Email of the Day: Reaganomics is a totally failed policy
By John Amato Monday Oct 27, 2008 11:01amFrom the C&L inbox, Rick writes:
I loved your recap of the McCain interview with Brokaw. Just wanted to point out that not only did Reagan raise taxes during a recession, but Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 a year after his election. We were mired in the worst recession since the depression at the time. Not one GOP Congressman or Senator voted for Clinton’s tax raise at the time and they all claimed it would ruin the economy, the same as now. Well, as you know, Bill raised taxes and we saw the greatest growth in our history along with record surpluses that will probably never be equaled. Under Reagan we saw the beginning of the deregulation era that brought us the savings and loan crisis, the Enron debacle and this current banking crisis that we find ourselves in today. When Reagan took office in 1980 our total debt was under 1 trillion dollars. Today it is 11 trillion and we had surpluses under Clinton. So under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 we increased our national debt from 1 trillion to 11 trillion.
It’s time that everybody realized that Milton Friedman and Reaganomics is a totally failed policy and until we do realize it, we are doomed to keep repeating it. It’s remarkable that more so called experts have not addressed the failed “deregulation” policies of the GOP as the main contributor to this collapse of our banking system.
Login or Register to post comments.
But, but, but....... Clinton...er...uh...
ORAL SEX!
Clinton's consential oral sex indisretion is insignificant when compared to the mass rape of the great majority of the American people over the past eight years
I think Matt is parodying Right Wing obsession with Clinton's inconsequential moral failings as compared with how the Right Wing are totally in denial regarding the massive long term damage they themselves have done to this country.
'They can bankrupt our country, but lets not let them bankrupt our senses of humor.'
Quote From 'Braveheart' (Not Actually, But Sorta)
Big funny...
http://www.bitoffun.com/notes/Clinton_Got_A_B...
How can you say its a failed economic policy?
They've gotten away with TRILLIONS of $$$ because of it.
You seem to be under the false impression that the elites - under masks of Republican or Democrats - are somehow supposed to be there for YOU.
On the contrary.
They are there for their own self-aggrandizement.
What do you think this is? A democratic republic?
That is so funny.
It isn't. Wake up - you are getting F&cked over by both parties.
n/t
Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 courtesy of Phil Gramm et al, on Dec 21, 2000.
This is the act that is generally cited as having contributed substantially to our present meltdown.
Here is a previous post re James K. Galbraith economist and author of the Predator State.
As I often say, though I can never be fond of the reality, it is:
Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations… and their buddies.
It was all laid out to bare by Clinton's Georgetown guru Carrol Quigley (the man who nominated Clinton for the Rhodes Scholarship.) Quigley, in Tragedy and Hope, goes to some detail on how the elite establishment bought out both parties and now runs them in pseudo-opposition to the other - but all in all, marching along to the courses that the elites want.
Government of the
corporationspeople, by the corporations, for the corporations… and their buddies.On the one hand it's "We The People" who ARE being governed BY the corporations and FOR the corporations.
On the other hand there is very little government OF the corporations.
However you would have it (and I think we have exchanged on this before), we are screwed.
---
Good news today, the market ONLY dropped 200 points by days close.
If I had any money and it was in that market, I would get it out.
The Flim Flam express has left the station but it has not picked up full speed.
Some people say the market could hit 6,000 before it clears out.
I went and looked-up some stuff from 45 years ago. The page 14 ad from the Dallas Morning News of November 22, 1963, and the Treason Flier that was being circulated that same day. Notice their bullshit hasn’t changed much, same fevered pitch.
WELCOME MR. KENNEDY
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhi...
WANTED FOR TREASON
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkadtreason.jpg
Click to enlarge
Be a maverick, vote for Obama!
The only thing I see trickling down is bullsh!t. Thirty damn years of it that we have to dig ourselves out from.
