• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that." [W:417]

Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

No, I made it up then posted it on Wiki.

Full Employment in a Free Society by William Henry Beveridge Part II, Sections 1-3 deals with employment as described by various economists from different countries and time periods who collectively quantify "full employment" in a range between 2 and 13%. Beveridge, like Dillard, claims it is 3%. Well below the Bush era rate.

Even if you accept your lover Boo "Duncan Grant" Radley's range of 2-7%, Bush's rate fell in the middle of that...so your shoulda coulda woulda retrospective astrology can come from either end of the argument.



Sure, it wasn't the Keynesian ideology of keeping interest rates closest to zero (Keynes ridiculously believed interest rate could and should be zero) which effects tens of trillions of dollars of commerce (most especially, home loans)...it was the marginal difference in the tax rate between Clinton and Bush on the top quintile of earners (who can afford homes at high rates). Right? Explain to me how cutting taxes on the wealthy caused the non-wealthy to buy homes they couldn't afford?

Also, since you're attempting derail the topic with speculation you are "quit sure" about, why do interventionist economists like Keynes and Beveridge always seem to join groups like the British Eugenics Society? I mean, since you are apparently not only a great astrologer, you are highly talented medium who knows where people who have been dead for 66 years come down on the Bush tax cuts.

So first, I'm not going to buy a book to check your "facts". Second, and again -- frictional unemployment is not the same thing as full employment, and what might be considered full employment in other countries isn't particularly relevant to what it might be in the U.S.

I'll ignore your new attempted diversion with tabloid ad hominem.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

So first, I'm not going to buy a book to check your "facts". Second, and again -- frictional unemployment is not the same thing as full employment, and what might be considered full employment in other countries isn't particularly relevant to what it might be in the U.S.

I'll ignore your new attempted diversion with tabloid ad hominem.

You don't have to buy it. No doubt it's at a library somewhere near you, It's been available since 1945. considering Keynes was a Brit, I guess you've come around to reject him being "particular relevant to what" full employment "might be in the U.S". I'm happy to have persuaded you. :)
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You don't have to buy it. No doubt it's at a library somewhere near you, It's been available since 1945. considering Keynes was a Brit, I guess you've come around to reject him being "particular relevant to what" full employment "might be in the U.S". I'm happy to have persuaded you. :)

Of course you haven't actually read it. I can follow the Wiki links just like you. :lol:
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Of course you haven't actually read it. I can follow the Wiki links just like you. :lol:

Sure, it's my favorite source for info. ;)
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." - Keynes

Take a look at how inflation is calculated in America today, as opposed to just 20 years ago. Remember, 20 years ago was in the 1990s!!! No longer does the government factor in food, and energy into inflation numbers. The two most important things pertaining to inflation. Hmmmm.....I wonder why that is? Probably to secretly confiscate wealth. How's government getting involved in these two industries? Have you seen the latest changes to the new farm bill? Have you paid any attention to the thousands of new regulations on the oil and gas industry? This is how governments can somewhat manipulate pricing. Have any of you seen the price of corn this week? How about the price of wheat? How about the price of live cattle? And you wonder why hamburger meat has gone from $1.98/lb to almost $5/lb in less than 4 years??? The government is more corrupt than any corporation. With unmatched power, the progressives think they can force people into the lifestyles they agree with. By pushing up the price of gas, they believe they can force people into green energy. By pushing up the price of corn, they believe they can force companies into ethanol production. Meanwhile, food and gas prices continue to be one of the biggest cinder blocks around the ankles of the American middle class family.

Keynes believed that government should be the central regulator of an economy. I think Keynes was an economist who wished he was a philosopher. But his philosophies were anything but "American".

"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." - Keynes

This he said during the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world.

Oh, and by the way, does anyone know how Keynes made his money? Trading futures in currency markets, using personal money along with large sums of money from private financiers. A little hypocritical to his lofty philosophies.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

When Keynes wrote and spoke about "frictional" unemployment, one of the main jists of his argument was that one's wage be equal to the marginal product of his labour. He wrote about this in "The General Theory of Employment". Because he argued that one's wage should be equal to the marginal product of his labour, he encouraged laborers to withhold their labor if they deemed the wage to be too low.

