We've had Enough of Keynesian Economics (Putin, stereotypes, dollars, rating)

[sanrene]

Many people prefer deficits over the alternative.

How much more can you mislead with this interpretation?

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.

To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.

However most people are unsurprisingly misinformed on certain matters.

Misinformed? The public has it exactly right. It is government spending money it doesn't have that creates deficits.

Looks like the posters who used quotes from me are now employing a combo of 3 & 4 from this list,.....

And you are using all 4 in your list.

As the previous survey shows, voters prefer lower taxes and deficits to higher taxes and a balanced budget.

[summers73]

When the majority of people voted for Obama, they were "enlightened". When the majority claim that Keynesianism is a failed policy spreading collapse after collapse around the globe like a plague, they are somehow misinformed. Got it.

[sanrene]

There is NO doubt, the backlash from the American people is squarely focused on obama and his radical, ruinous policies.

All the polls show the same trend with regard to his top ticket items, all the polls show that obamacare is extremely unpopular, 3 huge elections, including the biggest in Mass has proven just how angry people really are.

Some of the democrats have heard and are distancing themselves from obama and his radical agenda.

You need no other proof how badly his Keynesian economic plan has failed.

A lame duck after just the first year.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by summers73

When the majority claim that Keynesianism is a failed policy spreading collapse after collapse around the globe like a plague, they are somehow misinformed. Got it.

If you don't mind, could you explain what Keynesian policies are being applied by which countries and how those policies are spreading collapse. A little supporting data would nice as well.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by sanrene

How much more can you mislead with this interpretation?

Its actually called analysis and critical thinking: based on reading and evaluating what data is presented in a report and coming to a conclusion based on the facts presented. But to a Rush and Fox manufactured world view, I guess it would be confusing and scary.

Originally Posted by kovert

"Polling released earlier this week shows a similar attitude as voters prefer lower taxes and deficits to higher taxes and a balanced budget."

I'm not the one saying voters prefer deficits, it the data from a report YOU brought up that says so.

Originally Posted by sanrene

? The public has it exactly right. It is government spending money it doesn't have that creates deficits.

WTF?! You're once again contradicting the very information the article that YOU brought up presents.

Originally Posted by kovert

"Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans, in fact, say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes."

I doubt the people who wanted to cut spending would feel the same if they knew what the gov was spending money on.

"However, all polling on federal spending and deficits must be viewed with the recognition that only 35% of voters realize that the majority of federal spending goes to just defense, Social Security and Medicare."

"These figures highlight a massive failure of leadership from both Republicans and Democrats among the nation’s political elite,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Given the amount of political chatter about the budget in recent years, it is almost beyond comprehension that neither party has seen fit to highlight the basics so that the American people can make reasoned choices on the fundamental issues before them.”

Originally Posted by sanrene

And you are using all 4 in your list.

Well at least you read something fully.

Originally Posted by sanrene

the previous survey shows, voters prefer lower taxes and deficits to higher taxes and a balanced budget.

Oh, so you are finally in agreement with me. Therefore you agree that government should spend to not only prevent states from collapsing but to stimulate endeavors that could help jump start a new economy. Knew I could turn you around sooner or later.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by sanrene

There is NO doubt, the backlash from the American people is squarely focused on obama and his radical, ruinous policies.

You mean even worse than this.

Originally Posted by kovert

So much for being about state rights and sovereignty. Oh and Bush had a MAJOR hand in our financial meltdown.

"He foreshadowed America's coming economic collapse in his editorial two years ago and explained how it all came about via a historic battle between all 50 states' attorneys general and the Bush administration over the legality of predatory lending, soon to be practiced by many banks across the nation.

Did you know that every state in the union was embroiled in a war to protect consumers against economic assaults disguised as innocent efforts to assist Americans with major purchases they could not afford? Spitzer revealed how the states lost when the Bush administration, through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), invoked the 1863 National Bank Act, which ultimately trumped all 50 states' lending laws and undermined their efforts to protect the consumer."

Here's some tidbits from the report by E-Man.

"Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers."

Originally Posted by sanrene

All the polls show the same trend with regard to his top ticket items, all the polls show that obamacare is extremely unpopular, 3 huge elections, including the biggest in Mass has proven just how angry people really are.

I think you mean RomneyCare

Originally Posted by kovert

Oh and it even gets better. Despite all the crying about a government takeover over of health care as a prelude to socialism, the fact of the matter is it is the basically the same health care plan of a man, the GOP looked as one of their top candidates for the Presidency.

