Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He was talking to posterity, economic students, history students, policy students...I used Stockman's book as a major part of my Master's lit review. If hindsight is 20/20 vision, shouldn't the improved clarity of vision apply, where applicable, to foresight, especially where yesterdays tired and failed old arguments continue to be applied to the problems of the present?
Sure.
But he knew the type of economics that Reagan was presiding over was complete lunacy while it was happening. So did Poppa Bush..although when he became President, he actually implemented fixes.
It's kinda like an interview I saw with L. Paul Bremer who said that the Iraqi policy was a total tanglefuck. Well..that information would have been more useful while it was happening.
Okay, but if you read his book, he explains that he tried to impose order, and part of the reason he didn't continue in Reagan's second term was because they wouldn't listen to him / they weren't consistent.
David Stockman was President Reagan's OMB Head from 1981-1984, and the economist who planned Reagan’s economic policy. Stockman described his plan as a radical economic revolution that would cause short-term pain for some, but produce long-term benefits for all. The revolution failed because political reality got in the way, and because the men he worked with were not policy men or economists, but politicians with constituencies and project preferences of their own. Stockman is an economic and ideological purist. He seems to see numbers as being more tangible than people are, but he is intellectually consistent. He listed a host of corporate welfare giveaways with the same tone of outrage that he treated social welfare.
Stockman’s view corresponded with Hamby’s, but he added that because society wants a welfare state, and because cutting funding for those programs are not democratically feasible, we must pay for it with taxes. The economic mess that began in 1981 occurred because President Reagan refused to raise taxes. The Urban Institute Report confirms this. The Economic Recovery Tax Act was responsible for long-term deficits, and a cumulative revenue loss of $300 billion by the end of 1984 and $1 trillion by the end of 1987.
Those are two parts I have on Stockman, but what I remember of his book, he really tried to explain that 2 minus 5 does not equal 20. There was no way to continually raise the defense budget and reduce taxes (revenue, people, that's what taxes are, the stuff that pays for all our untouchable expenses).
I forgot to address the main question, I'm sorry. People working within any administration do NOT publicly criticize while they are working within that administration. They just don't. I don't know that its any less disloyal after, but it is definitely less hazardous to one's present employment.
Okay, Annie. You Googled a link. Now explain it. What does it say to you?
Do you believe, for example, that those who paid into Social Security to fund the retirement of THIS generation of senior citizens should be left flapping in the wind in THEIR old age? Do you really?
I think if we're to end it, that I want every penny I paid into the system back with compound interest. That's what I think. And I want it NOW. And I want those seniors who collect it, and who never paid into it, to pony up and pay it back. You know, rich widows and widowers living off of spousal benefits.
I've answered what I think should happen with SSI at least 15 times in the past how many years? I still think the same. Look it up.
I wasn't here then. You have an opinion, can't you take the time to explain it to me?
I've answered what I think should happen with SSI at least 15 times in the past how many years? I still think the same. Look it up.
I wasn't here then. You have an opinion, can't you take the time to explain it to me?
Easy to find with advanced search. Boiler plate:
Pick a reasonable age to say, 'enough', perhaps 43? For all those above that point, they should get what was promised.
From that point, all contributions made should be returned, as promised. After that, means test for future.
Stop SSI contributions or make them voluntary for those entering work force after the start date.
Bottom line, anything paid in, should be returned upon retirement. Those at a certain age, (to be determined at time), should get what was promised.
Those entering, should have a choice.
I wasn't here then. You have an opinion, can't you take the time to explain it to me?
Easy to find with advanced search. Boiler plate:
Pick a reasonable age to say, 'enough', perhaps 43? For all those above that point, they should get what was promised.
From that point, all contributions made should be returned, as promised. After that, means test for future.
Stop SSI contributions or make them voluntary for those entering work force after the start date.
Bottom line, anything paid in, should be returned upon retirement. Those at a certain age, (to be determined at time), should get what was promised.
Those entering, should have a choice.
Wingnuts are going to reduce spending and balance the budget by committing the govt to an unfunded liability in the trillions of dollars
Sure.
But he knew the type of economics that Reagan was presiding over was complete lunacy while it was happening. So did Poppa Bush..although when he became President, he actually implemented fixes.
It's kinda like an interview I saw with L. Paul Bremer who said that the Iraqi policy was a total tanglefuck. Well..that information would have been more useful while it was happening.
