When Did Trump Make You A Keynesian?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keynes was the father of trickle down, who's policies were more popular after his death becasue America had $$$ to burn post WW2 ~S~

FDR fell in love withKeynes

Interestingly, Keynes loved the Nazi model and was quoted as saying that Hitler proved his economic theories before he had time to publish them. Then he said that his economic policies work best in a totalitarian regime. Naturally, this was well before the war.

Keynes was , in the economic universe of his time, seen as a radical by his peers.

His deficit finance policy, basically 'throw Gub'Mit $$ at it' haunts us to this day
~S~

His deficit finance policy, basically 'throw Gub'Mit $$ at it' haunts us to this day

Only because politicians, from both parties, ignore his policy of running a surplus when the economy is strong.

 

[DustyInfinity]

You guys are saying we should give cash to an addict, and if we don't we are brainwashed and stupid. What happens when you give cash to an addict? Why are you advocating this?

 

[danielpalos]

You guys are saying we should give cash to an addict, and if we don't we are brainwashed and stupid. What happens when you give cash to an addict? Why are you advocating this?

Cut the drug war, right wingers. Talk is cheap.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Really, why do you want to pour tax money at the spending problem if it will have no effect on the debt? How does that make sense? I know this guy in debt, he is terrible with money, so I am going to give him everything I own. That is asinine.

 

[Jerico]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

 

[Jerico]

Keynes was the father of trickle down, who's policies were more popular after his death becasue America had $$$ to burn post WW2 ~S~

FDR fell in love withKeynes

Interestingly, Keynes loved the Nazi model and was quoted as saying that Hitler proved his economic theories before he had time to publish them. Then he said that his economic policies work best in a totalitarian regime. Naturally, this was well before the war.

Keynes was , in the economic universe of his time, seen as a radical by his peers.

His deficit finance policy, basically 'throw Gub'Mit $$ at it' haunts us to this day
~S~

His deficit finance policy, basically 'throw Gub'Mit $$ at it' haunts us to this day

Only because politicians, from both parties, ignore his policy of running a surplus when the economy is strong.

This is the good point here. Keynesian economics isn't about spending, it's about fiscal responsibility - something completely lacking from every administration for the past 8 decades. Ultimately Keynes wasn't that radical. He basically stated that the government should work within its means to smooth out anomalous free market effects due to new age wealth abstractions. If the government created a surplus, it could later use that surplus to ease recessions. Not any different from a household with a medical fund, or college fund. Pretty basic money smart shit if you ask me.

I feel bad for Keynes because everything he did has been completely shit upon by socialists and government scape goaters who either can't add two numbers together or have a dictator complex.

Still, despite empathizing with Keynes, I don't actually think it's a good model. It's too ideal for our world. It just doesn't work when the people in power are expected to obey it's rules to not have it implode. That's the real problem with it. There's too much discretionary expectations built into it which is why it's so easy to abuse, like socialism or communism.

It's the same reason why the line between good regulation and oppressive regulation is so blurred. It's also why social programs can never be sustainable. Welfare, while sounding good and humanitarian 70+ years ago, ended up being a tool for Democrats to enslave voters. And I'm not trying to shit on dems, it could have very well been Republicans. Point being, any lever of power given to the state will be used as a tool of oppression at some point by some one. The founding fathers understood this which is why they embraced no economic model specifically. To them, economics evolves from the freedoms guaranteed rather than the other way around. Brilliant. Too bad we've deviated so far from it.

Total free market capitalism is guaranteed to correct itself. It can't not do that. As soon as intangibles enter the mix, or the government is somehow able to pick and choose winners, things start to fall apart.

The onset of welfare and the IRS really fucked the country. It's going to take a lot of time to reduce the government back to its intended purpose.

 

[danielpalos]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Why tax cut economics? It does nothing for spending.

 

[Jerico]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Why tax cut economics? It does nothing for spending.

I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe we have a language barrier idk.

Point being, if you don't spend money, you don't go into debt. Revenue is irrelevant. I can make zero dollars and still not be in debt. If debt is bad, then spending is the culprit, not revenue.

The fact that the US government can't balance its pocket book is a good reason to give them less money, not more.

 

[Votto]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Governments don't care about economics, they just care about control and power. If they did, the world governments would not have the massive debt they have today.

That is why they are drawn to socialism. To be a socialist means you have to track every last financial transaction, and then redistribute the money in a "fair" manner according too their idea as to what is fair.

