Pre-existing conditions coverage

[crisismangement]

My source CALL THEM DEMAND...my source is President John Fitzgerald KennedyPresident

Of course he called then demand. After all, he was a liberal.

Where is your link?

A link? You mean you are too stupid to know that tax cuts to the rich are supply side/trickle down economics.

Laffer was never consulted. He was still in COLLEGE. His theory was a decade later.

Laffer earned a B.A. in Economics from Yale University (1962) and an M.B.A. (1965) and a Ph.D. in Economics (1971) from Stanford University.

You are now officially a dishonest lying piece of shit. You just got pwned.

Laffer had understood tax theory before his MBA. Now it is obvious you are a stupid piece of shit.

Although the Laffer Curve bears his name, the ideas behind it were not new or his alone. In fact, Dr. Laffer likes to point out that the ideas are so straightforward that people knew about it hundreds of years before. For example, the Muslim philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, wrote in his 14th century work, The Muqaddimah: It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.​

So what ever you call it, he was right and his influence on JFK's tax cuts came from that theory.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.

Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."

you will see that peak spending, other than during war time mobilization spending peaks show revenue valleys. Not a good show for Keynesian policies.

It sure is fun to prove you don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you realize you are beating your head against a brick wall. BFing LW fanatic is too ignorant to understand the truth even if he hits him in the head.

 

[Bfgrn]

My source CALL THEM DEMAND...my source is President John Fitzgerald KennedyPresident

Of course he called then demand. After all, he was a liberal.

He called them DEMAND because that is what they were. Demand side tax cuts.

And after all, you are NOT a liberal. You just outed yourself.

You are a lying sack of shit. You conveniently left out THIS from your wiki link because you are dishonest.

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."

Historical origins

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And THIS embedded link:

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although economist Arthur Laffer does not claim to have invented the Laffer curve concept,[3] it was popularized with policymakers following an afternoon meeting with Ford Administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974 in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate his argument.[4] The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski, who was also present at the meeting. The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself notes antecedents in the writings of Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.[5]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even right wing Republicans who post on Breitbart know the truth.

Why Aren't the Democrats Keynesian on Taxes?

Indeed, left out of the discussion of Keynsian economics, in the modern media today, is Keynes advocacy of tax cuts. It was Keynes, long before Reagan, that stated: “high tax rates defeat their own object,” i.e. to collect tax revenue. It was Keynes, long before Art Laffer, that said: “given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.”

Keynes so believed that that he also said that: “For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more–and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.”

Keynes well understood that high tax rates destroy capital formation and limit profit seeking just as higher prices kill off sales. Lower rates, on the other hand, restore incentives and spur individuals to take risks, achieve and to expand the economy. Such basic human nature thinking, after three recessions under President Eisenhower and his top tax rate of 91%, convinced none other than JFK to say: “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut tax rates now.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are truly a dishonest person. You claim to have a degree in economics, and you know NOTHING about Keynes economic theory.

Even your beloved far right wing trickle down retards like Laffer know Keynes economic theory.

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%. He did so in order to run a larger budget deficit, because his economic advisers, including Arthur Okun and Walter Heller, believed this would provide a Keynesian stimulus to demand. Neither Kennedy nor his advisers believed in the subsequent supply-side theory that gained credence in the 1970s, which held that low marginal rates on the very rich were crucial to stimulate investment. One of his advisers, James Tobin, explicitly said the income-tax cut would provide a short-run economic stimulus but would do nothing to promote investment "except in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."

Another way to look at this issue is to look at Kennedy's justification for the tax reforms in 1961, when he originally proposed them. The initial list of reforms does not even mention a cut in the top marginal rate. It does, however, spend a lot of time arguing for taxing dividends as ordinary income, since lower rates unfairly privilege the rich who are the overwhelming beneficiaries of dividends. Of course, this proposal might reflect legislative strategy; perhaps we would do better to look at what Kennedy said about cutting taxes when addressing the general public, for instance during his campaign. Here's what Kennedy told the press about his priorities for the presidential campaign in July, 1960:

I think the question is which party by its record in the Congress, by the record of its administrations in the past, really has evidenced a true commitment to the program of economic growth, to the needs of our older citizens, to assistance to education, to do something about American agriculture, to improve American security, to strengthen our Armed Forces, to assist the underdeveloped world.

John F. Kennedy considered foreign aid a major part of his agenda. He didn't even mention tax cuts. He didn't talk about tax cuts in his speeches on the campaign trail. Tax cuts didn't make his agenda until his advisors began pushing for them as a way to boost short-term consumer demand and get to full employment. Indeed, at the same time Kennedy was pushing tax cuts in 1962, he was also making an all-out effort to pass that well-known darling of fiscal conservatives, Medicare.

John F. Kennedy: This week in up-is-downism | The Economist

 

[dnsmith35]

He called them DEMAND because that is what they were. Demand side tax cuts.

It takes a person who is completely economics challenged to call a tax cut heavy on the top brackets to call it a Demand economics tax cut. If he wanted a truly demand tax cut he would have chopped the lower bracket completely and lowered taxes on the rest of the lower tax brackets. I could call you a liberal, yet that would be a lie, you are a left wing extremist interested only in the power of the left wing. You have proved by all of your post that you really don't care about the poor; you only care for the elitist work force.

You claim to have a degree in economics, and you know NOTHING about Keynes economic theory.

I have forgotten more about Keynesian economics than you know or ever will know. Because of that knowledge, and the fact that it has never succeeded to any great degree makes me hope we never again have to suffer through it.