“Krugman says that what bothers him is that the public is "not getting informed" about the basic issues of the day. He cites both, "poor reporting" and "deliberate misinformation." Ailes says, "the American people are not stupid!" Krugman says BISH PLS! "It's Mitt Romney's health care plan. People were led to believe that it was socialism." ”

One wonders how one can make the claim to be fair and balanced when making wild accusations on a matter one is barely knowledgeable of.

“AILES: But there are 300 million people who have a health care plan that they are happy with. There are about 30 million people who don't have a health care plan. So as an executive, what do you do? You go fix the 30 million. You don't go over here and upset the apple cart for 300 million...

KRUGMAN: Which is exactly what the plan was.”

And once again the so called socialist health care bill was modeled after a domain ruled by a GOP prestigious enough to run as a party Presidential candidate.

"Verbal fireworks also erupted between Ailes and another co-panelist over the Obama administration's health care plan, which the Fox executive painted as a big government takeover despite countervailing evidence (provided by the New York Time's Paul Krugman) that it was essentially the same plan adopted in Massachusetts by former Republican Governor Mitt Romney."

and the polls I've seen paint a different picture.

Originally Posted by kovert

Oh and sanrene, that Keynesian theory is not the only thing Americans reject.

"A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, for example, found that although 52% of the nation's voters retain a favorable view of President Obama, only 38% have a similar appraisal of the Democratic Party. The Republicans fare even worse; just 30%, fewer than

1 in 3 voters, view the GOP favorably.

A recent CBS News poll found that nearly half of all Republicans, 45%, disapprove of their party's congressional delegation.

A national Washington Post/ABC News poll found that just 24% of Americans, fewer than 1 in 4, trust congressional Republicans, like Shelby, "to make the right decisions for the country's future."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by kovert

Republicans have disapproval ratings of at least 50% for 5 years straight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, that the model minority (in terms of income, education, entrepreneurship rivaling that of the majority) are largely left or left leaning. So more smack about liberals only supported by poor, good for nothing, lazy minorities.

"In general, the larger group of Asian-Americans tend to be more Democratic and more liberal than average Americans. Exit-poll data from the 2008 presidential elections generally confirm this, with Asian-American voters having supported Barack Obama over John McCain by roughly a 2-to-1 margin."

Oh and Independents are what the majority of American identify as, followed closely by Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by sanrene

Some of the democrats have heard and are distancing themselves from obama and his radical agenda.

And that worked out swell for a certain Mr. Parker Griffith.

"And what did he get for his brave leap of faith? Why, the immediate and embarrassing loss of his committee assignments (mandated by the House rules he had failed to read) followed by a 47-day wait for his first new committee assignment from the Grand Old Party. That, and the unwavering revulsion of the Rush Limbaugh of Huntsville. Oh, and a dry well of contributions, plus harassment by angry creditors Democrats demanding he return their money. One of them discombobulated Griffith so badly he rushed out of a meeting of Republican women:"

Originally Posted by sanrene

need no other proof how badly his Keynesian economic plan has failed.

He's not the only Keynesian.

Originally Posted by kovert

Straight from the horse's mouth.

"The top economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign acknowledged on Monday that the U.S. would be running a historic deficit this year even if the Arizona Republican had won the White House."

McCain would also have done a stimulus bill himself.

"But the former Congressional Budget Office director did acknowledge that, even with these changes, the country "probably would still have a record deficit" as is projected under the Obama administration."

"The acknowledgment by Holtz-Eakin is a blow of sorts to the GOP argument that the record-breaking $1.56 trillion projected deficit is solely Obama's responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCain is not the only Republican who would have injected a stimulus into a recession.

"1) Reagan had a big-spending economic stimulus plan. It's true. As noted in the book, the economic turnaround of the 1980s had little or nothing to do with Reagan's income tax cut that was heavily weighted to the rich but was instead the result of other factors, including the tight money policies of then-Fed chairman Paul Volcker (now an Obama adviser) and a global collapse of oil prices. But there was something else: Reagan also created thousands upon thousands of new jobs across America with a spending program that caused the federal deficit to skyrocket. It was called the Reagan defense buildup.

In the part of America where I lived in the 1980s, Long Island, N.Y., the economy was booming, in part because of the government dollars thrown at the then-Grumman Corp. to build new jet fighters. Now, government has a chance to do the same thing that Reagan achieved -- but not by building machines of death but creating jobs for things that will improve life, like solar power and high-speed rail."

Originally Posted by sanrene

lame duck after just the first year.

