Posted on 08/07/2011 7:39:54 PM PDT by sickoflibs
PLAYING CLIP OF RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: John Maynard Keynes. If you want to know what Keynesian economics is, you`re living it, Barack Obama, massive government spending, massive debt, massive redistribution of wealth, the lie that government spending, deficit spending can propel economic growth.
They had no intention of saving capitalism. They wanted to destroy it and replace it with socialism or Marxism or fascism or whatever you want to call it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
I think that is the heart of the Tea Party, Michael, this fear of government massive spending, hemorrhaging, hemorrhaging.
CROWLEY: Yes.
MATTHEWS: That stimulus program of about $800 billion to $900 billion dollars was a waste.
CROWLEY: Right.
MATTHEWS: It didn`t bring the economy back. And they have got a good argument with that, because when you have a 9-plus percent unemployment rate, how can you claim you turned the economy around? In simple Crayon- level thinking, it works, doesn`t it, the Tea Party argument?
CROWLEY: Sure. Yes. I mean, the experience of the stimulus was a big setback for Keynesian economic theory, because it`s hard to explain to people that it might have really prevented things from getting a lot of worse. And so the Rush Limbaughs of the world point to the unemployment now and say that the thing was a complete waste that didn`t work.
MSNBC HARDBALL for 8/4/11 Transcript(LexisNexis)
Not everyone learned the lesson. Couldn’t find a transcript for this same night Maddow show but I did find the clip on youtube.
At about 11:56 start at 11:00 or earlier to hear more of this theory and see if you can follow his math.
Guest Robert Frank Cornell University Economics professor :
”The markets are happy to loan us the money. As Ezra said they are eager to loan us more money at very low interest rates . The cost of debt compared to the cost of unemployment is incredibly low. A trillion dollar deficit costs us $25B per year to pay the interest on that. If we have an extra 10M people unemployed that’s $250M lost forever each year so it’s a 10 to 1 trade-off . We are focusing on deficit reduction when we should be focusing on job creation. Focusing on the deficit by cutting spending, that’s going to make the deficit bigger. What we are doing now is unimaginably stupid”
The Rachel Maddow Show (08-04-11) youtube clip (see 11:44)
That was the professor who said that in her ‘interview’ and that is why I posted it it. He states nonsense as if it is obvious fact.
His point is that the interest on the debt is nothing compared to something else, the something else is the loss to the government of not employing the unemployed as government workers (?????). He then cites two made up $$$ numbers that appear to defeat his own case to prove something, that we need to run up more debt to hire more government workers. Such is the liberal education lecture theme of every nights Maddow show.
You’re not the one who’s unimaginably stupid here - Madcow is (that or, more likely, she’s once again lying for rank political purposes). This is nothing more than the left’s two favorite economic fallacies - engaging in single-entry bookkeeping and failing to appreciate the full extent of the creation - and conservation - of wealth, a failure that is itself inexplicable given that Marx, for all of his other faults, provided some good insight into the mechanics of wealth creation, and leftists all claim to have read and understood every one of Marx’ words.
Thanks for the ping.
Global warming theory?
Religion of peace theory?
Same bull Obama.
Same people.
Massive fail ... As usual.
Well said, Coyote...
But Bush was awful with fiscal responsibility and govt growth and is part to blame as is the GOP congress of those years...even though there were occasional smart moves like trying to reel in Fannie and Fredo
What Obama and his gang have done is so accelerate it all with drunk spending.
So...no matter how one parses what Bush said about TARP...it was still a questionable idea and he along with plenty GOP have blame.
I hate TARP...bottom line...it gave asshats at Banks a pass...guys who ran footloose with other’s cash and went broke and got bailed out by our taxes...and now they are sitting on their liquidity...which is all TARP did...it did nothing to invigorate bank lending.
I know this because I borrow their money as a living..banks that took TARP are tight as drums and scrutinize every covenant to prove to regulators how good they are being...but loan not much even as they crow great terms for public consumption.
Well there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between what I think he said and what he really said now is there.
Whatever, your posts were still mean spirited, sarcastic, confrontational and argumentative. Most people come here to have a discussion, not be ripped to pieces.
I maintain that you are most likely a radical libertarian who looks down your nose at conservatives and are looking for someone to blame for the situation that we are in.
Well, I think you and I can agree that might be the case, but if you are going to discuss it with someone who might disagree, I would suggest starting out on solid ground.
There is literally a difference between abandoning something and destroying it, both in meaning AND intention. You and I both would likely make the argument (and I think correctly so) that in this case, abandoning free market principles DOES destroy it by default, but that is not a given to everyone, especially our opponents.
Don’t just hand someone something to take issue with that they will use to obfuscate the point.
I thank you for finding the correct quote. My point is if you abandon something for a path that will detroy it then yo uare in fact setting out to destroy it.....Yes
Well maybe self identified 'conservatives' that claim Bush was a success for his 'motives' since you bring it up, and yes I have someone to blame: the Bush-Pelosi-Obama-team are at the top.
So only libertarians think that Bush was a disaster in your view? He's still the conservative hero in your eyes? Good luck with that.
I don’t have a problem saying I supported Bush on certain things (immigration, spending, etc) and didn’t support him on others.
I think he just got this TARP thing going because everyone told him the house was going to burn down, and he agreed.
From day one, TARP enraged me, because I saw it for what it was, a complete and utter boondoggle to spread cash to prevent some people from feeling pain, but wasn’t going to do a damned thing past that.
Ex-President Bush surely deserves a portion of the blame, particularly for TARP.
I simply don’t think he is the prime culprit in this mess.
The prime culprits are liberals for kicking this whole mess off back in the 1970’s (CRA) and Republicans (even including Reagan) who went along to get along with various pieces bolted onto it since then (HMDA, etc) because they didn’t deem various things important enough to make a stink about.
We know better now.
LOL...there was a bad mistake of editing on my part. I meant I agreed with Bush on certain things and DISAGREED with him on other things (such as immigration, spending, etc)
Boy, that was a case for profreading before posting right there if there ever was one!
I think we both agree that introducing factors like that DO destroy the free market. Bringing in that was like being a “little bit pregnant”, though I am sure Bush and other like minded people don’t think so.
Much like Nixon...he didn’t think he was destroying the market by instituting price controls, but...if THAT doesn’t destroy a free market, what the hell does?
If you and I know the difference then SO DO THEY, stop making excuses for them......and then you will understand who they are
Eh, not making excuses...I think they really do think this Keyensian crap and overt intervention really works.
I don’t think it does at all.
I never said that Bush was a success. I said that he was bad, but not as bad as Obama. You’re still twisting posts to fit your negative outlook. Good luck with that.
There ya go. We can agree that I have a negative outlook on the political issues relating to the two parties. No disagreement with that one.
I don’t think Obama is evil. I think he really believes it is just to take from the rich and give to the poor. But he ignores the unintended consequences of giving the government power over people’s individual assets and of creating an underclass of persons who never learn to fend for themselves. That makes him misguided and foolish, but not evil. fwiw...
I had a dream the other night. Americans were rioting in the streets and burning rampantly. just like what is happening in London. People were calling for the arrest of corrupt members of Congress and mobs were demanding that the Fed Chairman -- Helicopter Bernanke -- surrender. Mobs were rioting in the streets and martial law had been declared. And Obama was cowering under a huge desk surrounded by secret service people who were laughing.
It was just a dream but get ready people . . . Brown Stuff is about to hit the fan
LOL !
It should be the DEATH OF KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS, ONCE AND FOR ALL!..................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.