They sure don't seem to have anything against wealth redistribution when it's tricklin' up though do they? :)
The problem with the surplus was that it was never totally real. It was based on tax predictions based on the economy before the huge dot.com collapse. The whole idea of our late 90's affluence was similar to what we've seen the past five years in the housing market. It wasn't real - or as "Truth B Told" above states - it was a wealth redistribution to the top.
Bush was handed an economy teetering on collapse and basically kicked the foundation out from under it by cutting taxes to the profiteers, spending far too much and encouraging even more deregulation and greed while not learning anything from either the dot.com fiasco or the Enron/Tyco/Worldcomm scandals.
As much as we need a new direction in this country, and I don't want to take too much away from the excitement about Obama, I fear that the progressive movement as a whole refuses to hold it's own accountable for selling us out.
We need to start spreading a message that states clearly that "Yes, Clinton sold us out, but it was his embrace of Republican free market ideology (don't forget NAFTA) that failed us and his loss of progressive ideals which we condemn him for."
The same standards should be applied to Obama should he become president. I truly hope we don't have a disappointing repeat of 2006 where we elect 'em in and get almost nothing in return. Unfortunately,as we saw in the bailout, even our biggest allies like Senator Dodd can and have been bought by Wall Street. I don't have an answer, I'm just spreading the pessimism.
n/t
Exactly. But try to tell that to people. Clinton and the DLC were more Republican than the Republicans were at the time. People have this false "everything was wonderful under Bill Clinton" spiel of crap that is not true. It was a fake economy. Held up with a foundation made of mud that washed away when Shrub was selected. Bill Clinton was nobody's saviour. He did what was best for Bill Clinton. Just because he had a D beside his name did not make him a great Prez. I just hope that the D beside Obama's name doesn't end up being the same damn thing.
Site monitors if you have read my emails about the problem I was having posting on the previous post, it seems so far on this post the problem isn't happening. I sure hope it stays that way.
I finally did get to hear Obama's speech from today, saw it on c-span. He plainly states for those making over 250 thousand a year, their tax rate will go back to what it was under Bill Clinton. As the emailer said in this post, things went pretty well during those times.
McCain is just so angry or tired or whatever that he seems to say, facts be damned, I'll repeat anything I want to and to hell with reality.
......you mean he's your standard Republican, in other words.
As an aside, the head of the Fed during Reagan's reign was Paul Volcker, a Friedman disciple who brought monetarism to the Fed and oversaw the largest transition of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class. He was a Republican's dream! Now Volcker is an Obama adviser/backer. I do hope Obama does not listen!
Good tidbit to know. Thanks for the heads up.
William Greider wrote a brilliant book called Secrets of the Temple:How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. It focuses mainly on the Reagan years. It is a chilling account of incompetency. A must read for progressives.
I've been in a Reagan-era reading mood lately and really appreciate the recommendation. As soon as I get through the Iran-Contras book I'm on now, I'll give Secrets of the Temple a read.
little incompetency at the highest levels of the government. That's how come they have all the gold!!!
Austan Goolsbee -
a fellow Yale Skull n Bonesman of the Bush clan.
I bet O only has him as an advisor to trot his name out in front of the conservatives. He doesn't strike me as naive or stupid enough to listen to an ass clown like Volcker to closely.
A lot of the deregulation of financial markets happened on Bubba's watch. He was a solid book keeper but he was wooed by the financial markets' bullshit and obviously didn't study financial history when he was in college. In terms of credit card and mortgage instruments, he threw consumers to the wolves in unprecedented ways. (It was on Bubba's watch, for example, that the big banks jurisdiction shopped to end-run the usury laws.) The legalization of credit default swaps happened at the end of his second term and he could have stood up against it. He was still fairly popular and could have said no, it was bad in 1907 and it is bad now. It would have made a difference. As a craftsman of financial policy Bubba gets a C, at best. Reagan was so obviously a demented sock puppet of the psycho-conservative wing of the GOP by 1980 he gets an 'Absent'. No need to make a patsy of the silly stooge, any more than we should call the idiot W the mastermind of the Iraq petrofascist gambit.
