Supply side/Trickle down: Where's the money?

[Rshermr]

I lived thru illiterate Dems calling the Reagan tax cuts "trickle down".

Well, Toddster, I lived through that time too. About 10 years after my degree in economics. So, I was really interested in Reaganomics, and how in hell it was supposed to work.

So, what you are saying is that you have no links that back up what you have said. No one really BELIEVES that dems came up with the idea. But there are at least 50 bat shit crazy con web sites trying to say that it WAS the case. Which I am sure you are aware of. So, I was wondering if you would take the method you used in addressing the issue, or if you would trot out a good con tool site. One of the many that are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But with no source. Just as you have no source.

So, what source should I pick. Could start with Wikipedia, just to get a start and see where that leads:


Ya think we should check out this guy, Stockman?? He was Budget Director for Reagan. Hell, he would know!!! And as a reference, he would rate as the gold standard:

But trickle-down economics was a wish, not a reality. It’s never worked. Lower taxes don’t generate more revenue. They generate deficits.
Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek. The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue as a way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. “The plan,” Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, ” was to have a strategic deficit that would give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren’t desired. It got out of hand.”
David Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their GOP Demolished the Economy - David Stockman on Deficit Spending | FlaglerLive - Your News Service for Flagler County News Palm Coast News Bunnell Flagler Beach Beverly Beach and Marineland

Now, there is much, much more. From others who had a reason to know. But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years. It was once known as the horse and sparrow theory, in which you fed the horse (the wealthy) a bag of grain, and the sparrow (those not wealthy) benefited from the seed in the horse crap.

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?
Sure i do. But the concept/theory was not brought forward by, nor pushed, by dems. It was the repubs who were trying to sell the concept.

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?
Well, I could understand how you missed it. Those were good years for drugs. But, those of us who were sober noticed. Sorry to surprise you so.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

People actually interested in the truth can find out what actually happened during these years. Sorry you do not follow history.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, Toddster, I lived through that time too. About 10 years after my degree in economics. So, I was really interested in Reaganomics, and how in hell it was supposed to work.

So, what you are saying is that you have no links that back up what you have said. No one really BELIEVES that dems came up with the idea. But there are at least 50 bat shit crazy con web sites trying to say that it WAS the case. Which I am sure you are aware of. So, I was wondering if you would take the method you used in addressing the issue, or if you would trot out a good con tool site. One of the many that are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But with no source. Just as you have no source.

So, what source should I pick. Could start with Wikipedia, just to get a start and see where that leads:


Ya think we should check out this guy, Stockman?? He was Budget Director for Reagan. Hell, he would know!!! And as a reference, he would rate as the gold standard:


Now, there is much, much more. From others who had a reason to know. But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years. It was once known as the horse and sparrow theory, in which you fed the horse (the wealthy) a bag of grain, and the sparrow (those not wealthy) benefited from the seed in the horse crap.

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?
Sure i do. But the concept/theory was not brought forward by, nor pushed, by dems. It was the repubs who were trying to sell the concept.

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?
Well, I could understand how you missed it. Those were good years for drugs. But, those of us who were sober noticed. Sorry to surprise you so.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

People actually interested in the truth can find out what actually happened during these years. Sorry you do not follow history.

During the Reagan years the Fed induced the greatest recession since the Depression with 20% interest rates!!

Sorry you do not follow history!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years.

yes China just switched from liberalism to "flood down" capitalism and now 15 million a year can buy cars whereas under liberalism 15 million a year starved to death.

Eddie, you idiot, 15 million people represents 1.1% of the population of China. Yes, China now has a group 1% group called the "princelings". These are young communist party officials who bought up government owned factories for pennies on the dollar and became wealthy overnight.

The pain and economic hardship imposed on the workers in China when wage and price controls were lifted, is still being felt. Wages dropped, and with no unions or government regulations, workers are little more than slaves, locked in factories to work for almost nothing. With government regulations governing their wages and working conditions, gone, the workers revolted which resulted in the Tiannamin Square massacre. Thousands of Chinese protesters were murdered. Thousands more sent to concentration camps for "re-education". A campaign of terror referred to as "the Pinochet Option" was used to keep those liberals who objected to the order, in line.

With no government regulation, the Chinese are churning out toxic products for foreign markets, until they're caught. The suicide rate in former Soviet countries since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the imposition of radical free market reforms has risen dramatically, and among the free market countries dubbed The Asian Tigers by the conservative financial media, the suicide rate has more than doubled in the last 10 years, since stringent free market reforms were introduced and social programs gutted.

