Is Bush a Keynesian?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's quite idiotic for any economic conservative to like him.

[Bono]

Most certainly.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Maybe, and yay!

[DanielX]

Sorta.

[phk]

Nixon once proudly proclaimed himself a Keyensian.

[afleitch]

He's a socialist

[angus]

You have to be careful making such overly simplistic statements.  The classic case study was the 1964 tax cuts.  When Kennedy became presisent he brought in a council of economic advisors schooled in Keynesian economics, and their proposal was to expand national income by reducing taxes.  (recall the IS-LM model, and the so-called "Keynesian Cross" which is usually used to introduce it in a simple way)  Personal and corporate taxes were substantially reduced, with the intent of stimulating expenditures on consumption and investment, leading to higher levels of income and employment.  And it met with some success, but economists always argue over the source of the rapid growth in the early 60s.  The so-called Supply-siders argue that the boom resulted from the incentive effects of the cut in income tax rates.  (i.e., when workers are allowed to keep a larger fraction of their earnings, they supply more labor and expand the aggregate supply of goods and services)  Keynesians, however, emphasize that the impact of the tax cuts on aggregate demand spurs growth.  It was my impression that Bush (and Reagan for that matter), held that the former explanation was the correct one.  Am I mistaken?

[The Dowager Mod]

I doubt Bush can even pronounce "Keynesian".

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush is a tax-cutting big-spending conservative, which is strictly speaking something of a bit of a paradox

He's rather like Reagan, who back in the 1980s too, pushed for significant tax cuts, while increasing spending to combat the Soviet Union but his reasoning was it's purpose was not to spur economic growth as such, but a necessary measure to combat the threat of Communism - only Bush would argue that increasing military spending is necessary to combat the threat of global Islamic terrorism

Both administrations ran up budget deficits, something which wasn't rectified until the Clinton administration (don't let the GOP-controlled Congress take any credit for that, especially when the Bush presidency, and his relations with the GOP-controlled Congress, tells you otherwise)

However, where with Reagan the ends justified the means, I lack any real confidence in Bush achieving his objectives because, whereas Reagan and Bush (41) were able to work with Gorbachev through diplomacy, Osama Bin Laden et al, however, are extremely shadowy characters. Thus, Bush (43), in a this respect, is faced with an even graver threat to resolve

But, in answer to the question, Bush is no Keynesian, even if spending has greatly increased on, for example, education and healthcare

Dave

[MaC]

he's an economic liberal.  I'm not sure with Keynesian in that he believes aggregate demand creates aggregate supply.  His spending policies reflect it, but I'm not sure giving tax breaks does.

[A18]

Both administrations ran up budget deficits, something which wasn't rectified until the Clinton administration (don't let the GOP-controlled Congress take any credit for that, especially when the Bush presidency, and his relations with the GOP-controlled Congress, tells you otherwise)]

Wow, you are a total idiot. Maybe you forgot the budget standoff, where Clinton vetoed the cuts that would have balanced the budget right then and there for being 'too large.' The GOP Congress is willing to spend like crazy when a Republican is in the White House. As the Clinton years show, the opposite is true when you have a Democratic president.

The reason for the Reagan deficits was not the defense buildup, BTW. It was because they were much more successful in slowing inflation than anyone expected.

[angus]

Good Times:  Any time you meet a payment.
Good Times:  Any time you need a friend.
Good Times:  Any time you're out from under.
Not gettin' hassled, not gettin' hustled.
Keepin' your head above water,
Making a wave when you can.

(Temporary lay offs)
Good Times.
(Easy credit rip offs)
Good Times.
(Scratchin' and surviving)
Good Times.
(Hangin in a chow line)
Good Times.
(Ain't we lucky we got 'em)
Good Times.

[opebo]

Bush is obviously too stupid to understand any economic theory.  In this respect he is similar to most americans.

I'm sure many rightwingers would consider his policies Keynesian or even (ha!) socialist, but of course in reality his redistributions have all been regressive, and therefore do not provide good demand growth, inspite of the enormous debt he has borrowed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bush is obviously too stupid to understand any economic theory.  In this respect he is similar to most americans.

LOL! So true.

[jokerman]

Bush is an economic plutocrat.  He is no "liberal." 

