Let the good times & George W's head roll.

[Spiffor]

Increased spending is keynesian, regardless of the tax situation. A government that increases taxes and expense is having a keynesian behaviour. A government that reduces taxes and increases expanses does too.

The keynesian aspect of Bush's economics aren't the tax cuts. They served nothing but the interests of Bush's caste. No, the keynesian aspect was the massive investment (in the military most notably, but also in plenty of pork projects) that was done during his tenure.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
deficit spending IS keynesian, it doesnt matter if it comes from tax cuts or not. you can give tax cuts and NOT run deficit spending, which is what supply side is about. tax cuts with deficit spending is no longer supply side, since when G increases, its not longer supply side. (plus interst rates need to be raised to prevent too much growth, which crowds out I, anyways) when you cut taxes and increase spending, thats keynesian.

Given that whatever spending increses have occurred are focused in the military, your analysis of Bush's tenure as Keyneian is probably incorrect.

It's also incorrect to state that Keynes is neutral on the source of the budgetary deficit. His thesis demanded the flow of a greater proportion of the monetary supply to those more likely to consume it, since a liquidity trap would merely be aggravated by allowing more to flow to those more likely to hoard it.

Reducing Keynes to "deficit spending" is disingenuous.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Supply-side = Keynesian?

increased government spending, Bush is trying everything he can:tax cuts,printing money,massively increased spending. except that kid is right here and running the magical fairie printing presses non-stop isn't quite what Keynes had in mind.

Given that whatever spending increses have occurred are focused in the military, your analysis of Bush's tenure as Keyneian is probably incorrect.

not true, he has also greatly expanded other budgets. Military spending has held at a constant 20% of the budget.

[DanS]

This is a strange thread. The OP doesn't make any sense, since it proposes that Bush will be punished for telling the truth.

Regarding supply-side v. demand-side changes, about half the original tax changes were demand and half were supply. Most of the subsequent changes were supply-side.

Lastly, the level of the deficit is very much a secondary concern compared to the overall level of spending. Bush and the Republicans in the congress are doing poorly in this area. They're spending too much on non-defense items for this point in the business cycle. If you're going to bust the GOP's nuts, at least do it for the right reason.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Regarding supply-side v. demand-side changes, about half the original tax changes were demand and half were supply. Most of the subsequent changes were supply-side.

yeah, how do you figure? thanks to bush's deficits, the fed needs to raise interest rates higher than they should be, thus slowing down investment. which half were demand side and which half were supply side.

id say 90% of it was bull**** side. if bush really wanted to help the country, he would eliminate all income taxes on the lower 50% of incomes and pay for it by cutting the military spending, cuz lets face it, those jokers havnt got their **** straight. you dont need 400 billion a year to fight dudes wearing turbans and driving around on camels.

and oh yeah, cut the $2 billion going to israel. they are rich enough to figure it out, and our money gives them moral hazards to act up.

[DanS]

id say 90% of it was bull**** side.

Cute.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Whoha
not true, he has also greatly expanded other budgets. Military spending has held at a constant 20% of the budget.

I think you might be forgetting to count expenditures in Afghanistan&Iraq. I might be wrong, but a lot of the money being spent there is requested separately, and doesn't figure into that 20%.

(again, not certain here)

[DanS]

The Administration is targeting 3.75% of the economy going to defense, not including non-recurring operations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. This is about the same as during Clinton's presidency and this level seems to have broad support in Washington.

[KrazyHorse]

The important question is how much spending has changed once you discount military (both recurring and non-recurring) and non-recurring relief efforts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
deficit spending IS keynesian, it doesnt matter if it comes from tax cuts or not. you can give tax cuts and NOT run deficit spending, which is what supply side is about. tax cuts with deficit spending is no longer supply side, since when G increases, its not longer supply side. (plus interst rates need to be raised to prevent too much growth, which crowds out I, anyways) when you cut taxes and increase spending, thats keynesian.

You didn't address the point that Keynes predicted that the rich would hoard money when interest rates get low enough. Interest rates reach a certain level where they don't get lower, and any further injection into the economy is simply hoarded. That's why Keynes proposed stimulating the economy with demand side deficit spending and only when interest rates are at that point.

You seriously need to try to understand people's position on things. You're ideas are way too simplified.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DanS
This is a strange thread. The OP doesn't make any sense, since it proposes that Bush will be punished for telling the truth.

To sum up:
(1) The White House keeps saying that the economy is doing well.
(2) Most Americans do not see themselves as doing well.
(3) My question is whether these Americans will see themselves as being unfairly left behind by an economic system that does not pay dividends to them no matter how well it's doing.

[Kidlicious]

Americans are doing well (the rich), but not well enough to cause inflation (the poor).

[DanS]

Z: The fact remains that the economy is doing well. Basically, you're relying on people's proclivity to think things are going poorly, when instead they're going well.

The democratic consultants have had a boner for this class warfare stuff since Gore. They believe this is some wedge issue between the pro business types and the GOP conservative base. But the issue of equity hasn't helped the democrats. It's a loser issue. A leftist activist's fantasy. I can educate you regarding this in detail if you like.

It would only be an issue by default -- i.e., if the American people lose faith in the general competence of the GOP on economic matters. The GOP is doing its level best to screw this up by spending money like drunken sailors.

Immigration is much bigger of a wedge issue. It's toxic for the GOP. But it's no good for the Dems, because they are very poorly positioned to take advantage of the issue.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the republicans have given us nothing but budget deficits, keynesian economics, a useless war and a bad economy.

What Keynesian economics?

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
deficit spending IS keynesian, it doesnt matter if it comes from tax cuts or not.

Not necessarily. Keynesian economics may come with a deficit spending, but it may be not. You need to look how the spending is done and where the $ goes.

Giving $ to the defense complex is not Keynesian.

It also matters if it comes from tax cuts or not. Cutting taxes is not Keynesian.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
The democratic consultants have had a boner for this class warfare stuff since Gore. They believe this is some wedge issue between the pro business types and the GOP conservative base. But the issue of equity hasn't helped the democrats. It's a loser issue. A leftist activist's fantasy. I can educate you regarding this in detail if you like.

It's not a wedge issue, but it's true. I think everyone pretty much knows that. Whether they care or not is another story.