In Russia, the rate of alcoholism under since the fall of communism has tripled. Americans used to say the high rate of alcoholism in the Soviet Union was proof positive of how unhappy the Russian people were under communism, yet after adopting freemarket reforms, the people are three times more miserable. The wealthy young oligarchs are on a spending spree, while working class people struggle to survive.

In country after country prices have risen, wages have fallen, poverty has increased, and the rich have become fabulously wealthy. Large US multinational corporations have bought up factories, utilties and banks and stripped the wealth out of these countries leaving governments with large debts owing to the World Bank. The wealthy and the elite in these countries have made billions, along with large US multinations. The middle class has been destroyed.

Last but certainly not least, unregulated free markets are far more volatile and subject to periods of high growth and inflation, stock market crashes, which are then followed by a contraction in the economy and recession. With no unemployment insurance, welfare, or government funded health care, when a recession hits, the poor starve - literally.

Needless to say, conservatives can't be honest about the results of these policies because who in their right mind is going to vote in favour of lower wages, higher unemployment, and no social spending whatsoever? Conservatives talk about welfare programs draining the economy, the poor as parasites, and those who promote social spending as communists and Marxists. No mention is made of the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, wealth which is then spirited out of the country, leaving the poor and the middle class to shoulder the tax burden, as well as "individual responsibility". Often the governments of these countries is financing the purchase of government assets, and using the money raised to pay for American aid.

Conservatives say if the America government doesn't get a handle on social spending, the US will end up like Greece. Greece is in the situation it's in because because the free market has taken over via the underground economy and nobody pays taxes. The market is completely unregulated and untaxed - classic neo-capitalism. And it's destroying the country.

Instead, Americans should be looking at successful mixed economies like Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the Scandanavian countries. We have a social safety net, and regulated capitalism as well as strong government regulations for manufacturing, and finance. We have lower rates of poverty, a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, lower rates of crime, drug abuse, and a better education system and overall better infrastructure and lower medical costs than the United States.

In countries with a strong safety net and a good education system, those born into poverty, have more opportunities to escape it. And when the US economy went into freefall, our countries had some economic pain, but we recovered within a year. The US and other free market countries, are still dealing with high unemployment, lack of spending on the part of businesses or consumers, and high debt for consumers.

 

[rdean]

If the working class has too much money that's BAD for the supply side.

If the supply side has too much money, that's bad for the demand side.

Why you people have difficulty understanding this I surely do not know.

Right now, thanks to taxation and insane government spending (read government making monopolists richer) the SUPPLY side has too much money.

Fifty years ago the shoe was on the other foot.

Honestly read some economic history and erducate yourselves.

GOOD efficient Economics and government policies is NOT a football game.

It's a balancing act between competing class interests.

Too much help to either class is unhealthy.

Thanks to our Founders we have freedom in this country not Nazi liberal elites ripping off one class to help another!!

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand freedom so should not be allowed to vote as per the Constitution.

Instead, we have billionaires who buy up Republican politicians and put laws into place that fuck over the Republican base big time making what is immoral "legal'. But these poor souls have been so saturated with propaganda, they beg for more.

To build a country, it takes people working together. To keep a country number one in science and technology, it takes people working together and education.

Republicans have become so brain dead. So stupid. So damaged. They believe people working together is "socialism" and "education is for snobs". Your post shouts "lower middle class" and "trailer living".

 

[rdean]

But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years.

yes China just switched from liberalism to "flood down" capitalism and now 15 million a year can buy cars whereas under liberalism 15 million a year starved to death.

Eddie, you idiot, 15 million people represents 1.1% of the population of China. Yes, China now has a group 1% group called the "princelings". These are young communist party officials who bought up government owned factories for pennies on the dollar and became wealthy overnight.

The pain and economic hardship imposed on the workers in China when wage and price controls were lifted, is still being felt. Wages dropped, and with no unions or government regulations, workers are little more than slaves, locked in factories to work for almost nothing. With government regulations governing their wages and working conditions, gone, the workers revolted which resulted in the Tiannamin Square massacre. Thousands of Chinese protesters were murdered. Thousands more sent to concentration camps for "re-education". A campaign of terror referred to as "the Pinochet Option" was used to keep those liberals who objected to the order, in line.

With no government regulation, the Chinese are churning out toxic products for foreign markets, until they're caught. The suicide rate in former Soviet countries since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the imposition of radical free market reforms has risen dramatically, and among the free market countries dubbed The Asian Tigers by the conservative financial media, the suicide rate has more than doubled in the last 10 years, since stringent free market reforms were introduced and social programs gutted.

In Russia, the rate of alcoholism under since the fall of communism has tripled. Americans used to say the high rate of alcoholism in the Soviet Union was proof positive of how unhappy the Russian people were under communism, yet after adopting freemarket reforms, the people are three times more miserable. The wealthy young oligarchs are on a spending spree, while working class people struggle to survive.

