Reagan was not Keynesian. Keynes was about government spending as a basis of growth. If you want Keynes then look to the obscenely expensive stimulus packages we put through under Bush and Obama (that did all of nothing).
If you want Keynesian, let's talk Sanders who wants to return to a 70% tax rates we had before Reagan. Speaking of whom, Sanders won MI but lost the majority of delegates anyway to Clinton. How's that work?
Big tax cuts+increased government spending+debt increase=Keynes. Reagan increased the national deficit to $3 trillion, in part a belief to destroy the Soviet Union in an arms race. However, the long term consequences of that behavior created an appetite for bad fiscal policies.
The idea of Keynes is to basically during a recession take cheap debt and invest that into infrastructure, restructure government to be more efficient, and then during boom times pay down debt and increase taxes. That's essentially what Reagan did along with specific reforms like the tax code reform.
The Voodoo part of Reaganomics really was that you never increase taxes, but Reagan increased taxes whenever he had to negotiate and fees on businesses for services. Bush and eventually Clinton both had to increase taxes, while cutting spending or finding alternative sources of revenue like other countries paying us to fight the Gulf War.
"Voodoo economics" was doing half of that equation.
As for the Stimulus package, bank and car industry bail outs, they typically had a moderate effect in stopping the depression from falling farther behind. That was a text book banking run back during the Great Recession. The main thing was stopping the cascade effect and bank failure and banking panics. Even Warren Buffet deposited money into some banks to sure up the system.
Reagan was a closet Keynesian. What he said and what he did in government was often two separate things whenever he negotiated and got his big ticket items.
Most of the "Neo Keynesian" stuff comes out of MIT, and most of those people support a return to the Clinton Era tax rates and some modifications to specific taxes hither and thither. If we're going to talk about specific policy. Sanders is an aberration, like Ron Paul, supporting an out of date ideology that hasn't upgraded it's OS in a long while. Remodulated social democracy could be viable in government, much like if libertarianism supported specific conservative platforms like infrastructure spending. Libertarianism fails economically, and we had a massive experiment in free market enterprise. And we saw the return of 19th century capitalism. And 19th century capitalism is you get 3 really awesome years, 3 really okay years, and 3 really bad economic years followed with the once every 20-30 years banking panic that creates a 7 year depression. Not fun. Which is why we need Keynes with some of the newer other ideologies to get behind some new ideas on the economy, and closet Austrianism that's proven little since it only uses intellectual history and a nasty habit for bad historiography.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Clinton won the majority of delegates because while Sanders was winning Michagan, she was winning Mississippi, And while Michigan had more delagates, She won by a much larger margin. Super delegates are a problem, but the weren't the problem in this case.
I'm very pro Sanders, and I think the remainder of the electoral map swings heavily in his favor, but in order to become the nominee he has to start winning by large margins the way he did in newhamshire and vermont.
His problems attracting minorities have mainly been in southern states. The south has pretty much already voted though. That's what I meant when I said the remaining map favors him. I think with the states coming up to vote it will be a lot easier for him to make inroads.
Right now its hard for any democrat in the presidency to have a strong influence on policy with the republican congress. We've seen with Obama that no matter how modest or inspired by the GOP the proposal it unlikely to even get a vote. I dont think the republicans would be more likely to work with Clinton, a person they've spent decades trying to politically assassinate. Bernie is correct when he says any change is going to require political revolution, and its worth noting there that 80% of congress is also up for re-election.
My biggest reason for Supporting Sanders isn't any of that though. I support him because I think we need to prove, as a country, that someone who operates he way he does can win the top job. Its gonna sound cheesy but he has verifiable integrity. It would be easier to fund his campaign the way everyone else does, with big money donors and superpacs, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, so he isnt doing it. He supports civil rights now, when it an help him get elected, but he also did back when it was more likely to get him arrested. I keep looking, but like Matt Taibbi said "If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who cant protect themselves, I haven't seen it." I know the odds are against him, but they have been from the start, and I -want- to see America elect someone like that o the highest office because I think it would signal other people like that that its possible to succeed in American politics.