Keynesian theory suggests that if we stimulate the economy with tax breaks for the lower brackets (demand economics), increase government spending even if we increase our deficits, it will take us out of a business down cycle. The graph I posted last night suggests that when we increase government spending we decrease revenues. When revenues are decreased it further suggests that there is less money earned by the people, thus the failure is quickly noted.

With out suggesting I was not for the new deal (which I supported) or the things accomplished by JFK, as a person who understands economics; there is a lot of evidence that the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression (mobilization for WWII did that). JFK's economics created a lot of social programs (or started them before he was assassinated) which benefited the common man. You are so intelligence challenged I wonder how you figured out how to post on a forum; or did someone do it for you and helped you practice until it became rote?

 

[dnsmith35]

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964

He did so in order to run a larger budget deficit, because his economic advisers, including Arthur Okun and Walter Heller, believed this would provide a Keynesian stimulus to demand. Neither Kennedy nor his advisers believed in the subsequent supply-side theory that gained credence in the 1970s, which held that low marginal rates on the very rich were crucial to stimulate investment. One of his advisers, James Tobin, explicitly said the income-tax cut would provide a short-run economic stimulus but would do nothing to promote investment "except in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."

He did not increase the budget deficit to cause an economic stimulus, he applied tax cuts to stimulate the economy. His advisors suggested that increasing the deficit would not hurt the economy.

Another way to look at this issue is to look at Kennedy's justification for the tax reforms in 1961, when he originally proposed them. The initial list of reforms does not even mention a cut in the top marginal rate.

Yet he did reduce the top bracket by 21%, which is a supply side tax cut.

It does, however, spend a lot of time arguing for taxing dividends as ordinary income, since lower rates unfairly privilege the rich who are the overwhelming beneficiaries of dividends. Of course, this proposal might reflect legislative strategy; perhaps we would do better to look at what Kennedy said about cutting taxes when addressing the general public, for instance during his campaign. Here's what Kennedy told the press about his priorities for the presidential campaign in July, 1960:

I think the question is which party by its record in the Congress, by the record of its administrations in the past, really has evidenced a true commitment to the program of economic growth, to the needs of our older citizens, to assistance to education, to do something about American agriculture, to improve American security, to strengthen our Armed Forces, to assist the underdeveloped world.

You do know that what politicians tell the people and the press never shares the full picture. It is his actions which are important, not what he says.

John F. Kennedy considered foreign aid a major part of his agenda. He didn't even mention tax cuts. He didn't talk about tax cuts in his speeches on the campaign trail. Tax cuts didn't make his agenda until his advisors began pushing for them as a way to boost short-term consumer demand and get to full employment. Indeed, at the same time Kennedy was pushing tax cuts in 1962, he was also making an all-out effort to pass that well-known darling of fiscal conservatives, Medicare.

John F. Kennedy: This week in up-is-downism | The Economist

After cutting the top bracket marginal rates he was assassinated and Johnson followed through on his wishes and cut the top bracket another 5%, making the total top bracket reduction from 91% to 65%, definitely a supply side tax cut. It seems that the meager cuts to the lower brackets were almost an after thought.

When you talk Keynesian, you are talking about government stimulating the economy, increasing the money supply, mostly by putting more money into the hands of the less wealthy who spend all that they get.

When you talk lowering taxes for the top earners you are talking supply side economics.

Definition of SUPPLY-SIDE economics:
of or pertaining to a theory that stresses the reduction of taxes, especially for those of higher income, as a means of encouraging business investment and growth and stabilizing the economy.

Definition of DEMAND-SIDE Economics .
of or pertaining to an economic policy that treats consumer demand as the chief determinant of the economy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supply-side

 

[MaxGrit]

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964
He did not increase the budget deficit to cause an economic stimulus, he applied tax cuts to stimulate the economy. His advisors suggested that increasing the deficit would not hurt the economy.Yet he did reduce the top bracket by 21%, which is a supply side tax cut.You do know that what politicians tell the people and the press never shares the full picture. It is his actions which are important, not what he says.After cutting the top bracket marginal rates he was assassinated and Johnson followed through on his wishes and cut the top bracket another 5%, making the total top bracket reduction from 91% to 65%, definitely a supply side tax cut. It seems that the meager cuts to the lower brackets were almost an after thought.

When you talk Keynesian, you are talking about government stimulating the economy, increasing the money supply, mostly by putting more money into the hands of the less wealthy who spend all that they get.

When you talk lowering taxes for the top earners you are talking supply side economics.

Definition of SUPPLY-SIDE economics:
of or pertaining to a theory that stresses the reduction of taxes, especially for those of higher income, as a means of encouraging business investment and growth and stabilizing the economy.

Definition of DEMAND-SIDE Economics .
of or pertaining to an economic policy that treats consumer demand as the chief determinant of the economy

Supply-side | Define Supply-side at Dictionary.com

Stimulus spending by the government will not produce any long term economic gains. Government stimulus money increases aggregate demand leading to inflation. The Fed, to mitigate inflation, uses their control of fiscal policy to cancel out the increased demand caused by government stimulus money. This phenomenon is called "monetary offset".

 

[MaxGrit]

Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Roughly Zero | Mercatus

Many observers have been perplexed by the slow recovery from the 2008 recession. In the United States, Congress passed a nearly $800 billion stimulus in early 2009, yet growth remained sluggish. More recently, a shift toward fiscal austerity does not seem to have noticeably slowed the rate of economic growth.1 This seems to go against the textbook Keynesian model, which says fiscal stimulus has a multiplier effect on GDP; however, we shouldn’t be surprised that fiscal policy seems less effective than anticipated. As we’ll see, fiscal policy ineffectiveness is one byproduct of modern central banking, with its focus on inflation targeting.

