In response to:

Carney: The Whole Point of Sequestration Was to Avoid Those Spending Cuts

AmericanObserver Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:20 PM
As usual, Uber Dave spews falsities. First off, there is no such thing as "liberal economics." That is his way to meaningless brand something that is nothing but propaganda. Economics is, well, economics...it is not 'liberal' nor conservative. The issue is, in fact, the basic 'supply' vs. 'demand' policy approach. From Reagan on, all data indicate that 'supply side' economics is wrong and does not work, despite right wing think tank attempts to the contrary. As STANDARD (as opposed to 'liberal') economics says, economies occasionally need stimulation (demand). This is what happened after WWII so successfully. All 'supply side' economic policy has done has created income inequality and reduced wages for the middle class.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:31 PM
Liberal economics could easily be defined as what liberals cite as economics. Likewise with conservative economics. Both are claptrap, btw. If you thought there were "lies, damn lies and statistics" just have a gander at what passes for economics.

To AO's point, real scientific analysis of economics is what it is. He's right about that much. Of course, after that, he goes completely off the rails.

If you want some useful notion of economics, intellectually honest people are obliged to examine what school of economics actually MAKES ACCURATE PREDICTIONS rather that which ones spout the most charming hindsight to explain why their predictions were wrong. Doing so leads any honest man to the Austrians: Hayek, Mises, Rothbard.
smokindave Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:30 PM
That makes no sense. Created "income inequality" for whom? Does everyone who does the same job deserve to get paid the same thing? Regardless who they work for, where, or how well they do their job? And just what creates demand? Perhaps you should have paid attention in class.
Happy Jake Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:28 PM
Actually, you're incorrect in just about every count: 1. Economics is not a hard science. There are precious few unbreakable laws like gravity and the speed of light in Physics or the pythagorean theorem and the value of Pi in mathematics, that is, laws that exist because that's how things work. And most of those hard and fast laws are such that anyone who's graduated high school can understand them.

2. There are different views of how the economy works, and they can be classified as liberal and conservative, particularly based on how they are applied politically. The conservative view is generally that economies perform best when left alone by the government, and that government interference (overregulation, price controls, taxes)...
Happy Jake Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:35 PM
... always harm businesses and, thus, the economy they drive. The Liberal theory, which even has a name: Keynesian, posits that the government can and should, from time to time, stimulate the economy through increased spending, which must be paid for by either increased tax revenues or increased borrowing.

3. I'm not sure what data you're looking at, but the times when the economy has gone down are GENERALLY (not always) after taxes are raised and money is taken out of the productive economy and put into the government. From the early 80s through the late 90s, the Reagan supply-side economy boomed for over 15 years, with the exception of one blip during the Bush-the-elder administration, which was caused by raised taxes. The...
Happy Jake Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:39 PM
... The economy also improved under Bush-the-younger immediately after HIS tax cuts, primarily because people had more to spend, thus giving companies more to spend.

4. What happened after World War II is that so many companies had made so much money in "war profiteering" as I expect you'd call it nowadays that they were flush with cash and had a massive influx of bodies to work in their factories. They could then afford to pay higher wages to the workers, AND have plenty left over to innovate. I think even you would agree that fighting a massive total war in multiple countires involving 10% of our population wearing the uniform and resulting in millions of casualties is NOT a good way to stimulate the economy.
psydoc Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:27 PM
Just like there is no such thing as "Trickle Down" economics, That is the regressive/democrat way of marginalizing a successful free market system.
DevinDenver Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:27 PM
Falsities? Please cite this "data" that "proves" Supply Side economics is "wrong and does not work". You know, in basic Logic classes, they teach you that anytime someone proclaims that "all", "every", "none", "never", "always", they are generally WRONG (because all the other side needs to do is point to 1 instance of the contrary). Further, since you correctly state that economics is, just economics and that sometimes the "economies need stimulation", why do YOU assume that the only stimulation can come from the demand side? Are you insinuating that our economy has plentiful supply of EVERYTHING and thus, only needs some stimulus on the demand side? Again, please cite your proof of this.
LearningCommunity Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:26 PM
Excellent post. Well said.

It is funny that Franks called it Juvenile. I would think this is college or post college level analysis.
Bufa Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:26 PM
That's what my marxist professor told me so it must be true, contrary to all the evidence.
James____Tx Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:26 PM
Your forgetting the recession after WW2 and what it took to bring the economy back to its natural balance.

And don't forget "The Buck Stops Here".
dweimaraner Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:25 PM
his point on greater inequality is spot on. middle class has stagnated,,stalled even.
AmericanObserver Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:25 PM
Got any specifics there, or per usual, Townhall, you are more comfortable name calling....
Duke Nuk'em Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:26 PM
Hey good little marxist comrade AmercianOberserver?

Do you have any specifics to back up your spew?
dweimaraner Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:30 PM
gini coefficient. the US's coefficient is nearly equal to china. norway and other european nations have much more equitable economies.
DevinDenver Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:35 PM
Isn't it interesting that some of the fastest growth in the "Income Inequality" rates occurred when Bill Clinton was President. Please explain how this happened.
Happy Jake Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:42 PM
Yes, it has, over the last four years, or so.

Last night, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney picked a Twitter fight with Republican Congressman Justin Amash over sequestration.  We'll get to that online battle in a moment, but first, a word on Rep. Amash's misguided comments that caught Carney's attention in the first place.  Amash has been publicly blasting Republican leadership for aggressively pinning the sequester on President Obama, arguing that it's "disingenuous" for members of Congress to vote for a compromise, then blame it on the other party.  This needlessly and foolishly undermines the GOP's messaging on the issue.  Republicans are not saying that the sequester is...