In country after country prices have risen, wages have fallen, poverty has increased, and the rich have become fabulously wealthy. Large US multinational corporations have bought up factories, utilties and banks and stripped the wealth out of these countries leaving governments with large debts owing to the World Bank. The wealthy and the elite in these countries have made billions, along with large US multinations. The middle class has been destroyed.

Last but certainly not least, unregulated free markets are far more volatile and subject to periods of high growth and inflation, stock market crashes, which are then followed by a contraction in the economy and recession. With no unemployment insurance, welfare, or government funded health care, when a recession hits, the poor starve - literally.

Needless to say, conservatives can't be honest about the results of these policies because who in their right mind is going to vote in favour of lower wages, higher unemployment, and no social spending whatsoever? Conservatives talk about welfare programs draining the economy, the poor as parasites, and those who promote social spending as communists and Marxists. No mention is made of the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, wealth which is then spirited out of the country, leaving the poor and the middle class to shoulder the tax burden, as well as "individual responsibility". Often the governments of these countries is financing the purchase of government assets, and using the money raised to pay for American aid.

Conservatives say if the America government doesn't get a handle on social spending, the US will end up like Greece. Greece is in the situation it's in because because the free market has taken over via the underground economy and nobody pays taxes. The market is completely unregulated and untaxed - classic neo-capitalism. And it's destroying the country.

Instead, Americans should be looking at successful mixed economies like Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the Scandanavian countries. We have a social safety net, and regulated capitalism as well as strong government regulations for manufacturing, and finance. We have lower rates of poverty, a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, lower rates of crime, drug abuse, and a better education system and overall better infrastructure and lower medical costs than the United States.

In countries with a strong safety net and a good education system, those born into poverty, have more opportunities to escape it. And when the US economy went into freefall, our countries had some economic pain, but we recovered within a year. The US and other free market countries, are still dealing with high unemployment, lack of spending on the part of businesses or consumers, and high debt for consumers.

Worse, for the Chinese, companies are building a million robots to replace people making $170 a month. Which means those factories could be built here. But we don't have enough educated and Republicans work to keep it that way. We need to modernize our infrastructure but Republicans say it's a waste of money. They only want to keep this country down. Don't ask me why. It's a mystery to me.

1 Million Robots To Replace 1 Million Human Jobs At Foxconn? First Robots Have Arrived. | Singularity Hub

Where the unemployed can find unfilled jobs across America | Fox News

U.S. plagued by skills shortage

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, Toddster, I lived through that time too. About 10 years after my degree in economics. So, I was really interested in Reaganomics, and how in hell it was supposed to work.

So, what you are saying is that you have no links that back up what you have said. No one really BELIEVES that dems came up with the idea. But there are at least 50 bat shit crazy con web sites trying to say that it WAS the case. Which I am sure you are aware of. So, I was wondering if you would take the method you used in addressing the issue, or if you would trot out a good con tool site. One of the many that are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But with no source. Just as you have no source.

So, what source should I pick. Could start with Wikipedia, just to get a start and see where that leads:


Ya think we should check out this guy, Stockman?? He was Budget Director for Reagan. Hell, he would know!!! And as a reference, he would rate as the gold standard:


Now, there is much, much more. From others who had a reason to know. But the bottom line is that trickle down was a theory that had been around for years. It was once known as the horse and sparrow theory, in which you fed the horse (the wealthy) a bag of grain, and the sparrow (those not wealthy) benefited from the seed in the horse crap.

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?
Sure i do. But the concept/theory was not brought forward by, nor pushed, by dems. It was the repubs who were trying to sell the concept.

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?
Well, I could understand how you missed it. Those were good years for drugs. But, those of us who were sober noticed. Sorry to surprise you so.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

People actually interested in the truth can find out what actually happened during these years. Sorry you do not follow history.

It was the repubs who were trying to sell the concept.

The Repubs tried to sell supply side by calling it trickle down? Really?

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?

Well, I could understand how you missed it.

Maybe you could show me?

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years

Deficits rose, but your claim was about tax cuts reducing revenues.
Those of us who were sober understand the difference.

 

[Dragonlady]

The tax cuts didn't reduce revenues because Reagan's tax cuts were accompanies by Defense Department spending on a massive scale as the US upgraded it's military hardware in a program of smart weapon development initially started by the Carter Administration. Reagan pumped massive amounts of money into the Space Shuttle program which had its first launch in 1981.