For this kind of government control, you almost need a police state.

 

[danielpalos]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Why tax cut economics? It does nothing for spending.

I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe we have a language barrier idk.

Point being, if you don't spend money, you don't go into debt. Revenue is irrelevant. I can make zero dollars and still not be in debt. If debt is bad, then spending is the culprit, not revenue.

The fact that the US government can't balance its pocket book is a good reason to give them less money, not more.

Cognitive dissonance? Tax cut economics is Worthless, if it doesn't cover spending.

 

[Jerico]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Governments don't care about economics, they just care about control and power. If they did, the world governments would not have the massive debt they have today.

That is why they are drawn to socialism. To be a socialist means you have to track every last financial transaction, and then redistribute the money in a "fair" manner according too their idea as to what is fair.

For this kind of government control, you almost need a police state.

Precisely. The US constitution is written such that power is disassociated for that exact reason. It is no surprise that every conglomerated government on earth that doesn't have a constitution like ours is devolving back into socialism. We're already on the verge of repeating history of the 1900s again. The EU has already tasted that socialistic power and is doing everything it can to control Europe.

In the USA, there is hope atleast, that the citizens can regain their economic power advantage over the government. I think, though, the next world scale war will be us yet again freeing Europe from itself.

 

[Jerico]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Why tax cut economics? It does nothing for spending.

I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe we have a language barrier idk.

Point being, if you don't spend money, you don't go into debt. Revenue is irrelevant. I can make zero dollars and still not be in debt. If debt is bad, then spending is the culprit, not revenue.

The fact that the US government can't balance its pocket book is a good reason to give them less money, not more.

Cognitive dissonance? Tax cut economics is Worthless, if it doesn't cover spending.

You can NEVER cover spending. Understand that. You will never see a government with a balanced budget for any extended period of time without serious reform.

All the left(and RINO's) do is say "more" . More this, more that. We're in debt because of that. There is no more money to take. You could take 100% of the wealth in America and still not be able to pay off our debt if counting unfunded liabilities.

This isn't my opinion. It's a fact. Every time the government raises it's budget, it gets exceeded. Rinse and repeat for years on end and you end up where we are. It has to stop. SPending has to get cut. If that means cutting out 2/3s of the alphabet agencies and every social program so be it. That's what the DoD and private charities are for.

If we abolished the IRS, and made the government beg and grovel for each cent it made, only then would it be fiscally responsible. So long as the government can put a gun to your head and rob you dry, it will never stop spending in excess. There is no accountability.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

That's awful!!
I hate it when my stocks increase in price.

Stocks are below where they were in January...

Which ones?

Most of them.

Not sure if you're lying or ignorant.
I am sure that you're wrong.
Our stock market is higher now than it was in January.

It is below the highs of January....

^RUA : Summary for Russell 3000 - Yahoo Finance

 

[Jerico]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

The money "lost" from the tax cut isn't an expenditure and thus does nothing to the debt. The government is free to spend $1.5 Trillion less if so worried about it. They won't though. If they aren't willing to cut costs, why should we be willing to pay more?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Wrong. Trickle down economics is bullshit. Workers choose their employers, not the other way around. Nobody is forced to wait for that trickle. In an economy with low unemployment, workers have much more negotiating power too. Any job someone takes is a price they agreed to. If they don't think they're making enough, they should look for an employer who values them more.

First,

look up the actual tax cut demographics. Poor and Middle class getting biggest cuts. Rich paying slightly more in some cases and less in others. Look at the demographics saving the most. Even if what you said about wages falling were true ( it's not) , it would have to fall by quite a lot for the savings from the tax cuts to be a net loss for anybody except the ultra wealthy, who are already paying more .

Second,


Our employment rate is the best its been almost in modern history. Every non partisan projection floating around suggests, sometimes begrudgingly so due to Trump hate, that Trump's economy will get us below 3%. That is unheard of, and easily the best in the world outside of slave states like China. Even then, their true unemployment rate won't be so low.

This refutes your statement because a low unemployment such as this implies that workers now have the bargaining power in the economy. This means need for jobs exceeds supply. What do we all know, even the mathematically challenged socialists? That a low supply of workers will yield a higher demand (pay) by companies seeking to fill jobs. We're watching this happen in real time, and statements like yours are born out of misinformation and/or deceit.

