We know how much Republicans love Keynesian economics, as long as the government spending that "primes the pump" goes to destroying foreign things and not building things here.
2007-02-19 07:55:58 · 19 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ricardo, we lost Vietnam, and nothing bad happened to us despite the hysteria of warmongering imperialists. Iraq won't be any different.
2007-02-19 08:02:43 · update #1
Watch the movie "Why We Fight" and you'll see that that is not a ridiculous assertion.
2007-02-19 07:58:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
If you take into account how war profiteering is increasing the incomes of a select (and selected) few and how the war is removing large numbers of young people from the roles of the unemployed (one way or another) it is obvious that the economy is doing well and it's a swell economic recovery plan and if you weren't so unpatriotic you would be grateful for a president with the unique intelligence to create it.
2007-02-19 08:05:58 · answer #2 · answered by Lleh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Keynesian economics would be demand side, not supply side. This unparalleled economic growth is a combination of supply side and war time economies building on each other. The problem with that is they do not lead to sustained growth and the ballooning of the GDP is being washed away by the deficit.
2007-02-19 08:03:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure, as Bush's corporate friends back their semis up to the National Treasury for $4 billion every week, they find this economic plan very much to their liking, and toast Bush/Cheney every night with $1000 bottles of wine for their fine efforts. And when they happen to spill some of that wine, they laughingly refer to those spills as "trickle down economics."
It is interesting how Bush Republicans believe in Socialism for the rich, and democracy for everyone else.
2007-02-19 08:04:09 · answer #4 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this only shows our president might be dyslektic, because everything he does is a** backwards
The FACTS ARE -- Bush manipulated the facts leading us into war. Republicans even attest to that
Facts are Bush fired every general and ignored recommendations on the war from the beginning to now.
Facts are that its his idiocy that is killing 80 american soldiers a month.
Fact is he refuses to want to try to give diplomacy a try.
Fact is hes proving himself an idiot, and fact is republicans were in power for 6 years, and allowed him to do as he wished.
Fact is that republicans arent in power now in the house.
Fact is lets watch things change.
Fact is when 70% of americans say youre a moron then it must be true
2007-02-19 07:58:19 · answer #5 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We also know how much the 0 negative bleeding heart left wing radicals love fabricating propaganda from half truths and lies. The tax cuts are what has fostered GWs successful economical situation and "FREEDOM IS NOT CHEAP" and that is true of other nations that are fighting islamic radicals that want to force a specific religion on the world and to put women in a position of pure slavery.
2007-02-19 08:04:08 · answer #6 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush is still fighting daddy's war and does not care if the American people become destitute in the process. Trade deficit the last cycle was $731 trillion. that is enough naughts to keep IBM in business.
2007-02-19 08:01:06 · answer #7 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who cares about economy! We have views that we need to impose on others around the world! Maybe after we are done telling everyone how they should live and what they should beleive we can find time to worry about the economy!
Economy will be the next presidents job, this one just wants to take over the world.
2007-02-19 08:00:07 · answer #8 · answered by answerman 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Look dummy. We have already won the war. We acutally won Viet Nam also but were hobbled by the idocracy of the American thinking, hug a tree, love everything except winning. Why don't you support victory instead of defeat. People like you lose wars. Thanks a lot for you inttelligence.
2007-02-19 08:14:46 · answer #9 · answered by KIB 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
NO, but, if you look at thing realistically, you will see it won't be the Military or Bush that "loses" this war. It will be the media and congress and the lapdogs of the anti-America groups that will have sucked the will to fight from the public. Hell, they did real good in Vietnam, why not reuse the same tried and true tactics. Funny thing is that this time, if we tuck tail and run, the hell that will follow will make you have nightmares for decades, if you live that long.
2007-02-19 08:00:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Only if the money were being spent here, but then it would be a "welfare", and Bush couldn't get away with that...
2007-02-19 08:04:47 · answer #11 · answered by ropemancometh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