The traditional “multiplier” approach to fiscal policy is based on John Maynard Keynes’s observation that consumers usually spend a large share of any increase in their income.2 Government spending programs and tax cuts put dollars directly into the pockets of consumers, regardless of how effective they are on a cost/benefit basis. If consumers spend 80 percent of their extra take-home-pay on goods and services, then other workers and firms will earn additional income. A portion of that income boost will also be spent, leading to a multiplier effect, whereby total aggregate demand rises by more than the initial government stimulus. The multiplier represents the ratio of the total increase in spending to the initial increase in government spending.

Conservative critics of fiscal stimulus often point out that the extra dollars must come from somewhere.3 If the government borrows funds to boost spending, then interest rates might rise, which would crowd out private investment expenditures on consumer durables, new homes, and business ventures. Although crowding out can reduce the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus, Keynesians correctly note that when interest rates are zero, it is unlikely that additional government borrowing will be fully offset by declining private investment, especially if the central bank holds rates close to zero.4

Why has the effect of fiscal stimulus been so meager in recent years? After all, interest rates in the United States have been close to zero since the end of 2008. The most likely explanation is monetary offset, a concept built into modern central bank policy but poorly understood. We can visualize monetary offset with the Keynesian aggregate supply and demand diagram used in introductory economics textbooks. If fiscal stimulus works, it’s by shifting the aggregate demand (AD) curve to the right. This tends to raise both prices and output as the economy moves from point A to point B, although in the very long run, only prices are affected.



Now let’s assume that the central bank is targeting inflation at 2 percent. If fiscal stimulus shifts the AD curve to the right, then prices will tend to rise. The central bank then must adopt a more contractionary monetary policy in order to prevent inflation from exceeding their 2 percent target. The contractionary monetary policy shifts AD back to the left, offsetting the effect of the fiscal stimulus. This is called monetary offset.

By the 1990s this process was pretty well understood, which is why even many of the so-called New Keynesian economists began to lose interest in fiscal policy as a stabilization tool.5 Instead, the focus shifted to central bank policy, and elaborate rules were devised to assist the central bank in steering the economy toward low inflation and stable growth. Perhaps the most famous was the Taylor Rule, which called for central banks to adjust interest rates so as to keep inflation near 2 percent and output close to potential output.6

If the central bank is steering the economy or, more precisely, nominal aggregates, such as inflation and nominal GDP, then fiscal policy would be unable to impact aggregate demand. As an analogy, imagine a child attempting to turn the steering wheel of a car. The parent might respond by gripping the wheel even tighter, offsetting the push of the child. Even though the child’s actions would initially change the direction of the car, ceteris paribus, the parent will push back with equal force and correct this turn to keep the car on the road.

If monetary offset was well understood by the 1990s, why was there so much support for fiscal stimulus in the recent recession? It seems that many economists wrongly assumed that the normal monetary offset model no longer held, due to three misconceptions:

In early 2009 many economists wrongly assumed that the Fed was out of ammunition, leaving monetary policy adrift, or passive.7
Some economists have told me that the Fed would never attempt to sabotage fiscal stimulus because the Fed also wanted to see a robust recovery.
Fed officials like Ben Bernanke occasionally spoke out against fiscal austerity, making monetary offset seem even less likely.8
By now we know that central banks are not out of policy options when rates fall to zero.9 And, in a sense, this never should have been in doubt. When Japanese interest rates hit zero in the late 1990s, Ben Bernanke (then an academic) dismissed arguments that policy is ineffective at the zero bound.10 So did Milton Friedman.11 The best-selling monetary economics textbook of 2010, written by former Fed official Frederic Mishkin, noted that monetary policy remains “highly effective” when short term rates fall close to zero.12 We’ve recently seen the Bank of Japan engineer a sharp depreciation of the yen, despite near zero interest rates. This contradicts Keynesian “liquidity trap” models, which suggest that central banks are unable to depreciate their currencies once short-term rates fall to zero. It’s safe to say that the “out of ammunition” view of monetary ineffectiveness has been thoroughly discredited.

The other two objections to monetary offset are harder to dismiss. The Fed has been disappointed by the pace of recovery and wishes that aggregate demand had risen at a faster pace over the past five years. This remains the central reason why most Keynesians continue to favor fiscal stimulus. But on closer inspection it seems quite likely that the Fed has been sabotaging fiscal stimulus (and offsetting recent austerity), perhaps without even realizing it.

To see why monetary offset continues to be operative, consider the sorts of statements continually made by Fed officials. We never hear them explicitly say they’ll sabotage fiscal stimulus, but we do hear them say they will calibrate the level of monetary stimulus to the health of the economy. For instance, the recent Evans Rule commits the Fed to hold interest rates close to zero until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent or core inflation rises above 2.5 percent.13 Because fiscal stimulus would presumably make this happen sooner, it would also, ipso facto, cause the Fed to raise interest rates sooner than otherwise. Thus fiscal stimulus would lead to tighter money over time. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily fully offset the effects of fiscal stimulus, but it’s an explicit admission by the Fed that if the fiscal authorities do more, they will do less.

An even better example occurred in late 2012, when the Fed took several steps to make monetary policy more expansionary, including adoption of the Evans Rule and additional quantitative easing (QE), or injections of bank reserves through bond purchases. Why did the Fed take such bold steps? Some Fed officials pointed to the looming fiscal cliff, which was widely expected to lead to steep tax increases. A possible spending sequester was also lurking in the background. Fed officials were determined to do enough stimulus to keep the recovery going, despite headwinds from both fiscal austerity and recession in Europe.