Yes, but Clinton also faced a Congress controlled by Republicans, so he tended to give in on such matters as this in order to gain elsewhere. DNC Dems also "went with the flow," and that's why they're now in danger of being kicked to the curb by real progressives (i.e. Al Wynn.)
Not saying it was a good idea, but just pointing our that he didn't have a friendly congress, or even one who would keep him from taking a rightward course.
"On November 4, the final bill(Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999."
So a Clinton veto of the legislation would have done what exactly? It may be fun to bash Clinton but sometimes we have to face the reality that he wasn't a dictator.
With the bill being passed by a veto proof majority, he had to sign the bill.
The Commodity Futures Modernisation Act opened the door to uncapitalized instruments that helped cause this mess. Clinton could have gone to his own party and fought this madness in committee and/or left the bill unsigned even if it passed - which would have made it an issue for the public to consider given subsequent media coverage. There was, at the time, almost zero coverage and legislative discussion of CFMA and it restored everything on Wall Street to a 1920s regulatory scenario: just do it until you blow up the market.
He had nothing to lose by pointing out: hey, this is a big step backwards and we've had some destructive history associated with the changes proposed. It might have helped put some of the issues into the air when this piece of legislation was being shuttled along in near silence.
Here are the unemployment rates for the last 50 years. I've shown the rate when each party took over the Presidency versus when they left and the difference:
Eisenhower (R) | start: 2.9% | end: 6.6% | difference: +3.7 points
Kennedy - Johnson (D) | start: 6.4% | end: 3.4% | difference: -3.0 points
Nixon - Ford (R) | start: 3.4% | end: 7.5% | difference: +4.1 points
Carter (D) | start: 7.5% | end: 7.5% | difference: 0.0 points
Reagan - Bush 41 (R) | start: 7.5% | end: 7.3% | difference: -0.2 points
Clinton (D) | start: 7.3% | end: 4.2% | difference: -3.1 points
Bush 43 (R) | start: 4.2% | today: 6.1% | difference: +1.9 points
*source: US Bureau of Labor http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServl...
And, the consensus estimates are for unemployment rates in the neighborhood of 8.0% by January --- that would make for a swing of almost 4 points by the time Bush leaves office.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if we see 10% or higher as some experts have predicted.
Yes, the Republicans do have a great record when it comes to the economy and employment, don't they? Even their savior, Ronald Reagan, couldn't do better than an average rate of 7.5% during his entire term.
I think it was over at CG Radio where someone had postulated that Republicans like deficit spending as it puts them at a political and economic advantage. So in a sense, Reaganomics isn't a failed policy if you are a Norquist-style capitalist. The more you destabilize the economy, the easier it is for opportunists with money & influence to increase their money and influence. Eliminating the middle class is their way of eliminating potential competition to cement a big business oligarchy. Or at least that's how I interpreted it. Reaganomics *only* a failure if you happen to be the other 99% of the population.
The most dangerous myth in our nation today is that Bush is an idiot. He's done a masterful job of enriching his "base."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
I've seen that Bush clip before but only now do I realize how it's similar to the banquet speech being given at the end of "They Live." That movie's actually a fitting allegory for the widening economic disparity we're experiencing today.
Its a great movie and fitting allegory for today.
Ding Ding Ding.
We have a winner.
Right on the money.
But don't think for a moment this is exclusive to the Republicans.
Its the policy of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilaterals, and others - that brought this into play.
Look at the incestuous relationships of the so-called think-tanks, the Military Industrial Complex, and the upper echelons of the financial elites to see who the players are.
And don't forget that it was Reagan who enabled what is possibly the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in this Nation's history. For those who do not remember, Reagan set up a Blue Ribbon Commission to save Social Security, headed by Alan Greenspan. The Commission's recommendation was to raise payroll taxes to build up a Social Security Trust Fund (in essence, a sinking fund) that could be drawn down when the baby boomers began to retire and collect SS benefits.
