On 19/01/2010 4:23 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:28:53 -0700,
wrote:
On 17/01/2010 7:53 PM, bpuharic wrote:
since keynesianism has nothing to do with socialism, i suggest you
adjust your lobster bib and just nod off again, like a good
conservative.
So explain that. Government in socialism share keynesianism in that the
government controls the market currencies, rates, etc.
fine. you go show me where keynes said the govt should control
companies, OK? and if the govt controls CURRENCIES that's MONETARISM
of milton friedman, NOT fiscal policies of keynes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Justification for statism and interferance. Who says government is
always meddling for the right reasons? I submit keynesian supporters
today are using it as an excuse for preservation of statism and not for
the good f the people.
I don't agree with the inflation part of keynesianism and believe more
main stream in that inflation is caused by government currency
manipulation and excessive money float. Government falls short on
revenue and padds it with debt and money creation, the later comes in as
inflation later on.
Governmetn could buy back the currency and cancel it but never has done
so, feeding inflation into perpetuity. It is deliberate. If I can
borrow money at 1% and get %2 inflation I am guaranteed to screw others
for wealth, modern day government practice.
And we have seen how well the government does with this in (old) USSR
and in the US/Canada where government HAS meddled in the markets and
blew it up on cheap debt.
again and again you show you know zip. supply side economics is milton
friedman, not keynes.
What makes you liberal idiots think governemtn isn't greedy like a
corporation or investor? Greed defines us a human beings, and ANY time
ANY organization gets exclusive monopolies on ANYTHING the people
SUFFER. For government it is statism and power without competition,
does not mater what you call it, keynesianism, statism, socialism...
conservatives keep feeding money to the rich. how much gets down to
the middle class is irrelevant. middle class incomes have gone NOWHERE
in 30 years, yet the income of the richest 1% has skyrocketed in the
last 10 years.
so how's that working out for the middle class, courtesy of the right?
the middle class pays all the bills
The right isn't running the country, the left is. Reagan was right,
Obama is left.
the rich get all the tax breaks AND all the income from increases in
productiivty
Rich, suck in the liberal BS. If you simple confiscated all the
earnings of the top 2% of the "rich" it would not make much of a dent in
Obama/congress debt spend.
The back bone of taxation is the middle class. They fail, the main feed
of government cash is gone.
And as I suggested, target the middle class with the tax reductions and
make it big enough they will notice big time. None of this 1 or 2%
crap, 20 or 30%.
THEN the conservatives tell us the middle class has it too soft and we
need to give MORE money to the rich because they're suffering so much
You mush surly like the MAD principle. Screw the middle class and screw
America. This is what this is really all about. Liberalism screwed up
in banking and debt, now the middle class pay for it. Trouble is, it is
shutting down the economy as people spend less.
All the government has to do is leave people with more of their own
money and live inside their revenue streams. But liberals hate that as
it means less statism. Governmetn is in reality at war wih it's people.
Statism versus economic freedom.