How better off would the US have been if Gore was president for 8 years

[RajahBell]

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

I know you're just a gimmick poster, but as far as the economy being better off; the Bush tax cuts in conjunction with the unfunded wars devastated the economy, as economists at the time said they would.

However, the policies of military Keynesianism may very well have propped up the economy for a time, prior to the collapse.

Also, the Bush Tax cuts grew the deficit. Since the economy is cyclical, when the economy is growing more revenue and at recession less revenue for the government to pay down the debt. It's Arithmetic.

The Bush Tax cuts and the wars are estimated to account for nearly half of the deficit by 2019.

[Mugicha]

Originally Posted by RajahBell

Also, the Bush Tax cuts grew the deficit. Since the economy is cyclical, when the economy is growing more revenue and at recession less revenue for the government to pay down the debt. It's Arithmetic.

The Bush Tax cuts and the wars are estimated to account for nearly half of the deficit by 2019.

I must say, I agree with Rocky Anderson, Obama's record on the economy is not very good either, especially when it comes to joblessness. In the past four years, there are many things which could have been done, which were not done, to promote job growth. Romney would be even worse though. It's really a damned if you do damned if you don't type if situation, forget "lesser of two evils." However, Romney is a true fascist. A Romney selection will be a disaster for the US.

But you are correct, basically the biggest contributing factor to the deficit currently is the economic recession, which erodes the tax base and therefore results in less revenue. Romney is right on this point, but he is nothing but a purveyor of lies. His proposal to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes is double speak. Cutting taxes is the same as increasing spending. This is economics 101. Of course, tax financing is a viable tool of fiscal policy, in the same way that spending is. However just as in the case of spending, a blanket policy of lower taxes is no recipe for economic growth (although ineffective spending would be better, since tax cuts of the sort which target the wealthy likely just transfer wealth upward and thus line bank accounts, whereas blanket spending perhaps at least puts money in to the hands of some of those who will spend it, which stimulates economic activity).

[Money Shot]

The deficit rockets when the GOP get in, crazy tax cuts for their rich friends who bank rolled their ticket, crazy spending on the military and wars, lax controls on Wall Street that need federal bail outs. Plus you get the pandering to the evangelicals on things like stem cells and abortion. Ideologues. Of course Gore would have been a better president. Bush was a waste of space.

[Derranged]

Originally Posted by RicDaRula

You kidding me?? I would have loved for Gore to be Prez!!! I even took a sign to one of the games that said...GORE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

he is great at giving speeches...



but he delivers on his promises


Over all GORE is the man who will lead us all into the promise land!!!

In Gore We Trust!!!!!!!

Thurman >> Gore

[res]

Originally Posted by 1_Industrialist

[B]






Which economists? The same economists that the guy you have displayed in your signature (Ron Paul) rejects as experts. Tax cuts shouldn't be cited as the problem. The Tax cuts were fine and we needed even more of them (as your guy RP would say), the problem was that those said Tax cuts weren't accommodated with Spending cuts. Lack of Spending cuts were the problem, not the Tax cuts.

Yes, this thinking as always is based upon a static picture of the economy. The fact that in prosperous times where capital is fluid, you naturally increase the tax revenue coming in with tax cuts doesn't occur to people.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...lly-increased/

[One_Profiteer]

Originally Posted by res

Yes, this thinking as always is based upon a static picture of the economy. The fact that in prosperous times where capital is fluid, you naturally increase the tax revenue coming in with tax cuts doesn't occur to people.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...lly-increased/

You naturally increase tax revenue eh? Who are you supposed to be...a representative of the Govt?

Some of us like to eliminate the INcome tax completely and have a moral and economical reason behind it. So your statement of "naturally increasing revenue in good times" doesn't compute with me. I reject it at face value.

[One_Profiteer]

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

Without going into too much detail, as your meaningless dribble really never warrants much response, how you associate Ron Paul and myself is certainly beyond me.

I associate it because you were sporting a Ron Paul picture in your signature for months, weren't you? Unless there is another guy with a weird log in handle like "Nodogoshi". I guess it's all about the drugs and peace with him... isn't it. Never mind his across the board Small Government philosophy.

And I was referring to mainstream, public economists. We're talking about 2001-2002, at which time I was finishing high school. I don't have any names, I just remember the commentaries. However, them being mainstream economists, more or less eliminates Keynesian economists (although true scholars of economics don't confine themselves to ideologies, and Keynes' influence is still very pervasive).

They're all Keynesian economists by default. If they use tricky/sneaky language like "giving out Tax cuts that weren't paid for"....this in and of it self is Keynesian rhetoric showing through. There is soo many of them, they don't have to self-identify as Keynesian to be one. They're influenced by it. These people have false premises and thus come to the wrong conclusions all the time. It's the Austrian Economists who see right through their bull and call them out on their Revisionist history....though naturally they (The unorthodox Austrian Economists) don't get called/booked for interviews as much, for guys like you to see on TV. Because their answers don't fit the confirmation bias of these Govt. Intervention loving media talking heads.

The 'military Keynesianism' statement has nothing to do with any such analyses though. It's not a phrase I created, but it is a phrase which I think is very descriptive of the W. Bush era.

If you say so.

[Mugicha]

Originally Posted by 1_Industrialist

I associate it because you were sporting a Ron Paul picture in your signature for months, weren't you? Unless there is another guy with a weird log in handle like "Nodogoshi".




They're all Keynesian economists by default. If they use tricky/sneaky language like "giving out Tax cuts that weren't paid for"....this in and of it self is Keynesian rhetoric showing through. There is soo many of them, they don't have to self-identify as Keynesian to be one. These people have false premises and thus come to the wrong conclusions all the time. It's the Austrian Economists who see right through their bull and call them out on it....though naturally they don't get called/booked for interviews as much, for guys like you to see on TV.





If you say so.

I've never had a Ron Paul sig. And I don't support Ron Paul whatsoever.

[UglyPug]

excellent! ONE INDUSTRIALIST returns for the noche!