Instead of setting the money aside, the government treated the SS surplus as general revenue and used it to pay for general expenditures, like a huge increase in unnecessary defense spending, in order to partially offset huge deficits. Of course it was this SS surplus that allowed George W. Bush to declare that the government surplus should be returned to the taxpayers in the form of his huge income tax cuts that disproportionately benefitted the ultra-wealthy. So the SS surplus, generated by the payroll tax that falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class, was used to justify the biggest income tax give-away to the ultra-rich that this country has ever seen. And now that they've spent the SS surplus, they claim that SS is broke, and that we should have personal accounts, so the evil government can't steal your money. That's Reagonomics at its best.
Every time I visit C&L I have a strong urge to purchase a Snorg T-shirt...
Just wanted to say that this blog is fantastic. You do an amazing job of presenting the issues with real data, not strictly rhetoric. I have used much of your material to help sway many of my republican/independent friends.
keep up the good work!!!!
This is who Obama needs as an economic adviser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly
Read his and Farley's book "Ecologcial Economics". Brilliant.
The national debt was less than one trillion when Reagan took office, and it was over THREE trillion when he left. He trippled the national debt in eight years, but (not surprisingly) blamed it on the Democratic Congress. (George HW Bush upped it by another 1.4 trillion, I think. Then, it was flat during the Clinton years, and shot up like a rocket again during the Bush Jr. years.) Nevertheless, nobody has EVER trippled the national debt in two terms. Even the Shrub couldn't beat Ronnie's record for reckless spending.
He cut taxes in his firt term, but when it became obvious that he couldn't control spending he was forced to raise them again, or drown the country in red ink. So, those who claim he cut them are only telling a half-truth, which is something Repubs are pretty good at.
Reagan did not reduce the size of government. It was 69% larger when he left than when he took office. They blamed that on the Democratic Congress, too. So what's all the fuss about Reagan "rainin' in spending?" I have no idea. He TALKED about it a lot, I guess. So, in the public mind, TALKING=DOING. Something the Republicans know very well.
So, the trick is to get Obama to TALK ENDLESSLY about the need to bring in capitol punishment, remove gun control laws, cut spending, reduce the size of government, and ban abortion. It doesn't MATTER if he ends up doing exactly the opposite, he'll rope in the rubes with the perception. PERCEPTION is all that matters.
and the perception that he is an outsider that will CHANGE the course of Washington is also erroneous.
The elites who run the country don't take chances on outsiders running the country.
Look at the great masses of Obama's advisers and tell me that they are also outsiders.
No.
They.
Aren't.
They are made members of the political elite of such groups as the CFR, the Trilaterals, Bilderberg, Skull and Bones...
hardly the source of change when you examine the roots.
My saying is, "With Obama, progressives won't get everything they want, but with McCain, progressives will get NOTHING they want." So you hold your nose and vote for Obama and hope that at the very least he helps restore the Rule of Law, de-politicizes the Justice Department, and appoints a few Supreme Court Justices who are not complete corporate shills like Roberts.
Step 1: Elect the candidate most likely to be responsive to our agenda.
Step 2: Once elected, push him/her as hard as you can.
Watch as said candidate ignores entire population, just as they do in every other nation including mine. Something drastic will happen before these elites and their picks actually listen to their voters. I hope for the US and the globe that Obama has really good hearing.
Or what?
the elites do all their big crimes right in front of the people and nothing is done about it.
kennedy(s)
vietnam
iraq war(s)
nine eleven
seven seven
bank bailouts
all with no consequences.
There really isn't much left for them to steal. If something doesn't change, there will be no superpower for them to get even richer in, and that is what it's all about for them. Greed trumps patriotism. I don't disagree with anything you say to be quite honest. I get disgusted when I listen to people gushing over politicians like they were best friends and they KNOW what they think. Normal voters don't. These people are rich politicians for a reason.
I agree, but if he just did one or two SIMPLE things, it could really change the face of Washington. 1. In 2004 Kerry said, if he was elected he'd sign an executive order that no employee of the federal government could become a lobbyist for a period of five years after leaving government. If Obama does what Kerry said he'd do in that respect, the power of lobbyists over Washington would be cut in half with the stroke of a pen.
