Reaganomics is Dead

[CrusaderFrank]

Famous "Reaganites": Tip O'Neill, Loophole Lloyd Bensten

 

[Chris]

Reagan doubled the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Bush did the same thing.

Guess who is going to pay for it?

Not the rich.

 

[Oddball]

Congratulations.

You're still a pedantic dullard.

 

[Chris]

Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, called the tax cuts a "Trojan Horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

Stockman's power within the Reagan Administration waned after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[1] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude is a trojan horse for the wingtoid fiscal right, so his comments truly are irrelevant.

 

[Oddball]

Blow me, fuckroast.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Blow me, fuckroast.

you use your tongue perdier that a $20 whore

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, that passes for something of worth, dulldude -- you are completely irrelevant on these issues. Fun to read for the laughs, sure, but other than that . . . .

 

[Oddball]

You....Talking shit about others not posting anything of any worth?!?

Yer killin' me!

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yet if you borrow millions either from overseas or from the banks here and raise taxes where the hell does the private sector come by the money to expand and hire?

The real answer to the question why aren't the banks loaning out more money? is the government is borrowing it all.

Mortgage interest rates are at 5% and money is readily available.

for those who are employed and have job security. if this were happening under Bush you'd be crying croc tears instead of running in circles with your Obama pajamas on fire.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[The Rabbi]

People, including those who ought to know better, don't understand tax cuts and their purpose.
The purpose of tax cuts is not to "put more money into people's hands." The Bush stimulus giveaway checks were a failure. Everyone who had looked at the issue knew it was going to be a failure.
The purpose of tax cuts is to change people's incentives to work, save, and invest. If you are going to take the tremendous risk of starting your own business, or expanding an existing business, you are less likely to do it when you have to start paying out 80% of your income in taxes. Change that to some number that makes more sense and you change the motivation.

A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. High taxes discourage investment and risk taking. And this government is all for high taxes and all against risk taking. This is why the economy will continue to suck for the next 2 years at least.
Look for Obama to float yet another "stimulus" bill down the road as unemployment continues to grow. Obama has never created wealth in his life, only lived off other people's. Thus he cannot understand the process.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People, including those who ought to know better, don't understand tax cuts and their purpose.
The purpose of tax cuts is not to "put more money into people's hands." The Bush stimulus giveaway checks were a failure. Everyone who had looked at the issue knew it was going to be a failure.
The purpose of tax cuts is to change people's incentives to work, save, and invest. If you are going to take the tremendous risk of starting your own business, or expanding an existing business, you are less likely to do it when you have to start paying out 80% of your income in taxes. Change that to some number that makes more sense and you change the motivation.

A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. High taxes discourage investment and risk taking. And this government is all for high taxes and all against risk taking. This is why the economy will continue to suck for the next 2 years at least.
Look for Obama to float yet another "stimulus" bill down the road as unemployment continues to grow. Obama has never created wealth in his life, only lived off other people's. Thus he cannot understand the process.

"A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. "

not always true. Sometimes real life scenarios are counterintuitive. Too many examples to list. But ideological formulas and doctrine make for poor policy.

 

[Maple]

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.

The reason those stimulus checks don't work to grow the economy is because everyone knows it's a one time deal. Next month they have the same amount to live on as they did before the stimulus check. They really fool no one into going out and making a large purchase such as a home. It's a small temporary fix that has no long term solutions to the bigger problem and that is to grow the economy, provide good jobs and good livings for the people of America.

 

[The Rabbi]

People, including those who ought to know better, don't understand tax cuts and their purpose.
The purpose of tax cuts is not to "put more money into people's hands." The Bush stimulus giveaway checks were a failure. Everyone who had looked at the issue knew it was going to be a failure.
The purpose of tax cuts is to change people's incentives to work, save, and invest. If you are going to take the tremendous risk of starting your own business, or expanding an existing business, you are less likely to do it when you have to start paying out 80% of your income in taxes. Change that to some number that makes more sense and you change the motivation.

A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. High taxes discourage investment and risk taking. And this government is all for high taxes and all against risk taking. This is why the economy will continue to suck for the next 2 years at least.
Look for Obama to float yet another "stimulus" bill down the road as unemployment continues to grow. Obama has never created wealth in his life, only lived off other people's. Thus he cannot understand the process.

"A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. "

not always true. Sometimes real life scenarios are counterintuitive. Too many examples to list. But ideological formulas and doctrine make for poor policy.

Actually other things being equal it is always true. This is probably the most proven point in economics. It is an absolute rule. Find an exception and I will show you where other things are not equal.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The reason those stimulus checks don't work to grow the economy is because everyone knows it's a one time deal. Next month they have the same amount to live on as they did before the stimulus check. They really fool no one into going out and making a large purchase such as a home. It's a small temporary fix that has no long term solutions to the bigger problem and that is to grow the economy, provide good jobs and good livings for the people of America.

Yes, the checks could not change future behavior because they were limited to one time. It was a giant waste of money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People, including those who ought to know better, don't understand tax cuts and their purpose.
The purpose of tax cuts is not to "put more money into people's hands." The Bush stimulus giveaway checks were a failure. Everyone who had looked at the issue knew it was going to be a failure.
The purpose of tax cuts is to change people's incentives to work, save, and invest. If you are going to take the tremendous risk of starting your own business, or expanding an existing business, you are less likely to do it when you have to start paying out 80% of your income in taxes. Change that to some number that makes more sense and you change the motivation.

A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. High taxes discourage investment and risk taking. And this government is all for high taxes and all against risk taking. This is why the economy will continue to suck for the next 2 years at least.
Look for Obama to float yet another "stimulus" bill down the road as unemployment continues to grow. Obama has never created wealth in his life, only lived off other people's. Thus he cannot understand the process.

"A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. "

not always true. Sometimes real life scenarios are counterintuitive. Too many examples to list. But ideological formulas and doctrine make for poor policy.

Actually other things being equal it is always true. This is probably the most proven point in economics. It is an absolute rule. Find an exception and I will show you where other things are not equal.

there are exceptions that prove the rule and then there are things that masquerade as rules. Only a few years ago people were saying it is a rule that property always increases in value.

 

[The Rabbi]

"A tax is a price on stuff. Raise the price, you lower the amount sold. Lower the price, you increase the amount sold. Pretty basic. "

not always true. Sometimes real life scenarios are counterintuitive. Too many examples to list. But ideological formulas and doctrine make for poor policy.

Actually other things being equal it is always true. This is probably the most proven point in economics. It is an absolute rule. Find an exception and I will show you where other things are not equal.

there are exceptions that prove the rule and then there are things that masquerade as rules. Only a few years ago people were saying it is a rule that property always increases in value.

That is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually other things being equal it is always true. This is probably the most proven point in economics. It is an absolute rule. Find an exception and I will show you where other things are not equal.

there are exceptions that prove the rule and then there are things that masquerade as rules. Only a few years ago people were saying it is a rule that property always increases in value.

That is a complete non-sequitur.

complete? wow!