Do even the Dem candidates themselves, believe America wants their far-left agenda?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sure it's been 'argued"; by Keynesians who believe that massive federal spending is a good thing; especially during recessions.

Keynes's model indicates federal stimulus is necessary during recessions. He didn't say deficit spending is necessarily a good thing at all points in the business cycle.

It's also been argued that the stimulus was too high, or even unnecessary by many who completely disagree with the Keynesian model.

It's also been argued that gravity is unnecessary by those who disagree with the heliocentric model. So what?

[IFF]

Sure it's been 'argued"; by Keynesians; from the NYT of all places (not exactly a conservative/centrist publication by any means) who believe that massive federal spending is a good thing; especially during recessions.

It's also been argued that the stimulus was too high, or even unnecessary by many who completely disagree with the Keynesian model.

yes and in the krugman article, he dealt with what the critics who had argued that the stimulus was too large to work and went through what time has shown the arguments to be incorrect

The countries who opposed massive stimulus spending; such as Germany, are back in business and never experienced the kind of long term recession we have. They've gotten through the worst of their downturns while we still lag behind. They also haven't accrued massive debt. IMO. they did things the smart way while we resorted to the failed liberal polices of massive borrowing and spending.

from the krugman link also

Oh, and don’t tell me that Germany proves that austerity, not stimulus, is the way to go. Germany actually did quite a lot of stimulus – the austerity is all in the future. Also, it never had a housing bubble that burst. And with all that, German GDP is still further below its pre-crisis peak than US GDP. True, Germany has done better in terms of employment – but that’s because strong unions and government policy have prevented American-style mass layoffs.

repost the source link - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...278204030.html

[hadit]

The former would be lovely.....the problem is, there is no such animal.

That is quite true, for this administration. They obviously had no intention of actually helping the economy wring out the debt overload and recover quickly. I agree with you. A different administration, OTOH....

Government spending in the private sector is necessary during a recession and will produce debt.

And it can be a great help, if applied judiciously and stopped when no longer needed. This spending was most certainly neither of those.

[Betrade]

So what?

My point exactly.

The fact that some people have argued for something; specifically, a larger stimulus; in no way means it's a good thing to so or that just as many people have argued against it.

[Cyclone Ranger]

That is quite true, for this administration. They obviously had no intention of actually helping the economy wring out the debt overload and recover quickly. I agree with you. A different administration, OTOH....

If they didn't do the stimulus, we'd have another depression....debt could not be their first concern.

And it can be a great help, if applied judiciously and stopped when no longer needed. This spending was most certainly neither of those.

He did exactly what was needed and no more. Certainly, McCain would have not done it any differently.

[hadit]

If they didn't do the stimulus, we'd have another depression....debt could not be their first concern.

Debt obviously was not a concern for them AT ALL.

He did exactly what was needed and no more.

I do believe we have had a discussion in which we agreed that would be determined by whether or not the spending stops when the recession ends. The recession is over, according to you, and I have not seen the spending even slow, much less stop. Events would argue against your position.

Certainly, McCain would have not done it any differently.

Straw man. We're not arguing McCain because he's not president.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Debt obviously was not a concern for them AT ALL.

Of course it's a concern....it's just wasn't their #1 concern.

I do believe we have had a discussion in which we agreed that would be determined by whether or not the spending stops when the recession ends. The recession is over, according to you, and I have not seen the spending even slow, much less stop. Events would argue against your position.

They haven't held another stimulus. That the point.

Straw man. We're not arguing McCain because he's not president.

It's not a straw man....anyone else would've had to do the same....McCain was planning on it.....Whomever else held the office would've undertaken the same spending.

[hadit]

Of course it's a concern....it's just wasn't their #1 concern.

Seeing as how they NEVER indicated a concern about the debt AT ALL, you have to be making a huge assumption to believe that.

They haven't held another stimulus. That the point.

No, that has no bearing on whether they did it right or not. You can give a sick patient the wrong medicine which delays their getting better. If they get better and you didn't give them anything else, that does not prove you gave them the right medicine.