Okay, but if you read his book, he explains that he tried to impose order, and part of the reason he didn't continue in Reagan's second term was because they wouldn't listen to him / they weren't consistent.
Stockmans view corresponded with Hambys, but he added that because society wants a welfare state, and because cutting funding for those programs are not democratically feasible, we must pay for it with taxes. The economic mess that began in 1981 occurred because President Reagan refused to raise taxes. The Urban Institute Report confirms this. The Economic Recovery Tax Act was responsible for long-term deficits, and a cumulative revenue loss of $300 billion by the end of 1984 and $1 trillion by the end of 1987.
Those are two parts I have on Stockman, but what I remember of his book, he really tried to explain that 2 minus 5 does not equal 20. There was no way to continually raise the defense budget and reduce taxes (revenue, people, that's what taxes are, the stuff that pays for all our untouchable expenses).
I forgot to address the main question, I'm sorry. People working within any administration do NOT publicly criticize while they are working within that administration. They just don't. I don't know that its any less disloyal after, but it is definitely less hazardous to one's present employment.
For the ideological wonks, Stockman was a hardcore free-marketer whose philosophy is often aligned with the Austrian School of Economics. I have a lot of respect for him because he wasn't promoting an intellectual fraud like many of the supply-siders were/are.
I respect him because he was intellectually consistent. I didn't completely agree with him though. There ARE investments that are necessary in order to live in a decent society, even to work within a sustainable economy. Those investments do pay off, even for the so-called "self made" men.
I've answered what I think should happen with SSI at least 15 times in the past how many years? I still think the same. Look it up.
I wasn't here then. You have an opinion, can't you take the time to explain it to me?
Easy to find with advanced search. Boiler plate:
Pick a reasonable age to say, 'enough', perhaps 43? For all those above that point, they should get what was promised.
From that point, all contributions made should be returned, as promised. After that, means test for future.
Stop SSI contributions or make them voluntary for those entering work force after the start date.
Bottom line, anything paid in, should be returned upon retirement. Those at a certain age, (to be determined at time), should get what was promised.
Those entering, should have a choice.
Stockman said it when he was Reagan's budget director.
He detailed the surreal arguments in his autobiography.
Well, who was he talking too?
The fly on the wall doesn't count.
He argued in his book that the Laffer Curve did not apply to US income tax rates.
Its not a revisionist history. He wrote the book in the 1980s. One of the reasons why he left was his frustrations dealing with the supply-siders arguments. He argued in meetings with the President and others in Reagan's staff that there was no way they could balance the budget without cutting spending.
Okay, Annie. You Googled a link. Now explain it. What does it say to you?
Do you believe, for example, that those who paid into Social Security to fund the retirement of THIS generation of senior citizens should be left flapping in the wind in THEIR old age? Do you really?
I think if we're to end it, that I want every penny I paid into the system back with compound interest. That's what I think. And I want it NOW. And I want those seniors who collect it, and who never paid into it, to pony up and pay it back. You know, rich widows and widowers living off of spousal benefits.
What about those who don't want it back but just want to opt out now? No entitlement and no future contributions.
How can you NOT want that back? I've been working on the books since I was TWELVE! I damned sure want it back!
I don't have an answer to your question, only more questions.
I wasn't here then. You have an opinion, can't you take the time to explain it to me?
Easy to find with advanced search. Boiler plate:
Pick a reasonable age to say, 'enough', perhaps 43? For all those above that point, they should get what was promised.
From that point, all contributions made should be returned, as promised. After that, means test for future.
Stop SSI contributions or make them voluntary for those entering work force after the start date.
Bottom line, anything paid in, should be returned upon retirement. Those at a certain age, (to be determined at time), should get what was promised.
Those entering, should have a choice.
Fair enough. I don't so much agree, but your position is fair enough, given equality of knowledge about what that all would mean in the future.
That knowledge is not equal though, and perfectly respectable, hard working, and decent people would be left to suffer for choices they made when they were healthy and able to be hard working. None of us knows what the future holds.
How sad that the republican montra for 30 years was a sham they still refuse to acknowledge.
The two santas created this myth and the guy who wrote it was a Las vegas journalist who counted cards on the side.
They think its some economic principle
Your entire "tax cut" meme was created by some las vegas journalist who countred cards on the side.
It is not set in economic principle.
Jude Wanniski
The Laffer Curve (as Republicans envision it) is bullshit
Trickle-Down is bullshit
and
We need to cut defense spending
David Stockman - The Colbert Report - 12/2/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