2. The laws regarding lobbyists have to change. In fact, at the moment both parties use lobby money to win elections, but in truth, I think they'd both like to break that stupid addiction. It's almost like a nuclear arms limitation agreement. Both parties are happy to get out of a useless arms race, and start spending money on something useful. Well, if Congress simply passed a law that only individual citizens could donate money to political campaigns, that would finish it for good. We need a law that no lobby groups and no PACs are allowed to donate to campaigns. Just ordinary citizens.
Obama is the first politician in history who has made his main talking point the fact that he hasn't taken any lobby money for his campaign. If he's made an issue of this, he shouldn't be allowed to forget it after he's elected. All the next president and congress have to do is address campaign finance reform, and most of the rest of the corruption will take care of itself!
kerry is all talk. he took a dive at the appointed time in the election.
He is a brother under the skin with the Bush brothers via his Skull and Bones allegiances.
I agree, Kerry is all talk. I wouldn't have agreed until last night, when I saw him pass up a perfectly good opportunity to kick T. Boone Pickens in the nuts in front of a 60 minutes camera, and chose to shake his hand instead.
....is mostly true. The US of America (and other nations) has been controlled by an international cabal of financial elites. They're the ones who installed the perpetual-debt monetary systems utilized by the Fed, World Bank, IMF and BIS.
And, it's also true that many of Obama's top advisors are part of that group encompassing the CFR, TriLats, etc. Zbigbniew Brerzinski (sp?) comes to mind as one of the main architects of our policies in the Middle East, and the person who "invented" Osama bin Laden. BUt the reat of his foreign policy and economic advisors have long track records of instituting questionable policies.
The problem is there's an election next week, and if we think that Cheney and Bush are really going away (I'll not be certain until they fly off to Dubai),then we need to pick one of the candiates.
I've decided on Obama: he's intelligent, courageous (puts his life on the line every day), articulate AND Sarah Palin is Not his VP running mate.
How we get rid of the main insidious problem, as mentioned above - I'm not sure. One good thing is that people in countries around the globe are suffering through this financial meltdown with us, so we may have a lot of allies if we get around to trying to change the whole system. 'Course, I'm a "conspiracy theorist" - I read the PNAC docs before 9/11......
I agree with this completely except for:
"It’s remarkable that more so called experts have not addressed the failed “deregulation” policies of the GOP as the main contributor to this collapse of our banking system."
In truth, it's not at all remarkable for the simple reason that these "experts" are beholden (in most cases) to various news outlets who pay them. Corporate owned media has no incentive to inform the public about the truth of Reaganomics because they benefit greatly from it.
If we are to have any chance of regaining our democracy, the first thing that needs to happen is the immediate breakup of all media conglomerates. If that doesn't happen, we'll have another neocon in office in four years.
You will be hard pressed to find a Repuke that doesn't worship at the alter of Saint Ronald. Of course as most Repukes they don't look to hard or to deep. But all Repuke admins do the same thing; bring on the good times (for the rich) on borrowed money; let someone else get the American people out of it. And it usually involves a war of some sort. It's their MO
Clinton continued many of the same policies as Raygun. Right down to Free Trade and deregulation. Can't blame it all on CONgress.
In a perfect cpitalist society, the market will "take care of itself." However, in the "real" world there is such a thing as Greed. Without regulation, greed and abuses based on people wanting "more and bigger bonuses/profit", will push the market too much to one side. (as we see now) The market WILL correct itself but the farther to one side we get, the greater the "correction." Regulation, in moderation, is the balance to greed and helps to prevent the kind of abuses we see now.
On the other hand, too much regulation and we risk putting a huge damper on the economy and suppressing growth and innovation.
It's a fine balance and one that unfortunately, the Republican party does not understand. Let us see how the DemocratIC party will fair this coming Jan 20th.
the dual headed hydra of middle class destruction...trickle down economics and deregulation.