His problems attracting minorities have mainly been in southern states. The south has pretty much already voted though. That's what I meant when I said the remaining map favors him. I think with the states coming up to vote it will be a lot easier for him to make inroads.
Right now its hard for any democrat in the presidency to have a strong influence on policy with the republican congress. We've seen with Obama that no matter how modest or inspired by the GOP the proposal it unlikely to even get a vote. I dont think the republicans would be more likely to work with Clinton, a person they've spent decades trying to politically assassinate. Bernie is correct when he says any change is going to require political revolution, and its worth noting there that 80% of congress is also up for re-election.
My biggest reason for Supporting Sanders isn't any of that though. I support him because I think we need to prove, as a country, that someone who operates he way he does can win the top job. Its gonna sound cheesy but he has verifiable integrity. It would be easier to fund his campaign the way everyone else does, with big money donors and superpacs, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, so he isnt doing it. He supports civil rights now, when it an help him get elected, but he also did back when it was more likely to get him arrested. I keep looking, but like Matt Taibbi said "If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who cant protect themselves, I haven't seen it." I know the odds are against him, but they have been from the start, and I -want- to see America elect someone like that o the highest office because I think it would signal other people like that that its possible to succeed in American politics.
This is very true, and its something that's easy to lose sight of when all you get to see is a debate. Sanders does have a track record for doing the right thing because its the right thing. It's extremely admirable, and it is a quality I want in leadership. I still worry though that if he wins, even if it sends a message "This kind of guy can win," that his message (and mine) will somehow be damaged. Maybe that makes me a coward. Maybe I'm just being tactical. I'm not sure. You've given me something to think on. Thank you for the thoughts.
If Sanders did get the nomination, man, that'd be a hell of a debate. (likely vs Trump)
I'm under the impression Trump would crucify him in debates and still lose the general election due to Bernie's stances and just the general hatred towards Donald Trump. I'm a Trump supporter and the last thing I want is a Bernie vs Trump race, despite how entertaining it would be. We would almost certainly lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
His problems attracting minorities have mainly been in southern states. The south has pretty much already voted though. That's what I meant when I said the remaining map favors him. I think with the states coming up to vote it will be a lot easier for him to make inroads.
Right now its hard for any democrat in the presidency to have a strong influence on policy with the republican congress. We've seen with Obama that no matter how modest or inspired by the GOP the proposal it unlikely to even get a vote. I dont think the republicans would be more likely to work with Clinton, a person they've spent decades trying to politically assassinate. Bernie is correct when he says any change is going to require political revolution, and its worth noting there that 80% of congress is also up for re-election.
My biggest reason for Supporting Sanders isn't any of that though. I support him because I think we need to prove, as a country, that someone who operates he way he does can win the top job. Its gonna sound cheesy but he has verifiable integrity. It would be easier to fund his campaign the way everyone else does, with big money donors and superpacs, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, so he isnt doing it. He supports civil rights now, when it an help him get elected, but he also did back when it was more likely to get him arrested. I keep looking, but like Matt Taibbi said "If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who cant protect themselves, I haven't seen it." I know the odds are against him, but they have been from the start, and I -want- to see America elect someone like that o the highest office because I think it would signal other people like that that its possible to succeed in American politics.
This is very true, and its something that's easy to lose sight of when all you get to see is a debate. Sanders does have a track record for doing the right thing because its the right thing. It's extremely admirable, and it is a quality I want in leadership. I still worry though that if he wins, even if it sends a message "This kind of guy can win," that his message (and mine) will somehow be damaged. Maybe that makes me a coward. Maybe I'm just being tactical. I'm not sure. You've given me something to think on. Thank you for the thoughts.
