Dennis:

The great growth we had experienced the past 10 years or so was because of Reagan, thats just a fact of life. For liberals its had to accept since none of their leaders have done anything to help the economy. Liberals on the other hand love to spend other peoples money. While Reagan was in office the democrates controlled congress and the house. It was they who spent HUGE amounts of money of BS programs, like education and welfare to name a few. Reagan spent money were needed and where it had the BIGGEST return on business taxs cuts which provide jobs and future development of products such as cell phones, computers, etc. What return do we have on spending on education in its current form, NOTHING but kids that are not as bright as they could be. The teachers union is a joke it keeps bad, moron teachers employed, the ones that think no "little Johnny" should ever receive an F because he is a stupid as wood.

However if you went the republician why and true democrate the ones from the inner city with vouches then you would have a return of your education money. That won't happen because then it takes an issue away from the liberals and that is all they are about, not solutions, only issues to remain in power, while kids get bad education.

Knock Reagan all you want but the good times we had were because of him, the bad times we are now in are because of Cliton. To bad Clinton wasn't more like Kenndy, he was conseritive, and just about republician. Kenndy knew how to grow the ecomony, keep spending down and cut taxes, yes Kenndy a democrate cut taxes. Oh and lets not forget how Kenndy was like a republician "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for you country" There is not one democrate, and for sure no liberal that would ever just those words. For liberals it is "Ask what the country can do for you because your country owes you" "Screw the rich, what are they here for anyway" opps ya thats right they provide jobs....

Liberals crack me up, they get so upset when confronted with facts and the truth...

 

Had a long post here, but decided to delete it because we're just going over and over the same stuff. I suppose I could continue the debate, but it would be futile. Not because I'm right or wrong, but because there's no reasonable expectation that you would change your minds.

I've said what I had to. I know I made a lot of money with my way of thinking. I know a lot of people who lost a lot when they didn't listen to my warnings about the economy.

I hope y'all are happy with the increasing deficit. Seems to be the Republican way. Spend more and cut taxes. I guess it adds up if you're a Republican...

 

One final post on the subject.

Look for some kind of military action whenever the focus starts to settle on the tanking economy.

 

Not true. Please deal with facts, and not facts as 'you' see them. Every economist knows that the economy was faltering the last 6 months Clinton was in office. Anyone with any sense dumped stocks in the spring/summer of 2000. With all the purchasing done in preparation for the Y2K scare, there had to be a downturn.

 

Dennis

This seems to be a typical liberal response (not suggesting you are liberal, just saying this what it seems like). Usually with the inability to understand an argument (as well as the lack of desire to admit that, or a willingness to attempt to learn something), the liberal throws a bunch of unrelated info in my direction, then storms off because "I know I"ll never change your minds..."

I didn't say there is no limit to how big a deficit the government should incur. And I didn't say start printing more money. You are confusing monetary policy with fiscal policy. Running a deficit has nothing to do with printing more money. And besides, due to the Accord of 1951 the Government can't print more money to finance its expenditures....Anyway, we are strictly talking fiscal policy here....

What I stated was:

1) All, even ANTI-Keynesian economic policies call for running a deficit in times of recession to get oneself out of recession (albeit there is a cost to deficits).
2) Keynesian economic models show that in times of low demand and high unemployment that a deficit will not cost anything.

Simple as that.

 

Frank S

People don't want to deal with facts, or they can't understand them. I can't tell you how many people I run into that "stand" for a position, but don't even understand either side of the argument. Utterly amazing....

And as far as tanking the economy (anyone, I mean anyone) who has the least bit of grasp on ANY fundamentals of economics must place some blame with Greenspan (as even he himself now does with 20/20 hindsight). I, personally, solely blame Greenspan as well as the tech-bubble, and place no blame on either Clinton or Bush.

Greenspan single-handedly put the brakes on the economy, big-time. What he couldn't foresee was the tragic events of 9/11, and more importantly the accounting scandals that would soon follow. It is really more like a Titanic scenario, where everything that couldn't and shouldn't have happened absolutely did.....

I'm not saying that I am approving of Clinton's policies during his presidency. He certainly could have done more, but I still blame the slowing of what we had on Greenspan, while I guess I could blame Clinton in that the pickup may have been better had his policies been more in place. And don't get me wrong, I don't hate Greenspan, the guys got a difficult job. I just don't always agree with him on economic policies. But I probably couldn't have done much better myself.

 

I can tell youre a democrat.

At any rate, lets clarify a few thing. We will start with the quoted first paragraph where you claim President Bush didnt do his job correctly.

It wasnt BUSH who backed out of his intention. You can thank your democratic congress for the bitching and moaning about the financing for that war. It was cut short before ever getting Saddam out of there. You can bet your ***, Saddam will be killed this time around..

As far as your second paragraph concerning Reagan... If it wasnt for Reagan, your buddy Bill Clinton wouldnt have gotten all the credit he did for the stable economy.. What does this mean? Ronald Reagan got the ball rolling bud. The 80's was the best times for MANY families.. esp, financially.


Facts are Facts, whether you like a certain party or not.

Republicans start a war with intentions behind it and Democrats stop the damn war before its objective is ever complete.

I would have liked to see what wimp Clinton would have done if had been president during 9/11.. Stick is ***** in another interns mouth and deny ever having knowledge of Intelligence Information to prevent the attacks? Sound about right.