Put that into perspective. A GM Pickup sales new for about 25k on average. The worker contributes to making 100 cars per year. He is one of ten workers who are responsible for building that truck. The marginal product of their labour equals 2.5 million dollars. Divided by ten workers, that's $250,000 per year going to labor. Tell me, how long could a company afford to make cars if they paid their labor force this way?

This is one of the best examples of how his pseudo-intellectual narcicism sounds really good as a populist message, but is an utter failure in the real world of economics. If a worker withheld his labor for this type of reason, he factored it in as "frictional" unemployment. In short, Keynes was just like Marx, and even Hitler, in this sense. He was an advocate for the labor movement, and the labor party. Very reminiscent of Obama, and his support for organized labor in America, and all the political pay backs to organized labor over the past 4 years.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

So, try paying attention to "how" Keynesians, and Marxists try to FORCE their ideologies onto societies. Take Mayor Bloomberg in NYC for example. Through directive, he attempts to manipulate and control individual behavior. From drinking cokes to breast feeding.

Through the EPA (government mandates and regulations), the federal government tries to manipulate and control fuel efficiency, pollution, production, exploration, development, and ultimately, profits.

Through the farm bill, federal government tries to manipulate corn production in the direction of ethanol fuel instead of food. For the first time in our nation's history, just as much corn goes to producing ethanol as food. What does that do to the price of corn? Drives it sky high. What does that do to food prices? Drives them up as well.

All the while, the government cleverly, and secretly passed a statute that exempted food and energy from being calculated into inflation rates. If you just go back to the formula the government used to calculate inflation in 1992, the inflation rate today would be over 8%. Tell me liberals, how can you exempt the two goods in our economy from inflation rates that most effect the real incomes of middle and lower class families?

Do any of you even think about this stuff? Do you even pay attention in the grocery store? I know fuel prices have been a topic of debate, but do you realize "what" is keeping the national average price for a gallon of gas over $3.30? It certainly isn't supply and demand issues. Over the course of this recession, fuel demand dropped, while supplies increased. Hmmm....yet the price kept going up. Government would have the public believe that corporate greed is the reason for this. But a smart person only has to look in one place to see if that claim is true. PROFIT MARGINS. Over the recession, the profit margin within the oil and gas industry dropped from 7.6% to 7.2%. Do liberals have any idea what this means????? It means that the margin for PROFIT is smaller than it was before, even though the price of one of their primary goods had increased from $1.89 per gallon to over $3.30 per gallon. How's this possible????

I can tell you. Even though the price has risen, the cost to produce gasoline has risen even faster. Why? Primarily because of new government regulations that purposefully make it more expensive to explore for, drill for, extract, refine, and deliver their product to market. Gasoline is the end result of many stages of production. The government "taxes" each stage of production. They tax exploration, they tax drilling, they tax extraction, they tax refining, and they tax distribution. THEN they tax the final product!! But dolts like Obama try to demonize the oil company, who is still only receiving about a 7% profit on their investment and labor.

Progressives are liars. They puposefully make it more expensive to produce necessary items for our society and economy, then turn around and try to blame the companies producing them. Why do they purposefully make gasoline more expensive? Because they want to punish the oil companies, and reward the green energy companies. Why? Because politically, they support green energy, and if green energy is successful, they can say, "see, we know what is best for America". Therefore, they regulate the heck out of Exxon Mobil, and give hundreds of millions of dollars to Solyndra, which ultimately went belly up. This is known as "crony capitalism". Picking winners and losers based on a political ideology and philosophy. Not on supply and demand. Not on the free market. Not based on consumer confidence. They are picking who they think SHOULD BE winners, even though those companies are going bankrupt.

Wake up liberals!!! This Keynesian, Marxist style of economics is going to turn us into Europe. A huge economic powerhouse controlled by organized labor and centralized government. It's a fail. Utter failure.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." - Keynes

Yes, Keynes thought that keeping inflation low was critical.

Take a look at how inflation is calculated in America today, as opposed to just 20 years ago. Remember, 20 years ago was in the 1990s!!! No longer does the government factor in food, and energy into inflation numbers. The two most important things pertaining to inflation.