Always connect the dots...why do we have many health and food related issues today...because of the neutering of the FDA and EPA over the last 28+ years. Why is our transportation system a disaster...because of airline deregulation and the privatization of our railway system. Why is our financial system now a basket case...you all know the answer. Why is our media now a compilation of mindless programming and right wing hate...because of the elimination of the fairness doctrine and deregulation which led to the consolidation of our media into the hands of a wealthy few. The groundwork for this TOTAL debacle of our system was laid with the election of 1980.
ALL of what has occurred is related to the election of that wrinkled up old bastard. He destroyed labor when he fired the PATCO workers and gave a wink and nod as Greyhound broke it's union, and GOP Congresses undermined literally every pro labor law in this country. The deregulation of our industries decimated our "blue collar" industries and led to the whole sale sell off of our production economy.
Reagan is solely responsible for the hollowing out of our nation and the destruction of our middle class. Those who followed him were merely his minions. He is the patron saint of middle class destruction.
If anyone's looking for a good epitaph for Reaganomics, check out (Republican semi-hack) Linda Chavez on 'To the Contrary,' regarding the anticipated rise (to nearly 20%!) of women in Congress.
"Women will promote a different agenda...They are going to be much more interested in government programs and...more likely to be liberal, more likely to promote government-type solutions. And it will have a dramatic change."
- Linda Chavez
She goes on to lament that women will create a "European style social democracy" in America, which we all know is "bad for America."
That's right. That's the logic. This is where conservative "intellectualism" has come:
Women expect results, therefore women are more liberal because conservatives don't generate results.
But, as we all know, liberalism is "bad for America." Taken too far, liberalism will turn America into a socialist nightmare gulag state just like...Sweden.
What will be good for America is tilting the balance back toward male dominance because males don't vote on the basis of fuzzy-headed, pie-in-the-sky liberal ideas like "results." They vote on the basis of rock-ribbed, square-jawed, steely-eyed "values." More Jesus in the schools, less government cheese, that's the ticket!
Or take John McCain. Asked by Brokaw what makes Obama particularly "socialist" when McCain is voting to nationalize the banks, McCain said (paraphrasing):
"Well, we're in a crisis now, my friend. That's when government has to step up and fix the situation."
That's right. Government is the solution to our problems, but only when we have problems. Free market capitalism is actually the perfect philosophy, only so long as nothing goes wrong.
For Republicans, it's as though NASA tried to get to the moon in the 60s only to find out that the laws of physics are different than they thought.
This will lead to a split between one branch who will want to learn the new laws of physics, another branch who will stubbornly insist that the old laws of physics really DO apply so long as there's not a "crisis" and a third branch who will say that if you want to go to the moon, you can wait for the rapture and fly there with Jesus.
Reaganomics is fundamentally unstable. The only thing that kept it in check for a few decades was that our financial instruments were relatively bland. Even then we had the S&L crisis. But in the era of a global securitized credit-default-swap marketplace, it will ALWAYS be to the advantage of any given player to take on unwarranted risk and then offload it at the market. Thus the best players in the game will always tend to increase the overall risk in the system. Thus the system will cyclically collapse until you regulate risk management.
But hey, why not give it another try? How about securitizing credit card debt? What could go wrong?
There used to be a few Ron Paul supporters here. I'm surprised no Paulbots are defending the idea of having a deregulated, unfettered free market. I guess they all finally came to their senses. lol
You hear those crickets?
We don't have a deregulated and unfettered free market.
case and point, the federal reserve.
here's some ideas.
First...eliminate the 401K penalties and let people withdraw whenever they want.
Two...eliminate the income cap on FICA taxes...THAT will resolve the issue of SS solvency AND address retirement shortfalls caused by "First"
Three...make auto and appliance financing tax deductible again.
Four...cut taxes for those industries that add jobs at home.
Five...increase taxes for those industries that offshore jobs.
Six...eliminate ALL offshore tax havens.
...eliminate personal income taxes and tax only businesses and corporations.
