Okay since you didn't answer the question in the locked thread...

[garyd]

Here is another chance>


If Keynes did not believe the government was the economies engine or at least function as such temporarily exactly what is the point of Keynesian stimulus packages?

[Cyclone Ranger]

To replace lost demand caused by inevitable recessionary cycles.

[garyd]

So then it can serve at least temporarily as the fuel in Keyne's opinion, since he views consumer demand as the engine of the economy. Further there is little difference between the fuel and the engine since the engine will not function without fuel.

This view is at least incomplete. And these stimulus packages never work well because of the nature of modern politicians - especially leftist one's.

Here are the main problems with this view:

1. The money has to come from somewhere else:
A. You raise taxes in which case with our current tax structure you reduce the money available to meet demand and drive inflation
B.You borrow it, in which case there is less money available to the private sector to be borrowed and again businesses are less able to meet demand and this also drives inflation.
C. You print it. which inevitably must devalue your currency on the world market and then at home, and therfore this too causes inflatinary pressures and makes it harder for business to meet demand or hirer help.

2. Most stimulus generally winds up growing government in terms of scope and power and manpower and we have more government than we can afford now.

3. Under leftist misrule much of the stimulus goes to rewarding cronies or pet projects like statuary saluting great leftist of the past or favored companies such as Solyndra without regard to whther or not theya re ever likly to return a profit.

[Archaix]

Here are the main problems with this view:

1. The money has to come from somewhere else:
A. You raise taxes in which case with our current tax structure you reduce the money available to meet demand and drive inflation.

That doesnt seem true to me.

2. Most stimulus generally winds up growing government in terms of scope and power and manpower and we have more government than we can afford now.

Most of the stimulus has actually been spent on tax breaks. $135.9 billion aimed at getting people back in education and buying houses again. $104.6 billion "Making Work Pay", tax credits to working people people who should have been getting these incentives already from their companies, but weren't because of executive greed and poor long-term planning. $90.6 billion for Medicare.

3. Under leftist misrule much of the stimulus goes to rewarding cronies or pet projects like statuary saluting great leftist of the past or favored companies such as Solyndra without regard to whther or not theya re ever likly to return a profit.

The only evidence you cite, Solyndra, received funding in the first place from a republican-controlled congress in the Bush years.

I'm not hearing anything from you about Halliburton's ties to the Bush administration, either.

[garyd]

That would be no solyndra did not receive funding from a Republican controlled congress. In fact the Bush Admin rejected funding solyndra. Congress gave money to an organization within the bureaucracy to fund green energy projects which project were at the disgression of that particular organization not congress.

If you take money from my boss coming and going (ie corporate taxes and personal taxes) where does he get money to either pay me more or hire me some help?

The stimulus was around 800 billion you just accounted for a little more than a qurter of it and told me that was most of it, thereby giving me even more proof that your average leftist has problems with either math or facts or possibly both. Oh and since those two programs have been in vogue for at least forty years somehow I'm not entirely convinced any stimulus money went to them before the fact.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Keynesian economics is basically:

1) reducing interest rates to stimulate borrowing;

2) government borrowing and spending in the economy on government projects, like infrastructure;

3) once the economy recovers, pay back that which was borrowed to effect the recovery.

It works fine.

What doesn't work is borrowing to stimulate the economy, then instead of paying it back, cutting taxes and borrowing even more.

That's not Keynesian economics. That's Republican economics, and that is bad fiscal policy, as we've seen all too well.

[DamnYankee]

That's not Keynesian economics. That's Republican economics, and that is bad fiscal policy, as we've seen all too well.

And BO-nomics have worked so well.

[Archaix]

That would be no solyndra did not receive funding from a Republican controlled congress. In fact the Bush Admin rejected funding solyndra[sic].

That would be a 'yes':
[QUOTE=In 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy invited the company to apply for a new loan guarantee program, a program created with the support of a majority of Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time.

The company's December 2006 pre-application was enough to vault it into a group of 16 applicants invited to submit full applications in 2007. By early January 2009, Solyndra's file had been reviewed by the department's credit committee and returned with a request for further analysis. On Jan. 15, the loan program office said "due diligence" for the Solyndra loan was scheduled to be complete by March 2009. The money was going to build a gleaming new factory in Fremont, Calif.

Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009, and one of his first legislative achievements was a major economic stimulus package. The administration pushed to finish the $535 million loan for Solyndra so it could tout the company as a poster child of the stimulus — construction jobs plus a boost to American green energy. Solyndra got the loan Sept. 3, 2009.[/QUOTE](Source)

The stimulus was around 800 billion you just accounted for a little more than a qurter of it and told me that was most of it, thereby giving me even more proof that your average leftist has problems with either math or facts or possibly both. Oh and since those two programs have been in vogue for at least forty years somehow I'm not entirely convinced any stimulus money went to them before the fact.

I didn't say the things I cited were most of the stimulus, just that tax incentivisation was most of it (as you can see if you go here). What I gave you were the three biggest destinations of the money, and there's even more than that, such as tax incentives for business ($33.5 billion), energy incentives ($10.8 billion), and manufacturing tax incentives ($9.2 billion).

Now go back to being an idiot.

[Cyclone Ranger]

So then it can serve at least temporarily as the fuel in Keyne's opinion, since he views consumer demand as the engine of the economy. Further there is little difference between the fuel and the engine since the engine will not function without fuel.

They add fuel when necessary to act as a safety net, not an engine.