Reagan's average deficit for the 8 years he was in power was $167B versus $57B under Jimmy Carter. Most of the increase in revenues under Reagan was the result of the federal government spending so much money in the private sector on weapons development, the space program, and deal with the costs of food stamps and unemployment for the millions thrown out of work by Reagan's economic programs. It would be pretty hard for revenues not to grow with the federal government tripling it's spending during those years, with a very large percentage of that increase going to privately owned US military suppliers whose employees made very good money during those boom years.

Even with job growth of 2.1% per year during the Reagan administration, unemployment rose to 9.5% in 1983, after Reagan's tax cuts. It wasn't until after Reagan reversed nearly all of his tax cuts and passed some of the most regressive tax legislation in the history of the US, that the job market improved and the jobless rate came down to 5.3% in 1988.

Conservatives remember the Reagan years with rose coloured glasses. The rest of us are more realistic and not nearly so impressed.

 

[rdean]

The tax cuts didn't reduce revenues because Reagan's tax cuts were accompanies by Defense Department spending on a massive scale as the US upgraded it's military hardware in a program of smart weapon development initially started by the Carter Administration. Reagan pumped massive amounts of money into the Space Shuttle program which had its first launch in 1981.

Reagan's average deficit for the 8 years he was in power was $167B versus $57B under Jimmy Carter. Most of the increase in revenues under Reagan was the result of the federal government spending so much money in the private sector on weapons development, the space program, and deal with the costs of food stamps and unemployment for the millions thrown out of work by Reagan's economic programs. It would be pretty hard for revenues not to grow with the federal government tripling it's spending during those years, with a very large percentage of that increase going to privately owned US military suppliers whose employees made very good money during those boom years.

Even with job growth of 2.1% per year during the Reagan administration, unemployment rose to 9.5% in 1983, after Reagan's tax cuts. It wasn't until after Reagan reversed nearly all of his tax cuts and passed some of the most regressive tax legislation in the history of the US, that the job market improved and the jobless rate came down to 5.3% in 1988.

Conservatives remember the Reagan years with rose coloured glasses. The rest of us are more realistic and not nearly so impressed.

This is the fault of the "Reagan Legacy Project". In the late 90's, Republicans simply rewrote history. The majority of Bush Jr's policies came from the imaginary Reagan policies. GOP "Think Tanks" like the Heritage Foundation simply make up nonsense and call it policy. They simply don't bother with "statistics" or "analysis" or "collecting data". Doing that stuff is for "liberal elites".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tax cuts didn't reduce revenues because Reagan's tax cuts were accompanies by Defense Department spending on a massive scale as the US upgraded it's military hardware in a program of smart weapon development initially started by the Carter Administration. Reagan pumped massive amounts of money into the Space Shuttle program which had its first launch in 1981.

Reagan's average deficit for the 8 years he was in power was $167B versus $57B under Jimmy Carter. Most of the increase in revenues under Reagan was the result of the federal government spending so much money in the private sector on weapons development, the space program, and deal with the costs of food stamps and unemployment for the millions thrown out of work by Reagan's economic programs. It would be pretty hard for revenues not to grow with the federal government tripling it's spending during those years, with a very large percentage of that increase going to privately owned US military suppliers whose employees made very good money during those boom years.

Even with job growth of 2.1% per year during the Reagan administration, unemployment rose to 9.5% in 1983, after Reagan's tax cuts. It wasn't until after Reagan reversed nearly all of his tax cuts and passed some of the most regressive tax legislation in the history of the US, that the job market improved and the jobless rate came down to 5.3% in 1988.

Conservatives remember the Reagan years with rose coloured glasses. The rest of us are more realistic and not nearly so impressed.

and deal with the costs of food stamps and unemployment for the millions thrown out of work by Reagan's economic programs.

It's awful, non-farm employment under Reagan rose from 91 million to 107 million, because of the millions thrown out of work under Reagan.

It would be pretty hard for revenues not to grow with the federal government tripling it's spending during those years

LOL! Spending in 1981, $678 billion, spending in 1989 $1,143 billion.
Even a liberal should see that's an increase of less than 69%.
Tripling would mean more than $2 trillion.

It wasn't until after Reagan reversed nearly all of his tax cuts

The top rate went from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988.
When do you imagine he reversed those cuts?

 

[Dragonlady]

This is the fault of the "Reagan Legacy Project". In the late 90's, Republicans simply rewrote history. The majority of Bush Jr's policies came from the imaginary Reagan policies. GOP "Think Tanks" like the Heritage Foundation simply make up nonsense and call it policy. They simply don't bother with "statistics" or "analysis" or "collecting data". Doing that stuff is for "liberal elites".