The personal income tax is the political boogeyman that makes Reaganomics attractive.
For all the talk about "too much gubmint regulation," the practical reality is that the biggest (and really, the only noticeable) intrusion into our lives is the annual income tax ritual.
Everybody is a Reaganomicist on April 15.
The world has changed since the income tax was created. The corporate economy is VAST.
So, what do you think? Would Joe the Plumber rather earn $60,000/year and pay $20,000 in taxes to a government agency that everyone hates and fears? Or would he rather just make the $40,000/year and not ever have to file any paperwork about it?
that libertarians are mostly comprised of people making in excess of $250K per year.
Except for Bill O'Reilly, most Libertarians I know of are pretty broke. They're usually people who hold beliefs that once defined the Republican party long ago. Or, they're liars like O'Reilly.
At least, that's my humble observation.
I couldn't agree more.
I remember when I was in college learning about this supply-side "trickle-down" economics BS, and argue with the then economics professor at U. of Maryland CP here, that this theory is deeply flawed.
Behavioral economics will indicate that when people get rich, they don't trickle down their money, they hoard it, and collects expensive luxury goods only for themselves. And one of these expensive luxury goods is probably a Rolls-Royce circa 1934, so how is this acquisition supposed to help the middle-class?
I argue vehemently with the professor, only to be told to shut up or get the hell out of his class. Such was the days when Reaganomics is all the rage.
It's time to re-write economics 101 book.
Rich hoarding money instead of trickling down? You mean like the banks are doing with the taxpayer funded bailouts globally? Ah yes....tinkle down
If you notice, US banks are not obligated to use the govt funded bailout to help the struggling homeowners. There is no explicit requirements stated as such in the bill or as an explicit standards for getting the bailout funds. Banks are encouraged to do so, but none have.
What has happened, and is continuing at increasing rapid pace, is US banks are now using govt money to consolidate and merge.
So where is the middle-class again??? 0
Banks and their CEOs for M&A activities? 100% and $$$$ bonuses this year.
It's different in UK/Europe, because they are explicitly required to lend portion of their govt bailout fund for these mortgages. No such requirements exists here in the US.
was bullshit when I first heard of it in 1979,and it's been proven to be bullshit.As for Reagan,He snoozed through 8 years and by year 6 his dementia had already started.
..in the future of our economy as well as the global economy, you may be interested in a video I learned about from another blog.
You can find it on youtube.com - search for The Zeitgeist Addendum.
Some of you may have seen The Zeitgeist Movie a couple years ago, this is done by the same guy, but it deals largely with monetary and economic issues. It's quite long, but you can watch it in sections.
His premise and eventual solution for our economic woes is simple:
eliminate money and develop utilize technology to it's fullest to provide for all human needs. Sounds wacky, but it's quite a compelling idea. Good thing to watch and consider on the next nasty day......
Everythinbg Reslugs do or touch is destroyed for good.
who spent his career in the investment & insurance industry and keeps a very close eye on all things economic - told my brother that he believed the cause of the collapse was mainly attributable to the lack of governmental oversight. He believes these investment banks were allowed to run rampant like a bunch of college kids on daddy's dime - and now they have to cough up the cash they don't actually have. This does not mean, however, that my father has fully refuted Reaganomics, but he has come to realize that government is here to protect its citizens - and that regulation is one of those ways by which the government protects its citizens.
One last thing: I wrote here months ago that it was my goal to convince my father (not my mother, who's hopelessly ignorant and voting Republican forever) to vote for Obama. Well, I think my efforts - along with McCain's choice of running mate - might have done the trick. The last time we spoke he told me how he believes "Obama's tax plan is fair even though" his taxes will go up. Then he added that "Bush has screwed everything up so badly that it's simply time to give the Democrats a chance - and Obama looks like he's a very intelligent, reasonable guy."
Come on, Dad - you're this fucking close, man! Just say the words, "I'm voting for Obama!" Keep your fingers crossed, folks.
Hello. John (the commenter) where are you on this? Absent!!!