And so far it looks like they’ve succeeded. Job growth during the first six months of 2013 was running at over 200,000 new jobs per month, which is actually faster than the pace of 2012. That’s not to say that a much sharper drop in government spending wouldn’t have some impact on measured GDP; after all, the Fed’s policy initiative was calibrated to reflect the sort of fiscal austerity that they expected in late 2012. Much greater austerity would have a short-term effect on growth, but over longer periods of time, the Fed sets the agenda. The Fed’s ability to produce almost unlimited amounts of fiat money, without running up large budget deficits, ultimately makes monetary policy much more powerful than fiscal policy.

Because Fed officials continue to stress the risks of excessive austerity, the monetary offset argument seems counterintuitive to many economists. Many will ask, “Surely you don’t think Ben Bernanke would offset fiscal stimulus?” But this isn’t really asking the right question. The question that should be asked is, “Will Ben Bernanke do what is necessary to keep nominal spending on a path consistent with low inflation and stable growth?” which is roughly the Fed’s mandate. (Actually, the mandate speaks of inflation and employment, but jobs and growth are closely linked.) The real question is whether the central bank will do its job, regardless of what is happening on the fiscal front.

When viewed this way, estimates of fiscal multipliers become little more than forecasts of central bank incompetence. If the Fed is doing its job, then it will offset fiscal policy shocks and keep nominal spending growing at the desired level. Ben Bernanke would deny engaging in explicit monetary offset, as the term seems to imply something close to sabotage. But what if he were asked, “Mr. Bernanke, will the Fed do what it can to prevent fiscal austerity from leading to mass unemployment?” Would he answer “no”?

Another debate revolves around the Fed’s willingness to engage in unconventional monetary stimulus. They do seem somewhat uncomfortable with doing large amounts of QE. In my view, this is the best argument against monetary offset. The Fed might be afraid to use these more extreme measures to offset fiscal austerity, even if they’d be willing to use conventional tools (such as cuts in short-term interest rates) if those were still available.

And yet we continue to hear Fed officials talk of cutting back on QE as the economy strengthens. This implies that they will do more QE under conditions of austerity than they would if fiscal policy were more expansionary. Perhaps without even fully understanding their role in this complex policy game, the Fed has acted very much like a central bank that was determined to keep the recovery proceeding at a steady pace but would back off whenever inflation or growth seemed to be accelerating. That policy stance almost inevitably leads to monetary offset and largely explains why the recovery continues at a modest pace, despite an increase in fiscal austerity during 2013.

What role does this leave for fiscal policy? What would an effective fiscal stimulus look like? It turns out that fiscal policy could play a role, but only through supply-side channels. Return to the AS/AD diagram discussed above. If policymakers were able to increase aggregate supply, then the Fed would be under no pressure to offset the effects with tighter monetary policy. That’s because supply-side tax cuts actually tend to lower the inflation rates and raise growth. A good example is a cut in the employer-side of the payroll tax, which would encourage hiring but would not boost wages or prices. Indeed, the cost of labor from the firm’s perspective would decline, whereas workers would see no change in takehome pay. Some economists believe that cuts in taxes on investment income might also boost aggregate supply.

Policy is most effective if each part of the government focuses on what it does best. That means the Fed should focus on stable monetary conditions. Elsewhere I’ve argued that this can best be achieved by targeting a stable growth path for nominal GDP.14 By committing to a policy of stable spending growth, the Fed can shape market expectations in a way that would lessen the volatility created by its current policies. This would result in less aggressive policies from the Fed in the long run. Meanwhile, the fiscal authorities should focus on the supply side of the economy, creating an environment where the private sector can flourish. Attempts to jump-start the economy with demand-side fiscal stimulus merely cause the government to pile up more debt, with any growth effects being offset by the Fed.

 

[American Horse]

See if you can explain to him why my insurance company is not happy to hear that I have cancer? Hint: they aren't just being nice. And why if I have cancer and lose my insurance not a one of them wants me as a client. Thanks a bunch. He'll never listen to me.

You were not, and nobody has their insurance cancelled if they contract cancer.

Every state has an insurance commission that specifically states that for an insurance company to operate in their market that no one can be cancelled except for non payment of premium and lying in their application for health insurance in the first place.

Furthermore there has been for decades a well established and fair system in place for health insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and people who suffer from orphan diseases. The requirement is that they apply in the state assigned risk pool and all rates are guaranteed by statute to conform with one variable, the amount of the deductible. All companies who operate within a states market must participate in that pool and they must accept people with pre-existing conditions on a rotating basis contingent on their active market share in a given state.

There are only a couple of stipulations; that the individual not receive benifits during the initial twelve months dating from the application [for the declared pre-existing condition] . . . and that the applicants declare all pre-existing conditions at the time of the application that they have that are anywhere already diagnosed in their medical record. if a condition has not been diagnosed it is covered if and when it finally is diagnosed. And finally that they do not lie about any material issue. It would be stupid to lie because it could result in cancellation and starting over and denial of payment for such improper claim.

The denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions was never a real issue so far as insurability was concerned except for those caveats.

A functioning democracy requires an informed people because if the people are lied to and accept those lies as factual they can be scammed just like we were with Obamacare, and its main arguments for replacing the world's most innovative medical delivery system.

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964
He did not increase the budget deficit to cause an economic stimulus, he applied tax cuts to stimulate the economy. His advisors suggested that increasing the deficit would not hurt the economy.Yet he did reduce the top bracket by 21%, which is a supply side tax cut.You do know that what politicians tell the people and the press never shares the full picture. It is his actions which are important, not what he says.After cutting the top bracket marginal rates he was assassinated and Johnson followed through on his wishes and cut the top bracket another 5%, making the total top bracket reduction from 91% to 65%, definitely a supply side tax cut. It seems that the meager cuts to the lower brackets were almost an after thought.

