Lessons on the Economy: Reaganomics - Federal Reserve | GW Bush/Cheny-debt-o-nomics

Procrustes Stretched

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
Dec 1, 2008
58,721
6,606
1,840
Positively 4th Street
Let us start with the Supply Side arguments during the 1970s - 1980s

What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus
by Brad DeLong Posted on January 12, 2015 at 5:38 pm

What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus - Washington Center for Equitable Growth



I must say, I am surprised to see Robert Samuelson claiming that the Federal Reserve and the Reagan administration were in accord in 1982…

Let’s roll the videotape:



Paul Krugman: What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus - Washington Center for Equitable Growth
 
Let us start with the Supply Side arguments during the 1970s - 1980s

What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus
by Brad DeLong Posted on January 12, 2015 at 5:38 pm

What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus - Washington Center for Equitable Growth



I must say, I am surprised to see Robert Samuelson claiming that the Federal Reserve and the Reagan administration were in accord in 1982…

Let’s roll the videotape:



Paul Krugman: What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus - Washington Center for Equitable Growth

too stupid, we can all cut and paste 1 million links you idiot. What not tell us if you are liberal or conservative on economics and why or admit you lack the IQ to be here?
 
It does help to summarize your links. That's why these posts usually die unless two morons start fighting about nothing. Too often these linked articles are novellas and I don't have all day to sort through them.
 
It does help to summarize your links. That's why these posts usually die unless two morons start fighting about nothing. Too often these linked articles are novellas and I don't have all day to sort through them.
What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?:
 
2 quotes: "The growth that Americans enjoyed during the 1980s came at a huge price for the generations to follow." "The national debt tripled from one to three trillion dollars during the Reagan Years. "

The media called it Reaganomics. George HW Bush called it Voodoo Economics

Reaganomics [ushistory.org]
 
Then you have the dim-bulb Reaganite who totally misunderstands and misrepresents Reagan's "commmon sense" and who could really blame them?

Supply-side economics is just common sense
Here's the really fascinating part--the part liberals remain clueless about: if the federal government really wants to "stick it" to rich folks and confiscate more of their hard-earned money to fund their insane spending sprees on counterproductive social programs then they should lower, not raise, taxes. Before President Reagan instituted the Reagan tax cuts, the richest 1 percent of Americans paid 18 percent of all federal income taxes. The top marginal rates then went from a suffocating 70 percent down to 28 percent. And what was the result? Their portion of the national tax bill actually doubled--they paid 36 percent of federal income taxes and produced 23 percent of the nation's income. As President Reagan explained, "A few economists call this principle supply-side economics. I just call it common sense." Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 56 , Dec 5, 2011

Ronald Reagan on Budget & Economy
 
check out some facts

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

The TARP
$475B
Total Allocation
The Treasury is authorized to spend $475 billion of the TARP (In July 2010, the financial regulation overhaul reduced TARP’s spending cap to $475 billion from the original $700 billion.). It has created 13 different programs, to which it has promised $458 billion.

The government committed bailout money to 954 recipients. Those recipients have received a total of $429 billion. A total of $390 billion has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the TARP money invested or loaned. So far, the total return is: $52.4B.

The main sources of that revenue are $23.1 billion through dividend or interest payments, $20 billion from sales of equity or other assets that Treasury acquired (mostly stock in Citigroup); and $9.63 billion through stock warrants which Treasury received as part of most of the investments. When companies pay back the TARP investment, the warrants are either sold back to the company or auctioned off.​

When those revenues are taken into account, the government's profit totals $13.1 billion.

While the Treasury has paid out money to 954 recipients, only 780 of those received funds via investments meant to return money to taxpayers. The rest received subsidies through TARP’s housing programs – that money (so far totaling $17.3 billion) isn’t coming back.

Of the 780 investments made by the Treasury, 572 have resulted in a profit. 123 of the investments resulted in a loss. So far, the profits amount to $48.2 billion, while the losses amount to $17.3 billion. 85 of the investments are still outstanding

Besides the Tarp and Obama's bailouts

what about Bush's unpaid wars and the tax cuts
what are the facts and arguments
 
I would click on the Krugman link and watch the video, but since Krugman is a hardcore left wing partisan ideologue who is only and dishonestly going to tell one side of the story, I would then have to find a video on the same topic from some right wing partisan ideologue who would only and dishonestly tell their side of the story.

I then would feel intellectually compelled to find yet another video on the topic by someone who might not be completely controlled by their partisan ideology for their perspective in an effort to balance things out somewhat so that I hopefully I'd have something close to the full story.

Fuck it, why bother, this is just another standard partisan attack thread anyway.
.
 
Mac1958
I would click on the Krugman link and watch the video, but since Krugman is a hardcore left wing partisan ideologue who is only and dishonestly going to tell one side of the story, I would then have to find a video on the same topic from some right wing partisan ideologue who would only and dishonestly tell their side of the story.

I then would feel intellectually compelled to find yet another video on the topic by someone who might not be completely controlled by their partisan ideology for their perspective in an effort to balance things out somewhat so that I hopefully I'd have something close to the full story.

Fuck it, why bother, this is just another standard partisan attack thread anyway.
.

Would you give more credence to a soft core left wing partisan ideologue? How about a soft core partisan ideologue who is not partisan? How about a soft core ideologue? How about...

see how much nonsense is contained in just one of your hardcore right wing partisan ideologue rants? I'd bet the house on you imagining you're being non partisan and objective? :laugh2:
 
Mac1958
I would click on the Krugman link and watch the video, but since Krugman is a hardcore left wing partisan ideologue who is only and dishonestly going to tell one side of the story, I would then have to find a video on the same topic from some right wing partisan ideologue who would only and dishonestly tell their side of the story.