If Sanders did get the nomination, man, that'd be a hell of a debate. (likely vs Trump)
I'm under the impression Trump would crucify him in debates and still lose the general election due to Bernie's stances and just the general hatred towards Donald Trump. I'm a Trump supporter and the last thing I want is a Bernie vs Trump race, despite how entertaining it would be. We would almost certainly lose.
Trump crucify Bernie in debates!? To be fair, I could be misunderstanding what you mean. If you mean Trump will attack Bernie personally and Bernie will continue to talk about the issues than I completely agree.
His problems attracting minorities have mainly been in southern states. The south has pretty much already voted though. That's what I meant when I said the remaining map favors him. I think with the states coming up to vote it will be a lot easier for him to make inroads.
Right now its hard for any democrat in the presidency to have a strong influence on policy with the republican congress. We've seen with Obama that no matter how modest or inspired by the GOP the proposal it unlikely to even get a vote. I dont think the republicans would be more likely to work with Clinton, a person they've spent decades trying to politically assassinate. Bernie is correct when he says any change is going to require political revolution, and its worth noting there that 80% of congress is also up for re-election.
My biggest reason for Supporting Sanders isn't any of that though. I support him because I think we need to prove, as a country, that someone who operates he way he does can win the top job. Its gonna sound cheesy but he has verifiable integrity. It would be easier to fund his campaign the way everyone else does, with big money donors and superpacs, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, so he isnt doing it. He supports civil rights now, when it an help him get elected, but he also did back when it was more likely to get him arrested. I keep looking, but like Matt Taibbi said "If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who cant protect themselves, I haven't seen it." I know the odds are against him, but they have been from the start, and I -want- to see America elect someone like that o the highest office because I think it would signal other people like that that its possible to succeed in American politics.
This is very true, and its something that's easy to lose sight of when all you get to see is a debate. Sanders does have a track record for doing the right thing because its the right thing. It's extremely admirable, and it is a quality I want in leadership. I still worry though that if he wins, even if it sends a message "This kind of guy can win," that his message (and mine) will somehow be damaged. Maybe that makes me a coward. Maybe I'm just being tactical. I'm not sure. You've given me something to think on. Thank you for the thoughts.
The issue you seem to describe is that no ideology can engage in battle and come out unharmed (that's actually true of a lot more things than ideologies). Bernie Sanders probably knows that the fight for his entire platform will not leave his entire platform intact because it will either have to go in compromise or he just won't be able to convince enough people that part of the cause is worth enacting. To answer your question, damage is inevitable, so the tactical approach is figuring out which parts must survive, and the coward's approach is not engage the platform at all so it remains intact... because it never sees the light of day.
Either way though, I was doing some math today, and Bernie right now has 18.32% of the total available delegates (19.47% counting superdelegates that have pledged to him), and he's definitely going to keep picking up numbers. This is important because once Bernie Sanders hits 20%, he will have enough delegates to leverage his platform at the convention even if he doesn't secure the nomination for himself. The higher the percent, the more leverage he has. It's how Herbert Humphrey leveraged Civil Rights into the democrat platform in 1948. So the message is possibly moving forward one way or another.
Big tax cuts+increased government spending+debt increase=Keynes. Reagan increased the national deficit to $3 trillion, in part a belief to destroy the Soviet Union in an arms race. However, the long term consequences of that behavior created an appetite for bad fiscal policies.
The idea of Keynes is to basically during a recession take cheap debt and invest that into infrastructure, restructure government to be more efficient, and then during boom times pay down debt and increase taxes. That's essentially what Reagan did along with specific reforms like the tax code reform.
The Voodoo part of Reaganomics really was that you never increase taxes, but Reagan increased taxes whenever he had to negotiate and fees on businesses for services. Bush and eventually Clinton both had to increase taxes, while cutting spending or finding alternative sources of revenue like other countries paying us to fight the Gulf War.
"Voodoo economics" was doing half of that equation.