[Democratic Hawk]

Both administrations ran up budget deficits, something which wasn't rectified until the Clinton administration (don't let the GOP-controlled Congress take any credit for that, especially when the Bush presidency, and his relations with the GOP-controlled Congress, tells you otherwise)]

Wow, you are a total idiot. Maybe you forgot the budget standoff, where Clinton vetoed the cuts that would have balanced the budget right then and there for being 'too large.' The GOP Congress is willing to spend like crazy when a Republican is in the White House. As the Clinton years show, the opposite is true when you have a Democratic president.

If the GOP Congress had any conviction they wouldn't be spending like crazy whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Even if the GOP Congress was good with money during the Clinton presidency, they have forfeited any right to claim to be so now

I recall the commentator Andrew Sullivan, who is no economic liberal, remarking that the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans was that the Democrats are the party of big solvent govenment and the Republicans are the party of big insolvent government. Which is preferable? I'm familiar with him from his column in The Sunday Times

At the end of the day, Clinton left office with a budget surplus. One day you'll have a fiscally competent Democrat back in the White House. It won't be day too soon either

Dave

[A18]

If the GOP Congress had any conviction they wouldn't be spending like crazy whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Even if the GOP Congress was good with money during the Clinton presidency, they have forfeited any right to claim to be so now

Completely and absolutely irrelevant to your claim. Thanks for implicitly admitting you were wrong, and that yes, the GOP Congress does deserve as much credit as (actually, a lot more than) Clinton for the reductions in spending.

[Democratic Hawk]

If the GOP Congress had any conviction they wouldn't be spending like crazy whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Even if the GOP Congress was good with money during the Clinton presidency, they have forfeited any right to claim to be so now

Completely and absolutely irrelevant to your claim. Thanks for implicitly admitting you were wrong, and that yes, the GOP Congress does deserve as much credit as (actually, a lot more than) Clinton for the reductions in spending.

As far as balancing the budget goes, Democrats are always going to hail Clinton, while Republicans will hail the GOP Congress. However, the latter's 'achievement' then has been more than offset by their subsequent incompetence since

Dave

[A18]

I didn't 'hail' either one. It was the combination of the two--gridlock--that made it happen, and I don't care about balanced budgets anyway. Only spending matters to me.

We aren't discussing the merit of either.

[angus]

...gridlock... made it happen

I agree.  Both the Democrats and Republicans will individually and respectively take credit for the balance, and the ensuing economic boom, but it takes two to stop tangoing.  And I think our budget problems may be ameliorated with a Democrat congress in 2007-08.

[nlm]

...gridlock... made it happen

I agree.  Both the Democrats and Republicans will individually and respectively take credit for the balance, and the ensuing economic boom, but it takes two to stop tangoing.  And I think our budget problems may be ameliorated with a Democrat congress in 2007-08.

It's sad when the best we can hope for is gridlock between two groups of idiots. I know it's my short term goal to stop the madness.

[A18]

I'm hoping for a Democratic House and a Republican Senate.

[DanielX]

I'm hoping that we have a Libertarian (or some other sane third party) House myself, but that isn't exactly going to happen in 2006 or even 2008....

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm hoping that we have a Libertarian (or some other sane third party) House myself, but that isn't exactly going to happen in 2006 or even 2008....

.... or even ever perhaps

Dave

[nlm]

I'm hoping that we have a Libertarian (or some other sane third party) House myself, but that isn't exactly going to happen in 2006 or even 2008....

To have a 3rd party - and Libertarian would be my choice - that creates a situation in the House and Senate where no one party has a singular majority (i.e. a split like 40/40/20 or some such thing) is my long term dream (and actually a 4 party split like 30/30/20/20 would be even better). It would force political parties to work beyond their narrow agendas and would go a long ways towards adding responsability back into our government and reducing the influence of the meaningless partisan bickering that dominates our political landscape and give the people of this nation some actual choices that are better than picking which idiot we believe will do the least harm.

I would think, given the current landscape, that having 4 parties would work exceptionally well. A fiscally conservative/socially authoritarian party, a fiscally conservative/socially libertarian party, a fiscally liberal/socially authoritarian party and a fiscally liberal/socially libertarian party. I'm sure we could draw more lines in the sand than just that, but I'm not sure they would be needed. But the 2 amorphous groups that call themselves the Republicans and the Democrats and stand for little more than trying to grab as much power as they can are not enough to give positive direction to this nation it would seem.