A message from Reagan's budget director, David Stockman

[EriktheRed]

You mean Ronaldus Magnus, who you were touting as having such a hugely successful economic policy?

No, you ignorant piece of donkey excrement.
George HW Bush. Or were you not alive during that time?

I could respond in kind to that insult, but instead I'll simply say the:

1) Considering the title of this thread says "Reagan's budget director, David Stockman", I'm sure you can understand why I would think you mean Reagan when you say "Stockman's boss".

2) After doing a little research, I find no indication that Stockman worked for Pres. Bush the elder. Maybe you can show something that says otherwise.

Well, looks like you don't have an answer and I'm pretty sure why. If you're gonna name-call like that you might wanna make sure you have your facts straight.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only one party is serious about reducing spending and pulling America back from the gasping chasm of unchecked failed Liberal programs and it's not the Dem Party. In fact, its not the Republicans either, it's the Tea Party

 

[Chris]

Only one party is serious about reducing spending and pulling America back from the gasping chasm of unchecked failed Liberal programs and it's not the Dem Party. In fact, its not the Republicans either, it's the Tea Party

Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich and cutting the defense budget.

It can be done again.

But no one in Washington has the balls to do either of those things.

 

[Dot Com]

Greenspan called for ALL Bu$h II tax cuts to be eliminated ystrdy on meet the press. Fact is, no one, ESPECIALLY the extreme right like those on USMB, wants to sacrifice anything but the bare minimum.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only one party is serious about reducing spending and pulling America back from the gasping chasm of unchecked failed Liberal programs and it's not the Dem Party. In fact, its not the Republicans either, it's the Tea Party

Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich and cutting the defense budget.

It can be done again.

But no one in Washington has the balls to do either of those things.

American Civics 101: Congress Controls Spending.

You Fail, Son.

Newt "Shut Down the Gubbamint" remember?

 

[The Rabbi]

Only one party is serious about reducing spending and pulling America back from the gasping chasm of unchecked failed Liberal programs and it's not the Dem Party. In fact, its not the Republicans either, it's the Tea Party

Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich and cutting the defense budget.

It can be done again.

But no one in Washington has the balls to do either of those things.

Clinton balanced the budget on the back of the greatest technological expansion since the Industrial Revolution. It was hardly a feat. But he could not have done it without Newt Gingrich.
He cut the military leaving us dangerously unprepared for 9/11. His actions in Somalia directly led to 9/11.
Yeah it can be done again. How many dead Americans are you willing to sacrifice?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Greenspan called for ALL Bu$h II tax cuts to be eliminated ystrdy on meet the press. Fact is, no one, ESPECIALLY the extreme right like those on USMB, wants to sacrifice anything but the bare minimum.

"Total requested spending is $3.83 trillion and the federal deficit is forecast to be $1.56 trillion in 2010 and $1.27 trillion in 2011."

2011 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bare Minimum? Meet $3.8 Trillion-- the new Bare Minimum

 

[hipeter924]

Wasn't Reagan the same guy that thought toppling South American governments was a good idea? Now we have Chavez as the result.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wasn't Reagan the same guy that thought toppling South American governments was a good idea? Now we have Chavez as the result.

Go stick your head in a bidet...you have no idea what you're talking about..none

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wasn't Reagan the same guy that thought toppling South American governments was a good idea? Now we have Chavez as the result.

^^ Why I stopped posting. This kind of stupid can't be cured and might be contagious.

 

[editec]

Suddenly VOODOO economic policies are bad?

And it only took the guy how many decades to realize that?

 

[Stephanie]

Funny how repubs will throw anyone under the bus that does not Parrott their talking points. Regans budget director is now a lib hahaha

You just can't write this kind of funny

Agreed. They're calling Reagan's speech writer- Noonan a liberal on another thread too LOLOL

As to Stockman, he's a gentleman & a scholar (bad words for the Repub base as they think anyone w/ brains/who reads books can't be trusted
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that supply side economics was not a new theory. He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

Why is it when a Republican like Stockman or Noonan goes off the deep end they are lionized by the Left as scholars and gentlemen, but when a Democrat does it like Zell Miller or Joe lieberman they are traitors?

yep. how funny

 

[Toro]

Suddenly VOODOO economic policies are bad?

And it only took the guy how many decades to realize that?

