Relax Faithful, it's just "the internets". No one was attacking you personally. The economy is way bigger than you.
Let me try to answer some of your quotations below:
Quote:
First, demand-side economics does NOT mean balancing the budget. A president can be either a supply-sider or a demand-sider and balance the budget. If it is possible to do, all presidents should have a balanced budget.
At the end of the day, balancing the budget is what is best for the country and it's citizens. You either want to balance it or you don't. Clinton/Gore IE Yale/Harvard gotherdone. The Reps were against it, demand and supply side economics notwithstanding, for reasons that only they fully understood...or cared about.
Quote:
Second, demand-side economics, as commonly understood, is a synonym for Keynesian economic theory, the theory propounded by British economist John Maynard Keynes. He proposed increased government spending, discouraged private business investment and encouraged public spending on consumer goods. Yes, Bill Clinton was a Keynesian, but he could have been a Monetarist or an Austrian and still balanced the budget. Rand Paul, a near-libertarian who leans to Austrian economics would have also balanced the budget.
Coulda Shoulda Woulda. Bottom line, you either balance the budget or you don't. Bottom line, Al Gore had to break the tie in the Senate and push the cry babies aside so that everyone else could move on. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
Third, the Congressional GOP didn't vote for Clinton's first budget not because they didn't want it balanced, but because they disagreed with his priorities, what he chose to spend money on and what he chose not to. So that was a misattribution of motives and another straw man.
Not at all, you just bolstered my argument and theory as to why the Reps didn't want a balanced budget. They would have rather to push the country a few steps closer to insolvency....just to win a short term battle on spending priorities...for that fiscal year. Pathetic!
Quote:
Fourth, sometimes Keynesianism works and other times it does not. It can create inflation and decrease growth.
That's why economics is called "the dismal science". You just can't ever seem to alleviate poverty, can you? Keynesianism works within the confines of capitalism, and capitalism is imperfect. So there you go.
Quote:
Fifth, in your follow-up post you repeat your straw man fallacy by asking "WHY did the Republican Congress want to keep the United States in debt and wipe out future surpluses"? It assumes that was their intention rather than a different one, such as increased military spending for national defense. Your own answer of "they wanted to dry up discretionary income of the United States in hopes of starving off social programs and social welfare." This is another fallacy called Poisoning the Well and it's almost an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Why not just call them all Nazis?
There's a law someone made up, called Godwin's Law. That law states that the longer an internet conversation lasts, the greater the probability that someone will compare something to Hitler and/or the Nazis. Thanks for just about proving that right. But back to the topic at hand, again, your earlier comment shows that you actually agreed with me, that Reps had their own priorities and pitiful excuses for being against balancing the budget...and pushing the country a few steps closer to financial insolvency...thus endangering the national security of the United States...by threating the financial foundation of our military...which is supreme worldwide. America's military supremacy does not only rest on scientific innovation. It rests on money, lots and lots of money.
Quote:
If you were to state that you disagree with GOP priorities that would have been fairer and more accurate in that it doesn't twist their motives. You don't win arguments by misstating the motives of your political opponents, you also lose all credibility.
My wording clearly showed that I was speculating on the motives of the Reps, not that I knew it for sure. Regardless, there is no excuse worthy of even mentioning as to why someone would want to endanger the national security of the United States, and of the men women and children who reside in it, by pushing the country a few steps closer to financial collapse.
This is just the internets, calm down. Obviously I had enough credibility for you to respond. Just enjoy the public discussion and don't take this stuff so seriously.
"For us, rubbin'out a Mustache was just like makin' way for a new building, like we was in the construction business."
