Reaganomics is Dead

[Modbert]

why does this thread remind me of those freaks who thought McCartney was dead?

Wait, you mean he's not?

What's next, you're going to tell me Elvis, Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison are all dead too?

 

[garyd]

Dude the GOP diodn't rule the roost for Bush's first six years and why the hell would bush veto crap he more or less asked for. The Six years I'm talking about came under clinton when we came as close to a balanced budget as we ever have. One of Bush's many sins was that he essentially dynamited the coalition that brought us that. Please note Clinton had damn little to do with that and in fact fought it as best he could.

 

[elvis]

why does this thread remind me of those freaks who thought McCartney was dead?

Wait, you mean he's not?

What's next, you're going to tell me Elvis, Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison are all dead too?

cranberry sauce.

 

[Modbert]

cranberry sauce.

You Lie

 

[Oddball]

Dude the GOP diodn't rule the roost for Bush's first six years and why the hell would bush veto crap he more or less asked for. The Six years I'm talking about came under clinton when we came as close to a balanced budget as we ever have. One of Bush's many sins was that he essentially dynamited the coalition that brought us that. Please note Clinton had damn little to do with that and in fact fought it as best he could.

Yes they did rule the roost.

Time to quit buying into and passing along party man excuses, and recognize the GOP for the giant band of libs that they are.

Admitting the problem is the first step to solving it.

 

[Modbert]

Yes they did rule the roost.

Time to quit buying into and passing along party man excuses, and recognize the GOP for the giant band of libs that they are.

Admitting the problem is the first step to solving it.

I resent that.

 

[code1211]

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? There is tons of income still being made by many people in small business, hell if my boss got a 2% tax break he would open up the 3rd shop and give 4 more people full time gainful employment. I dont buy that line AT ALL. I have personal experience that contradicts this statement.

I think the guy does make some other good points such as applying a great depression spending model to todays crisis being a bad idea. I hope he is right that a strong recovery is right around the corner. I just dont know if the way we are creating the recovery will be sustainable.

I believe I read somewhere that when the Bush White House sent out the second round of stimulus checks a few years back, people saved 85% of it. That's good to help you and I repair our balance sheets (effectively transferring our debts to the balance sheet of the federal government), but it did nothing to increase the monetary velocity in the economy. That was his point. When money circulates at a slower rate in the economy, economic activity declines. You want policies that increase monetary velocity. Instituting policies which merely transfer debt from the balance sheet of the consumer to the federal government does not do much good.

Exactly right. A stimulus plan stimulates spending. The current stimulus plan does not do this. The current stimulus plan only increases debt and subsidizes jobs that are supported by tax revenues.

Stimulating spending touches every area of the economy from manufactuing to manicures.

Because the current stimulus package does absolutely nothing to stimulate spending, we may conclude that the current leadership knows absolutely nothing about stimulating an economy.

It's as if they observe that when people drink more, they flush the toilet more often so they see thirsty people and arrange to have the toilets flushed more often to satisfy their thirst.

They are thinking. They just have the wrong conclusions.

 

[Toro]

The problem with declaring the Reagan economic model dead is that spending was never cut.

When anyone accomplishes both tax and significant spending cuts, then we can sit around arguing the merits of the results.

Reaganonomics wasn't about cutting spending. It was about cutting taxes. Cutting taxes would spur economic growth and generate enough tax revenue to offset the increased spending. That may be true if tax rates are 60% or higher but it didn't apply to the US where effective tax rates were lower. Bush the Elder called it Voodoo-economics, and he was right. That's why Reagan raised taxes, and gave the country the biggest tax increase ever after giving it the biggest tax cut ever, though the increase was about half the cut.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reaganomics is dead, no argument from me. It was critical when the Dems took over Congress and the election of the Muslim Marxist killed it.

You'll note the Capital Markets started shorting the USA when the Dems took over Congress and its gone downhill from there.

Bartlett is another typical Librul who refuses to acknowledge the hard slap of reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only a Liberal or a moron can claim we need Gubbamint Spending because there's "no income" in a $13 TRILLION Economy.

 

[PeterS]

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? There is tons of income still being made by many people in small business, hell if my boss got a 2% tax break he would open up the 3rd shop and give 4 more people full time gainful employment. I dont buy that line AT ALL. I have personal experience that contradicts this statement.