Republican Presidents have been in thrall to Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics since Nixon. The US government has been urging free market reforms on governments in transition from communist and left leaning regimes since the CIA backed coup in Chile that toppled the Allende government and installed the brutally repressive Pinochet Regime.

Friedman opposed social programs of any kind including public education. Hence the villification by Reagan of welfare recipients, and others requiring public assistance. We still see people touting the welfare queen myth on this forum today. It's so much easier to blame the poor for their lot, for their lack of opportunities, low quality education, and their foolishness in having children they can't afford.

Since Nixon, the US has used the IMF and the World Bank to force governments to sell off publically owned infrastructure, gut social programs, and deregulate economies as a condition to loans to stabilize currencies. No nation has voted in free market reforms. All have had them imposed. Where elected governments have buckled to US pressure, their citizens have fought back. In come cases, the governments have backed down, and their economies have not suffered as severely. In other countries, dissent has been brutally repressed. All across South America in the 1970's, the brutal dictatorships "disappeared" anyone who spoke out against government policies.

These policies continued through the Clinton years, and accelerated under W, who outsourced the entire supply chain of the US Army, as well as the training of Iraq police, and the reconstruction of Iraq. Post war Iraq was a government contractor feeding frenzy, with Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, not even bothering to sell their stock in the companies which benefitted from the contracts. Failure to involve or engage the Iraqi citizens in the rebuilding of their own country, and refusing to allow Iraqis to bid on the government factories and businesses which were auctioned off to American interests, fuelled opposition to the US led occupation, and extended the war for years. Iraq was the first "free market war" and it was a disaster, from every standpoint.

Friedman was always disappointed that he wasn't able to completely rid the US of social programs and welfare but Republicans haven't given up on his programs or his ideas. Of course Republicans call Obama a communist and a Marxist and vilify him for the ACA. Free Market Economics is like a fundamental religion. It's all done in absolutes. Absolutely no social programs, no government assistance, no nationally owned railways, utilities, TV stations - everything must be privatized.

But no one in their right mind will vote for lower wages, higher taxes and no social safety net. So Republicans lie - about Obama, about the economy, the deficit. Everything. They pass meaningless legislation like the Defense of Marriage act to pander to the religious right. They distract the base with birther propaganda, and gerry mander their districts to keep voters from voting them out of office.

Thirty years of free market policies nearly destroyed the US economy. And still the Republicans are blaming social programs. Friedman's ideas are no more realistic than those of Karl Marx and for the same reason: Neither economic system factors in human greed. Contrary to what Gordon Gekko said, greed is not good.

Friedman economics are just as extreme as those of Marx. Both demand a cultural purity test - no religion for communists, no private ownership, no wealthy elite. For the free market folks, no regulation, no central control, no social programs, no government economic intervention, no publically owned infrastructure, no tariffs. Both are doomed to failure. Both ignore human factors which render either system destructive and unworkable.

Social programs are necessary for capitalism to thrive. They prevent the most vulnerable from being buffeted by market downturns and stagnant demand during periods of market adjustment. Government owned infrastructure, utilties and resources give stability to pricing for industry. A strong, well-financed public education system is necessary to produce workers who are trained and capable of competing in today's high tech world.

Republican parents don't want evolution, global warming and sex education taught in public schools and they're sending their kids to religious schools where: they don't have to mix with minorities, the children of gay couples, or those with different ideas, and they exercise their right to religious freedom by setting back science and technology by teaching their kids the earth is 6000 years old.

And still Republicans go on about how stupid Democrats are because they won't vote to eliminate social programs or public education, and we persist in demanding our children learn real science and math.

 

[Agit8r]

The idea behind supply-side is that a few will decide what is put to market. The idea behind demand-side is that the many will decide what brought to market.

Which of these follows the philosophy of free markets and democracy?

 

[editec]

Were is the money? The same place the Socialist ideas take it: To The Banks!

But wouldn't the banks lend the money out so they can make even more money? I believe banks are much more stingy in granting loans compared to other decades, but I could be wrong.

Banks don't NEED money to lend it out.

That exactly how they control the nation.

That is why they OWN the nation, too.

Do some reading.

 

[editec]

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?

You lived thru it and don't remember libs calling it trickle down?
Sure i do. But the concept/theory was not brought forward by, nor pushed, by dems. It was the repubs who were trying to sell the concept.

The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue

The tax cuts reduced revenue? When?
Well, I could understand how you missed it. Those were good years for drugs. But, those of us who were sober noticed. Sorry to surprise you so.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

People actually interested in the truth can find out what actually happened during these years. Sorry you do not follow history.

During the Reagan years the Fed induced the greatest recession since the Depression with 20% interest rates!!