There are many ways to calculate inflation, and it is calculated many ways. Food and energy are notoriously volatile and so don't give a great indication of historical trends. But you could look at the Consumper Price Index, for example. It's been in the 2-4% range for decades. In fact those numbers are probably too high, as they don't count electonics items that didn't exist when the index started, and which have fallen sharply in price over the years.

Obvsiously energy prices are closely tracked, so that's not exactly sneaking up on anyone.

Hmmmm.....I wonder why that is? Probably to secretly confiscate wealth.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's a conspiracy. :roll:

Keynes believed that the government should regulate business cycles through monetary policy. He was not a socialist in any manner of speaking.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yes, Keynes thought that keeping inflation low was critical.

True but, Keynes' approach to inflation was the taxation of the wealthy NOT higher interest rates. This model fails because we've observed rising unemployment and rising inflation (stagflation), we've observed higher interest rates, lower taxes, and declining inflation with the policies of Volker/Carter/Reagan. Non of this is possible according to Keynes. In addition, Keynes does want to keep inflation in check, but inflation to Keynes is necessary. It may come as a shock to you having been acculturated through public schools and countless hours of MSNBC, but inflation is not necessary, deflation is good for those who save and savings is the basis of all wealth.

There are many ways to calculate inflation, and it is calculated many ways. Food and energy are notoriously volatile and so don't give a great indication of historical trends. But you could look at the Consumper Price Index, for example. It's been in the 2-4% range for decades. In fact those numbers are probably too high, as they don't count electonics items that didn't exist when the index started, and which have fallen sharply in price over the years.

Obvsiously energy prices are closely tracked, so that's not exactly sneaking up on anyone.

Hmmmm.....I wonder why that is? Probably to secretly confiscate wealth.

Yes, it's a conspiracy. :roll:

It has less to with a conspiracy than Keynesian econometricians confirming their bias. Although, the current scheme to calculate inflation is rather handy to politicians who support monetizing the debt through quantitative easing cycles. QE cycles cause commodity prices to rise, and is a hidden regressive tax. Not something you want to brag about if your campaign promised to only raise taxes on the wealthy.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yes, Keynes thought that keeping inflation low was critical.



There are many ways to calculate inflation, and it is calculated many ways. Food and energy are notoriously volatile and so don't give a great indication of historical trends. But you could look at the Consumper Price Index, for example. It's been in the 2-4% range for decades. In fact those numbers are probably too high, as they don't count electonics items that didn't exist when the index started, and which have fallen sharply in price over the years.

Obvsiously energy prices are closely tracked, so that's not exactly sneaking up on anyone.

Hmmmm.....I wonder why that is? Probably to secretly confiscate wealth.

Yes, it's a conspiracy. :roll:

Keynes believed that the government should regulate business cycles through monetary policy. He was not a socialist in any manner of speaking.[/QUOTE]

Actually inflation has been running below 2% for decades. Food and energy are calculated in the overall inflation numbers. Inflation, as calculated does take into account things bought today, including electronics and this had had a damping effect on overall inflation.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yes, it's a conspiracy. :roll:

Keynes believed that the government should regulate business cycles through monetary policy. He was not a socialist in any manner of speaking.

Actually inflation has been running below 2% for decades. Food and energy are calculated in the overall inflation numbers. Inflation, as calculated does take into account things bought today, including electronics and this had had a damping effect on overall inflation.[/QUOTE]

Which inflation index do you think includes fuel, food, and electronics?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

True but, Keynes' approach to inflation was the taxation of the wealthy NOT higher interest rates.

Where exactly does Keynes say to tax the wealthy? Book/paper and page number, please.

This model fails because we've observed rising unemployment and rising inflation (stagflation), we've observed higher interest rates, lower taxes, and declining inflation with the policies of Volker/Carter/Reagan. Non of this is possible according to Keynes.

To the contrary, Keynesian economic theories best explain what happened in the 70s and 80s, which is why there was a resurgence of Keyensian economics following the 70s and 80s.

