spending goes, I know we need to spend money on roads, bridges, etc but IRS it all have to come from the Feds and be in one massive bill. We saw what happened with the last bill for shovel ready jobs. What was Obama said "I guess shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we thought" or some such nonsense. I voted for the guy so I'll be patient and see where this goes.

 

You don't support spending on infrastructure???????

Seriously?

What will you say when the road in front of your home falls apart?

 

This is false.

Obama's plan did not achieve immediate results because there really is no such thing as a "shovel ready" project anymore.

It was also drastically underfunded, and the GOP fought to keep it that way,

None the less, a lot of work did get done, and the implementation of the Stimulus did mark a major turning point in arresting the free fall of the American economy.

 

Son, I own a 4 wheel drive. I make the road.

As policy I support roads being paid for entirely with tolls. Not a cent of public money. I strongly believe that those who disagree with the polluting, noisy, killer automobile should at least not have to contribute to its function.

 

It most certainly is Keynesian!

Either way, the taxpayers get the bill. As it will require massive borrowing to cover the short fall generated by the tax cuts that Trump's reckless plan will generate.

Trump's plan will turn the nation's interstate highways into toll roads, and put American motorists at the mercy of their private operators, just as their great grandparents were hostages to the whims of the railroads.
(
There is a reason why there was practically no debate at all when Congress and President Eisenhower undertook the construction of the Interstate Highway system in 1956.

Most members of Congress arrived in Washington on a day coach, so they had first hand experience at what to expect when infrastructure is turned over to private corporations to run largely at their own whim.

 

Seldom have I seen a more backward, selfish and utterly narrow minded view. One has to feel sorry for someone who doesn't seem to see past the end of their own driveway.

And you flatly contradict yourself by saying that you "I strongly believe that those who disagree with the polluting, noisy, killer automobile should at least not have to contribute to its function.", and right out of the other side of your mouth note that you drive the noisiest, dirtiest, least safe, and most wasteful example of the breed.

There's a lot of hypocricy in the far right wing. This one is right up there.

 

Person A: "I want roads, and I am willing to pay out of my own pocket for their construction and upkeep."

Person B: "I want roads, and I advocate that they be paid for with money forcibly taken from others."

Which of these people sounds more backward, selfish, and utterly narrow minded?

 

Allowing people to keep more of their own money does not, and has not meant the precious government (that shops like a drunken hooker with a black American Express card) takes in less money. Tax cuts have in fact resulted in more government revenue since people typically spend the money they keep in business' that in turn get to reap higher profits, which then, wait for it... pay more in taxable income, not to mention have more money to invest/expand their business.

WTF are you talking about when you say "the taxpayers get the bill. As it will require massive borrowing to cover the short fall generated by the tax cuts..."?? God forbid that the government spending is reduced and reigned in huh? When is the appetite for other peoples money quenched with you Democrats? That's a serious question. How much of my money is enough to people who have proven that they haven't the slightest interest in spending it wisely?

I have friends who are federal cube dwelling employees (aka don't provide a product/service that anyone would willingly pay for) and they are "terrified" of losing their precious government jobs, or of actually having to start working harder (not joking). While I don't flat out tell them that it's not my problem, and this is how the real world works in the private sector when a business spends more then it takes in, I have hard time trying to find any sympathy for them, personal friendship aside.

Also, what the hell is "put American motorists at the mercy of their private operators" That's absurd, and... what the hell are you even talking about?

 

This is where BS comes in handy yo avoid honestly discussing a topic.

First off, most of the Obama stimulus was not even for "shovel ready" projects as was claimed. Most went to education, healthcare, etc. About 300 billion went to infrastructure, and even then the Republicans did whatever they could to defeat that purpose.

Next, unlike the DoD, Hillary did not "lose" 6 billion dollars. The "loss" was all accounted for (if you had bothered to keep your partisan mind informed), and the "loss" was due to way records were kept, and contracts written.

Finally, the "EO" issue is once again partisan bull (*)(*)(*)(*) for the low IQ voter. I would suggest you actually read the EO's, and find out what they were about. However, that would be too much to expect from one who obviously lacks the will to think for themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/11/obama-executive-orders-peace-corps/82835834/

 

I too own a 4 wheel drive, as well as a car. Obviously you have never seen what nature can do to your "road" with one healthy storm.

Nonsense. No agency has ever been able to upkeep a road based on tolls, and tolls, alone.

 

Nonsense. Every president has done this, the exact same bs and yoy lot only seem to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) when it's obama.

Charade is over your hypocrisy is on display.

 

With EZ pass getting so common more toll roads maybe something to consider for larger highways

 

Hahahahaha. President Obama stepped beyond his authority several times and even the courts have said as much. I don't care Pbama used executive orders I care what he did with them. So rant on about hypocrisy and I'll get my popcorn

 

But forcing people to pay for the military is okay I suppose?

 

People who don't like paying taxes put in place by duly elected governments are entirely free to move elsewhere.

The point being, rarely is there any real "debate" about taxation; and particularly in the US which is one of the more unjust in the matter ...

 

If I were going to support the government taking my neighbor's property, I would only support it doing so to pay for things that cannot be provided by anyone other than the government. This means courts, police, and national defense. These are the only things that only the government can provide.

 

That's a view of limited government I suppose Longshot. But I think it's impractical.

 

Impractical? How so?

 

It is extremely rare that the government takes an honest citizen's property. Provided they pay their taxes and their income is honest.

What the government is responsible for providing is usually the basis of any debate about the different systems of governance in place. Europe is very different from the US in terms of the government's "provision of services", such as national health care and postsecondary education, both of which are far less costly and thus more available to more people.

Which why the EU's level of taxation is higher than in the US.

Different strokes for different folks ...