Posted by bheid408 on 2/27/2013 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):Absolutely.
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes. Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted. Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy. Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy. I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%. I certainly would agree there is some merit to it. As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment. Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.
That's the problem right now. Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all. Stop giving money to people who aren't working. Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something. Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity. It encourages government dependence.
Which is better for the economy?
1. Not raising taxes so people have more of their own money to spend on goods and services which in-turn improves the economy
2. Taking that money away in the form of higher taxes and giving it to people who aren't working, or companies that can't be self-sustaining without the government hand-out
#1 would require not raising taxes and less spending (a win win)
#2 would require raising taxes and continued higher spending (lose lose)
Which one do Repubs want? #1
Which one does Obama and Dems want? #2
If you really buy this bullshit you are too stupid to have this discussion with, but briefly:
BL is endorsing NOT reducing the deficit. You don't even seem capable of grasping that concept. He never said jack or **** about raising taxes, only avoiding spending cuts. The idea is to NOT reduce the deficit. IE you don't raise taxes AND you don't cut spending. So your dichotomy is already a massive oversimplification.
Also, how is reducing a spending a "win" and raising spending a "loss?" The biggest problem for governments is that everybody wants to pay less taxes and get more from the government. If they really think about it, 90+% of the population are realistically in favor of government spending once it's made concrete. Road upkeep, park systems, funding for education, funding for scientific research, etc. How is reducing spending a win in your mind? It's bad for the economy, it's bad for whoever benefits from the specific spending being cut.
It's pretty clear that option number 1 of your false dichotomy is a win-lose and #2 is a lose-win.