But you just admitted Obama has been “talking about it for 5 years”. And what did congress do about it?
Passed the Ryan budget plan, which the Senate declined to take up (along with avoiding passing its own budget between 2009 and 2013).
Don’t you ever get sick of asking questions without answering them in return?
That’s accurate, albeit oversimplified. As pointed out above, the executive branch can certainly suggest specific legislation and ask Congress to vote on it. And the executive branch can involve itself in negotiations designed to get the bill passed. Remember how Joe Biden served as the key to breaking the tax reform impasse back near New Year’s?
Joe Biden was an “outside agent”, not part of the “administration?”
Joe Biden isn’t Barack Obama, if that’s what you’re trying to say. Obama gets no credit for compromising because as soon as the compromise was reached (Republicans conceding on higher tax revenue), Obama returned instantly to the same rhetoric he used prior to the deal, insisting that he wouldn’t allow budget cuts without higher revenues. He just got higher revenues and pretended otherwise.
You think we can cut our way to a balanced budget?
Of course, in principle. The only holdup is politicians who don’t want special interest groups to dump them come the next election.
So Obama is responsible for the division in the Repubs congress (who lost, but won’t admit it), but not the Dems, who seem to be very supportive of Obama’s vision?
Apparently you need to re-read what I wrote. And then ask a better question (and consider answering a question for once).
And to answer your question, I don’t give a hoot what you call it.
And in your book there are just two options, Keynesian or Supply Side (trickle down)? How about a reasonable compromise?
Naturally you’re free to suggest a reasonable compromise when you answer the question. You could say something like “Oh, hey, I guess “Reaganomics” in practice was a little bit supply-side but quite a bit Keynesian at the same time.” And that would really be something, because it would represent an attempt to answer one of my questions.
btw. Now the TEA party has come up with the notion that no matter what Obama does, he needs to be impeached?
The Tea Party? Don’t you mean Noam Chomsky?
I’m certain that the tea party only wants Obama impeached for something he did, not “no matter what Obama does.” Same with Chomsky, when it comes to that.
The only way to accomplish that end that is to give regularly to OFA.
What is OFA?
Organizing for Action. It used to be Barack Obama’s campaign organization, but since he won’t be campaigning for office any longer it’s applied for tax-exempt status so that it can engage in non-partisan activities not primarily political in nature. They need your money badly so that they can get rid of money in politics or something.
But now it is my turn to insist you answer my question, instead of admitting that the republican caucus is in total disarray.
lol You’re precious. I’ve provided an answer to each of your questions and you’ve answered none of mine.
I have answered the OP question and provided historical evidence (albeit with some incorrect dates) which clearly shows that regardless what system the republicans use, we always end up deeper in debt and leave it to dems to clean up the mess.
That’s nonsense. It’s almost like you have no idea how much Clinton’s budgets benefited from the lower defense spending that was permitted by the fall of the Soviet Union. You’ve gone right back to making things up in hopes that you’ll end up, by luck, with some sort of valid point. The Republican Congress dragged Clinton into welfare reform and other measures. Clinton get some credit because he governed in a real sense as a centrist (Clinton actually had welfare reform as part of his original set of campaign promises).
Utter madness? Are you answering your question for me?
Yes, the Republicans nearly drove a country of 300,000,000 into default and have caused the loss of billions of dollars and 800,000 joobs, thereby increasing the national debt yet a little more. And you want those idiots to run the country?
It’s silly to insist that I answer your question and then presume to give my answer for me.
If the Republicans govern, then Obamacare gets defunded or delayed (or repealed) with no shutdown at all. Is that difficult to understand? It always takes two to have a standoff like this one.
So Obama is practicing “deep inside baseball”. Interesting observation, being that Bush was a “baseball man” who ran his major league baseball team into the ground also.
Again, apparently you would benefit from re-reading my answer.
And talking about bridges, it is the republican caucus that opposed economic stimulus and voted against building bridges and infrastructure, so that we may engage in commerce, while providing thousands of good paying jobs.
If the bill had consisted of true Keynesian short-term stimulus (including infrastructure projects) and tax cuts, Republicans would have supported it. The bill included tax cuts and poorly-selected infrastructure projects, many of which would not get underway for a long period of time. That’s not how Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work. It was the Frankenstein hodgepodge with the exorbitant price tag (right on the heels of a debt-busting set of bank bailouts) that gave rise to conservative opposition. Eleven Democrats in the House joined the Republicans in opposing it. Again, we see the pattern of passing bills with the least amount of compromise necessary to get the bill done (that’s divisive).
I answered that question, which apparently you missed. But I’ll repeat it for clarity.
Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.
Quoting Wikipedia isn’t much of an answer to the question, especially after you had earlier finished accusing Reagan of running up huge debt via government spending. And that’s exactly why I’m pressing you on the question. Your statements make it look like you don’t have much clue what you’re talking about with respect to economics. I try to give you benefit of the doubt and encourage you to explain yourself and instead I get this version of evasion where you provide a Wiki link.
Every time I hear the term “supply side” I see a kid sitting for hours behind a little lemonade stand trying to sell lemonade to cars whizzing past at 30 mph. Supplies don’t mean a thing when there are no customers who can afford all those supplies because they have no money to spend.
Great, that gives us a place to start. If the lemonade looks really good, could that perhaps prompt the passing motorists (how do they pay for their gasoline, btw?) to do something that will enable them to buy lemonade?
Let’s start with stimulating the economy by the Keynesian rule that “government may be actively involved in stimulus when “needed”, using American labor to rebuild America, instead of tax cuts for the rich which may end up in an off shore tax free account or investment in foreign countries (shipping jobs out of the US).
So ... the government will give people jobs ... and later the people will pay back the money the government spent on their jobs through taxes or something? Sounds like a recipe for ever-increasing debt. How does that system allow for ever achieving a positive balance on the ledger? Or is it simply akin to the scam of getting a credit card, charging that to its limit, then getting another credit card to pay the first, a third credit card to pay the second and so on? Explain how the government can employ lemonade stand workers without somehow profiting off the lemonade after accounting for the wages it pays.
The TEA party wants to practice Darwinian economics and that is not what we stand for. Or do you believe that “give us your poor huddled masses” means a cheap source of (practically) slave labor.
I think you’re just making stuff up again.