When you talk Keynesian, you are talking about government stimulating the economy, increasing the money supply, mostly by putting more money into the hands of the less wealthy who spend all that they get.

When you talk lowering taxes for the top earners you are talking supply side economics.

Definition of SUPPLY-SIDE economics:
of or pertaining to a theory that stresses the reduction of taxes, especially for those of higher income, as a means of encouraging business investment and growth and stabilizing the economy.

Definition of DEMAND-SIDE Economics .
of or pertaining to an economic policy that treats consumer demand as the chief determinant of the economy

Supply-side | Define Supply-side at Dictionary.com

"Even if the tax program had no influence on investment spending--either directly or indirectly--the $8-9 billion added directly to the flow of consumer income would call forth a flow of at least $16 billion of added consumer goods and services."
President John F. Kennedy

So, let’s set the record straight. When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth.

The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

 

[dnsmith35]

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.

Stimulus spending by the government will not produce any long term economic gains. Government stimulus money increases aggregate demand leading to inflation. The Fed, to mitigate inflation, uses their control of fiscal policy to cancel out the increased demand caused by government stimulus money. This phenomenon is called "monetary offset".

The reason for that, which many people refuse to understand, is all borrowed money and all taxes come out of the economy. Then, because of many situations in which government spending takes place out of our own economy, not all of the tax and borrowed money goes back into our economy making the stimulus an overall negative situation. Left wing economist don't like to accept that thus their argument to the contrary is always bullshit.

 

[dnsmith35]

Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Roughly Zero | Mercatus

Many observers have been perplexed by the slow recovery from the 2008 recession. In the United States, Congress passed a nearly $800 billion stimulus in early 2009, yet growth remained sluggish. More recently, a shift toward fiscal austerity does not seem to have noticeably slowed the rate of economic growth.1 This seems to go against the textbook Keynesian model, which says fiscal stimulus has a multiplier effect on GDP; however, we shouldn’t be surprised that fiscal policy seems less effective than anticipated. As we’ll see, fiscal policy ineffectiveness is one byproduct of modern central banking, with its focus on inflation targeting.

The traditional “multiplier” approach to fiscal policy is based on John Maynard Keynes’s observation that consumers usually spend a large share of any increase in their income.2 Government spending programs and tax cuts put dollars directly into the pockets of consumers, regardless of how effective they are on a cost/benefit basis. If consumers spend 80 percent of their extra take-home-pay on goods and services, then other workers and firms will earn additional income. A portion of that income boost will also be spent, leading to a multiplier effect, whereby total aggregate demand rises by more than the initial government stimulus. The multiplier represents the ratio of the total increase in spending to the initial increase in government spending.

Conservative critics of fiscal stimulus often point out that the extra dollars must come from somewhere.3 If the government borrows funds to boost spending, then interest rates might rise, which would crowd out private investment expenditures on consumer durables, new homes, and business ventures. Although crowding out can reduce the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus, Keynesians correctly note that when interest rates are zero, it is unlikely that additional government borrowing will be fully offset by declining private investment, especially if the central bank holds rates close to zero.4

Why has the effect of fiscal stimulus been so meager in recent years? After all, interest rates in the United States have been close to zero since the end of 2008. The most likely explanation is monetary offset, a concept built into modern central bank policy but poorly understood. We can visualize monetary offset with the Keynesian aggregate supply and demand diagram used in introductory economics textbooks. If fiscal stimulus works, it’s by shifting the aggregate demand (AD) curve to the right. This tends to raise both prices and output as the economy moves from point A to point B, although in the very long run, only prices are affected.



Now let’s assume that the central bank is targeting inflation at 2 percent. If fiscal stimulus shifts the AD curve to the right, then prices will tend to rise. The central bank then must adopt a more contractionary monetary policy in order to prevent inflation from exceeding their 2 percent target. The contractionary monetary policy shifts AD back to the left, offsetting the effect of the fiscal stimulus. This is called monetary offset.

By the 1990s this process was pretty well understood, which is why even many of the so-called New Keynesian economists began to lose interest in fiscal policy as a stabilization tool.5 Instead, the focus shifted to central bank policy, and elaborate rules were devised to assist the central bank in steering the economy toward low inflation and stable growth. Perhaps the most famous was the Taylor Rule, which called for central banks to adjust interest rates so as to keep inflation near 2 percent and output close to potential output.6

If the central bank is steering the economy or, more precisely, nominal aggregates, such as inflation and nominal GDP, then fiscal policy would be unable to impact aggregate demand. As an analogy, imagine a child attempting to turn the steering wheel of a car. The parent might respond by gripping the wheel even tighter, offsetting the push of the child. Even though the child’s actions would initially change the direction of the car, ceteris paribus, the parent will push back with equal force and correct this turn to keep the car on the road.

If monetary offset was well understood by the 1990s, why was there so much support for fiscal stimulus in the recent recession? It seems that many economists wrongly assumed that the normal monetary offset model no longer held, due to three misconceptions:

In early 2009 many economists wrongly assumed that the Fed was out of ammunition, leaving monetary policy adrift, or passive.7
Some economists have told me that the Fed would never attempt to sabotage fiscal stimulus because the Fed also wanted to see a robust recovery.
Fed officials like Ben Bernanke occasionally spoke out against fiscal austerity, making monetary offset seem even less likely.8
By now we know that central banks are not out of policy options when rates fall to zero.9 And, in a sense, this never should have been in doubt. When Japanese interest rates hit zero in the late 1990s, Ben Bernanke (then an academic) dismissed arguments that policy is ineffective at the zero bound.10 So did Milton Friedman.11 The best-selling monetary economics textbook of 2010, written by former Fed official Frederic Mishkin, noted that monetary policy remains “highly effective” when short term rates fall close to zero.12 We’ve recently seen the Bank of Japan engineer a sharp depreciation of the yen, despite near zero interest rates. This contradicts Keynesian “liquidity trap” models, which suggest that central banks are unable to depreciate their currencies once short-term rates fall to zero. It’s safe to say that the “out of ammunition” view of monetary ineffectiveness has been thoroughly discredited.