I read Stockman's biography 20 years ago. It's a great read. He very much was against the Republican fantasy that cutting income taxes raises revenues. Only the most illiterate or fraudulent believe that today, but writing it during Reagan-Bush was seen as violating Republican religious orthodoxy.

Stockman is closest to the Austrian School and has been intellectually consistent for as long as I have read him. He is dead right about the budget busting affects of the Bush tax cuts but he had also written and spoken that entitlements must be slashed because the math doesn't work and the deficits and bailouts are risking the destruction of the dollar, which he is also correct on both.

 

[xsited1]

Suddenly VOODOO economic policies are bad?

And it only took the guy how many decades to realize that?

I read Stockman's biography 20 years ago. It's a great read. He very much was against the Republican fantasy that cutting income taxes raises revenues. Only the most illiterate or fraudulent believe that today, but writing it during Reagan-Bush was seen as violating Republican religious orthodoxy.

Stockman is closest to the Austrian School and has been intellectually consistent for as long as I have read him. He is dead right about the budget busting affects of the Bush tax cuts but he had also written and spoken that entitlements must be slashed because the math doesn't work and the deficits and bailouts are risking the destruction of the dollar, which he is also correct on both.

Cutting income taxes raises revenues in some cases. Here's another 'great read' to clear it up for you:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Cuyo]

Suddenly VOODOO economic policies are bad?

And it only took the guy how many decades to realize that?

I read Stockman's biography 20 years ago. It's a great read. He very much was against the Republican fantasy that cutting income taxes raises revenues. Only the most illiterate or fraudulent believe that today, but writing it during Reagan-Bush was seen as violating Republican religious orthodoxy.

Stockman is closest to the Austrian School and has been intellectually consistent for as long as I have read him. He is dead right about the budget busting affects of the Bush tax cuts but he had also written and spoken that entitlements must be slashed because the math doesn't work and the deficits and bailouts are risking the destruction of the dollar, which he is also correct on both.

Cutting income taxes raises revenues in some cases. Here's another 'great read' to clear it up for you:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

I'm sure it's a parabola of sorts, but there's definitely some severe miscalculation about where the 'Sweet spot' actually is. One thing we can credit Reagan and Bush I with is, that after the two of them saw the skyrocketing deficits resulting from their reckless tax cuts, they immediately raised taxes to compensate (obviously cost B1 re-election). It didn't become this religion of no tax increases no-matter-what until Dubya.

 

[Toro]

The Heritage piece does not disentangle other variables which would cause changes in the composition of income tax revenues. The econometric studies which do so have concluded that in the US, cutting income taxes has the affect of lowering revenues. Stockman knew that and Stockman was right.

However, there is evidence that cutting high income tax rates in other, particularly developing, countries does increase revenues. It is also reasonable to expect that cutting tax rates from a very high level to a more reasonable level would increase revenues.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I am bashing them.

what thread is that in?.....i wanna see it......

 

[xsited1]

The Heritage piece does not disentangle other variables which would cause changes in the composition of income tax revenues. The econometric studies which do so have concluded that in the US, cutting income taxes has the affect of lowering revenues. Stockman knew that and Stockman was right.

However, there is evidence that cutting high income tax rates in other, particularly developing, countries does increase revenues. It is also reasonable to expect that cutting tax rates from a very high level to a more reasonable level would increase revenues.

Well, at least you admitted that cutting high income tax rates can increase revenues. That's a start.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Raegan is CONSTANTLY worshipped/invoked by Fox N00z (Bill Kristol)/GOP candidates (Bible Spice et al.) so he is relevant. It tells one where they stand as they have no living pols to idolize. Sad commentary on the state of the GOP.

and the people who worship him are no different then those who worship Clinton,Bush and Obama......you might as well worship Satan......

 

[Oddball]

The Heritage piece does not disentangle other variables which would cause changes in the composition of income tax revenues. The econometric studies which do so have concluded that in the US, cutting income taxes has the affect of lowering revenues. Stockman knew that and Stockman was right.

However, there is evidence that cutting high income tax rates in other, particularly developing, countries does increase revenues. It is also reasonable to expect that cutting tax rates from a very high level to a more reasonable level would increase revenues.

Does Stockman take into account increasing already profligate federal spending in his calculations?

All in all, Shrubbie's tax cuts were pretty timid, while there wasn't a spending bill that was an increase over the baselines that he vetoed. Then there was the creation of DHS, TSA, Medicare D, ad nauseum.