Bush and Obama both adhere to the same school of economics?

[Fantastic Planet]

Keynesianism. They both employ(ed) Keynesian economics, so how can the the two parties argue over who is right or wrong? If Bush's economics were right, then Obama's must be, as well. If Obama's economics are wrong, then Bush's must have been too, because they are both Keynesians.

Why is there so much superficial partisan drivel?
First answerer, no, all of those thing still fall under the umbrella of Keynesian economics. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Superficial debate. We debate "what works and what doesn't" under a failed system, instead of questioning whether the system works.
e z, you are missing the point. The whole shebang was caused by none other than Keynesian economics. FM and FM are GSEs (government sponsored enterprises). They are subsidized by the government. Meaning they can take huge risks without fear of failure. (This is anti-capitalism). GSEs would not be possible without the Federal Reserve. The easy loans, also, were made possible by the Federal Reserve via artificially low interest rates. (also anti-capitalism). The personal motives the parties argue about leading up to all of this may or may not be true, but it is KEYNSIAN ECONOMICS that made all of it possible.

 

[e z80227]

well, 1 major difference is raising taxes as opposed to cutting taxes. raising taxes always reduces federal income, lowering taxes always increases federal income (historical fact). this is a big diff!

doesn't matter? you asked what the differences were and taxes is one difference. cutting taxes always works which is different from increasing taxes which never works. the housing crisis (if you're talking about the entire collapse) was started by government intrusion into the capitalist system, not an economic policy. so the 'bush failure', that all the libs like to start their argument w/ actually started under carter, and was reinforced under clinton, which forced banks to make bad loans and now everybody has to pay w/ taxes that can't be collected. maybe you heard of fanny mea & freddy mac...? not much bush could do about these things while fighting the war on terror on 2 fronts among other things.

yes, but you asked what the diff was between the 2 and the diff is taxes. repubs like to monkey w/ the sytem less then the dems do. this is why i brought up the fm &fm becuase w/o them and other ideas like them, we wouldn't be in this mess. and even so, it has been opined by educated economists that doing nothing would have worked better in the 30's as well as now.

 

[Jeff M]

I agree that keynes ideas are like stupid wish fulfillment for politicians. Its like telling alcoholics they can drink themselves sober, . Keynes himself would probably be horrified at the results, even though he was a fabian socialist. Outright socialism would probably be better than political hacks buying votes peicemeal.

Although he advocated govt. spending, even deficits, as a way to end recessions. I doubt if he meant "deficit spending in good times, massive huge deficit spending in poor times, keep voters happy by hiding huge taxes (tax the rich) , and leave huge debts for future generations"

I always wonder about those who advocate taxing the rich and ridicule "trickle down" of reduced taxes. Don't they realize that business owners and proffesionals will surely "trickle down" higher taxes to consumers? A lot of dumb people out there.

Taxing the rich is a lot like the abhorrent tax farming of the past - allows politicians to let someone else bear the unpopularity that big spending politicians deserve. Ideally all taxes should be paid in a lump sum, right before election day. And money should have actual value.