doublegunshop.com - home Forums Ken Burn's Teddy R.

Ken,
he is not concerned about being taken seriously by those of us who know the,in your words " mythology of Keynesism, Neoslavery Vote-buying, and massive government debt" is a big failure-we are going see that in Nov once again America will vote against it and take back the Senate.
King is here to "lull" to try and catch the few-now very few that are still gullible enough to fall for it(like Ed Goods torched gun buyers).

As the house of cards of "fundamentally changing America"-socialism falls,predictably falls, apart on every front,King will do all he can to tell anyone who's left-at this point very few, the ship is not sinking when is going down for the last time !

Ken, I replied to your two erring points of my being against profit and your fear of common people taking power. I haven't seen answers from questions I've asked you, including why did everyone go to Keynes when it hit the fan.

I'd also like to know how taking back the Senate will suddenly end "neoslavery vote-buying and massive government debt." Will those voters be common people, a mob in a democracy, or just the enlightened like you?

King ,your question was answered,although,as usual, you offer NO proof that Keynesian economics has EVER worked,your ONLY defense is why did the liberal politicians go to it once again-after its failed son many times before ?

"The only reason that Keynesian economics has survived for so long in western thinking is not because it works, or even makes any sense, but because it justifies what liberal politicians already want to do � spend with reckless abandon, run bigger and bigger deficits so they don�t have to explicitly pay for it with higher taxes today, and run up the national debt, which will be someone else�s problem later. The truth is, as Fruits and Pozdena explain, �A large and long-standing body of literature finds that increased or higher government spending tends to reduce economic growth rather than increase it.�

Here's a thought, maybe because of greed and poison partisanship, congress could reassert the legislative process. Hang on, now, they're a 'do nothing' congress because reid blocks House bills. What if they become a 'do something' congress.

Will they become poisonous because they may have ideological differences of opinion with the exec folks. It would make sense, because the logical response would be to demonize not to debate policy. I suspect he would be insulated by the pc blanket, but heaven forbid he may have to go on record as blocking legislation.

I wonder what the process is to nominate and confirm fed judges. 'Vote buying and debt', could be the activist courts are a key part of enforcing that right. Maybe, it'll be a bit tougher to exec order or selectively enforce laws of the land? Nope, I didn't think so.

Quote:

"I wonder what the process is to nominate and confirm fed judges"

This Libtard nightmare,Susan Bolton, was a Willie Clinton appointee and she has ben a real disaster in our fight to identify and deport illegals here. She basically gutted SB 1070 a sensible law enacted to help the police here do their job.
However she's small potatos compared to the two witches the Kenyan has appointed to the Supreme Court. They will be plaguing us long after he's just a bad memory.

http://www.foxnews.com/topics/us/judge-susan-bolton.htm

Comrade King,

Your response is preposterously subjective and anti-intellectual, as usual. Sure, you're not anti-profit, as long as you and your ilk can be sociopathic parasites of/on it.

Afraid of common people? Hardly, as I consider the average American to actually believe in individual freedom. It's the statist religious sociopaths that allow their votes to be unconstitutionally bought that are the problem. You and your fellow Dupes, Minions, and Useful Idiots have created this statist religious subculture. What is happening now in America is the attempt to grow this subculture, to the point that elections are irrelevant.

The issue is not "Mob Rule", but the reassertion of the protections (for the "common people") of the Constitution.

You also failed to respond to my question about people voting for politicians who would then go and take other's economic freedom away and give it to them, if they were "acting in their own best interests". I really didn't expect a response, as obviously it's a major aspect of your sociopathic statist religious dogma and doctrine.

Winning the Senate MAY at least, slow down some of these statist sociopathic inflictions. Many Republicans are also statists.


I really do get a kick out of you, but you're so predictable.

Since everyone keeps ignoring the posts I've made regarding the judicial appointments I'm going to take a minute and clarify the situation.
Judicial appointees with a political agenda are kind of like Herpes in that they will continue to give long after the initial provider is just a bad memory. Libtard appointees don't care about or respect the Constitution and as am matter of fact they want to "revise" the Constitution to meet their own warped LIBTARD needs. The 1st really horrid example that comes to mind is Earl Warren a disaster who Eisenhauer maintained was his worst mistake as President.
We've got two long term problems sitting on the Supreme Court now as Kenyan appointees along with that bizarre old bag Ginsberg.
NONE OF THESE THREE BATS HAVE ANY INTEREST IN UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION WHAT SO EVER AND WILL ATTEMPT TO TEAR IT DOWN AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. THIS WAS READILY APPARENT IN THE RECENT HOLLY HOBBY DECISION.
JIM

Dave, my question was not answered. The reason the world went to Keynes is because he's the pre-eminent authority. Countries of all political persuasions applied his formula when their economies went south.

Those graphs of GDP-stimulation are interesting. They bear no relationship, however, to what would have happened to GDP without stimulation. Imagine
US in current economic malaise waiting around for good days.

Dave, Krugman in NYT today. I know the sources are not to your liking but the content is accurate history:

"During his failed bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination George H. W. Bush famously described Ronald Reagan�s �supply side� doctrine � the claim that cutting taxes on high incomes would lead to spectacular economic growth, so that tax cuts would pay for themselves � as �voodoo economic policy.� Bush was right. Even the rapid recovery from the 1981-82 recession was driven by interest-rate cuts, not tax cuts. Still, for a time the voodoo faithful claimed vindication.

"The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton�s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P., jobs, wages and family incomes.

"And while there was never any admission by the usual suspects that their god had failed, it�s noteworthy that the Bush II administration � never shy about selling its policies on false pretenses � didn�t try to justify its tax cuts with extravagant claims about their economic payoff. George W. Bush�s economists didn�t believe in supply-side hype, and more important, his political handlers believed that such hype would play badly with the public. And we should also note that the Bush-era Congressional Budget Office behaved well, sticking to its nonpartisan mandate."