Bush vs. Kerry

[deus713]

Every Sunday my friends and I play poker. Two weeks ago a political debate broke out that chose not to partake in because I felt that it was neither the time, nor the place. Instead I wrote this letter and sent it to my friends…

Comments

Re: a few thoughts on the issues...

[deus713]

4. By acknowledging that he thought Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security but opposing action because the U.N. didn't approve it, John Kerry demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice the safety of the American people on the whim of an organization that does not have our interests in mind. Kerry has stated that he will be a shill for the U.N. and this should be unacceptable to any reasonable person.

5. This statement shows two things. First of all it shows that you know nothing about economics. Second it shows that you are so blinded by your silly views on something you know nothing about that you refuse to even try and learn. My statement was an oversimplified model of Keynesian economics and you couldn’t even grasp that. I don’t even get what you are trying to do here? Are you trying to draw a parallel between unemployment and budget deficit? Are you trying to pin unemployment on Bush? Both attempts would be futile. Contrary to what you seem to believe, a budget deficit is not a bad thing. Government debt facilititates economic activity and is imperative to a modern, financially developed economy. Since government debt is injected into the economy through budget deficits, growing economies need sustained deficits to ensure that the stock of debt grows appropriately with the level of economic activity. Long ago it was proven that budget surpluses were bad for the economy and we have been running a deficit for years. I explained in my earlier post that the economy has been sluggish due to circumstances beyond the president’s control and if we were to go back on his plan (aka. roll back tax cuts) then it would be detrimental for our nation. Learn to read.

6. So? What’s your point? This entire diatribe stems from the assumption that outsourcing is a bad thing. It’s not. The American work force is in the midst of a paradigm shift of sorts. We are moving from an obsolete, industrial age, manufacturing centered economy to a more service based one. So what if some people have to adjust? Bronze workers eventually had to learn to make iron swords. We are raising the income level and standards of living for the entire nation as a whole. We are creating a more educated, more highly skilled, and more technology based workforce that is going to be necessary to compete in this century and beyond. I don’t see your point. Companies made some campaign contributions… big deal.

Retort

[deus713]

4. A shill? What do you call the influence corporations have on W? I personally would rather put my trust in the UN then corporations whos interest lies solely in themselves. Anyone else agree?

5.So: Is the new Republican administration's effort to use a tax cut to stave off recession "Keynesian"?

Not at all, and here's why. Back in the 1960s, many economists believed economic fluctuations could be offset by tax policy. If people tend to consume a little bit less in a downturn, then government could, it was thought, stimulate consumption by cutting taxes. Then if we start to grow too fast, we can raise taxes in order to slow things down. If this theory worked, it would be a liberal's dream come true: A justification for big interventionist government.

It was Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman who first pointed out the problem with this type of policy: It only works if citizens are extremely shortsighted. Consider: If Uncle Sam gives you $1,000 today, but tells you that you will have to pay it back next year--with interest--how much will you change your behavior? If you're like most people, not very much. Keynesian theory would only work if you would slavishly increase spending by $1,000 today, and lower it by $1,000 tomorrow. Not very plausible.