Oh, look at that. Obvious Child is attempting to make up for the fact that he was picked on in High School (again).
Not really. I actually did a lot of that. Which I'm not proud of. But where I'm making amends and picking on people who actually deserve it.
eace
Look man, nobody in this forum is responsible for your head spending time dunked in a toilet, and you attempting to play penis games is like the 115 pound guy who's always trying to challenge people to "make something of it" :roll: It just makes you look silly and small.
Note kiddies: This is what happens when a hackjob realizes he's getting his *** kicked. He starts making **** up to compensate for his lack of any skill whatsoever.
Reagan's program for economic growth was reducing marginal tax rates and breaking inflation. The military build up was designed specifically to exacerbate Soviet economic troubles and hasten the end of that regime (though to be fair, our government picked up on this possibility first under Carter, and apparently dropped this approach under Bush H.W.). If you can find for me where Reagan argued in favor of stimulating the economy through military spending, I'd love to see it; but since Reagan was a Bastiat fan (he of Broken Window fame), I don't think you're gonna.
Look Kiddies: Cpwill is either missing the point or deliberately changing the topic. Did I argue any of that was wrong? No. I merely pointed out that under Reagan, debt financing spending stimulated the economy. Cpwill argues that it doesn't and its actually a drag on the economy. Then he proceeds here to try to find a exception that proves his stated belief isn't wrong in a way that doesn't force him to completely disavow Reagan.
Now, if Cpwill was honest (
which we all know he's completely not), he'd admit that debt financed spending can and has stimulated the economy, particularly during one the presidency of a President the GOP likes to consider the Ideal Conservative.
Yes, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.
No - that is called sloven stupidity, arrogance, and hypocrisy. But it is also a mistake to conflate "conservatives" with "Republicans".
So you're calling the
GOP Senate Minority leader,
Speaker of the House and
GOP House Majority leader not
Conservatives? They took part in the massive spending that stimulated the economy. Let's see just what level of absurdity you're willing to go to maintain the internal contradictions you hold.
I do agree with you on the Republicans =/= Conservatives. But some are.
ah yes. everyone secretly agrees with obvious child
No, I merely repeat the history of Human behavior. We say one thing but when our own personal interests are threaten, we change our tune and do what serves our interests the best. Or are you completely unaware of recorded human history as you are unaware of so many things?
no. I am arguing that the GOP caucus A) probably contains members who believe in Keynesian stimulus spending B) contains alot of people who don't believe in Keynesian stimulus spending and C) is 100% made up of people who know that if they come out in favor of more Keynesian stimulus spending, will face a primary followed by (if they win) a base that refuses to come out and vote for them.
A Republican who comes out in favor of another stimulus package now is going to do about as well as a Republican who comes out in favor of Obamacare.
Oh Look Kiddies: Cpwill is dancing around a question he does not want to answer. Everyone knows what you stated. But nothing you said addressed my point at all. Furthermore, from what we can see from your post, you are eluding to the notion that the GOP will let the economy go off a cliff merely to save their reelection chances but you seem to fail to understand the impact of a recession or a depression upon reelection chances.
So here's a tough question which I'm betting you simply do not have the courage to answer:
The GOP will let the economy go off a cliff rather than debt spend to prevent a massive recession?
Yes or no.
If you have the guts.
Which I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt you have.
and yet isn't it odd that the one nation who amended their Constitution to reign in deficit spending is the one doing well enough...
Not when you understand how they did it. If German banks were forced to take the losses from their holdings quickly rather than have Merkel force austerity upon the nations in which they hold assets thereby granting them time to unwind their losses slowly and not at firesale prices and therefore avoid liquidity crisises within the German Banking system, they'd be in the same **** mess as the rest of Europe. Germany basically forced its pain on others so the German economy wouldn't have to suffer it. To some degree Germany is still paying for it via bailout funds, but that's very much more controlled then bank writeoffs reducing lending and liquidity within Germany. Someone made a **** load of money within the German government knowing just how long Germany would string Greece along.
Note: It actually helps to know what is happening, rather than to operate how you do.
Yes again, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.
Some of them might be due to backlash over entitlement reform.
Who doesn't love a recession at the same time as increasing deficits enacted by a plan that lied about getting deficits under control? Romney lost all economic credibility when he backed that pile of turd.
watch magical OC predict the future! yes, step right up sir and for the mere price of $800 bn you, too, can keep unemployment below 8%!
Actually I don't think stimulus is the answer. Furthermore, I have
repetitively said that stimulus cannot cure a financial recession (you choose to ignore it simply because you are incredibly dishonest). Furthermore, I have constantly pointed out that the real problem is the house hold debt, primarily mortgages and the concept of deleveraging that is killing the recovery. That said, the notion that stimulus can't stimulate is to ignore economic history from Day 1.
Specifically I recall that you made the idiotic claim that Keynesian stimulus spending had been proven by history to work, and then when I pointed out to you that in fact attempts to stimulate the economy through increases in government spending always fail, you switched to arguing that "something else" must have done it.
Making up more lies? Always fail? Really? Want to explain that to German in the 40s? How about Japan's Iron Triangle which directly lead to Japan becoming the 2nd largest economy (pre-contemporary China)?
You posted a study that outright explicitly said that non-fiscal factors were not included. And you expect to be taken seriously for that.
Apparently Every Time someone attempts to stimulate an economy through a large spending program designed to increase demand, something comes in and messes it up, making the theory look bad, whereas when nations try to stimulate an economy through reducing the burden of governance (particularly on businesses) that same unidentified something comes in and magically (poof!) makes the economy take off, thereby leaving the top-down types with even more unjustified egg on their faces.
Thanks for proving you are in fact a liar. I never argued that it always works. I merely said that Kenysian does work. Does does not equate to always. I know you can read. That's why I call you a liar.
You made a claim that turned out to be wrong, you were publicly embarrassed by it, and you've been whining about it now for two years. Get over it. Trust me, everyone else has.
And I did this where? Considering the fact that you had to lie about what I said, you're on incredibly shaky ground.
And considering the fact that I have repetitively stated that stimulus spending cannot fix a fiscal crisis, you are even more on shaky ground.
Lying about what others said is a pretty poor argument tactic there Cpwill. But thanks for providing evidence about your honesty.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/70681-worst-presidents-all-time-51.html#post1059890996
2) Fiscal policy has never and cannot fix a liquidity crisis.
Does that sound like I'm arguing stimulus always works?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...630-tax-tsunami-horizon-7.html#post1058876674
Furthermore, cutting taxes and boosting spending will not stop a financial/liquidity crisis. It did not stop Mexico's. It did not stop Russia's. It did not stop South Korea's. China in the 1990s Asian Crisis was largely unscathed due to large foreign reserves at the state's capacity to directly lend. Real, actual Socialism does work to stop financial crisis if the state is willing to lend out at the rates necessary to compensate and if it has sufficiently large capital reserves. But that sets a nation up for bigger problems down the line. South Korea got over its problem by some state backed lending as well as focus on exports to boost capital reserves. We cannot do that as an importer nation. Furthermore, Mexico only survived because of a massive US bailout with extreme interest rates. No one lent real help to Russia and they were a literal sh*t hole for a decade. There are no good tools available to combat a liquidity/financial crisis. Bush cut taxes and boosted spending. It failed. Obama cut taxes and boosted spending. It largely failed. Applying the wrong tools does not suggest success is a likely outcome.
Cpwill wrong AND a LIAR?
Whowouldthunk? Me actually.
Why do you keep pretending you are smarter and know more than I?
