Thread: Mitt Romney, Keynesian

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Youknow whats funny?????? How wrong you are. The Canadian dollar is far stronger than ours and do you know why????They cut spending.

You're right. But you're missing the point of my argument. Spending cuts in year 1 reduce economic growth in year 1, but increase economic growth in year 2 and beyond.

Originally Posted by jpn

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

By that line of reasoning there is no way to avoid the depression. All deficit spending does is restrain future spending. At some point, like Greece, Spain, Iceland, California, etc, the US will reach its credit limit.

All we are doing is delaying and making the correction worse.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Ummm....Romney is a liberal. I don't know what you're bitching about, jpn. You should be happy as a pig in shit because no matter who wins you'll get a liberal.

No, if Romney wins you get a man who is happy to see the country suffer so that he can be President. If he believes what I quoted him as saying, then his support for the Republican economic agenda these last few years is unforgivable.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

What utter bullshit.......How is the middle class better off now after three years of our communist and chief?????????

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Unemployment is still high and jobs still gone but at least we are 15 trillion in debt right?

I take it that than isn't a Keynsian, which means than actually buys into the notion that slashing spending during a recession is good economics. Which the Republicans only tend to believe when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Unlike Romney. I guess. :rolleyes:

It must be so weird to be a Republican...

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

By that line of reasoning there is no way to avoid the depression. All deficit spending does is restrain future spending. At some point, like Greece, Spain, Iceland, California, etc, the US will reach its credit limit.

Since what would have been know today as the depression of 2008 was avoided by the stimulus package enacted without a single Republican vote, then I guess there must be a flaw in your reasoning. And the flaw is your mistaken and ahistorical belief that deficit spending does not stimulate economies in the short run sufficiently to pull them out of recessions.

It's rather amazing that you bring up Greece and Spain, as they are excellent examples of how misguided deficit reduction policies in the midst of a recession have failed and actually worsened a bad situation. All Europe (save the bloody-minded Germans) are realizing they were wrong to enact austerity policies when they should have been following stimulus policies.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Didn't moderate repubs use to embrace much of Keynes? Back in the old days? And supply side came in with the cons, during Reagen?

Yes they did. But moderates are no longer allowed in the Republican Party.

Originally Posted by adaher

Romney is only stating the obvious. If you cut a trillion dollars out of the budget in one year, GDP will be about 5% less than it otherwise would be. Democrats, however, apocalyptically insist that cutting $100 billion in one year will plunge the country into recession, which it will not, since the general agreement among economists is that a $100 billion cut would reduce GDP by only half a percent or so. And it would increase GDP from that point on, so you'd make up the loss over the next few years. Likewise, spending increases today boost GDP today, but reduce it in later years.

I see this as a 'you can pay me now, or you can pay me later'. Seems that congress has chosen the pay me later model, and the debt and deficits just keep growing.

Probably what would be best is a more balanced approach, which doesn't have too much of either. This is think would be spending cuts, so that it the government can at least eliminate the yearly deficits, and any yearly budget surpluses should be applied to paying down the debt.

This approach, however balanced and reasonable, is something of an anathema to many of the congressional leaders, but it should not be. Need to change the congressional leaders so that it no longer is an anathema, and the government can be on a fiscally sound foundation for the future.