This view is at least incomplete. And these stimulus packages never work well because of the nature of modern politicians

Bullshit. The stimulus package worked just fine.

Here are the main problems with this view:

1. The money has to come from somewhere else:
A. You raise taxes in which case with our current tax structure you reduce the money available to meet demand and drive inflation
B.You borrow it, in which case there is less money available to the private sector to be borrowed and again businesses are less able to meet demand and this also drives inflation.
C. You print it. which inevitably must devalue your currency on the world market and then at home, and therfore this too causes inflatinary pressures and makes it harder for business to meet demand or hirer help.

Unquestionably true on all counts.

However, there is simply no alternative, because without stimulus to hold the economy together, recessions spiral into depressions and ultimately collapse.

Most stimulus generally winds up growing government in terms of scope and power and manpower and we have more government than we can afford now.

Evidence?

Under leftist misrule much of the stimulus goes to rewarding cronies or pet projects like statuary saluting great leftist of the past or favored companies such as Solyndra without regard to whther or not theya re ever likly to return a profit.

Sounds like a bunch of unsubstantiated partisan bullshit to me.

[Cyclone Ranger]

And BO-nomics have worked so well.

Yep, the GDP up to new heights, the DOW and corporate profits at record vistas, retail sales and manufacturing orders rebounding, the jobless rate down from over 10% at the peak of the Great Recession to around 8%, etc.

[hadit]

Yep, the GDP up to new heights, the DOW and corporate profits at record vistas, retail sales and manufacturing orders rebounding, the jobless rate down from over 10% at the peak of the Great Recession to around 8%, etc.

There's a difference between the partisan hopelessly incorrect "unemployment" rate, and the true jobless rate. Do not foolishly conflate the two. Obama will end his (hopefully only) term with fewer Americans working and fewer jobs than when he started. That is a travesty, and crowing about a lowered unemployment rate in the face of those people who cannot find work is cruel.

[hadit]

Bullshit. The stimulus package worked just fine.

Then why don't we have 6.5% unemployment?

[Cyclone Ranger]

One, the POTUS was undermined by Republican assholes like Boehner and the TEA Party at every turn.

Two, the surprising velocity of the European market collapse ultimately became an insurmountable obstacle to a complete recovery within his first term.

[food4thought]

Yep, the GDP up to new heights, the DOW and corporate profits at record vistas, retail sales and manufacturing orders rebounding, the jobless rate down from over 10% at the peak of the Great Recession to around 8%, etc.

And all without the slightest trace of bipartisan goodwill, support or aid in the economic recovery from the Republicans ... we can only imagine how different the numbers/reality could have been if they hadn't spent the last three+ years campaigning for the next presidential election by thwarting their president and orchestrating his failure, instead of helping to get the American people back to work and the country on track to a faster recovery.

[Cyclone Ranger]

There's a difference between the partisan hopelessly incorrect "unemployment" rate, and the true jobless rate. Do not foolishly conflate the two. Obama will end his (hopefully only) term with fewer Americans working and fewer jobs than when he started. That is a travesty, and crowing about a lowered unemployment rate in the face of those people who cannot find work is cruel.

Bullshit. The true jobless rate is the involuntary jobless rate, which is now around 8%.

The fact a bunch of rich jerkoffs would rather sit on their severance packages and accumulated wealth than take what's being offered doesn't mean they're involuntarily employed. That, of course, is why you didn't mention them back in '05 when you were crowing about Bush's 6% "full employment."

Ironically, at least some of them are very likely not participating in the labor force because they made so much monsy from the sale of toxic mortgages and derivatives before 2008, thanks to the GOP's reckless stewardship of the economy before the global economic crisis.

[food4thought]

There's a difference between the partisan hopelessly incorrect "unemployment" rate, and the true jobless rate. Do not foolishly conflate the two. Obama will end his (hopefully only) term with fewer Americans working and fewer jobs than when he started. That is a travesty, and crowing about a lowered unemployment rate in the face of those people who cannot find work is cruel.

If your information is correct, hadit, then you continue to stump for the responsible party. It is a travesty that the Republicans haven't given a shit about the unemployed - quite the opposite - the more unemployed, the more their president looks bad. Now that's cruel.

[hadit]

If your information is correct, hadit, then you continue to stump for the responsible party. It is a travesty that the Republicans haven't given a shit about the unemployed - quite the opposite - the more unemployed, the more their president looks bad. Now that's cruel.

That one's just not going to fly. It's Obama's baby, has been for years, and you can't spin your way out of that. He had the opportunity to create a business-friendly environment, but chose instead to demonize and punish success.

[Chachma v'Oz]

What he's done is a good job rectifying the horrible situation the previous administration left us with. If he hasn't accomplished this miracle fast enough for some, they're being unrealistic (which pretty much describes their positions on many things).

[hadit]

What he's done is a good job rectifying the horrible situation the previous administration left us with. If he hasn't accomplished this miracle fast enough for some, they're being unrealistic (which pretty much describes their positions on many things).

A good job? The slowest recovery from a recession we've seen in, well, forever, and you call that a good job? I really don't think the average voter on election day is going to think that.

[Chachma v'Oz]

This Great Recession was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Getting us through it in one piece is more complicated than flipping a switch, and everybody who measures their age in at least double digits knows this. They also thank God that the 2008 election cycle allowed us this recovery and are appalled at the thought of returning to the policies that created the disaster.

The anti-anything-Obama crowd will either vote for Romney or stay home. Everyone else will propel Obama into his second term with a pat on the back.