I then would feel intellectually compelled to find yet another video on the topic by someone who might not be completely controlled by their partisan ideology for their perspective in an effort to balance things out somewhat so that I hopefully I'd have something close to the full story.

Fuck it, why bother, this is just another standard partisan attack thread anyway.
.

Would you give more credence to a soft core left wing partisan ideologue? How about a soft core partisan ideologue who is not partisan? How about a soft core ideologue? How about...

see how much nonsense is contained in just one of your hardcore right wing partisan ideologue rants? I'd bet the house on you imagining you're being non partisan and objective? :laugh2:
One of the standard behaviors of hardcore partisan ideologues like you is that you think that someone has to be either a hardcore right winger or a hardcore left winger. Your thought processes are binary, either/or, shallow, black or white. You assume that everyone is as dishonest as you.

That's what happens when someone commits intellectually to an ideology: Their perceptions and processes become skewed, distorted. Both sides, doesn't matter.

A hardcore partisan ideologues' biggest threat is not a hardcore partisan ideologue from the "other side", they're easy. Your biggest threat is someone who chooses to think for themselves (and there are more of us than there are of you), because we expose your various hypocrisies.

Which is just so damn easy.

Too bad.
.
 
Last edited:
One of the standard behaviors of hardcore partisan ideologues like you is that you think that someone has to be either a hardcore right winger or a hardcore left winger. Your thought processes are binary, either/or, shallow, black or white. You assume that everyone is as dishonest as you.

That's what happens when someone commits intellectually to an ideology: Their perceptions and processes become skewed, distorted. Both sides, doesn't matter.

A hardcore partisan ideologues' biggest threat is not a hardcore partisan ideologue from the "other side", they're easy. Your biggest threat is someone who chooses to think for themselves (and there are more of us than there are of you), because we expose your various hypocrisies.

Which is just so damn easy.

Too bad.
.
Irony explained in one simple image: look at what Silly ole Mac has as a signature -- an image of a book that is written by a hardcore partisan ideologue

:lol:
 
One of the standard behaviors of hardcore partisan ideologues like you is that you think that someone has to be either a hardcore right winger or a hardcore left winger. Your thought processes are binary, either/or, shallow, black or white. You assume that everyone is as dishonest as you.

That's what happens when someone commits intellectually to an ideology: Their perceptions and processes become skewed, distorted. Both sides, doesn't matter.

A hardcore partisan ideologues' biggest threat is not a hardcore partisan ideologue from the "other side", they're easy. Your biggest threat is someone who chooses to think for themselves (and there are more of us than there are of you), because we expose your various hypocrisies.

Which is just so damn easy.

Too bad.
.
Irony explained in one simple image: look at what Silly ole Mac has as a signature -- an image of a book that is written by a hardcore partisan ideologue

:lol:
Deflection noted.

She's a proud, long-time Democrat, but she's something you won't be:

She's honest.
.
 
One of the standard behaviors of hardcore partisan ideologues like you is that you think that someone has to be either a hardcore right winger or a hardcore left winger. Your thought processes are binary, either/or, shallow, black or white. You assume that everyone is as dishonest as you.

That's what happens when someone commits intellectually to an ideology: Their perceptions and processes become skewed, distorted. Both sides, doesn't matter.

A hardcore partisan ideologues' biggest threat is not a hardcore partisan ideologue from the "other side", they're easy. Your biggest threat is someone who chooses to think for themselves (and there are more of us than there are of you), because we expose your various hypocrisies.

Which is just so damn easy.

Too bad.
.
Irony explained in one simple image: look at what Silly ole Mac has as a signature -- an image of a book that is written by a hardcore partisan ideologue

:lol:
Deflection noted.

She's a proud, long-time Democrat, but she's something you won't be:

She's honest.
.


really? But look at that face!!!
 
That's what happens when someone commits intellectually to an ideology:
.

100% pure stupid as always!! Jefferson was 100% committed to an ideology and so was Hitler. We have a civic duty to be committed to the right ideology?

Imagine how stupid you have to be not to know that. It leaves you proud of being independent of the brains to decide between right and left.

If this was 1930's Germany would you again be in the middle between Nazis and communists because you were too stupid to decide??
 
100% pure stupid as always!! Jefferson was 100% committed to an ideology and so was Hitler. We have a civic duty to be committed to the right ideology? Imagine how stupid you have to be not to know that. It leaves you proud of being independent of the brains to decide between right and left. If this was 1930's Germany would you again be in the middle between Nazis and communists because you were too stupid to decide??
Gosh, I am REALLY hurt now.

Damn.
.
 
100% pure stupid as always!! Jefferson was 100% committed to an ideology and so was Hitler. We have a civic duty to be committed to the right ideology? Imagine how stupid you have to be not to know that. It leaves you proud of being independent of the brains to decide between right and left. If this was 1930's Germany would you again be in the middle between Nazis and communists because you were too stupid to decide??
Gosh, I am REALLY hurt now.

Damn.
.

dear, hurt doesn't matter but being too stupid and independent of the brains needed to decide between right and left does.

Why not read up on it and try to decide?
 
dear, hurt doesn't matter but being too stupid and independent of the brains needed to decide between right and left does. Why not read up on it and try to decide?
Well, hot stuff, I actually think that very little intellectual elasticity is required to be a hardcore partisan ideologue on either end. Just quote the talking points, avoid/deny/distort all contrary information and toss out a few adolescent personal insults.

But I do appreciate that you care so much!

Smoochies!
.
 
, I actually think that very little intellectual elasticity is required to be a hardcore partisan ideologue on either end.
.

dear, we're not looking elasticity but for truth. Get it? If you think one of your 1000 lib commie positions is correct why be so afraid to share it with us.

What does your fear teach you??
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top