The GOP: On the wrong side of macroeconomic policy since before 1932.

That should be their 2012 campaign slogan because "Let's do another Monkey Trial" seems not to have worked this year.

relcec: just because some professional somewhere,
who gets up at the crack ass at dawn just like you do and busts his ass for 55 hours a week as you may,
had the nerve to acquire a skill set more valuable than you,
the god damn audacity to go to school for longer than you did (not warrren buffet, not even donald trump, but the dude with a cpa with the wife who registered nurse and went back to school to get a specialization as as a nurse anesthetist), and was actually going to get a tax cut proportionality just as big as you were going to,
you had to biatch and moan about how unfair life was and how this wasn't really stimulus.

Not that you needed it, but I get up at 530 (before the sun most days),
drive past our nation's storied monuments (Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson),
labor 45 hours/week for a DoD/VA project (medical research/IT - but I majored in a non-STEM discipline HOW CAN THIS BE?!?),
for which I had to get my undergrad (so assail me for not wanting to go postgrad work, I guess) -
though I'm unmarried (OMG tax penalty!!) -
and I make enough to put me above the poverty line, in the $50k yearly range.
[also, your formatting sucks]

But we were talking about Keynes. What was Keynesian about the Bush years that I missed? All I saw were tax cuts that were tilted towards the upper brackets (richer people, higher earners - whatever the fark you want to call them, it's people who can afford not to worry about where the next meal comes from), some program expansions, a $600 check that the Keynesians said would be ineffective, and a farked-out war.

None of which is Keynesian (except the checks, which clearly didn't shake out to any sort of stimulative effect, negating any chance it was Keynesian in practice. It may have been motivated by a desire to spend countercyclically, but when even the Keynesians are telling you not to try that kind of countercyclical spending, you may want to reexamine the plan).

// and I'm not putting myself in the hardship category, I just have a recognition that they exist
// oh, and thanks for telling me about tax brackets - now break it down by who got how much back
// not as a percentage, give me real dollars

Goimir: Dr Dreidel:

Working class wages have been stagnant since the 70s or 80s. I never saw a boom in '04 or '06. The closest my peers got was a small boost in '00 with telcom.

I was in college (graduated in 06). My income went from nothing to $38k. Isn't that how well everyone did?

// I know, just...OK?
// we both know real incomes are declining, but that'd require me to prove THAT, and on and on and on until I get to the first turtle

relcec: and tell me something else; why do you people suddenly flip 180 degrees and become Keynesian adherents when a democrat is president.
how come you ignore all that Keynesian stuff and biatch about the deficit when we have shiatty economy and republican is president? why do you complain about unfunded and giving seniors a drug benefit without taxing everyone else for it and tax cuts when this country has a 6.2% unemployment rate and anemic gdp growth?
do you people have one honest bone in your collective bodies?
or are you gonna say you are exactly as full of shait as the other side, so vote democrat, again?

You appear to be tilting at windmills, so I'll answer the parts I can understand.

When Bush got to office in 2000, there was a mini-recession (certainly "mini" by comparison). What Keynesian actions were taken then? A tax cut, titled toward the rich. Oh, and the unfunded mandates of NCLB (which 26 or 27 states now have waivers for).

During the run-up to the Iraq War, we were in the middle of a recession. What Keynesian actions were taken then? A tax cut, tilted toward the rich.

During the 2004-06 economic boom, we had nothing to fear from an economic cycle. We were riding high on good growth numbers. What Keynesian actions were taken then? A tax cut, titled toward the rich. Oh, and Medicare Part D, which the actuaries had to game the numbers of (and threats issued to those trying to get the real numbers out) to get passed while taking out what would have been the most effective cost-cutting measure (letting the Feds use their largesse to make bulk drug purchases, saving the Feds billions annually). Oh, and the Iraq Surge.

When things started cooling off in 2007-8, the US was about to enter a recession. What Keynesian actions were taken then? A $600 check to every American and TARP.

So, WHAR KEENES WHAR? You tell me. It appears that "Keynesian" economics from 2000-2008 meant "tax cuts tilted toward the rich, some marginal liquidity for consumers (which promptly - as Paul Keynesman predicted - got used to lower consumer debt, stimulating nothing) and new Federal programs with questionable utility (and large price tags)."

Dr Dreidel: relcec: I'm failing to see the threat of austerity anywhere.
we've been running 40% of the federal government on government notes for the past 3 years and added 4.5 trillion or so to the national debt.
just what exactly are you pussies shreaking about here.
this is your dream scenario ladies.

What about the cutbacks in Federal aid to the states, which is forcing those states to cut back on services? Does that not count?

Don't forget the cuts in the number of public employees at the federal, state, and local levels.
And cutbacks in services, hours, wages, etc.

jigger: The Hoover administration, like Republicans today, was adamant that economic stimulus was wrongheaded

wrong

u fail history

Hoover started out by cutting taxes. Does that sound familiar?
When that failed, he asked Congress to raise taxes (instead of cutting them more, so there's one difference) and implemented austerity measures.
Hoover firmly believed that relief for families and individuals was wrongheaded - churches and charities were supposed to take care of that, and he was afraid that some individuals would game the system.
When that failed, he proposed a half-baked half-hearted half-measures of reducing taxes again and infrastructure investment. Then he lost the election and Roosevelt pushed the New Deal.
When the Republicans forced austerity measures in 1937, the economy nosedived again.

Instead of the usual Santayana quote: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."
But here's another Santayana quote (obligatory): "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

Austerity during a weak recovery doesn't work. America proved that in '38, and Europe is proving it even as we speak. Austerity causes revenue to drop, which offsets the gains created by budget cuts. The prospect of a double dip hurts confidence far more than unsustainable long term debt.

The best fiscal policy I've heard recently was from Bill Clinton. He said we should pass tough austerity measures, but set them to trigger only after 3 consecutive quarters of 3% growth, though the bill would need some sort of poison pill to keep it from being repealed later.

This is why we can't have nice things.