In addition, Keynes does want to keep inflation in check, but inflation to Keynes is necessary. It may come as a shock to you having been acculturated through public schools and countless hours of MSNBC, but inflation is not necessary, deflation is good for those who save and savings is the basis of all wealth.

Moderate inflation is far preferable to deflation. Just ask any of the millions of Americans who owe more on their homes than they're worth.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Actually inflation has been running below 2% for decades. Food and energy are calculated in the overall inflation numbers. Inflation, as calculated does take into account things bought today, including electronics and this had had a damping effect on overall inflation.

Which inflation index do you think includes fuel, food, and electronics?[/QUOTE]


The headline CPI number. Some like to talk about core versus headline inflation. Core inflation excludes food and energy. Actually the food component is broken into two buckets. Food bought at home and food bought from restaurants.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Where exactly does Keynes say to tax the wealthy? Book/paper and page number, please.



To the contrary, Keynesian economic theories best explain what happened in the 70s and 80s, which is why there was a resurgence of Keyensian economics following the 70s and 80s.



Moderate inflation is far preferable to deflation. Just ask any of the millions of Americans who owe more on their homes than they're worth.

So you can fixate on this one statistic. However inflation is called the cruelest tax for a reason. It hits the poor the hardest. the lowest 20% of family households spend about 27% on food and energy versus less than 20% for the highest income groups. Plus the lowest group have a tougher time having their income rise with inflation. Just ask any working mother who makes 30K a year if she is OK with higher food and energy costs and what impact it has on her life.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

So you can fixate on this one statistic. However inflation is called the cruelest tax for a reason. It hits the poor the hardest. the lowest 20% of family households spend about 27% on food and energy versus less than 20% for the highest income groups. Plus the lowest group have a tougher time having their income rise with inflation. Just ask any working mother who makes 30K a year if she is OK with higher food and energy costs and what impact it has on her life.

I'm not arguing that inflation is a good thing; just saying that deflation is worse.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

I'm not arguing that inflation is a good thing; just saying that deflation is worse.

Like a lot of things depends on the levels and the areas in the overall number. Deflation at 0.2% is not worse than inflation of 5% especially if the deflation was caused by oil prices going back to $25 per barrel. If inflation going to 5% because food prices rise 25% that would be a disaster for many Americans.

Bernanke is worried about deflation because he has allowed debt to pile up so much.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Like a lot of things depends on the levels and the areas in the overall number. Deflation at 0.2% is not worse than inflation of 5% especially if the deflation was caused by oil prices going back to $25 per barrel. If inflation going to 5% because food prices rise 25% that would be a disaster for many Americans.

Bernanke is worried about deflation because he has allowed debt to pile up so much.

He's worried about deflation because it can, and usually does spiral out of control rather quickly, and there's not much you can do about it once it starts.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yes, Keynes thought that keeping inflation low was critical.



There are many ways to calculate inflation, and it is calculated many ways. Food and energy are notoriously volatile and so don't give a great indication of historical trends. But you could look at the Consumper Price Index, for example. It's been in the 2-4% range for decades. In fact those numbers are probably too high, as they don't count electonics items that didn't exist when the index started, and which have fallen sharply in price over the years.

Obvsiously energy prices are closely tracked, so that's not exactly sneaking up on anyone.

Hmmmm.....I wonder why that is? Probably to secretly confiscate wealth.

Yes, it's a conspiracy. :roll:

Keynes believed that the government should regulate business cycles through monetary policy. He was not a socialist in any manner of speaking.[/QUOTE]

Uhhh, Keynes WAS a Socialist. You just said it yourself. Here, let me quote you: "Keynes believed that THE GOVERNMENT should REGULATE business cycles through monetary policy." Excuse me, but this is precisely what Karl Marx argued as well. John Maynard Keynes opposed the gold standard, and was an advocate of large central banking systems. That's how he wanted GOVERNMENT to regulate business cycles through monetary policy; through central banks. Keynes references Marx in many of his writings, and agreed with Marx on virtually everything concerning organized labor.