It's not a straw man....anyone else would've had to do the same....McCain was planning on it.....Whomever else held the office would've undertaken the same spending.

Irrelevent. This was TFO's choice, it's his baby, and he has to take responsibility for the fallout of his actions. He cannot vote "present" and claim it's okay because a liberal Republican would have done the same thing.

[Betrade]

If they didn't do the stimulus, we'd have another depression....debt could not be their first concern.

You know, I keep hearing this assertion repeated over and over by the American left; especially Obama and Reid.

The thing is, it CANNOT be proven one way or another and there is no real evidence that it was ever true.

IMO it was only a scare tactic which allowed Obama and the left to engage in an unprecedented borrowing and spending spree; the likes of which we've never seen and hopefully, never will again.

Now Obama, Reid, Pelosi and other democrats are taking credit for 'saving" us. I don't buy it and thankfully; from the looks of things, neither do the majority of Americans. This mantra won't hold water much longer either.

To hear Reid say "But for I, we would have had another depression" is one of the absolute stupidest thing I've ever heard from any politician. It's right up there with Gore creating the internet and it's just as big a lie.

Are we really supposed to believe that of all people; HARRY REID saved us?? I don't think so.

Funny how he takes credit for what he feels is good and blames everything wrong on a president who's been out of office for two years now. That dog won't hunt anymore Harry.

I REALLY hope he loses next week and we no longer have to see his mug or hear any more of his BS.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Seeing as how they NEVER indicated a concern about the debt AT ALL, you have to be making a huge assumption to believe that.

There is no specific way they're supposed to indicate a concern with debt. They correctly prioritized their policy actions and they'll deal with the debt at the appropriate time.

No, that has no bearing on whether they did it right or not. You can give a sick patient the wrong medicine which delays their getting better. If they get better and you didn't give them anything else, that does not prove you gave them the right medicine.

There is no other "medicine", so that's a red herring. The one and only option is government spending. History proves that.

Any other policy attempt would have led to more recession.

Irrelevent. This was TFO's choice, it's his baby, and he has to take responsibility for the fallout of his actions. He cannot vote "present" and claim it's okay because a liberal Republican would have done the same thing.

There is no fall-out....the stimulus worked....in '12, we'll have 6.5% unemployment and, all other things equal, he'll be reelected.

[hadit]

There is no specific way they're supposed to indicate a concern with debt. They correctly prioritized their policy actions and they'll deal with the debt at the appropriate time.

Given that they never even tried to mention it when they were trying to ram through the massive spending, you're still making a huge assumption.

There is no other "medicine", so that's a red herring. The one and only option is government spending. History proves that.

Baloney. There can be too much spending, just like there can be too much saline given a dehydrated patient. Too much and they may survive, but it will take longer for them to recover and you have given them the wrong treatment. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that TFO gave us the Goldilocks prescription.

Any other policy attempt would have led to more recession.

Unknowable.

There is no fall-out....the stimulus worked....in '12, we'll have 6.5% unemployment and, all other things equal, he'll be reelected.

So why hasn't the spending stopped? You say the recession is over, so the stimulus spending should stop. I see no sign of that happening. I'll even predict that, come '12, you will be unable to point to ANY significant cost cutting measure proposed by or supported by the president, no matter WHAT the condition of the economy.

[hadit]

Funny how he takes credit for what he feels is good and blames everything wrong on a president who's been out of office for two years now. That dog won't hunt anymore Harry.

Expect democrats to still be running against Bush in '12.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Given that they never even tried to mention it when they were trying to ram through the massive spending, you're still making a huge assumption.

Neither did the Republicans while they were ramming through the big government deficit spending they been promoting since 1980. The DNP is under no greater obligation for disclosure.

Baloney. There can be too much spending, just like there can be too much saline given a dehydrated patient. Too much and they may survive, but it will take longer for them to recover and you have given them the wrong treatment. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that TFO gave us the Goldilocks prescription.

The fact we've had the first year of uninterrupted GDP growth since '08 is the best evidence available.

