[estheticianI]

Welcome to Bananaistan where they make Banana Republics look good.

[Zvmwissq]

lol that's more than the GDP of Belgium LOL

[AdobebePhoto]

You must be so happy, Oerdin.

[mXr8icOB]

No, I am neither gleeful nor looking forward to the pain that must be endured in order to get us over capitalism and into socialism. I consider it a necessary evil, and evil doesn't make me happy.

[gMUVgw71]

deficit spending



"Following John Maynard Keynes, many economists recommend deficit spending in order to moderate or end a recession, especially a severe one. When the economy has high unemployment, an increase in government purchases creates a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. (This is the multiplier effect). This raises the real gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment of labor, all else constant lowering the unemployment rate. (The connection between demand for GDP and unemployment is called Okun's Law.) Cutting personal taxes and/or raising transfer payments can have similar expansionary effects, though most economists would say that such policies have weaker effects. Which method has a better stimulative economic effect is a matter of debate.

The increased size of the market, due to government deficits, can further stimulate the economy by raising business profitability and spurring optimism, which encourages private fixed investment in factories, machines, and the like to rise. This accelerator effect stimulates demand further and encourages rising employment.

Similarly, running a government surplus or reducing its deficit reduces consumer and business spending and raises unemployment. This can lower the inflation rate. Any use of the government deficit to steer the macro-economy is called fiscal policy.

A deficit does not simply stimulate demand. If private investment is stimulated, that increases the ability of the economy to supply output in the long run. Also, if the government's deficit is spent on such things as infrastructure, basic research, public health, and education, that can also increase potential output in the long run. Finally, the high demand that a government deficit provides may actually allow greater growth of potential supply, following Verdoorn's Law."

[jackie Obrian]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Guess that we are doomed (Denmark). We have gov surplus, reducing deficit, have raising consumer and bizz spending while the uneployment rate are dropping. We even have a decent inflation rate.

What are we doing wrong ? You aren't doing anything wrong, because you aren't in a recession.

[RSAccountssy]

Keynes is dead.

[PapsEdisa]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Keynes is dead. Not in the US, he's not.

[KasaBalak]

Originally posted by BlackCat


But according to the oposition (left wing) we are in a such - we are even battling a rediciusly low $ that invaluates our oil extremely. I think the problem is Denmark is just to small to matter on a world scale. Sorry but true. You could do everything right but still get smacked upside the head due to the lack of energy policies in several big countries or a million other things. You're a boat on the water and even if you're a really good sailor some fat ass might jump in and really splash you.

[lE3l6Lgn]

In the streets of the third world, working class people have started to save money in Euros


EDIT: Will McCain continue Bush's policy of indebting the USA more and more?

[cigattIcTot]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Keynes is dead. In the long run, we all are.

[hotsaucemidl]

Originally posted by Barnabas
In the streets of the third world, working class people have started to save money in Euros


EDIT: Will McCain continue Bush's policy of indebting the USA more and more? The short answer is yes.

[251EPyso]

Then use common sense, and listen to all the things that Obama is promising. They won't be free.

[CathBraun]

You know what the US needs to cure this deficit?

Lots and lots of overpriced stealth destroyers.

[sicheAscems]

And that's what will happen when Obama becomes president. We are soooooooooooo doomed.

[ligeplodore]

Feel free to povide what the estimated tax revenue gain/loss of Obama and McCain's plans are, otherwise we have the numbers given.

What did government revenue do over the last five years?

Lots and lots of overpriced stealth destroyers. Yeah, I fondly remember that thread you lost too

[Ad0i89Od]

So you admit the numbers are incomplete? Good. Yeah, I didn't think you wanted to do that. Luckly for you, a very good summary on the candidates tax policy relative to revenue is included on site I sourced the spending numbers on

Maybe you should have checked before being an *******

Trick question, or are you oblivious? I am just hoping maybe you will graduate to actual positions and arguements instead of wallowing in one liners. I know, a dreamer.

You could also try not being a dick when nobody is attacking you. I know, a dreamer.

[downtowndude]

McCain's plan is apparently to cut taxes more, crank up military spending some more, and magically balance the budget. Homeland Security and Law Enforcement
$10.173 Obama
$1.500 McCain

National Defense and International Relations
$13.808 Obama
$3.917 McCain

*in billions

And their tax policy, unless Oerdin has something against the brookings institute as well. It is unflattering to both.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi....cfm?ID=411693

[mrllxp]

I think what Patty was showing is that Obama's claims for PAYGO are highly fanciful.

[rhybrisee]

I should add that deficits are fine as long as we're investing in programs that have a high rate of return. Health care (specifically, more preventative care) and infrastructure, for example, are perfectly reasonable justifications for running deficits. More tax cuts for the uberwealthy - not so much...