And you are also wrong about energy and food being factored into inflation rates. They are no longer factored in. They stopped being factored into inflation rates in the mid-1990s under Clinton. Now, just 4 years ago, a pound of hamburger meat cost you roughly $1.98/lb. Today, it's closer to $5/lb. What would you call that if not inflation? More importantly, what do you think has caused such an increase? Take other examples across the board. Milk, cheese, eggs, bread. You name it, it has rapidly increased in price. This is quintessential inflation my friend, and it has a profound impact on the American economy.

Look at fuel prices. You are right, they are closely watched. That hasn't caused the price to decrease though has it? No, it hasn't. Now, over the past 5 years, gasoline has increased in price dramatically also. But, when you take a look at the profit margins of the companies who are producing the gas, you will see that the profit margins have also decreased. Simple question for you now, stay focused.....HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

In the last post, I told you precisely how that is possible. Government is the primary cause of higher corn prices, because they were at record highs even before the drought we are in. They are the primary cause for higher commodity prices in general, which drives up the cost of living for American consumers. The way you verify this as well, is by looking at the profit margins of the companies producing these commodities. So, in the end, what can we conclude? That the government is doing far better than the producers of these commodities. They are driving up prices intentionally. Why? TWO WORDS: Social Engineering.

Keynes was an advocate for low inflation, but he still maintained that GOVERNMENT control business cycles through monetary policy. You said so yourself. Hmmmm....can you tell me one of the primary ways to manipulate a monetary policy? INFLATION!!! That, and interest rates. We are seeing it right now man! The central banks are artificially keeping interest rates low, for two reasons. To incentivize spending, and to keep inflation low. But it's creating another bubble, and building up debt that in 5 years from now, we won't be able to pay the interest on.

There's a line in Keynesian economics that Keynesians don't seem to recognize. Stimulating the economy is one thing. Spending TRILLIONS of dollars to stimulate is another. The amount of spending going on in Washington will never allow even a fully employed workforce in America (4% unemployment rate) to pay those TRILLIONS back. And Marxist Keynesians are calling for even more spending!!!

At some point, you have to dramatically reduce spending. HAVE TO. Now think. Even with a fully employed workforce in America, we cannot ever pay back this kind of debt. This is why Keynesian economics is a failure. You are betting money you don't have now, on money you are not for sure you'll have next year. It's a gamble both ways. INSANITY! Just think about it logically. If government spending stays on the same pace it's on, even a workfoce that is employed at a rate of 97% cannot keep up with their spending. So, I'm sick and tired of these Keynesians screaming that our solution is to spend more money. NO IT'S NOT. Our solution is to reduce government involvment in the greatest economic machine in the world, and that's the American private sector. Get competitive in our corporate tax rates. Get serious about repatriating offshore money. Lock in tax rates for a period of 5-8 years (like Bush did). And elect a business friendly Congress and President.

I cant stress this enough. Keynes was a European living in the early 1900s. He was a Socialist. You cannot compare the economic success of England with the economic success of America. With all due respect, we don't need to solicit advice from a European Socialist. We need to remember what made America the economic powerhouse of the world. It dang sure wasn't "governments regulating business cycles through monetary policy". Go read our Founding Fathers, and how they railed against centralized banking, which allows government to control monetary policy via interest rates and inflation.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

He's worried about deflation because it can, and usually does spiral out of control rather quickly, and there's not much you can do about it once it starts.

Not much you can do about hyper-inflation either once it starts. Take a look at the Weimar Republic in Germany, when a loaf of bread would cost you $1 million deutsche marks.

Food and energy are no longer figured into inflation. That's just a mere fact. Yet food and energy are the two things within our economy that effect middle and low income people the most. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Whether it's factored in or not really isn't the point. It doesn't take an economist to understand that a gallon of milk is much more expensive today that it was a year ago. The question common Americans fail to ask is "why".

But liberals are smart. They try to get out in front of those issues. Which is why liberals try to demonize oil and gas companies over high fuel prices. BS is what I say. The oil companies are making less money today than they were 3 years ago. Proof? Look at their profits, and their profit margins. However, the price of gas is much higher too. One last time, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE????