Sorry you do not follow history!!!

the FED actually started ratcheting up the Prime Nixon ADMIN and kept up that pressure until about the second year of the Reagan Admin.

You know that economic miracle that happened during Reagan's second term?

That happened not because of anything Reagan did, it happened because the FED's actions to crush inflation worked well enough that they could back down the prime.

Once credit was again available, once businesses and consumer could afford to borrow again, naturally the economy started it long recover that lasted into the CLINTON years.

The problem is that the FED keep the prime too low for too long after inflation was beaten back.


In 91, a person with excellent credit rating paid about 10.5% on a 30 year fixed mortgage.
Now if you think people were nuts to pay that much you might be right, but that seemed CHEAP compared to mortgage rates of the previous years.

The FED CONTROLS the economy by either flooding the system with cheap debt, or starving the system by making borrowing very costly.

I mean seriously, how can any American who cares enough about our world to come to a place like this NOT know these things?

The HISTORY is all there for you to read.

EDUCATE yourselves.

History of the FED prime rate since 1970

March 25, 1970 8
September 21, 1970 7.5
November 12, 1970 7.25
November 23, 1970 7
December 22, 1970 6.75
January 6, 1971 6.5
January 15, 1971 6.25
January 18, 1971 6
February 16, 1971 5.75
March 11, 1971 5.5
March 19, 1971 5.25
April 23, 1971 5.5
July 7, 1971 6
October 20, 1971 5.75
November 8, 1971 5.5
December 17, 1971 5.25
January 3, 1972 5
January 18, 1972 4.75
February 16, 1972 4.5
March 20, 1972 4.75
March 31, 1972 5
June 27, 1972 5.25
August 29, 1972 5.5
October 3, 1972 5.75
December 27, 1972 6
February 27, 1973 6.25
March 26, 1973 6.5
April 19, 1973 6.75
May 7, 1973 7
May 25, 1973 7.25
June 7, 1973 7.5
June 22, 1973 7.75
July 2, 1973 8
July 9, 1973 8.25
July 18, 1973 8.5
July 30, 1973 8.75
August 6, 1973 9
August 13, 1973 9.25
August 21, 1973 9.5
August 28, 1973 9.75
September 18, 1973 10
October 23, 1973 9.75
October 29, 1973 9.5
December 3, 1973 9.75
January 29, 1974 9.5
February 11, 1974 9.25
February 19, 1974 9
February 25, 1974 8.75
March 22, 1974 9
April 1, 1974 9.25
April 4, 1974 9.5
April 8, 1974 9.75
April 11, 1974 10
April 22, 1974 10.25
April 25, 1974 10.5
May 2, 1974 10.75
May 7, 1974 11
May 10, 1974 11.25
May 17, 1974 11.5
June 27, 1974 11.75
July 8, 1974 12
October 8, 1974 11.75
October 22, 1974 11.25
November 6, 1974 11
November 13, 1974 10.75
November 25, 1974 10.25
January 9, 1975 10.25
January 15, 1975 10.00
January 20, 1975 9.75
January 28, 1975 9.50
February 3, 1975 9.25
February 10, 1975 9.00
February 18, 1975 8.75
February 24, 1975 8.50
March 5, 1975 8.25
March 10, 1975 8.00
March 18, 1975 7.75
March 24, 1975 7.50
May 20, 1975 7.25
June 9, 1975 7.00
July 20, 1975 7.25
July 29, 1975 7.50
August 11, 1975 7.75
September 12, 1975 8.00
October 28, 1975 7.75
November 7, 1975 7.50
December 2, 1975 7.25
January 12, 1976 7.00
January 21, 1976 6.75
June 1, 1976 7.00
June 10, 1976 7.25
August 3, 1976 7.00
September 24, 1976 6.75
November 1, 1976 6.50
November 24, 1976 6.25
May 13, 1977 6.50
May 31, 1977 6.75
August 22, 1977 7.00
September 16, 1977 7.25
October 7, 1977 7.50
October 24, 1977 7.75
January 10, 1978 8.00
May 5, 1978 8.25
May 26, 1978 8.50
June 16, 1978 8.75
July 30, 1978 9.00
August 31, 1978 9.25
September 15, 1978 9.50
September 28, 1978 9.75
October 13, 1978 10.00
October 27, 1978 10.25
November 1, 1978 10.50
November 6, 1978 10.75
November 17, 1978 11.00
November 24, 1978 11.50
December 26, 1978 11.75
June 19, 1979 11.50
July 27, 1979 11.75
August 16, 1979 12.00
August 28, 1979 12.25
September 7, 1979 12.75
September 14, 1979 13.00
September 21, 1979 13.25
September 28, 1979 13.50
October 9, 1979 14.00
October 23, 1979 15.00
November 1, 1979 15.25
November 9, 1979 15.50
November 16, 1979 14.75
November 30, 1979 15.50
December 7, 1979 15.25
February 19, 1980 15.75
February 22, 1980 16.50
February 29, 1980 16.75
March 4, 1980 17.25
March 7, 1980 17.75
March 14, 1980 18.50
March 19, 1980 19.00
March 28, 1980 19.50
April 2, 1980 20.00
April 18, 1980 19.50
May 1, 1980 18.50
May 7, 1980 17.50
May 16, 1980 16.50
May 23, 1980 14.50
May 30, 1980 14.00
June 6, 1980 13.00
June 13, 1980 12.50
June 17, 1980 12.00
July 7, 1980 11.50
July 25, 1980 11.00
August 22, 1980 11.25
August 27, 1980 11.50
September 8, 1980 12.00
September 12, 1980 12.25
September 19, 1980 12.50
September 26, 1980 13.00
October 1, 1980 13.50
October 17, 1980 14.00
October 29, 1980 14.50
November 6, 1980 15.50
November 17, 1980 16.25
November 21, 1980 17.00
November 26, 1980 17.75
December 2, 1980 18.50
December 5, 1980 19.00
December 10, 1980 20.00
December 16, 1980 21.00
December 19, 1980
21.50
(U.S. Prime Rate record high)
(BACK TO TOP | CURRENT PRIME RATE)

