Cash for clunkers question for the Keynesians
2013 Nov 25, 7:50am 7,702 views 50 comments
by CL follow (1)
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 50 of 50 Search these comments
Buried deep, deep in the national cognizance is the reality that taxes have to go up a lot, on everyone. We can't throw $4T away on military crap and cut taxes to pay for it.
If you want to complain .. perhaps you should find a Islamic terrorists to vent over..
not our fault for being attacked by a bunch of inbred retards...
Good graph. Hard to blame Obama for that doubling in defense spending since 2000, but I'm sure there are those who will try.
Dont you want to thank Reagan-Bush for busting up the USSR and
earning a peace dividend watching military spending declining since 1990.
all you need to worry about now is some hand full of terrorists and not 20
Soviet Divisions crossing Europe in the first wave... or the Baltic fleet running
Missile drills 15 minutes off the Atlantic Coast...
Hey, thomaswrong, the 5 Trillion dollars that Bush/Cheney wrongheadedly took over to the M.E. and blew the hell up, to no conceivable benefit of anyone but the parasitic defense industry, isn't on your graph.
When Barack Obama became president, there were 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He escalated to over 100,000 troops, plus contractors. Now 5 years later, there are 47,000 troops in that shithole, in 9 huge bases, and they project out to “2024 and beyondâ€.
But, 2013 was a record year for the Opium crop, so that's going good.
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 50 of 50 Search these comments
When the economy collapsed, we obviously propped up the auto sector as best we could. It has become the received wisdom that C4C was a failure, largely due to pulling sales from future months.
In the Keynesian sense, wouldn't it be a success though? The cash that was "saved" could be spent on other goods or services (almost BECAUSE the recipients might not have needed it but had the ability to spend). Mainly though, it would have served as a kickstart to consumption. Wouldn't an extra 3 billion used directly to spur citizens to spending be a good thing, regardless of whether or not autos were helped by that program?
The 3 billion didn't just disappear. That might not seem "fair" but in terms of economics I can't see how it would not be right on target.