• 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!

All of a sudden Keynesian economics is OK by conservatives

Critter7r said:
I predict Trump will not get any significant support for his "public-private" partnerships in an infrastructure package.

That article had zero solid facts, because Trump has given none regarding his infrastructure plan, which doesn't yet exist.
Click to expand...

But it was dishonest of this thread to insinuate that the right was against Obama's infrastructure policies adding to the national debt while claiming the right was for Trump's huge infrastructure spending (adding to the debt). You are right though that there aren't many facts about any of it, including that it might never even happen at all. We have to wait and see what actually happens and how it is paid for. As of right now, especially in Congress, any infrastructure spending will be paid for and not added to the debt.
 
Moderate Right said:
But it was dishonest of this thread to insinuate that the right was against Obama's infrastructure policies adding to the national debt while claiming the right was for Trump's huge infrastructure spending (adding to the debt).
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, even the GOPers quoted in the link were ok with hundreds of billions in spending, but stopped short of saying that they'd be fine with spending a Trillion dollars.

You are right though that there aren't many facts about any of it, including that it might never even happen at all. We have to wait and see what actually happens and how it is paid for.
Click to expand...

True

As of right now, especially in Congress, any infrastructure spending will be paid for and not added to the debt.
Click to expand...

aaaaaaannnnnnnd, right back off the rails. You just said, we don't know how it will be paid for. That means it could totally be paid for with deficit spending, or dropped altogether, or some combination in between.
 
Critter7r said:
Well, to be fair, even the GOPers quoted in the link were ok with hundreds of billions in spending, but stopped short of saying that they'd be fine with spending a Trillion dollars.



True



aaaaaaannnnnnnd, right back off the rails. You just said, we don't know how it will be paid for. That means it could totally be paid for with deficit spending, or dropped altogether, or some combination in between.
Click to expand...

They are on record as saying that it should be paid for and not added to the debt. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. With Democrats they just want to add everything to the debt or tax more, not in order to bring down the deficit, but to tax more to spend more.
 
Moderate Right said:
They are on record as saying that it should be paid for and not added to the debt. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. With Democrats they just want to add everything to the debt or tax more, not in order to bring down the deficit, but to tax more to spend more.
Click to expand...
I missed the trillion dollar spending cuts that the republicans suggested to pay for Trump's "plan".

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Critter7r said:
I missed the trillion dollar spending cuts that the republicans suggested to pay for Trump's "plan".

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with you guys. You only think with a one track mind. Didn't you read the link? They weren't going to cut spending to pay for the infrastructure spending and they weren't going to add it to the debt either.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's the trouble with you guys. You only think with a one track mind. Didn't you read the link? They weren't going to cut spending to pay for the infrastructure spending and they weren't going to add it to the debt either.
Click to expand...
I see. They're going to get the private sector to pay for it and turn all of our freeways and bridges into toll roads and toll bridges. Because theres no other way to pay for it without paying for it with spending cuts in other areas or deficit spending. Or huge tax increases I suppose would do it, but we know that's not in the works.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Critter7r said:
I see. They're going to get the private sector to pay for it and turn all of our freeways and bridges into toll roads and toll bridges. Because theres no other way to pay for it without paying for it with spending cuts in other areas or deficit spending. Or huge tax increases I suppose would do it, but we know that's not in the works.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why it is the fed's responsibility to spend on infrastructure. These things are in the states, the states or other localities should find a way to pay for them. There were just two new bridges built from Indiana to Kentucky. Indiana paid for one while Kentucky paid for the other. Both bridges charge tolls to pay for the project. These things can be done without charging it to Uncle Sam's charge card.
 
Moderate Right said:
But it was dishonest of this thread to insinuate that the right was against Obama's infrastructure policies adding to the national debt while claiming the right was for Trump's huge infrastructure spending (adding to the debt). .
Click to expand...

MR, there was nothing dishonest about it at all. republicans are already telling you they are fine adding to the deficit. MR, you just don't get to pretend not to know that Ryan said this

Vern said:
“One of the things that we’re focusing on is getting people back to work, is economic growth,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “You can’t ever balance the budget if you don’t get this economy growing.”
.
Click to expand...

You spammed that thread more than any conservative. So it sure looks like he said he wants to "borrow his way to prosperity".
 
Moderate Right said:
They are on record as saying that it should be paid for and not added to the debt. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. With Democrats they just want to add everything to the debt or tax more, not in order to bring down the deficit, but to tax more to spend more.
Click to expand...

Moderate Right said:
That's the trouble with you guys. You only think with a one track mind. Didn't you read the link? They weren't going to cut spending to pay for the infrastructure spending and they weren't going to add it to the debt either.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that in your link. Please cut and paste where they said they wouldn't add to the debt. it. thanks in advance.
 
Vern said:
MR, there was nothing dishonest about it at all. republicans are already telling you they are fine adding to the deficit. MR, you just don't get to pretend not to know that Ryan said this



You spammed that thread more than any conservative. So it sure looks like he said he wants to "borrow his way to prosperity".
Click to expand...

You can get the economy going without increasing the deficit. That's what liberals don't understand. They think with a black and white mind. Nothing outside the box.
 
