Because a more social society puts gold-diggers out of work.

Crossed the line about what? WOw you got me before but know that others that are completely biased jump in, your biasism jumps up to. THis site hypocrisy is a joke.  You moderators are way to the right and then tell me I' m biased. OK.Tell me one moderator that is liberal. NONE!!! Is this by accident or by design because the owners of the site are as well.

It is very clear what I meant and for you to jump on the band wagon is just shows your biasism. Fox hires sexy girls to sell there product. How many places do that? A lot. Big deal, its no secret to anyone accept this site. WOW!!!

40 years would be 1972.

1971 was the year Richard Nixon said "I am now a Keynsian in Economics".   So your timeline is a bit off.  

The US didn'tbecome Supply side until Reagan became president due to the rise of Stagflation... which was considered impossible under Keynsian Economics.  So it's more like... 30 years.

After which... it worked pretty well actually, up until about 5 years ago, after the bursting of the real estate bubble due to banks having to find a way to offload a bunch of unfavorable loans. 

I don't see how demand side econmics would of actually prevented the realestate bubble, and was at least partially caused by demand side economics.  IE the pushing for an expansion in homeownership and the feds buying morgages through freddie and fannie.  (Though I know you don't see it as the main reason, I trust you realize it was at least a porton of the problem.)

What the NYTimes article?   I mean, it really is something that's very well known in the social sciences... I just went with a quickie Nytimes article because it's a fairly well known liberal magazine.  There are plenty of scientific articles on it.  (like the article mentioned.)

Also... uh,  haven't you been saying for months now that Congress... not the President controls the economy.

So shouldn't you have been blaming the Democratic Majority for that huge economic downturn?

Dude... Mr. Khan is extremely liberal.   He has a political science degree and wants to work for a Democratic organization.

I mean... have you read any of his posts in this forum?

Don't let his Mongol inspired name fool you.

He's always talking about how the rich need to pay more of their fair share or they're going to end up on the losing end of some huge class revolt.  Though honestly, if it doesn't happen in places like South Korea and other capitalistic asian countries I question just how bad things would need to get.

Though to be fair.  People in the United States are more individually motivated.

Really!! Reagan borrowed more money then all the presidents before him combined( From washington - carter). thats right reagan put us in a massive hole and we have never got out, What a great way to run a economy. . You knew exactly what I meant by about, 40 years. It's actually been about 33!! HOLY SHIT.  So you take something out of context and then go on a rant about it? great way to debate.

7 years is quite a bit of leeway.  That's like 21% error... nearly a 4th... if you'd said 30 years.  That's a different story.

Not sure how that was a rant though.  It was a simple historical refresher.

Demand side economics lost out essentially because it was categorially disproven at the time, because something impossible happened.  It's like being mad that geocentricism got disproved because of stellar paralx.  Until you can account for it... I mean what do you want?

Though yeah... Reagan did run up a massive debt.  He was pretty Keynsian in that regard.  Had he cut back on military spending it would of been better but what can you do.

Every President since Herbet Hoover had a bit of Keynsian in him...

people won't blame you for doing something, they will however blame you for doing nothing... so poltiically it's better to spend money on... whatever in downturns.

Hell, look at Herbert Hoover... who was blamed as doing nothing even though he initatied the biggest increase in government spending and biggest stimulus spending operation ever.   Until the next guy.

Either way, my point was... I don't think anyone really had a big problem with the economy until the bubble.  Which, if you believe was due to the Banking Modernizations act, it would be most accurate to blame BOTH parties.  Since the bill was repealed by Clinton with a strong voter turnoutt from both parties, and backing from both parties leaders.

Go for Conservatives, Got it.

Uh ...

Natalie Portman, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansen, Olivia Wilde, Megan Fox, Eva Longoria, etc. etc. are well known liberals. JFK and RFK both had Marilyn Monroe.

Women in general tend to vote liberal.

republicans controlled both house's for 6 years straight. Bush's policies went through both house's like butter and then stayed. Then crashed us. We still have bush policies in place and one reason most people on the left didn't come out to vote in 2010.