They already have something exactly as described in the OP... it's called Occupy Wall Street.

Why are you bringing up a 2009 (Obama) budget when I only mentioned Ron Paul?

You know he's promising to cut $1 trillion first year and most of that is coming from military cuts, as well as cutting a few inefficient government departments. 

Either people didn't see it, or did see it and chose to ignore it.

What I posted came to mind after I saw an article where cities were cracking down on Occupy camps, and also cutting funding to shelters.  Someone wrote that homelessness really isn't a problem.  But then what happens if the economy gets a lot worse, more people get evicted and lose their homes (over 20% of houses are under water now), and there are budget cuts to addressing homelessness, outside of Hooverville style tent camps?  Some would want the homeless to just go under a bridge alone.  But you eventually run out of places for people to go to.

That's the thing that gets me,  that WW2 seems to be the only data point out there that has any incling of supporting Keynsian economics... and yet, even when you pull that apart, the keynsian argument looks more and more invalid.

Again, nothing happens really.

I've already explained this like three times, but i'll try it again.  There are currently 3 classifications for homless people.

The first is people who are homeless for 3 weeks or less.

The second is people who are homeless for 2 months or less.

The third are the chronic homeless.  Which quoting the HUD.

"In general, a chronically homeless person is an unaccompanied disabled individual who has been continuously homeless for over one year."

Most people who are homeless for more then 2 months is a disabled individual by himself.  (Mental illness or drug addiction.) 

Regularly functioning people will NEVER be homeless for over 2 months... they'll just rent a place with roommates.  I know because I live in Las Vegas.  The state with the worst foreclosure rate, and the highest homeless rate (Nearly 1%)

No matter how bad the economy gets... this isn't going to change.

All one needs to do is have rented an aparetment before to understand where most cases of homelessness happen.  Usually when you rent an apparentment it takes a week or two before you can move in.  Which if it doesn't line up perfectly with your eviction date... your homeless, you could rent a hotel for a week or so.  (Which often counts as homeless in statistics anyway)  or you could rought it out in your car for a week or stay at a shelter and save yourself a couple hundred bucks.

I know which option i'd pick.

If you ever bother to read any report about homelessness you'll realize this.

I think in general it shows war is great for your economy... if that war can be used to wipe out of all your major competitors infrastructure while greatly causing an expansion in "free" trade at the end of the war.

Which is always another weird contradiction... Republicans like to pretend "American Exceptionalism" is what propelled the US to Superpower status, while Democrats tend to point to the desruction of europe as taking out all our competitors leaving the US as major exporters of... almost everything.

Well, that's an argument that we'd never know the answer to, as we have no way of knowing what would have happened to the world without WWII. Obviously, America's economic policies would have led to it growing to a massive economic power, anyway.. whether it would have had the same dominance, I don't know, but the world on the whole would be much wealthier.

Which again poses another contradiction of the left: being all for the poorest, yet engaging in policies that actually harm the world's poorest (protectionism, mainly)

Oh most definitly the world would of been much wealthier.  I'd argue what WW2 did, that essentially no other war or stimulus had done though was create LASTING private demand... or rather, not creating demand but greatly destroying supply.

Essentially buy blowing up everything everwhere.. else.  Of course while that might play well on the numbers, you've got to deal with the fact that essentially everyones quality of life is WORSE.  Kinda a hollow victory.

Maybe that was the reasoning behind this.

Then again that was right before the disaster.

As much as I loved that Remy rap, I have no idea what it had to do with your post :P

Hah general point being the problem with Keysnian economics that all the demand it creates is temporary... or long term but largely unwanted.

As an example, a lot of roads in the US are going to gravel.  Senators put them in to get funding money for their disctricts... but nobody in the area actually wants them so they aren't willing to pay for it.


WW2 gave the US a monopoly in a lot of major areas, while the huge increase in "fairer" trade deals helped out Europe.

Additionally WW2 created a lot of pent up demand due to conservation.

For example, anyone who wanted to buy a car during WW2... couldn't.  This is essentially the exact opposite of a stimulus, because instead of demand being pulled foward, it was pulled backwords and growth kept on largely because of limited capacity. 

Products people avoided for patriotic reasons they now wanted more then ever... etc. 

Either that or something else greatly effected private demand.

Afterall, the end of WW2 was supposed to cause a double dip according to most keynsians.   Well... triple dip i suppose.

EDIT: Misread what you said.  By causing people to buy more expensive lightbulbs a lot of people don't want it's creating a more expensive demand.