Vern said:
I didn't see that in your link. Please cut and paste where they said they wouldn't add to the debt. it. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the link. They clearly said that infrastructure would be paid for. Even your liberal companions read that, even though they may disagree with it. It's one thing to disagree with it but it is not honest at all when you say they would add to the debt when they clearly did not say that.
 
Moderate Right said:
You didn't read the link. They clearly said that infrastructure would be paid for. Even your liberal companions read that, even though they may disagree with it. It's one thing to disagree with it but it is not honest at all when you say they would add to the debt when they clearly did not say that.
Click to expand...

please copy and paste the section of the cite that tells us there would be no addition to the national debt as a result of this effort
 
justabubba said:
please copy and paste the section of the cite that tells us there would be no addition to the national debt as a result of this effort
Click to expand...

Paid for means paid for, not added to the debt. Of course in your liberally twisted mind you think paid for could also mean that it is paid for by adding it to the debt. What do you think privatize means? Hint: It doesn't mean that the government is going to pay for it at all.
 
Moderate Right said:
Paid for means paid for, not added to the debt. Of course in your liberally twisted mind you think paid for could also mean that it is paid for by adding it to the debt. What do you think privatize means? Hint: It doesn't mean that the government is going to pay for it at all.
Click to expand...

then private interests are going to create this infrastructure and then turn it over to the government for the public's use
i don't think so
your speculation is flawed and quite unrealistic
 
justabubba said:
then private interests are going to create this infrastructure and then turn it over to the government for the public's use
i don't think so
your speculation is flawed and quite unrealistic
Click to expand...

Actually this is something that Obama used to some extent with build america bonds. There has been thought that the government could have companies put some of their repatriated cash from overseas into such a public/private fund to get a reduced tax rate.

It would also be great if each project had to show a positive IRR to get any funding like a corporation would ask any sub asking for a capital investment.
 
Moderate Right said:
You can get the economy going without increasing the deficit. That's what liberals don't understand. They think with a black and white mind. Nothing outside the box.
Click to expand...
Bannon says he wants to increase the debt. What makes you think they will cut a trillion dollars from elsewhere.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Moderate Right said:
Paid for means paid for, not added to the debt. Of course in your liberally twisted mind you think paid for could also mean that it is paid for by adding it to the debt. What do you think privatize means? Hint: It doesn't mean that the government is going to pay for it at all.
Click to expand...

okay MR, this is real easy. No one is asking you to again assure us what you read. We want to see what you read. please copy and paste the section of the cite that tells us there would be no addition to the national debt as a result of this effort. Remember, you said they said it "clearly" in the link.

Moderate Right said:
You didn't read the link. They clearly said that infrastructure would be paid for. Even your liberal companions read that, even though they may disagree with it. It's one thing to disagree with it but it is not honest at all when you say they would add to the debt when they clearly did not say that.
Click to expand...
 
Moderate Right said:
You can get the economy going without increasing the deficit. That's what liberals don't understand. They think with a black and white mind. Nothing outside the box.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many people actually believe the opposite.

Keynesianism/Krugmanism has gotten so bad that people have completely forgot (or maybe they never really knew) what free enterprise actually is. How an economy actually works.

Anyone who says you need government/central bank stimulus to run an economy is actually screaming out loud and clear to those of us who understand; 'I HAVE NO IDEA HOW ECONOMICS WORKS'.
And the sad thing is they think they are SO knowledgeable...they have not a clue on this subject. Not a blessed clue.
 
DA60 said:
It's amazing how many people actually believe the opposite.

Keynesianism/Krugmanism has gotten so bad that people have completely forgot (or maybe they never really knew) what free enterprise actually is. How an economy actually works.

Anyone who says you need government/central bank stimulus to run an economy is actually screaming out loud and clear to those of us who understand; 'I HAVE NO IDEA HOW ECONOMICS WORKS'.
And the sad thing is they think they are SO knowledgeable...they have not a clue on this subject. Not a blessed clue.
Click to expand...

that post is written as if you had no experience within the crashed economy during '08 and for the years immediately following
 
washunut said:
Actually this is something that Obama used to some extent with build america bonds. There has been thought that the government could have companies put some of their repatriated cash from overseas into such a public/private fund to get a reduced tax rate.

It would also be great if each project had to show a positive IRR to get any funding like a corporation would ask any sub asking for a capital investment.
Click to expand...

Shocked I tell you that the above got no response. So much for "independent" thought.
 
justabubba said:
then private interests are going to create this infrastructure and then turn it over to the government for the public's use
i don't think so
your speculation is flawed and quite unrealistic
Click to expand...

I live in a state that just built two bridges. They are getting paid for with toll money.
 
cpwill said:
Bannon says he wants to increase the debt. What makes you think they will cut a trillion dollars from elsewhere.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

First of all, Bannon is not president. Second, this stuff would have to be approved by the Republican Congress and that ain't gonna happen.
 
Moderate Right said:
First of all, Bannon is not president. Second, this stuff would have to be approved by the Republican Congress and that ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

So, your theory is that congressional Republicans will stand up to a Republican President when he wants to spend money in their districts, and doing so exposes them to being targeted for primary runs, because they are Just That Devoted to small government....

Enough to keep it from getting a majority support, despite likely Democrat votes in favor of big spending?


Good luck with that. You have a much higher opinion of Establishment Republicans than I do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom