It's not intended to be a trick question.
The Keynsian economics suggests that one puts money into the economy to stimulate it. The closer that money is put into the base of the economy, the more quickly the demand for supporting businesses gets stimulated. Give people money to spend for food and rent, that helps support agriculture and the basic home repair, rental and construction trades. When those people have money, they stimulate some of the manufacturing sector to procuce plows and sheet rock and sinks. When there are enough protections in place to keep that money moving through the economy, the economy starts to move more quickly and recover.
When there aren't, too much money comes out in profits and gets socked away in savings and isn't reinvested. That would be the situation we're in now. The excess money is being taken out of the economy and being kept back in private accumulations instead of being reciorculated and allowed to be accululated by a larger proportion of the folks, bringing up the base line from which the entire economy operates.
My understanding may be faulty. Somebody else mnay be able to do a better job of offering an explanation, but there it is the way I understand it right now.
Surely there is a Republican who is willing to explain the logic of what the Republicans are trying to do in the sense of what their plan is and how it is connected with some sort of economic theory? Otherwise, it appears that the Republican plan is to try to block a logical approach to recovery in the hopes of achieving economic gain for the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the others simply because they say it will be a good thing and will work out well.
These are the same people who are trying to tell us that being a businessman is great preparation for designing and implementing public and foreign policy.
I am very much afraid that the Republicans really do believe that leveraged buyouts that throw the employees out on the street while giving the top management goilden parachutes and Government of the people, by the people and for the people are interchangable concepts. Those are the interests they legislate to protect and defend, and they lapse into silence when it comes time to specify how the plans they put forward are designed to help everybody or any really substantive portion of everybody.
What is the theory of Republican economics?
How does that show itself as policy?
What laws are they putting forward to make sure that everybody benefits?
Tell me, for example, how health savings accounts are useful for people who don't have money to put into savings accounts? It's a very good idea for people who can afford to insure themselves and can find a tax-free way of doing so. For them, at least as long as there were savings accounts that paid a decent return, it was swell. If you can have a tax-free investment account managed by somebody who's very talented, it might still be a good idea for those who are wealthy. You may well do better than you miught with many insurance plans. But for people who can't afford the savings without help, the whole notion is a cruel hoax.
And that's a single example.
What sort of economic theory links this with government of the people, by the people and for the people rather than government of everybody, by the privilaged, and to the advantage of the wealthy?