January 2, 1981 20.50
January 9, 1981 20.00
February 3, 1981 19.50
February 23, 1981 19.00
March 10, 1981 18.00
March 17, 1981 17.50
April 2, 1981 17.00
April 24, 1981 17.50
April 30, 1981 18.00
May 4, 1981 19.00
May 11, 1981 19.50
May 19, 1981 20.00
May 22, 1981 20.50
June 3, 1981 20.00
July 8, 1981 20.50
September 15, 1981 19.50
October 5, 1981 19.00
October 13, 1981 18.00
November 3, 1981 17.50
November 9, 1981 17.00
November 16, 1981 16.50
November 24, 1981 16.00
December 3, 1981 15.75
February 8, 1982 16.50
February 18, 1982 17.00
February 23, 1982 16.50
July 20, 1982 16.00
July 29, 1982 15.50
August 2, 1982 15.00
August 16, 1982 14.50
August 18, 1982 14.00
September 3, 1982 13.50
October 7, 1982 13.00
October 13, 1982 12.00
November 22, 1982 11.50
January 11, 1983 11.00
February 21, 1983 10.50
August 8, 1983 11.00
March 19, 1984 11.50
April 5, 1984 12.00
May 8, 1984 12.50
June 26, 1984 13.00
September 27, 1984 12.75
October 16, 1984 12.50
October 24, 1984 12.00
November 8, 1984 11.75
November 28, 1984 11.25
December 19, 1984 10.75
January 15, 1985 10.50
May 20, 1985 10.00
June 18, 1985 9.50
March 7, 1986 9.00
April 21, 1986 8.50
July 11, 1986 8.00
August 26, 1986 7.50
April 1, 1987 7.75
May 1, 1987 8.00
May 15, 1987 8.25
September 4, 1987 8.75
October 7, 1987 9.25
October 22, 1987 9.00
November 5, 1987 8.75
February 2, 1988 8.50
May 11, 1988 9.00
July 14, 1988 9.50
August 11, 1988 10.00
November 28, 1988 10.50
February 10, 1989 11.00
February 24, 1989 11.50
June 5, 1989 11.00
July 31, 1989 10.50
January 8, 1990 10.00
January 2, 1991 9.5
February 4, 1991 9.00
May 1, 1991 8.50
September 13, 1991 8
November 6, 1991 7.5
December 23, 1991 6.5
July 2, 1992 6.00
March 24, 1994 6.25
April 19, 1994 6.75
May 18, 1994 7.25
August 16, 1994 7.75
November 15, 1994 8.5
February 1, 1995 9.00
July 7, 1995 8.75
December 20, 1995 8.50
January 31, 1996 8.25
March 27, 1997 8.50
September 30, 1998 8.25
October 16, 1998 8.00
November 18, 1998 7.75
July 1, 1999 8.00
August 25, 1999 8.25
November 17, 1999 8.50
February 3, 2000 8.75
March 22, 2000 9.00
May 17, 2000 9.50
January 4, 2001 9.00
February 1, 2001 8.50
March 21, 2001 8.00
April 19, 2001 7.50
May 16, 2001 7.00
June 28, 2001 6.75
August 22, 2001 6.50
September 18, 2001 6.00
October 3, 2001 5.50
November 7, 2001 5.00
December 12, 2001 4.75
November 7, 2002 4.25
June 27, 2003 4.00
July 1, 2004 4.25
August 11, 2004 4.50
September 21, 2004 4.75
November 10, 2004 5.00
December 14, 2004 5.25
February 2, 2005 5.50
March 22, 2005 5.75
May 3, 2005 6.00
June 30, 2005 6.25
August 9, 2005 6.50
September 20, 2005 6.75
November 1, 2005 7.00
December 13, 2005 7.25
January 31, 2006 7.50
March 28, 2006 7.75
May 10, 2006 8.00
June 29, 2006 8.25
Date of Rate Change Rate (%)
September 18, 2007 7.75
October 31, 2007 7.50
December 11, 2007 7.25
January 22, 2008 6.50
January 30, 2008 6.00
March 18, 2008 5.25
April 30, 2008 5.00
October 8, 2008 4.50
October 29, 2008 4.00
December 16, 2008 3.25
(The Current U.S. Prime Rate)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I mean seriously, how can any American who cares enough about our world to come to a place like this NOT know these things?