"Deficits Don't Matter": Yeah? Try that with your personal finances and find yourself "On the Street".
So how come it is never mentioned in the MSM that we still haven't paid for the 8 years of Reagan yet?
Every time I see some fawning story about the Reagan Administration [is there any other kind?] I want to puke.
It's not amazing at all. Those so called experts are part of the crowd that cleaned up because of deregulation - it's a pure case of don't bite the hand that feeds you. They have no concern for main street only wall street, but they'll never admit it in public.
What I find the most disturbing was that the Republicans (they were in power) ignored the pain Enron caused. They saw what greed could do and they turned their back on the warning. The Republicans turned their back on the people of this country for what? Money? Stevens took money over country. He can rot in jail for all I care.
Although during the Clinton administration he increased revenues by about $900B and had budget surpluses in his last 4 of 8 budgets, the National debt increased by about $1.1 Trillion during the Clinton budget years.
Regardless, he clearly had a much more sound fiscal policy than the
borrow and spend Supply siders
It's more than a "failed policy." It's the exact opposite of how things work.
It's like somebody telling you that you put Co2 into an internal combustion engine and get gasoline out.
It's like somebody telling you that eating pure saturated fat all day will make you lose weight.
It's like somebody telling you that water flows uphill, black is white, and up is down.
It's like somebody telling you that cutting taxes on them instead of you will make you richer instead of just them.
Someone has the balls to denounce that M-F Friedman, may he rot.
Friedman economics is nothing more than a blueprint for oligarchy, and Reagan was paying attention.
But Nixon and his young cabinet were the REAL instigators; whose ideologies shaped the Reagan neo-cons and our world today. Reagan, Bush, and Bush are merely successors.
Obama isn't proposing raising taxes of upper income groups. He's merely going to let their tax cuts expire as they were intended to do in the GOP bill that passed them. That's not a tax hike.
Secondly, Reagan didn't raise taxes, Bush I did. Reagan cut taxes 25% (he had tried to cut them 30%). Supply side economics predicted that would generate new income (and thus, more taxes) from risk taking, entrepreneurship, and more incentives to work. Instead, surprisingly, tax revenues fell by 25% and deficits skyrocketed. Still, unemployment was above 7% for every single month of Reagan's presidency until a year into his SECOND term! In fact, as Reagan finally left office, things were so dismal that the book "Rising Sun" confidently proclaimed Japan the world economic leader and the U.S. well past its prime. The economy was in recession struggling to stay afloat in 1992 until Clinton saved it.
Yet Ronnie's biographers neglect to mention what an economic failure Reaganomics was by any measure you want to use. Unfortunately, Democrats refuse to correct the record. Reaganomics isn't finally failing. It was a lie and a failure from day one. Get the word out.
Actually, Reagan cut Taxes in 1981. Revenues only fell about 3% in 83
and increased in every other year. He rescinded some of those cuts in the tax bill of 1982. He raised social Security taxes in 1983 and then signed another tax increase in 1984. The Tax bill (moderate increase via code simplification) of 1986 (actually a Democratic sponsored bill) expanded AMT which began hitting high wage earners in states with high state tax & large Home interest rate deductions.
The real Reaganomics was not about cutting taxes but borrowing money to grow the economy primarily through increases in defense spending and incentive credits to large corporations.
And the other day Greenspan declared that we were in "a once-in-a-lifetime economic tsunami".
I liked the phrase. Let's take it apart.
"... once-in-a-lifetime ..." means that these things almost never happen, so you really don't need to much to prevent them happening again. Like a "hundred year flood", you'll never see it's like again. All you have to do is weather it for a few short, uncomfortable weeks & you can rebuild on the same ground you built on before - everything will be just fine .... (yeah, right).
"...economic tsunami..." Overwhelming? yes. Incredibly damaging? certainly. Force of nature for which no human can be held accountable? Greenspan would like you to think so. And if anyone is to blame it's not Uncle Al.
Why is it that the greatest crimes go unpunished?
Login or Register to post comments.