I've already told you how it's possible. But you haven't given it a moment of serious thought. Profit margins are down, yet the price of gasoline is wayyyy up. How's it possible? And who is getting the lion's share of that money? GOVERNMENT!!!! And what do they do with it? Waste it, or at least a huge amount of it. $240,000 single day meetings for the GSA, and crap like that. But hey, let's just be Keynesians and SPEND SPEND SPEND some more!
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Where exactly does Keynes say to tax the wealthy? Book/paper and page number, please.

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997) 249-59.

But we don't really disagree on this do we?

To the contrary, Keynesian economic theories best explain what happened in the 70s and 80s, which is why there was a resurgence of Keyensian economics following the 70s and 80s.

Although you're correct about the resurgence of Keynes, the reanimation of his failed economics caused the dot com and housing bubbles. You are incorrect about the Keynesian model predicting stagflation.

Moderate inflation is far preferable to deflation. Just ask any of the millions of Americans who owe more on their homes than they're worth.

The question is how their homes became overpriced in the first place. Warping price signals by keeping interest rates artificially low and stimulating demand via quasi-government institutions like Fannie and Freddie is classic Keynesian economics and it failed, causing the current slump. What would Keynes do now?

The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in aboloshing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us in a quasi-boom.--Keynes, The General Theory, 322.

Which is exactly what Bush/Obama/Bernanke/Greenspan have attempted to do, keep the bubble inflated. Deflation, at least in housing--is the only remedy. Propping up banks or propping up mortgages that aren't affordable to the owner, only perpetuates the next crash. Commodity inflation is at 11.5%--caused by QE cycles, monetizing the debt, subsidies to agriculture, plus ridiculous environmental and energy policies. Wouldn't it be nice for the poor and middle-class to see some deflation?
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997) 249-59.

But we don't really disagree on this do we?



Although you're correct about the resurgence of Keynes, the reanimation of his failed economics caused the dot com and housing bubbles. You are incorrect about the Keynesian model predicting stagflation.



The question is how their homes became overpriced in the first place. Warping price signals by keeping interest rates artificially low and stimulating demand via quasi-government institutions like Fannie and Freddie is classic Keynesian economics and it failed, causing the current slump. What would Keynes do now?

The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in aboloshing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us in a quasi-boom.--Keynes, The General Theory, 322.

Which is exactly what Bush/Obama/Bernanke/Greenspan have attempted to do, keep the bubble inflated. Deflation, at least in housing--is the only remedy. Propping up banks or propping up mortgages that aren't affordable to the owner, only perpetuates the next crash. Commodity inflation is at 11.5%--caused by QE cycles, monetizing the debt, subsidies to agriculture, plus ridiculous environmental and energy policies. Wouldn't it be nice for the poor and middle-class to see some deflation?

Bam. That's the sound of the hammer hitting the nail on the head.

These people who are clamoring for more government spending are crazy. Keynes himself would not be calling for more QE, or stimulus, after the central government had already pumped over $1Trillion into the economy.

You may disagree, but Rush Limbaugh has it right when it comes to Obama's stimulus. The reason it didn't work is because a HUGE chunk of the stimulus didn't go to stimulate anything. It's a slushfund for his political cronies. Unions primarily. Green companies run a close second. Companies like Solyndra, where stimulus money was given to them through Grants and contracts, and they ended up going bankrupt, and when asked where the money went, the Solyndra execs couldn't say where it went!!!!

You think for one second that Keynes supported the philosophy of setting up massive slush funds for political opponents? NO. Which is why I say that even the liberals of today would get a tongue lashing from Keynes himself. Liberals today seem content on maintaining the status quo of a government that wastes more money than it utilizes for the betterment of an economy. Get em out I say. Let someone with at least half a brain get in there and get something meaningful done.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

That = bridge.

Bridge = that.

That is all ye need to know.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

That = bridge.

Bridge = that.

That is all ye need to know.

Taxpayers aka the successful = paid for that bridge, road, etc.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Taxpayers aka the successful = paid for that bridge, road, etc.

Yes, taxpayers did, which covers just about everyone. Next to no one pays no tax.
 
Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."

Yes, taxpayers did, which covers just about everyone. Next to no one pays no tax.

Next to no one. We're talking about federal income tax. And that is about 45% that don't pay any federal income tax.
 
Back
Top Bottom