Unknowable.

History is the best arbiter. When governments makes targeted stimulus expenditures, as in the early Nineties and the late 2000's, recessions end....as was proved in the Seventies and the early Eighties, the opposite is also true.

So why hasn't the spending stopped? You say the recession is over, so the stimulus spending should stop. I see no sign of that happening. I'll even predict that, come '12, you will be unable to point to ANY significant cost cutting measure proposed by or supported by the president, no matter WHAT the condition of the economy.

There has been no more stimulus, so what are you complaining about?

[hadit]

[QUOTE=Cyclone Ranger;2079431]Neither did the Republicans while they were ramming through the big government deficit spending they been promoting since 1980. The DNP is under no greater obligation for disclosure.[quote]

Then make the case the Republicans don't care about the debt.

The fact we've had the first year of uninterrupted GDP growth since '08 is the best evidence available.

So we should be cutting back on the overspending. We're not.

History is the best arbiter. When governments makes targeted stimulus expenditures, as in the early Nineties and the late 2000's, recessions end....as was proved in the Seventies and the early Eighties, the opposite is also true.

"Targeted" being the operative word. This one wasn't.

There has been no more stimulus, so what are you complaining about?

The continuing massive overspending.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Then make the case the Republicans don't care about the debt.

If they cared about debt, they wouldn't even attempt reconciling trillions in military industrial spending with endless tax cuts (for the already rich).

So we should be cutting back on the overspending. We're not.

No easy way to do that, thanks to debt from the Republican wars and the ongoing threat of terrorism.

"Targeted" being the operative word. This one wasn't.

It was as targeted as any stimulus in history.

[Guido]

There’s really only one Party; it has two right wings – the Corporate one and the Capitalist one. Each wing has their favored corporations and their favored plutocrats; both kowtow to the Pentagon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Prison Guard Unions, Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Religion and sundry eco-despoilers.

Elections these days basically boil down to this: either Democrat or GOP hucksters funneling money to their select corporations, raiding the Treasury to further line the pockets of the elite. That tax-cuts-for-the-rich-trickle-down voodoo has been the default mode for the past 32 years -unabated, whether a D or an R sat/sits in the White House, Congress, local Governor's Manse or Legislature. Only difference is which elites get the favors. As the bumpersticker paraphrases Galbraith, “Under Republicans, man exploits man; under Democrats, it’s just the opposite.”

What little difference there is, is this: under Dubya, it was Big Oil (of course), King Coal, Big Timber, Big Ag, Big Pharma, and ominously, privatized Big Brother that greatly benefited. Halliburton was the poster child of the Wild West deregulatory days of Bush, Jr. from their infamous "no-bid" war contracts to the eventual, abysmal failure of their major oil services business at cementing and preventing the BP oil geyser.

In Clintontime's own Deregulatory orgy, it was “high tech and telecommunications” - those good ‘ol bubbly days when Democratic Party National Chairman Terry McCauliffe hauled in $18 million on his $100,000 investment in Global Crossing - Bubba's poster child - which itself, prior to Bankruptcy, parlayed a $1 million donation to Clinton’s campaign coffers (and later, another $1 million for his library) into a $400 million Pentagon contract from Clinton.

In Obamatime: it’s China (despite the recent blather about currency valuations), the Non-Profit establishment and the “Green Economy," absurdly including cutting down forests (read: ecosystems/life support system) to burn for electricity and billions for "clean" coal and renewed Nuclear Power.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly10292010.html

[Betrade]

There’s really only one Party; it has two right wings – the Corporate one and the Capitalist one. Each wing has their favored corporations and their favored plutocrats; both kowtow to the Pentagon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Prison Guard Unions, Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Religion and sundry eco-despoilers.

Elections these days basically boil down to this: either Democrat or GOP hucksters funneling money to their select corporations, raiding the Treasury to further line the pockets of the elite. That tax-cuts-for-the-rich-trickle-down voodoo has been the default mode for the past 32 years -unabated, whether a D or an R sat/sits in the White House, Congress, local Governor's Manse or Legislature. Only difference is which elites get the favors. As the bumpersticker paraphrases Galbraith, “Under Republicans, man exploits man; under Democrats, it’s just the opposite.”

