Do you agree with the Democrats that Keynesian Government Sp

Post Reply New Topic

Do you agree with the Democrats that Keynesian Government Spending on tax rebates welfare food stamps unemployment insurance creates consumer demand I don't understand how and why this because welfare checks or tax rebates for example is not a lot of money for one person or if you expand the money supply there will be more money for the Government to spend on welfare tax rebates and or unemployment insurance which will put bills in people's hands ?

The cure for this, Keynes said, was for the central bank to expand the money supply. By putting more bills in people's hands, consumer confidence would return, people would spend, and the circular flow of money would be reestablished. Just that simple! Too simple, in fact, for the policy-makers of that time.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm

You should also add that after the economy has been pumped up and becoming dynamic in the steady state, some of the money should be taxed out and repay the deficit. That is the part the politicians always leave out. The Keynes approach utilizes a negative feedback mechanism to stabilize a dynamic system. From a purely engineering view it is a sound approach. From an ideological point of view it is offensive to purists who think the government should leave the economy to its own devices.

Keynes was a mathematical genius and a sound thinker. In fact the whole Keynes family (including John Maynard Keynes pappa) was a bright bunch.

ruveyn

There is a simple matter that, once you remove food stamps and social security payments from the equation, a great number of businesses would collapse due to the removal of said money from the economy.
My dentist was very concerned how he would be able to stay in business because here in Washington state, dental coverage was being rolled back for people on social security retirement and disability. He's somehow managed to hang on, but a large chunk of his business that he had depended on has been eliminated.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

This is another reason I'm going to vote nearly straight party line Republican in 2012.

Safety nets are all well and good, but the Democrats seem to be almost purposely trying to get people to be dependent on entitlement programs as a way to get a solid voting base.

Nope, because it hasn't ever actually worked ever. It's a money perpetual motion machine.

No, people are dependent on money.
And beside, what's supposed to happen to those people that are "dependent on entitlement programs?" Do you expect them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in this bad economy? If so, then expect a lot of deaths due to malnutrition and lack of medical care, as well as a spike in crime.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

People will depend on money as the ultimate saftey net.

Yes, but if they don't have any money, in this case offered by the government, they're liable to fall through that net

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Just getting people to depend on government to give them money isn't going to solve the problem, it just makes people dependent on Government which is what Democrats want. The Democrats don't want the situation to improve, cause they would just lose their voting base.

It's really simple if you give money to poor people they spend it.

That money does not disappear into a black hole it goes into the hands of businesses.

They use is to buy goods and services as well.

No, if more and more people are on government programs, there would be no one working in order to support those programs - so that's just Republican propaganda. In fact, Democrats are more than happy when someone is able to free themselves from the constraints of poverty, and is able to move up the economic ladder. Democrats just want people to have a social conscience when it comes to the suffering of their fellow citizens.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No one rightly command how another feels or believes. Only actions can be commanded, permitted or forbidden. The content of other people's heads is strictly out of bounds for outside parties.

If Party A is in need and Part B has the means to help Party A, he is under no obligation to do so, if he were not responsible for Party A's difficulty. We are forbidden to interfere with others but we ought to be commanded (with a threat of force) to help any stranger. If we want to help fine. If we don't want to help also fine.

ruveyn

I'm not talking about commanding people to have compassion, rather, it's a matter of encouraging them to.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Once it gets to be a law it is no longer encouragement. It is Brute Force. The Law exists only to the extent that enforcing guns, knives and dungeons exist. Law without enFORCEment is vaporware.

ruveyn

As so few people are that compassionate to their fellow man in their everyday lives (and yes, I include myself in that much of the time), it's still more vaporware than anything enforced.

-Bill, otherwise known as kraichgauer

Judaism survived millenia without enFORCEment.
how?