Rushermer loves to lie that Reagans tax increases caused the economic boom thus disproving supply-side Reaganomics while you seem to know better, namely, that so called Reagan boom was in large part caused by the Fed finally lowering rates after it had raised them to bring on the recession and control inflation.

Hopefully now we've heard the last of Rushermer's lying idiocy!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Rushermer loves to lie that Reagans tax increases caused the economic boom thus disproving supply-side Reaganomics while you seem to know better, namely, that so called Reagan boom was in large part caused by the Fed finally lowering rates after it had raised them to bring on the recession and control inflation.

Hopefully now we've heard the last of Rushermer's lying idiocy!!

How do you explain unemployment going down when Clinton raised taxes AND the minimum wage - both sure job killers according to conservative economics?

How do you explain the drop in unemployment since January 1st of this year when the Bush Tax Cuts expired and the ACA deductions kicked in.

Free markets don't reduce unemployment, and raising taxes doesn't kill jobs. These are lies conservatives tell to frighten Americans into cutting taxes and keeping wages stagnant. Economic facts are never on the Republicans' side.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Free markets don't reduce unemployment,

dear in a free market supply equals demand so unemployment is always reduced to full employment. Econ 101, Sorry. Every wonder why the number of cars made equals the number sold?? Surprise, its called the law of supply and demand!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and raising taxes doesn't kill jobs. .

so the more you raise taxes or strangle the economy the more jobs it produces??????????????

so if the government taxed $10 trillion out of the economy rather than the current $3 trillion that would create jobs rather than kill jobs???


see why we say slow so very very slow??? Is any other conclusion possible???

 

[Dragonlady]

Free markets don't reduce unemployment,

dear in a free market supply equals demand so unemployment is always reduced to full employment. Econ 101, Sorry. Every wonder why the number of cars made equals the number sold?? Surprise, its called the law of supply and demand!!

No dear. Otherwise there would be no surpluses, no sales or other price reductions to move inventory, no bankruptcies, and no price competition because no one would have excess inventory to dispose of.

If free markets lead to full employment, why are so many people unemployed in Russia, China, Chile, Korea, South Africa, and the other countries were free market policies were forced upon the governments without the consent of the voting public?

You spout Friedman's theories with no actual knowledge of the results of the imposition of these theories. In short, Friedman is just as full of shit as Marx. Both are totalitarian systems which ignore human greed and aggression. Both have failed.

Those governments which examine the weaknesses of both schools of thought, and marry the two so that the volatility of the free market is offset by social programs for the most vulnerable, are more successful than those countries which ignore the poor and the needy and leave them to die. The have more employment, a higher standard of living, lower rates of crime and suicide, and they bounce back quicker after a recession.

But like a religious zealot who thinks that he and only he knows the Truth, you keep trotting out these failed memes, proving your ignorancne for all the world to see.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No dear. Otherwise there would be no surpluses,

Ok more Econ 101 for you. In a free market supply equals demand. If there is a surplus it is momentary as the price adjusts to clear the market or eliminate what you are mistakenly calling a surplus.

You can never get past your first sentence!! You have a perfect record!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If free markets lead to full employment, why are so many people unemployed in Russia, .

too stupid!! there is no free market in Russia. The country is plagued by crony capitalism, huge corruption at all levels, and tsarist communist totalitarian mentality.
OMG!!! Too slow!! You imagine free markets wherever there are problems wheter there are free markets or not. It is so stupid. Do you fool yourself that way??

You ought to ask yourself what bigotry , psychological confusion, or brainwashing robbed you of your ability to think!! You make childlike mistakes