It's a win for the GOP.

[Avatar4321]

Its like hiring a babysitter who hates kids

What is? Can you please make a resolution to try to communicate better?

Republicans scream at the top of their lungs that government cant do anything right and then get elected to prove it

last time I checked Democrats had power.

 

[kwc57]

when will the republican party dump these nut balls?

I like to refer to nut balls as TM balls. It is much more fitting.

 

[Londoner]

That's quite the strawman argument you've built there.

I was trying to make a simple point > Reagan = Supply Side Economics, which is based on tax cuts and deregulation for business in order to incentivize investment and the resultant job growth (i.e., lowering barriers on producers so they produce more). The pejorative of this is "trickle down economics".

1. The deal was never supposed to provide "High Wages and Great Bennies"

For a Supply Sider or Neoliberal, this is absolutely true. The market should set wages because government lacks both the information and incentive to set or manage the value/cost/wages of labor.

It was supposed to get our economy going. It definitely did that.

Coming out of the Volker-induced recession there was robust job growth.

But I believe there were larger, longterm structures put in place that weakened middle class demand. How? Reagan accelerated the dissolution of the postwar compact between capital and labor. He (and Clinton) believed deeply in globalization. He wanted to give investors access to cheaper labor. This comports with his belief that higher returns (secured by lower labor costs) incentivizes investment. Large American corporations didn't like being tied to expensive middle class labor. Nike makes more money for its investors when its sneakers are made by workers who make $4 a day in South Korea, rather than paying much higher "American" wages to workers who live in a free country. Investors benefit from the kind of cheap labor found in freedom-hating, dictator run nations. Meaning: they benefit from workers who can survive on $20 a week and therefore live in hovels, i.e., the kind of workers found in unfree nations. This is why so much of the Cold War was dedicated to bringing 3rd world nations under the Eagle's protective wing. One of the shirts I purchased last night said "Made in Grenada". The Cold War was very much about using the Soviet threat as a context for intervention on behalf of the global market system. I know you probably think it was all about fighting evil, but nations typically act on behalf of much more complex geopolitical and economic reasons.

So . . . but . . . when we shifted high paying manufacturing jobs offshore, we had a bit of a longterm problem. AS we lowered wages to incentivize investment, we undermined the thing workers used to consume, i.e., the high wages. When consumers have more money to buy things, the capitalist has a huge incentive to add jobs in order to capture that excess demand. It's called "trickle-up economics". It's based on the fact that if you take care of middle class demand, investors will show up like fruit flies to get the money in those wallets.

Reagan thought that it wasn't necessary to continue the high wage and benefit system that put so much money in the wallets of postwar consumers. He thought we should focus on suppliers. To make room for their tax cuts he dismantled (or laid the foundation for dismantling) the government programs which were designed to increase middle class demand, like affordable education, health care and transportation (to name only a few things). Reagan believed that cutting labor costs and taxes would lead to economic growth, which would in turn grow good paying jobs. But, as I said, the "good paying jobs" slowly went away because of his (and Clinton's) allegiance to globalization - specifically, giving capital mobility to dump American labor for sweatshop labor. So when you say "get our economy going", I am inclined to agree, but with an asterisk: Reagan enacted policies that eventually lowered the wages/benefits and thus purchasing power of consumers (which necessitated the expansion of credit to make-up for money that was not trickling down). This is why we all started receiving 3 credit card offers a week in the 80s. Do the research yourself. You owe it to yourself to look at the debt of American families from 1945-1980 as compared to 1980-2008. It will blow your mind. Morning in America was brought to us partly by American Express, Visa and Master Card. We replaced wage-based consumption with debt based consumption.

American lost jobs in the housing bubble crisis of 2007. Are you trying to say that Reaganomics caused that?

Not that simple. I think Reaganomics was partially responsible because one of its principal tenants was deregulation. Reagan believed that financial innovators should not be regulated by the government. Clinton and his Wall Street man, Richard Ruben, were Reaganites in this regard. Like Greenspan and Reagan, they wanted Wall Street to set their own risk levels. So under Clinton they dismantled Glass-Stegall; then large corporations captured the ratings agencies and gave A++ ratings to tranches filled with garbage (so they could more easily be sold). Then the banking lobby slowly dismantled the rules surrounding leverage, making it possible for large investment banks place to bets that they could not cover. The "innovators" sold products to investors that knew would blow up. This is why they placed even bigger bets against the securities they were selling to investors.

But there was also another flaw created by tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity for the non-wealthy. This didn't fully flower until the Bush tax cuts. The combination of Bush tax cuts and cheap labor put massive cash in the hands of the wealthy. Neoliberal policies throughout the globe resulted in a massive global pool of money. That money wanted high returns. Problem was: workers were strapped after 30 years of increased borrowing just to stay afloat. So there were not ample investment opportunities in the real economy. Demand was low. So Wall Street invented securities and derivatives out of thin air. They tapped into non-credit-worthy borrowers in order to keep producing the mortgages for their securities. They created a conveyor belt that converted credit originated by banks and other lenders into high-interest-paying instruments for investors. It was a slick machine that turned money loaned to dead people and illegal immigrants into gold for the wealthy. And then when everything started to go downhill, the wealthy made trillions on their derivatives, which were strategic bets against the mortgage securities they were selling around the globe. This is what happens when there is an imbalance of cash on top and credit on the bottom. Eventually, there isn't enough investment opportunities in the real economy because debt-strangled consumers can't buy anything you make. So there is greater pressure on Wall Street to create good investments (in a world where people have less money to buy what you're selling).

 

[PredFan]

The GOP won because they didn't let obamination have his press conference this morning telling everyone their taxes went up because the GOP blocked the bill.

Instead the bill passed and taxes are going up on the "rich" which will make the economy worse, another good deal for the GOP.

obamination can't blame Buuuuuuuuuush for the economy getting worse in 2013 after his tax plan was implemented.

The GOP now needs to block more spending with the debt limit and then go after the democraps in 2014.

I disagree, the GOP should give obama everything he wants. Show the American people what a mistake this asshat really is. Make them suffer, they deserve it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The american people and especially the lefties think obama won. Well, Boehner and Co. did totally cave in to hussein's wishes but let's look closely at it.

The plan they agreed to adds 4 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, that's additional over the 1 trillion that we already add to the defecit yearly.

There are no spending cuts, and likely won't be.

Another Teabaggin' psychic's crystal-ball needs a battery-upgrade.

*

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't know, but I don't have to worry about it. The ecomony won't steam along. You should start figuring out how you are going to spin things to blame the GOP when it crashes.

when has any of your predictions come true?

Allways. Never fails dumbass.

I predicted the Boehner would cave, he did.

I predicted that Obama would win in 2008 and 1012, he did.

I have made numerous others that have also come true. Can you link to one that hasn't?

you predicted he would cave after he caved. Good job!