The other two objections to monetary offset are harder to dismiss. The Fed has been disappointed by the pace of recovery and wishes that aggregate demand had risen at a faster pace over the past five years. This remains the central reason why most Keynesians continue to favor fiscal stimulus. But on closer inspection it seems quite likely that the Fed has been sabotaging fiscal stimulus (and offsetting recent austerity), perhaps without even realizing it.

To see why monetary offset continues to be operative, consider the sorts of statements continually made by Fed officials. We never hear them explicitly say they’ll sabotage fiscal stimulus, but we do hear them say they will calibrate the level of monetary stimulus to the health of the economy. For instance, the recent Evans Rule commits the Fed to hold interest rates close to zero until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent or core inflation rises above 2.5 percent.13 Because fiscal stimulus would presumably make this happen sooner, it would also, ipso facto, cause the Fed to raise interest rates sooner than otherwise. Thus fiscal stimulus would lead to tighter money over time. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily fully offset the effects of fiscal stimulus, but it’s an explicit admission by the Fed that if the fiscal authorities do more, they will do less.

An even better example occurred in late 2012, when the Fed took several steps to make monetary policy more expansionary, including adoption of the Evans Rule and additional quantitative easing (QE), or injections of bank reserves through bond purchases. Why did the Fed take such bold steps? Some Fed officials pointed to the looming fiscal cliff, which was widely expected to lead to steep tax increases. A possible spending sequester was also lurking in the background. Fed officials were determined to do enough stimulus to keep the recovery going, despite headwinds from both fiscal austerity and recession in Europe.

And so far it looks like they’ve succeeded. Job growth during the first six months of 2013 was running at over 200,000 new jobs per month, which is actually faster than the pace of 2012. That’s not to say that a much sharper drop in government spending wouldn’t have some impact on measured GDP; after all, the Fed’s policy initiative was calibrated to reflect the sort of fiscal austerity that they expected in late 2012. Much greater austerity would have a short-term effect on growth, but over longer periods of time, the Fed sets the agenda. The Fed’s ability to produce almost unlimited amounts of fiat money, without running up large budget deficits, ultimately makes monetary policy much more powerful than fiscal policy.

Because Fed officials continue to stress the risks of excessive austerity, the monetary offset argument seems counterintuitive to many economists. Many will ask, “Surely you don’t think Ben Bernanke would offset fiscal stimulus?” But this isn’t really asking the right question. The question that should be asked is, “Will Ben Bernanke do what is necessary to keep nominal spending on a path consistent with low inflation and stable growth?” which is roughly the Fed’s mandate. (Actually, the mandate speaks of inflation and employment, but jobs and growth are closely linked.) The real question is whether the central bank will do its job, regardless of what is happening on the fiscal front.

When viewed this way, estimates of fiscal multipliers become little more than forecasts of central bank incompetence. If the Fed is doing its job, then it will offset fiscal policy shocks and keep nominal spending growing at the desired level. Ben Bernanke would deny engaging in explicit monetary offset, as the term seems to imply something close to sabotage. But what if he were asked, “Mr. Bernanke, will the Fed do what it can to prevent fiscal austerity from leading to mass unemployment?” Would he answer “no”?

Another debate revolves around the Fed’s willingness to engage in unconventional monetary stimulus. They do seem somewhat uncomfortable with doing large amounts of QE. In my view, this is the best argument against monetary offset. The Fed might be afraid to use these more extreme measures to offset fiscal austerity, even if they’d be willing to use conventional tools (such as cuts in short-term interest rates) if those were still available.

And yet we continue to hear Fed officials talk of cutting back on QE as the economy strengthens. This implies that they will do more QE under conditions of austerity than they would if fiscal policy were more expansionary. Perhaps without even fully understanding their role in this complex policy game, the Fed has acted very much like a central bank that was determined to keep the recovery proceeding at a steady pace but would back off whenever inflation or growth seemed to be accelerating. That policy stance almost inevitably leads to monetary offset and largely explains why the recovery continues at a modest pace, despite an increase in fiscal austerity during 2013.

What role does this leave for fiscal policy? What would an effective fiscal stimulus look like? It turns out that fiscal policy could play a role, but only through supply-side channels. Return to the AS/AD diagram discussed above. If policymakers were able to increase aggregate supply, then the Fed would be under no pressure to offset the effects with tighter monetary policy. That’s because supply-side tax cuts actually tend to lower the inflation rates and raise growth. A good example is a cut in the employer-side of the payroll tax, which would encourage hiring but would not boost wages or prices. Indeed, the cost of labor from the firm’s perspective would decline, whereas workers would see no change in takehome pay. Some economists believe that cuts in taxes on investment income might also boost aggregate supply.

Policy is most effective if each part of the government focuses on what it does best. That means the Fed should focus on stable monetary conditions. Elsewhere I’ve argued that this can best be achieved by targeting a stable growth path for nominal GDP.14 By committing to a policy of stable spending growth, the Fed can shape market expectations in a way that would lessen the volatility created by its current policies. This would result in less aggressive policies from the Fed in the long run. Meanwhile, the fiscal authorities should focus on the supply side of the economy, creating an environment where the private sector can flourish. Attempts to jump-start the economy with demand-side fiscal stimulus merely cause the government to pile up more debt, with any growth effects being offset by the Fed.