 

At the time Iraq had just taken over Kuwait, and was lining up across the border to take over Saudia Arabia. I'd emagine at that particular time it would have been far easier to get support for ousting Saddam Hussein from the Arab world than it would today. Reguardless, we would have been over there to protect Saudia Arabia with or without the support of the Arab world to protect are own interests (oil.) I agree at that point in time ousting Saddam was not the primary stated objective. (Although it certainly was an objective, if not we wouldn't have been bombing his living quarters that ended up killing part of his family.) My point is that ousting Saddam should have been a direct military objective ten years ago, and we should have not left untell this was accomplished.


Quite honestly, my recommended 'fiscal and economic policies' have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this conversation. Whatsoever... I find it absolutely humerous though for anyone to sit her and credit our economic success over the last ten years solely to the Reagan administration's economic policies. Perhaps you could explain this???

I never suggested I didn't... I didn't ever claim to be personally responsible for our nation's economic success either...

 

I don't know of anyone whatsoever that thinks being in debt personally is great...

That's partially because a country can't declare bankruptsy and whipe all their debt out at anytime like the average American consumer can.

 

LOL Well, your wrong to begin with... I believe I've voted for one democrat in my entire life... Im far more conservative than I am liberal, though quite honestly I think those that blame every problem we've ever had on the Liberals are just completely ignorant... I lump these people in the same boat with all the other extremists in the world both conservative and liberal (right along with Saddam.)

Quote:

It wasnt BUSH who backed out of his intention. You can thank your democratic congress for the bitching and moaning about the financing for that war. It was cut short before ever getting Saddam out of there. You can bet your ***, Saddam will be killed this time around..

Thats just BS... Your telling me the reason we left when we did instead of sticking around and finishing the job is because 'my democratic congress' wouldn't fund it any further? lmao Are we talking about the same war???

 

Wrong. ANY president can clear any and all national debts with the stroke of his pen. Of course, you can forget about getting loans from anyone else ever again. But the President has that power.

 

That's pretty arbitrary Frank... I'm not even sure that it's true, but if it is it has nothing to do with reality since it could not be actually implemented in the real world. An American consumer declaring bankruptsy is realstic and obviously happens every single day. Because of this the federal government obviously has to be much more 'fiscally responsible than the average American.'
Kind of seems to be speaking the obvious to me......

 

You state that in your opinion that 'Greenspan single handedly put the breaks on our economy.' The truth of the matter is our economy was completely over inflated at it's peak with the whole tech 'bubble' that eventually popped, not to mention the help it later received with events like September 11th, the Palestinan/Israelli issue, corporate fraud, etc. Blaming all of this solely on Greenspan seems to me to be a bit of a stretch aswell... Given the circumstances that have occured in the last year I don't think you could legitately put the blame for our falling economy 'solely' on anyone. All economys ebb and flow. They have their ups and they have their downs. In my opinion, the guy that's in place when the economy is on the way up isn't completely responsible for it's sucess and the guy in place when it's on the way down isn't completely to blame. There are a LOT of other factors at stake besides who the figure head on top is.
In Greenspan's specific case, he's lowered the fed rate something like 12 times in a row. With the specific options he has in front of him, I'm not sure there's a whole lot more he could have done differently over the last year or two. Rates are already about as low as they have been in my lifetime. You can't blame Greenspan for investors pouring millions into tech stocks hoping they would be worth outrageous amounts someday that in reality are not even profitable today.

 

STX/98

Don't pull a liberal-dance on me. I have explained myself. The policy of the Reagan Administration was straight-on Keynesian economic policy, coupled with aggresive fiscal policy. I have a legitimate (and superior in my opinion) school of economic thought behind this position. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but as far as debating others points, one should actually be quite verbose and educated on the topic at hand if you are going to laugh at them (for instance, you have offered no theoretical support for your anti-opinion, but I have not laughed at you).

You disagree regarding my position on Reagan's role ("I find it absolutely humerous though for anyone to sit her and credit our economic success over the last ten years solely to the Reagan administration's economic policies. Perhaps you could explain this???". YOU need to offer your argument about WHY the Reagan administrations policies were flawed.

My agrument again, in case you missed for the umpteenth time, is - In a strict economist sense I am rather neo-Keynesian than true Keynesian. I am extremely aggresive in fiscal policy, and fairly loose on monetary policy. Reagan was similar, although not completely in alignment with my beliefs. Therefore, based on this position I credit Reagan policies with the economic success we experienced.

Is it possible that you are simply one of those individuals that supports a position without really even understanding what you support?

 

STX/98

Have you been in the US for the past couple of years? Even Greenspan admits his mistakes. So, Greenspan blames Greenspan, I blame Greenspan, but Doctor of Economics STX doesn't......Interesting...

Greenspan should have slowed the economy in the late 1990s, rather than waiting and over-doing it. And the stock market was overinflated, not the economy.

It's common knowledge that the Fed has to walk a tightrope when attempting to reign in inflation. Being too aggressive can put an economy into recession. Who the heck are we supposed to blame? That's his JOB, to control inflation without putting us in a recession.

And I'm blaming Greenspan for the economy BEFORE the tragic events that unfolded on 9/11 and the corporate fraud.