I think the guy does make some other good points such as applying a great depression spending model to todays crisis being a bad idea. I hope he is right that a strong recovery is right around the corner. I just dont know if the way we are creating the recovery will be sustainable.

You missed the point Barlett was making-we are in a liquidity trap. Tax cuts targeting capitalization won't work. Here is an example-during the 01 recession capacity utilization for IT was 25%, manufacturing 60%, and system wide 70% yet the regression line for consumer spending remained positive. In other words we were able to meet a growing consumer demand utilizing only 70% of capacity. Bush's approach was to target tax cuts to further capitalize. We didn't because we already had too much capacity which is why it took three years for any meaningful growth to occur.

Tax cuts worked in 81 because we were at 85% utilization and there was no capital to expand. This isn't our case today and if you really think that 2% is all that is needed then think about it. Say you boss makes an after tax profit of 1M on current sales. Your contention is that 20K more is all that is needed for your boss to expand but having 1M isn't enough. Your logic is counter intuitive; ignores consumer demand and the fact that that not 2% additional profit on existing sales is what is preventing expansion.

The problem with conservative 'tax cutters' is that you are one dimensional thinkers who use economics as an excuse to achieve their objectives all while ignoring the impact of your policies. Taxes impact discretionary income just as interest rates. If the Fed can raise and lower interest rates to meet the economic condition why is it you think taxes can't be used to do the same thing?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? There is tons of income still being made by many people in small business, hell if my boss got a 2% tax break he would open up the 3rd shop and give 4 more people full time gainful employment. I dont buy that line AT ALL. I have personal experience that contradicts this statement.

I think the guy does make some other good points such as applying a great depression spending model to todays crisis being a bad idea. I hope he is right that a strong recovery is right around the corner. I just dont know if the way we are creating the recovery will be sustainable.

You missed the point Barlett was making-we are in a liquidity trap. Tax cuts targeting capitalization won't work. Here is an example-during the 01 recession capacity utilization for IT was 25%, manufacturing 60%, and system wide 70% yet the regression line for consumer spending remained positive. In other words we were able to meet a growing consumer demand utilizing only 70% of capacity. Bush's approach was to target tax cuts to further capitalize. We didn't because we already had too much capacity which is why it took three years for any meaningful growth to occur.

Tax cuts worked in 81 because we were at 85% utilization and there was no capital to expand. This isn't our case today and if you really think that 2% is all that is needed then think about it. Say you boss makes an after tax profit of 1M on current sales. Your contention is that 20K more is all that is needed for your boss to expand but having 1M isn't enough. Your logic is counter intuitive; ignores consumer demand and the fact that that not 2% additional profit on existing sales is what is preventing expansion.

The problem with conservative 'tax cutters' is that you are one dimensional thinkers who use economics as an excuse to achieve their objectives all while ignoring the impact of your policies. Taxes impact discretionary income just as interest rates. If the Fed can raise and lower interest rates to meet the economic condition why is it you think taxes can't be used to do the same thing?

Hows that Fed lowering working our for the economy?

 

[Toro]

Only a Liberal or a moron can claim we need Gubbamint Spending because there's "no income" in a $13 TRILLION Economy.

It is not about no income.

It is about falling income.

When they say "there's no income," they mean there is no income growth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only a Liberal or a moron can claim we need Gubbamint Spending because there's "no income" in a $13 TRILLION Economy.

It is not about no income.

It is about falling income.

When they say "there's no income," they mean there is no income growth.

Maybe I should stop reading the OP and attached articles

"So are Republicans fighting the last war? What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? In this crisis we've run into the same problem we had in the Great Depression: a liquidity trap. Money isn't circulating. The stimulus package may have been over-sold by Obama, but the principle was correct. We need government spending to get out of the trap."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no growth in income due to a crippling tax policy, government spending and a national energy strategy that can only be called economic suicide.

 

[Oddball]

The problem with declaring the Reagan economic model dead is that spending was never cut.

When anyone accomplishes both tax and significant spending cuts, then we can sit around arguing the merits of the results.