All a middle class family cares about at the end of the day is how much money they're pulling in. If you look at the tax cuts for middle class brackets, you'll see that almost nobody is disliking the tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anybody who works, today, is worse off than they were 2 years ago. Whether it be less tax out the door, more pay in their pocket, or their stocks going up, the take home wealth for just about everyone is going up toward historic levels.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

Employees buy stock too. So do 401k'ers, factory workers , baby sitters, you name it. Anybody who buys stocks benefits from this.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have not read, The Road to Serfdom, but I'll see if it is in the library and maybe it'll be an E-Book.

It will be a road to imbecility.

I'm not willfully or otherwise ignorant. It is in my county library and I will pick it up this week. I don't believe everything I read, and I enjoy being challenged (sadly for me, I don't get challenged very often on this MB, usually those who disagree with me call me one of their favorite pejoratives (libtard, commie, idiot, moron, etc.).

 

[JBvM]

I have not read, The Road to Serfdom, but I'll see if it is in the library and maybe it'll be an E-Book.

It will be a road to imbecility.

I'm not willfully or otherwise ignorant. It is in my county library and I will pick it up this week. I don't believe everything I read, and I enjoy being challenged (sadly for me, I don't get challenged very often on this MB, usually those who disagree with me call me one of their favorite pejoratives (libtard, commie, idiot, moron, etc.).

Good luck. I'd advice the cliff notes, but knock yourself out

enjoy

 

[Wry Catcher]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

The money "lost" from the tax cut isn't an expenditure and thus does nothing to the debt. The government is free to spend $1.5 Trillion less if so worried about it. They won't though. If they aren't willing to cut costs, why should we be willing to pay more?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Wrong. Trickle down economics is bullshit. Workers choose their employers, not the other way around. Nobody is forced to wait for that trickle. In an economy with low unemployment, workers have much more negotiating power too. Any job someone takes is a price they agreed to. If they don't think they're making enough, they should look for an employer who values them more.

First,

look up the actual tax cut demographics. Poor and Middle class getting biggest cuts. Rich paying slightly more in some cases and less in others. Look at the demographics saving the most. Even if what you said about wages falling were true ( it's not) , it would have to fall by quite a lot for the savings from the tax cuts to be a net loss for anybody except the ultra wealthy, who are already paying more .

Second,


Our employment rate is the best its been almost in modern history. Every non partisan projection floating around suggests, sometimes begrudgingly so due to Trump hate, that Trump's economy will get us below 3%. That is unheard of, and easily the best in the world outside of slave states like China. Even then, their true unemployment rate won't be so low.

This refutes your statement because a low unemployment such as this implies that workers now have the bargaining power in the economy. This means need for jobs exceeds supply. What do we all know, even the mathematically challenged socialists? That a low supply of workers will yield a higher demand (pay) by companies seeking to fill jobs. We're watching this happen in real time, and statements like yours are born out of misinformation and/or deceit.

All a middle class family cares about at the end of the day is how much money they're pulling in. If you look at the tax cuts for middle class brackets, you'll see that almost nobody is disliking the tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anybody who works, today, is worse off than they were 2 years ago. Whether it be less tax out the door, more pay in their pocket, or their stocks going up, the take home wealth for just about everyone is going up toward historic levels.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

Employees buy stock too. So do 401k'ers, factory workers , baby sitters, you name it. Anybody who buys stocks benefits from this.

Not very many working men and women invest in stocks personally. They pay brokers whose self interest are their commissions, not necessarily the future of their clients.

 

[Jerico]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

The money "lost" from the tax cut isn't an expenditure and thus does nothing to the debt. The government is free to spend $1.5 Trillion less if so worried about it. They won't though. If they aren't willing to cut costs, why should we be willing to pay more?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Wrong. Trickle down economics is bullshit. Workers choose their employers, not the other way around. Nobody is forced to wait for that trickle. In an economy with low unemployment, workers have much more negotiating power too. Any job someone takes is a price they agreed to. If they don't think they're making enough, they should look for an employer who values them more.

First,

look up the actual tax cut demographics. Poor and Middle class getting biggest cuts. Rich paying slightly more in some cases and less in others. Look at the demographics saving the most. Even if what you said about wages falling were true ( it's not) , it would have to fall by quite a lot for the savings from the tax cuts to be a net loss for anybody except the ultra wealthy, who are already paying more .

Second,


Our employment rate is the best its been almost in modern history. Every non partisan projection floating around suggests, sometimes begrudgingly so due to Trump hate, that Trump's economy will get us below 3%. That is unheard of, and easily the best in the world outside of slave states like China. Even then, their true unemployment rate won't be so low.