Interesting you mention his 1st year because most of the problems he was blamed for in his freshman term, he did not actually create in the 1st place.

"Considering all the claims about an “Obama spending spree” it is important to begin by looking at exactly how much money the government spent in FY09. It’s true that spending in 2009 was much higher than it was the previous fiscal year, by about $602 billion, excluding payments on the national debt (which actually declined in 2009 because of low interest rates). But it turns out that a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office. In fact, fully 41 percent, or $245 billion, came in the form of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, actions taken in the fall of 2008 under President George W. Bush."

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by twista6002

I really doubt a significant portion of Americans even understand how Keynes economics work. And once again Sanrene gets nailed.

Well, if they don't, they'd better find out, because this is on of the clearest differences betwen the liberals, and Republicans.

Sanrene gets "nailed"? Hardly. Sanrene just scored a home run.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by kovert

Its actually called analysis and critical thinking: based on reading and evaluating what data is presented in a report and coming to a conclusion based on the facts presented. But to a Rush and Fox manufactured world view, I guess it would be confusing and scary.



I'm not the one saying voters prefer deficits, it the data from a report YOU brought up that says so.



WTF?! You're once again contradicting the very information the article that YOU brought up presents.





Well at least you read something fully.



Oh, so you are finally in agreement with me. Therefore you agree that government should spend to not only prevent states from collapsing but to stimulate endeavors that could help jump start a new economy. Knew I could turn you around sooner or later.

Sorry, but no.From all the nonsense you posted, you missed this;

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.

To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.

And this;

only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

How in the world did you miss all that?

If you want to post polls about republican approval numbers...start your own thread. This thread is about how the nations has found obama's Keynesian economics detrimental to their livelihood.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Sorry, but no.From all the nonsense you posted, you missed this;



And this;



How in the world did you miss all that?

Originally Posted by kovert

I hope all of you (at least the ones that have not been totally enthralled by the Rushie and Foxie Show) realize that when presented with factual data, those who live in an alternate Beck inspired reality will either:

1. Selectively list and spin data to support the delusions their spreading.
2. Ignore, avoid and refuse to answer direct questions.
3. Try to drown out the relevant data by posting nonsense after nonsense, so the data will be pushed to the back burner and forgotten.
4. And/Or find a wedge issue to deflect and distract from the queries.

Oh, utilizing #1 and what I should have posted for #5, personal attacks.

Originally Posted by sanrene

If you want to post polls about republican approval numbers...start your own thread.

Why, its too painful for you to see the numbers here.

Originally Posted by sanrene

This thread is about how the nations has found obama's Keynesian economics detrimental to their livelihood.

"Nations", Obama is only the President of 1 nation.

And are you claiming to be an economic authority on the level of these guys?

Stiggie:

Originally Posted by kovert

"None other than Milton Friedman, the founding father of the free-market era, told me in an interview before he died that Stiglitz also had been more correct than everyone else about how to transform Russia into a market economy when he argued that institution-building and creating regulatory authorities were an important preliminary step. "In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, I kept being asked what the Russians should do," Friedman told me in 2002. "I said, 'Privatize, privatize, privatize. I was wrong. Joe was right. What we want is privatization, and the rule of law.

As his longtime collaborator Bruce Greenwald—another Columbia professor who, by the way, is a conservative Republican—puts it: "You need radical global reform" to correct chronic imbalances in capital flows, all of which Stiglitz has laid out in his book, "Making Globalization Work." "There's no chance these guys are going to do what's necessary," with the possible exception of Summers, says Greenwald."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the Man Himself, Mr. Alan:
"The tough talk reflected a widening sense that some of Greenspan's apparent successes in managing the economy from 1987 to 2006 were in fact illusory, that they came at the cost of building the biggest credit bubble in world history."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.

Many Republican lawmakers on the oversight committee tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on the unchecked growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were placed in a government conservatorship last month. Republicans have argued that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.

But Mr. Greenspan, who was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, placed far more blame on the Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage-backed securities. Global demand for the securities was so high, he said, that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more “paper.”"

[sanrene]

And once again Sanrene gets nailed.

Where?

Oh, utilizing #1 and what I should have posted for #5, personal attacks.

Where was the personal attack?

Why, its too painful for you to see the numbers here.

No, because its off topic. THIS thread is about a poll regarding Obama's use of Keynesian economics.

Start your own thread on the other.

"Nations", Obama is only the President of 1 nation.

And are you claiming to be an economic authority on the level of these guys?

Oh my gosh! I put an "s" on the end of it! What a scandal!

That all you got?