Charles, your spluttering answer filled with insults and assertions does you no credit.
No? I'm in here for a lil banter and political discussion, J. What I do get is Jpn setting off like Jimmie Johnson at Daytona. Look to this big huge response from you J, filled with graphs "monkeys" can't read.
You apparently have no concept of basic Keynesian economics. Here's a primer for you. Patton, pay attention:
Oh, I can't wait. Here is someone showing graphs on who sits in the WH being the leading economic indicators. Someone who believes government growth equals economic growth...let's see what you've got, J....
• Economies can and often do suffer from an overall lack of demand, which leads to involuntary unemployment
An overall lack of demand? What google presentation are you reading from? Economies suffer lack of demand, so what?They many times suffer from too much demand as well(oil), lack of supply(awareness in this forum), and too much supply, you're being too simple not to be exposed.
• The economy’s automatic tendency to correct shortfalls in demand, if it exists at all, operates slowly and painfully
"Shortfalls in demand".....as opposed to the "lack of demand" in your first assertation? Uh oh.....J is starting to unravel....let's see if he remains consistent or continue to randomly implode.
• Government policies to increase demand, by contrast, can reduce unemployment quickly
Government policies? I see...that right in your Constitution....the policy government should take to reduce unemployment? Wow....we're falling apart J.
• Sometimes increasing the money supply won’t be enough to persuade the private sector to spend more, and government spending must step into the breach
The breach cannot be corrected by market forces huh...a government needed to "step in." Forgetting for a moment that government derives its powers FROM those it governs....just a lil reminder of just how far off base this socialist is...Jpn.....government "must" not step in anywhere, it simply needs to step out. I agree "some" policy may persuade the private sector to activity....such as tax incentives to drill offshore....tax decreases to increase investment...the underwrting of home loans to protest against foreclosures...however, government policy should not be used to correct demand and supply of a free market society. The one I live in.
Your conservative ideology apparently prevents you from grasping the most basic concepts of supply and demand.
This after J is telling me the government needs to step in and solve economic problems....J is now claiming someone doesn't understand basic concepts....
.....uuuhhhh.....yeah. Carry on, J, you are totally defining yourself....don't let me get in the way.....
You call my statements -- which may as well come right out of an Econ 101 textbook -- "silly and erred."
Don't forget clueless.
Perhaps you meant
No, I wrote what I meant. Your foundation here, I believe, isn't tenable. You're arguing socialism and it ain't even pretty mush less worth asking what I meant. You know exactly what I'm saying, your spouting guesswork and supposition. Graphs based on occupants in the WH.
When I mentioned that economic performance under Democratic presidents is consistently and significantly better than under Republican presidents, you responded:
I mentioned economic performance being a function of so much more other than the man in the WH. World economies, the independent Fed, foreign events, world demand. No question Bush has implemented policy that IS pro-growth you even admitted it. You admitted tax cuts were pro-growth and Bush's resulted in the same, you merely think the tax cuts weren't the best bang for the buck...remember?
That's called bluster. It leaves my observation--that our economy does better under Democratic presidents--totally unanswered. In a debate, you'd get a failing grade.
J..in a debate I'd be scrubbing the floor with your argument, you would get toasted. You're unaware, misinformed, and totally void of economic free market forces. Clueless as I like to say. Carry on...this is so revealing.
You tried to blame Bush's piss-poor economic performance on entitlement spending. I mentioned that such spending isn't appreciably higher now than it was a decade ago.
That's because the GDP has grown to proportion and TAX RECEIPTS to the federal government are at record levels, where is that graph, J? Entitlement spending is increasing as a % of GDP as GDP increases as well. What graph must you provide to see that? And...what are entitlements but the VERY ARGUMENT you are making...J!!??? Ain't you the one claimin government should step in and provide employment....entitlements are an example of government intervention, J, never efficient, never what they seem.
All you needed to do was provide numbers proving that entitlement spending was significantly higher today than ten years ago. Why didn't you, Charles? Because you couldn't? A fact that you tried to hide with your bluster?
It is significantly higher today as a % of GDP, it is soon out of control as your own 'centrist.org' link graph shows us. Tax receipt graph please, J.
The future does indeed look bleak.
Is the sky falling too?
We indeed need universal health care immediately
We do? We need another entitlement program? WIth the others skyroceting as your own graph provided details. What a f'n rocket scientist you are, J. And again...forgetting governments derive their powers FROM those that govern...with immigration off the charts....who is going to pay for nationalized health care? The government? You're on absolute fault line position here, J.....you're foundation is so lacking.
And yet to hear Republicans tell it, it's Social Security that's in crisis, not our health care system).
You've heard its not in crisis now but will be when the majority of you retire. Pay attention, Jpn. The effrot to privitize this endeavor was noble and consistent with Bush's policies and dismissed your arguments that Bush was tax cut only.
Yes, thank god we were saved from Social Security privitization.
Thank who?
And then telling Irwin most conservatives refuse to accept economic theory...when you've based yours on government entitlements and claiming they're the function of employment, economic growth, or investment decisions.
You're a socialist, Jpn, we understand completely. We're the exact 180. Look to your positions and turn around...that's where we are.
Solid GDP growth, low unemployment, record tax receipts, record home ownership, low interest rates, and the finest standard of living this nation has ever known. Instant gratification, cells phones on every teenager, autos that navigate themselves, PCs and internet and packaged media. Bottled water, food supplies on every corner, each generation living even better than the last. We have a weight problem in America, our kids get fat and lazy, our sol unprecedented cept...one must have a lil age and experience to know this. Boys.
Tell me JPN, let's review your last 8 years, how have you been?