Reaganonomics wasn't about cutting spending. It was about cutting taxes. Cutting taxes would spur economic growth and generate enough tax revenue to offset the increased spending. That may be true if tax rates are 60% or higher but it didn't apply to the US where effective tax rates were lower. Bush the Elder called it Voodoo-economics, and he was right. That's why Reagan raised taxes, and gave the country the biggest tax increase ever after giving it the biggest tax cut ever, though the increase was about half the cut.

Yes, it was about cutting spending. Failure to do so is well known as one of Reagan's greatest regrets.

Therefore, the Reagan model really has never been tried.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem with declaring the Reagan economic model dead is that spending was never cut.

When anyone accomplishes both tax and significant spending cuts, then we can sit around arguing the merits of the results.

Reaganonomics wasn't about cutting spending. It was about cutting taxes. Cutting taxes would spur economic growth and generate enough tax revenue to offset the increased spending. That may be true if tax rates are 60% or higher but it didn't apply to the US where effective tax rates were lower. Bush the Elder called it Voodoo-economics, and he was right. That's why Reagan raised taxes, and gave the country the biggest tax increase ever after giving it the biggest tax cut ever, though the increase was about half the cut.

Reaganomics WAS about cutting spending, but the Reaganites never did the spending cuts.

 

[sealybobo]

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? There is tons of income still being made by many people in small business, hell if my boss got a 2% tax break he would open up the 3rd shop and give 4 more people full time gainful employment. I dont buy that line AT ALL. I have personal experience that contradicts this statement.

I think the guy does make some other good points such as applying a great depression spending model to todays crisis being a bad idea. I hope he is right that a strong recovery is right around the corner. I just dont know if the way we are creating the recovery will be sustainable.

Yes, we have way too many people unemployed or under employed and that's keeping wages down. We need to keep/bring jobs home. If that means changing nafta, so be it. And start sending illegals home. Not give 10 million amnesty. The employers would love to flood the market with workers so they can keep wages low.

Thank god Reaganomics is dead. Not the part about less government waste, but the rest of it was all wrong. And notice I said WASTE? Not just spending, because spending is necessary. An engaged/involved government is necessary. Notice these tea baggers and conservatives never talk specifics? Because the things they want to cut spending on, most of us find necessary/important. But Reaganomics was about cutting government waste. In this area, the GOP only pretended to be like Reagan. They only wanted to cut LIBERAL programs, but they had their own ways of wasting money.

And reagan started the deregulations. Here's the short story. Before we put the regulations in place, we had recessions every 10 years, until the Great Depression. Then we put regulations in, and we had decades of slow growth and prosperity. But no major recessions. Then Reagan came in, then Bush 1, then Clinton went along Newts Congress and then Bush 2.

Reagan started breaking the unions.

And trickle down??? Tax breaks to the rich? That didn't work. They took their money overseas.

War on Drugs? Lost that one. But without a war, this was where the GOP wasted a lot of our money during Reagan's time.

Free trade? If not fair, will crush the American middle class.

But the "less government spending" crowd isn't going to go away. Nor should they. But these people calling the Dems socialists and the glen becks and rush's and o'Reillys, I think they aren't winning any new supporters over. I think most people are on to them.

 

[code1211]

The problem with declaring the Reagan economic model dead is that spending was never cut.

When anyone accomplishes both tax and significant spending cuts, then we can sit around arguing the merits of the results.

And that is why I partly considered the GOP economic model to be a joke for years. They all kept harping on Reaganomics yet they never stopped the spending. Hell, Reagan took to spending like sailors to an open bar if you catch my drift. Raiding the coffers of Social Security and all too.

Reagan sought spending restaint and got none. Every budget that passed in his administation was inflated beyond his requests.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem with declaring the Reagan economic model dead is that spending was never cut.

When anyone accomplishes both tax and significant spending cuts, then we can sit around arguing the merits of the results.

Reaganonomics wasn't about cutting spending. It was about cutting taxes. Cutting taxes would spur economic growth and generate enough tax revenue to offset the increased spending. That may be true if tax rates are 60% or higher but it didn't apply to the US where effective tax rates were lower. Bush the Elder called it Voodoo-economics, and he was right. That's why Reagan raised taxes, and gave the country the biggest tax increase ever after giving it the biggest tax cut ever, though the increase was about half the cut.

Reaganomics WAS about cutting spending, but the Reaganites never did the spending cuts.

The President controls spending? Really?