What little difference there is, is this: under Dubya, it was Big Oil (of course), King Coal, Big Timber, Big Ag, Big Pharma, and ominously, privatized Big Brother that greatly benefited. Halliburton was the poster child of the Wild West deregulatory days of Bush, Jr. from their infamous "no-bid" war contracts to the eventual, abysmal failure of their major oil services business at cementing and preventing the BP oil geyser.

In Clintontime's own Deregulatory orgy, it was “high tech and telecommunications” - those good ‘ol bubbly days when Democratic Party National Chairman Terry McCauliffe hauled in $18 million on his $100,000 investment in Global Crossing - Bubba's poster child - which itself, prior to Bankruptcy, parlayed a $1 million donation to Clinton’s campaign coffers (and later, another $1 million for his library) into a $400 million Pentagon contract from Clinton.

In Obamatime: it’s China (despite the recent blather about currency valuations), the Non-Profit establishment and the “Green Economy," absurdly including cutting down forests (read: ecosystems/life support system) to burn for electricity and billions for "clean" coal and renewed Nuclear Power.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly10292010.html

I agree with almost everything in that post; except for the assertion that trickle down doesn't work.

Every corporate structure and every business in America is based on trickle down economics. No one calls it that but essentially, that's what it is. It's also the only thing that DOES work and that produces the high standard of living that we Americans are accustomed to.

If you destroy those at the top you kill even more at the bottom and those at the bottom only get what spills over from the top.

If I go out of business because no one's spending money, all of my employees go too. If I make a profit, everyone gets more. This is exactly what's happening all over America as we speak and it';s getting really bad here in MD.; worse than ever before in my lifetime. Spending is down at the business and consumer levels.

It's actually at a very low low; about 56.00 a day nationwide for consumers. I don't know the figure for business and corporations offhand but I do know that despite record profits for many companies, they're just not spending it. US businesses are sitting on more than a trillion dollars; waiting for more certainty before they start spending again.

How can anyone not see this or see the fact that every corporate structure and/or business is actually a "pyramid" where profits spill down from the top and in turn, are spent back into the overall economy by the consumers; back into business, back to investment, overhead and profit, and back down payroll and back on the streets?? This is how capitalism works and can't really work any other way.

It's a shame that we have such corruption at the very top, but we can't legislate that out of existence. It's been tried and tried but when you have the fox guarding the hen house, you're just wasting time and more money.

The rich get richer because they continually do what makes them rich; over and over and over. The poor tend to continually do what makes them poor, so they remain poor. That's just another aspect of human nature. if people want to be at the top they need to do things that get them there and continue to do them over and over if they expect to stay there. It's very simple really and it's all based on basic trickle down, or I prefer to say, spillover economics.

[Caffeine]

I get the opinion that the Democratic leadership doesn't care what others think. This coming lame duck section is an example of that. Democrats are going to loose big by about all accounts, and yet Reid just announced he is going to bring to vote the unpopular DreamAct for illegals after the election.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/30...-deportations/

[Cyclone Ranger]

Every corporate structure and every business in America is based on trickle down economics.

No, they aren't....they're based on Adam Smith's theory of capitalism; ie, that the apparently selfish pursuit of profit paradoxically results in benefit for society democratically.

That's not trickle-down economics; that is, the belief that tax cuts for the rich alone somehow culminate in increased spending and investment....even though the rich have more than they can spend now.

That latter bit is why trickle-down economics does not work, as has been proven repeatedly over the last thirty years.

[CKIRK]

On the contrary.

Every time significant tax cut legislation has been enacted the economy has grown and along with that government revenues. It's a shame Democrats have forgotten this.

Your Marx inspired class warfare "tax cuts for the rich" are in reality tax cuts for the job creators, give them some certainty on economic policy (which there currently isn't) and watch the economy grow.