- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,186
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You mean, Congress were the model Keynesians.
Whatever you need to sleep at night. It should be noted that spending increases during times of economic recession is entirely Keynesian.
Whatever you need to sleep at night. It should be noted that spending increases during times of economic recession is entirely Keynesian.
Why should that matter, considering that most of the spending increases happened after the recession?
So now it is a game of antics? Do yourself a favor before you reply. Research government spending as a percentage of GDP and figure out where it was at its highest (during Reagan's presidency). Meaning; was it higher prior to 1984 or after?
Like i said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Keynesianism at is finest!
Reagan was a supply-side economics President; he showed that Keynesian economics is a failure.
Ronald Reagan cut income taxes across the board and relaxed regulation, encouraging investments.
“…In 1983, the final year that the Reagan tax cuts went into effect, the U.S. economy commenced a 15-year period of economic growth. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989, and another 10 million since then. At a rate of 3.5%, the gross national product increased by a third during the rest of Reagan's term, and it has continued to expand at the slower but steady pace of 2.5% ever since then...”
“…Reagan's policies put the U.S. in a position to capitalize on the silicon revolution. It is easy to forget that when Reagan was first elected, very few Americans owned a computer. Videocassette recorders were a novelty. Hardly anyone had an answering machine. All of this changed during the 1980s. Cellular phones were only introduced in 1983, yet by 1989 more than 20 million Americans owned one. Computers ceased to be used primarily by businesses and became a regular feature of the American home…”
Reagan was responsible for the tech revolution??? Hardly seems accurate.
Which is what the stimulus did much moreso than Reagan's military spending. You are using a double-standard here.
In other words, if you think it's necessary, then you can do it and still be a fiscal conservative, but if you personally don't deem it necessary, then no fiscal conservative can do it.
You don't count spending like that, because then everyone spends more and no one expets them to spend less in nominal terms. We do have inflation, and we do have wage and cost increases. You must remember that taxes follow the GDP.
My feeling is that Presidents don't have that much power, and therfore can't influence Congress that much.
Wrong. While both expanded the debt to huge portions, Reagan's ridiculous spending on military was not needed.
A $100 billion increase over a few years over a starting base of $300 billion is not exactly something to ignore.
You are missing the point.
Whether or not you think it is needed is irrelevant to the fact that according to you
if someone thinks that something is needed, then they can pay for it and still be a fiscal conservative.
If someone thinks that large military spending is needed, then, whether or not you personally think it is, according to you, that person has every right to increase military spending, and still be a fiscal conservative.
I think it's batsh*t crazy to say that the stimulus was absolutely necessary. But you think it's necessary, and because of that, you think that you can support it while still being a fiscal conservative. The same logic applies to something which you think is batsh*t crazy to think is necessary.
For someone who is so obsessed with hypocrisy, you sure have a lot of it.
Still, you don't count spending like that.
You don't count number of voters to show that the Democratic party is doing well, you use the percentage of voters.
You don't use nominal GDP to present the economic performance of the US, you use the real GDP. In this case, you use government spending as a percentage of GDP. If the government spending goes down in percentage then you cut spending, if it increases then you increase spending.
OC, I think you are very very confused about what my post was addressing. Look at it closer. If you still don't get it I give up.
For what? If spending for defence was greater than the inflation and the wage cost, then it will show in the government spending as a percentage of GDP, and it did. Spending went up from 6.2% in 1981 to 7.0% in 1983.To a degree you do.
Not quite. Both are useful measures. For instance, if you look at a small sample, you can get very distorted views purely relying upon percentages. Both should be looked at.
True, but inflation was not 25%. But military spending went up by that much.
For what? If spending for defence was greater than the inflation and the wage cost, then it will show in the government spending as a percentage of GDP, and it did. Spending went up from 6.2% in 1981 to 7.0% in 1983.
However you don't use nominal spending, because it's not adjusted for wage growth or inflation.
BTW: I didn't talk about a samle, when you talked about the elections. I was thinking about the actual election results. Then they don't judge the performance on the number of new voters you get, but they judge it by the percentage of voters you get.
Dumbass that came up with the trickle down theory that does not work. No he wanted big gov. how else was all that money suppose to sprinkle down? :rofl
In doing so, he created deficits instantaneously.
You missed the part where he raised government spending to go along with tax breaks to help push prices down.
Reagan was responsible for the tech revolution??? Hardly seems accurate. I do believe that those engineers @ IBM, Apple, Texas Instrument, Microsoft, Phillips, etc.... had far more to do with the tech revolution than did President Reagan. Don't get me wrong, i think he was a wonderful president, just not fiscally conservative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?