As for the Stimulus package, bank and car industry bail outs, they typically had a moderate effect in stopping the depression from falling farther behind. That was a text book banking run back during the Great Recession. The main thing was stopping the cascade effect and bank failure and banking panics. Even Warren Buffet deposited money into some banks to sure up the system.
Reagan was a closet Keynesian. What he said and what he did in government was often two separate things whenever he negotiated and got his big ticket items.
Most of the "Neo Keynesian" stuff comes out of MIT, and most of those people support a return to the Clinton Era tax rates and some modifications to specific taxes hither and thither. If we're going to talk about specific policy. Sanders is an aberration, like Ron Paul, supporting an out of date ideology that hasn't upgraded it's OS in a long while. Remodulated social democracy could be viable in government, much like if libertarianism supported specific conservative platforms like infrastructure spending. Libertarianism fails economically, and we had a massive experiment in free market enterprise. And we saw the return of 19th century capitalism. And 19th century capitalism is you get 3 really awesome years, 3 really okay years, and 3 really bad economic years followed with the once every 20-30 years banking panic that creates a 7 year depression. Not fun. Which is why we need Keynes with some of the newer other ideologies to get behind some new ideas on the economy, and closet Austrianism that's proven little since it only uses intellectual history and a nasty habit for bad historiography.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
I'm very pro Sanders, and I think the remainder of the electoral map swings heavily in his favor, but in order to become the nominee he has to start winning by large margins the way he did in newhamshire and vermont.
Right now its hard for any democrat in the presidency to have a strong influence on policy with the republican congress. We've seen with Obama that no matter how modest or inspired by the GOP the proposal it unlikely to even get a vote. I dont think the republicans would be more likely to work with Clinton, a person they've spent decades trying to politically assassinate. Bernie is correct when he says any change is going to require political revolution, and its worth noting there that 80% of congress is also up for re-election.
My biggest reason for Supporting Sanders isn't any of that though. I support him because I think we need to prove, as a country, that someone who operates he way he does can win the top job. Its gonna sound cheesy but he has verifiable integrity. It would be easier to fund his campaign the way everyone else does, with big money donors and superpacs, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, so he isnt doing it. He supports civil rights now, when it an help him get elected, but he also did back when it was more likely to get him arrested. I keep looking, but like Matt Taibbi said "If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who cant protect themselves, I haven't seen it." I know the odds are against him, but they have been from the start, and I -want- to see America elect someone like that o the highest office because I think it would signal other people like that that its possible to succeed in American politics.
I'm under the impression Trump would crucify him in debates and still lose the general election due to Bernie's stances and just the general hatred towards Donald Trump. I'm a Trump supporter and the last thing I want is a Bernie vs Trump race, despite how entertaining it would be. We would almost certainly lose.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Trump crucify Bernie in debates!? To be fair, I could be misunderstanding what you mean. If you mean Trump will attack Bernie personally and Bernie will continue to talk about the issues than I completely agree.
The issue you seem to describe is that no ideology can engage in battle and come out unharmed (that's actually true of a lot more things than ideologies). Bernie Sanders probably knows that the fight for his entire platform will not leave his entire platform intact because it will either have to go in compromise or he just won't be able to convince enough people that part of the cause is worth enacting. To answer your question, damage is inevitable, so the tactical approach is figuring out which parts must survive, and the coward's approach is not engage the platform at all so it remains intact... because it never sees the light of day.
Either way though, I was doing some math today, and Bernie right now has 18.32% of the total available delegates (19.47% counting superdelegates that have pledged to him), and he's definitely going to keep picking up numbers. This is important because once Bernie Sanders hits 20%, he will have enough delegates to leverage his platform at the convention even if he doesn't secure the nomination for himself. The higher the percent, the more leverage he has. It's how Herbert Humphrey leveraged Civil Rights into the democrat platform in 1948. So the message is possibly moving forward one way or another.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~