Look at this graph, which shows that as government spending goes up, revenues tend to go down, except during the mobilization for WWII, and you are right that demand side fiscal stimulus is very inefficient, not the least because all of the money that goes into the stimulus is taken from the economy. Any high school economics student can affirm that.

 

[dnsmith35]

"Even if the tax program had no influence on investment spending--either directly or indirectly--the $8-9 billion added directly to the flow of consumer income would call forth a flow of at least $16 billion of added consumer goods and services."
President John F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, though it worked for a while but not long term.

So, let’s set the record straight. When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now..

In fact, even though most left wing extremists won't accept that fact, there has not been a bona fide surplus since Eisenhower when by the end of his administration he had actually cut the total national debt. Some idiots claim Clinton had a surplus. Even though he was one of the most successful fiscal presidents, during Clinton's administration the total national debt actually went up; not very much, but up..

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it..

Of course they did, because they were the bulk of the tax payers, yet the top marginal rates were cut almost twice as much as the lower tax brackets making his tax cuts primarily Supply Side. As he said in one of your long winded diatribes, he was quoted as saying, to help improve investment, hopefully to make more goods less expensive, the bottom of the pile will be helped. What he proved was, a properly enacted Supply Side policy coupled with some Demand Side assistance, was good for the economy..

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth..

Actually you left wing extremist don't understand that though Kennedy was a liberal (of which you are not) who understood economics and followed what has become the hue and cry of conservatives and moderates. That being Supply Side economics is as important as Demand Side economics if not more so. You still do not understand the graph I put up earlier.

That graph shows us that increased government spending happened at the same time revenues went down, which when considered together meant our national debt went up correspondingly. Reagan created more debt, but not as much as Bush who did not create as much debt per year as Obama who has increased the debt relative to GDP more than any president since Eisenhower. It is apparent left wingers do not understand economics and good tax policy. Left wingers are not true liberals, as they tend to care more for their elite union workers (12% of the labor force) more than they do for the poor, both in the US and in the third world. Left winger extremists make very poor liberals. One of the most useless left wingers is Galbraith.

I still don't read your left wing propaganda sites.

 

[crisismangement]

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964
He did not increase the budget deficit to cause an economic stimulus, he applied tax cuts to stimulate the economy. His advisors suggested that increasing the deficit would not hurt the economy.Yet he did reduce the top bracket by 21%, which is a supply side tax cut.You do know that what politicians tell the people and the press never shares the full picture. It is his actions which are important, not what he says.After cutting the top bracket marginal rates he was assassinated and Johnson followed through on his wishes and cut the top bracket another 5%, making the total top bracket reduction from 91% to 65%, definitely a supply side tax cut. It seems that the meager cuts to the lower brackets were almost an after thought.

When you talk Keynesian, you are talking about government stimulating the economy, increasing the money supply, mostly by putting more money into the hands of the less wealthy who spend all that they get.

When you talk lowering taxes for the top earners you are talking supply side economics.

Definition of SUPPLY-SIDE economics:
of or pertaining to a theory that stresses the reduction of taxes, especially for those of higher income, as a means of encouraging business investment and growth and stabilizing the economy.

Definition of DEMAND-SIDE Economics .
of or pertaining to an economic policy that treats consumer demand as the chief determinant of the economy

You know, I kind of feel sorry for BFing. He has been brainwashed by so many lies from left wing fanatic propaganda he is unable to think for himself. It is amazing a person who can recite and cite so many propaganda pieces, yet he hasn't the slightest idea what supply side and demand side economics; BECAUSE HIS HERO TOLD HIM SO. What waste of a brain, even BFing's brain.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Even if the tax program had no influence on investment spending--either directly or indirectly--the $8-9 billion added directly to the flow of consumer income would call forth a flow of at least $16 billion of added consumer goods and services."
President John F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, though it worked for a while but not long term.

So, let’s set the record straight. When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now..

In fact, even though most left wing extremists won't accept that fact, there has not been a bona fide surplus since Eisenhower when by the end of his administration he had actually cut the total national debt. Some idiots claim Clinton had a surplus. Even though he was one of the most successful fiscal presidents, during Clinton's administration the total national debt actually went up; not very much, but up..

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it..

Of course they did, because they were the bulk of the tax payers, yet the top marginal rates were cut almost twice as much as the lower tax brackets making his tax cuts primarily Supply Side. As he said in one of your long winded diatribes, he was quoted as saying, to help improve investment, hopefully to make more goods less expensive, the bottom of the pile will be helped. What he proved was, a properly enacted Supply Side policy coupled with some Demand Side assistance, was good for the economy..

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth..

Actually you left wing extremist don't understand that though Kennedy was a liberal (of which you are not) who understood economics and followed what has become the hue and cry of conservatives and moderates. That being Supply Side economics is as important as Demand Side economics if not more so. You still do not understand the graph I put up earlier.

That graph shows us that increased government spending happened at the same time revenues went down, which when considered together meant our national debt went up correspondingly. Reagan created more debt, but not as much as Bush who did not create as much debt per year as Obama who has increased the debt relative to GDP more than any president since Eisenhower. It is apparent left wingers do not understand economics and good tax policy. Left wingers are not true liberals, as they tend to care more for their elite union workers (12% of the labor force) more than they do for the poor, both in the US and in the third world. Left winger extremists make very poor liberals. One of the most useless left wingers is Galbraith.

I still don't read your left wing propaganda sites.

You are a fool and a liar. You are no liberal and you are an economic retard.

YOU don't understand the difference between deficits and debt. And you are totally oblivious to the fact that Reagan's military spending was textbook Keynesian.

What do you call a fiscal policy that cuts taxes and increases spending to stimulate the economy? Keynesianism!