This refutes your statement because a low unemployment such as this implies that workers now have the bargaining power in the economy. This means need for jobs exceeds supply. What do we all know, even the mathematically challenged socialists? That a low supply of workers will yield a higher demand (pay) by companies seeking to fill jobs. We're watching this happen in real time, and statements like yours are born out of misinformation and/or deceit.

All a middle class family cares about at the end of the day is how much money they're pulling in. If you look at the tax cuts for middle class brackets, you'll see that almost nobody is disliking the tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anybody who works, today, is worse off than they were 2 years ago. Whether it be less tax out the door, more pay in their pocket, or their stocks going up, the take home wealth for just about everyone is going up toward historic levels.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

Employees buy stock too. So do 401k'ers, factory workers , baby sitters, you name it. Anybody who buys stocks benefits from this.

Not very many working men and women invest in stocks personally. They pay brokers whose self interest are their commissions, not necessarily the future of their clients.

That is an absurd statement. I suppose the grocery clerk also only cares about their paycheck and not your day or the quality of your service. What you say is incredibly pessimistic and not accurate at all.

Stock brokers indeed may a commission as they should. They are after all, providing a service for you. Besides, you don't need a broker to trade stocks.There are countless ways to trade stocks yourself without going through a middle man.

It would be more accurate for you to say that you don't trade stocks, and you think everyone is out to screw you over to make their buck and go home. Doesn't sound like the America I see every day. People make the most of their situation, work hard, and rise to new levels. America is the only place on earth where this is true- which is why America is the #1 country to emigrate into and has been for a long long time.

 

[sparky]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

The money "lost" from the tax cut isn't an expenditure and thus does nothing to the debt. The government is free to spend $1.5 Trillion less if so worried about it. They won't though. If they aren't willing to cut costs, why should we be willing to pay more?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Wrong. Trickle down economics is bullshit. Workers choose their employers, not the other way around. Nobody is forced to wait for that trickle. In an economy with low unemployment, workers have much more negotiating power too. Any job someone takes is a price they agreed to. If they don't think they're making enough, they should look for an employer who values them more.

First,

look up the actual tax cut demographics. Poor and Middle class getting biggest cuts. Rich paying slightly more in some cases and less in others. Look at the demographics saving the most. Even if what you said about wages falling were true ( it's not) , it would have to fall by quite a lot for the savings from the tax cuts to be a net loss for anybody except the ultra wealthy, who are already paying more .

Second,


Our employment rate is the best its been almost in modern history. Every non partisan projection floating around suggests, sometimes begrudgingly so due to Trump hate, that Trump's economy will get us below 3%. That is unheard of, and easily the best in the world outside of slave states like China. Even then, their true unemployment rate won't be so low.

This refutes your statement because a low unemployment such as this implies that workers now have the bargaining power in the economy. This means need for jobs exceeds supply. What do we all know, even the mathematically challenged socialists? That a low supply of workers will yield a higher demand (pay) by companies seeking to fill jobs. We're watching this happen in real time, and statements like yours are born out of misinformation and/or deceit.

All a middle class family cares about at the end of the day is how much money they're pulling in. If you look at the tax cuts for middle class brackets, you'll see that almost nobody is disliking the tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anybody who works, today, is worse off than they were 2 years ago. Whether it be less tax out the door, more pay in their pocket, or their stocks going up, the take home wealth for just about everyone is going up toward historic levels.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

Employees buy stock too. So do 401k'ers, factory workers , baby sitters, you name it. Anybody who buys stocks benefits from this.

Not very many working men and women invest in stocks personally. They pay brokers whose self interest are their commissions, not necessarily the future of their clients.

We do so w/o knowledge of it Wry, for ex, if you've a mortgage it may be invested in securitiy derivatives, if you've a retirement plan a hedge fund, etc. We live in a debt driven society that creates economic bubbles ,and blames the concept of socialism when it all <pops>

Methinks JM Keynes would be backpeddaling rather hard, if he saw what his macroeconomic laissez-faire 'free market' can assume>

 

[Skull Pilot]

We scream and moan and whine about our politicians, but you know what? Our politicians do EXACTLY what we demand of them.

"Those other fucking scum Congressmen spend too much on PORK, but my guy brings home the BACON!"

Congress has a single digit approval, and yet House incumbents have a 98 percent re-election rate. Senate incumbents have a 90 percent re-election rate.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Thank you for finally seeing that no one cares about the debt