 

[Andylusion]

Exactly. He's nothing more than a parrot. He'd believe anything, as long as it come from a left wing source, and absolutely nothing that didn't. It's really sad. The poster child, for a left-wing mindless zealot. You can't help these people, only ignore them.

 

[KissMy]

See if you can explain to him why my insurance company is not happy to hear that I have cancer? Hint: they aren't just being nice. And why if I have cancer and lose my insurance not a one of them wants me as a client. Thanks a bunch. He'll never listen to me.

Tell you what, you sniveling asshole. Why don't you explain it? Lay it out in clear terms so we can discuss the issue.

There is no discussing anything with you. You are a well indoctrinated drone incapable of independent thought.

 

[dnsmith35]

You are a fool and a liar. You are no liberal and you are an economic retard.

YOU don't understand the difference between deficits and debt. And you are totally oblivious to the fact that Reagan's military spending was textbook Keynesian.

What do you call a fiscal policy that cuts taxes and increases spending to stimulate the economy? Keynesianism!

1. deficits and surpluses are what occur in any given budget year.
2. Debt is the summation of accumulated deficits.
3. Government spending can be considered Keynesian if the point of the spending is to stimulate the economy.
4. Government spending that produces value to the government may be Keynesian as a side product but is not intended as stimulation. In Reagan's case it was to rebuild the military infrastructure destroyed by earlier administrations.
5. Fiscal policy which cuts the taxes on the high end to spur investment and make consumer goods less expensive because of more supply is Supply Side policy.
6. Fiscal policy which cuts the taxes on the low end of the spectrum designed to put more money in the hands of consumers is Demand Side policy.

The fact is, you only know what your left wing propagandists tell you, and they lie therefore you are economics challenged; actually amazingly ignorant would be more like it. I am a liberal, I am just not a left wing extremist fool like you; thank God.

 

[dnsmith35]

Exactly. He's nothing more than a parrot. He'd believe anything, as long as it come from a left wing source, and absolutely nothing that didn't. It's really sad. The poster child, for a left-wing mindless zealot. You can't help these people, only ignore them.

You are so correct. BF (what ever he is) in incapable of thinking for himself.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are a fool and a liar. You are no liberal and you are an economic retard.

YOU don't understand the difference between deficits and debt. And you are totally oblivious to the fact that Reagan's military spending was textbook Keynesian.

What do you call a fiscal policy that cuts taxes and increases spending to stimulate the economy? Keynesianism!

1. deficits and surpluses are what occur in any given budget year.
2. Debt is the summation of accumulated deficits.
3. Government spending can be considered Keynesian if the point of the spending is to stimulate the economy.
4. Government spending that produces value to the government may be Keynesian as a side product but is not intended as stimulation. In Reagan's case it was to rebuild the military infrastructure destroyed by earlier administrations.
5. Fiscal policy which cuts the taxes on the high end to spur investment and make consumer goods less expensive because of more supply is Supply Side policy.
6. Fiscal policy which cuts the taxes on the low end of the spectrum designed to put more money in the hands of consumers is Demand Side policy.

The fact is, you only know what your left wing propagandists tell you, and they lie therefore you are economics challenged; actually amazingly ignorant would be more like it. I am a liberal, I am just not a left wing extremist fool like you; thank God.

The people you call "left wing propagandists" are President John F. Kennedy and the people he chose for the New Frontier. They were the 'best and the brightest'. You putting down people who are 1,000,000,000 times smarter than you shows just how dogmatic and ignorant you really are.

Don't you think the people who authored those programs knew what their philosophy was and what it wasn't? Or that they knew the intent of those programs?

 

[dnsmith35]

You are a fool and a liar. You are no liberal and you are an economic retard. YOU don't understand the difference between deficits and debt. And you are totally oblivious to the fact that Reagan's military spending was textbook Keynesian..

Certainly not an economics text book written by an actual economist.

What do you call a fiscal policy that cuts taxes and increases spending to stimulate the economy? Keynesianism!

1. deficits and surpluses are what occur in any given budget year.
2. Debt is the summation of accumulated deficits.
3. Government spending can be considered Keynesian if the point of the spending is to stimulate the economy.
4. Government spending that produces value to the government may be Keynesian as a side product but is not intended as stimulation. In Reagan's case it was to rebuild the military infrastructure destroyed by earlier administrations.
5. Fiscal policy which cuts the taxes on the high end to spur investment and make consumer goods less expensive because of more supply is Supply Side policy.
6. Fiscal policy which cuts the taxes on the low end of the spectrum designed to put more money in the hands of consumers is Demand Side policy.

The fact is, you only know what your left wing propagandists tell you, and they lie therefore you are economics challenged; actually amazingly ignorant would be more like it. I am a liberal, I am just not a left wing extremist fool like you; thank God.

The people you call "left wing propagandists" are President John F. Kennedy and the people he chose for the New Frontier. They were the 'best and the brightest'. You putting down people who are 1,000,000,000 times smarter than you shows just how dogmatic and ignorant you really are..

Like I said, you believe in the left wing propagandists for all your "information." If you believe that JFK or any politician actually believed themselves, or if every word they speak is true, I have a bride over the Mississippi to sell you. Can you possibly be that stupid?.

Don't you think the people who authored those programs knew what their philosophy was and what it wasn't? Or that they knew the intent of those programs?

They knew exactly what their philosophy was, and they knew the intent of their programs. But you forget they are politicians who need to get stuff approved by congress. JFK knew that when giving the biggest tax cuts to the rich and to corporations was supply side economics. Do you believe that a democrat in congress would have voted for it if he had told the truth? Are you that much of a gullible left wing extremist?