Spread the wealth - one boat, a few boats, or many boats?

[Brain357]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

Do you think it is good that wages are pretty stagnant for all but the most wealthy right now?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The OP didn't quite get the quote right. The correct version of that metaphor is "a rising tide lifts ALL boats", meaning that whether you are in a rowboat, outboard motorboat, houseboat or yacht (meaning the different income levels), a rising tide (good economy and livable wage), will lift up everyone.

It's not a question about how expensive the boat is or how many there are.

And..........if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the current minimum wage would be around 10.50/hour, and if people have more money to spend, then everyone will do better, because the poor will have more money to buy necessities, the middle class will have more disposable income, resulting in the wealthy that own corporations and factories will have more people buying their product, resulting in even more wealth for them.

Does a rising tide lift all boats? You bet.

On the other side of the coin is "trickle down economics", and that will NEVER work, because those at the top who get the money first will hold onto it, resulting in less and less making it down to the middle class and poor. If you want to see a concrete example of that one, look no farther than the water wars that have happened over the years. Those at the beginning of the stream (top) have first access to the water for their farms and animals, while those who are farther down end up with less and less water to work with because those at the top have already used it for themselves.

Me personally? I think the minimum wage (which is what many jobs pay nowdays) should be raised to at least 10.10, so that those at the bottom can at least keep up with inflation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

 

[Brain357]

The OP didn't quite get the quote right. The correct version of that metaphor is "a rising tide lifts ALL boats", meaning that whether you are in a rowboat, outboard motorboat, houseboat or yacht (meaning the different income levels), a rising tide (good economy and livable wage), will lift up everyone.

It's not a question about how expensive the boat is or how many there are.

And..........if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the current minimum wage would be around 10.50/hour, and if people have more money to spend, then everyone will do better, because the poor will have more money to buy necessities, the middle class will have more disposable income, resulting in the wealthy that own corporations and factories will have more people buying their product, resulting in even more wealth for them.

Does a rising tide lift all boats? You bet.

On the other side of the coin is "trickle down economics", and that will NEVER work, because those at the top who get the money first will hold onto it, resulting in less and less making it down to the middle class and poor. If you want to see a concrete example of that one, look no farther than the water wars that have happened over the years. Those at the beginning of the stream (top) have first access to the water for their farms and animals, while those who are farther down end up with less and less water to work with because those at the top have already used it for themselves.

Me personally? I think the minimum wage (which is what many jobs pay nowdays) should be raised to at least 10.10, so that those at the bottom can at least keep up with inflation.

I tend to agree that is a better option than increasing taxes and trying to distribute it to the less fortunate. I'm not sure how much of an effect it would really have. There aren't that many people at min wage. Would 10.10 get some people off food stamps?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP didn't quite get the quote right. The correct version of that metaphor is "a rising tide lifts ALL boats", meaning that whether you are in a rowboat, outboard motorboat, houseboat or yacht (meaning the different income levels), a rising tide (good economy and livable wage), will lift up everyone.

It's not a question about how expensive the boat is or how many there are.

And..........if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the current minimum wage would be around 10.50/hour, and if people have more money to spend, then everyone will do better, because the poor will have more money to buy necessities, the middle class will have more disposable income, resulting in the wealthy that own corporations and factories will have more people buying their product, resulting in even more wealth for them.

Does a rising tide lift all boats? You bet.

On the other side of the coin is "trickle down economics", and that will NEVER work, because those at the top who get the money first will hold onto it, resulting in less and less making it down to the middle class and poor. If you want to see a concrete example of that one, look no farther than the water wars that have happened over the years. Those at the beginning of the stream (top) have first access to the water for their farms and animals, while those who are farther down end up with less and less water to work with because those at the top have already used it for themselves.

Me personally? I think the minimum wage (which is what many jobs pay nowdays) should be raised to at least 10.10, so that those at the bottom can at least keep up with inflation.

I tend to agree that is a better option than increasing taxes and trying to distribute it to the less fortunate. I'm not sure how much of an effect it would really have. There aren't that many people at min wage. Would 10.10 get some people off food stamps?

Likely not, but it's a start.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The OP didn't quite get the quote right. The correct version of that metaphor is "a rising tide lifts ALL boats", meaning that whether you are in a rowboat, outboard motorboat, houseboat or yacht (meaning the different income levels), a rising tide (good economy and livable wage), will lift up everyone.

It's not a question about how expensive the boat is or how many there are.

And..........if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the current minimum wage would be around 10.50/hour, and if people have more money to spend, then everyone will do better, because the poor will have more money to buy necessities, the middle class will have more disposable income, resulting in the wealthy that own corporations and factories will have more people buying their product, resulting in even more wealth for them.

Does a rising tide lift all boats? You bet.

On the other side of the coin is "trickle down economics", and that will NEVER work, because those at the top who get the money first will hold onto it, resulting in less and less making it down to the middle class and poor. If you want to see a concrete example of that one, look no farther than the water wars that have happened over the years. Those at the beginning of the stream (top) have first access to the water for their farms and animals, while those who are farther down end up with less and less water to work with because those at the top have already used it for themselves.

Me personally? I think the minimum wage (which is what many jobs pay nowdays) should be raised to at least 10.10, so that those at the bottom can at least keep up with inflation.

I tend to agree that is a better option than increasing taxes and trying to distribute it to the less fortunate. I'm not sure how much of an effect it would really have. There aren't that many people at min wage. Would 10.10 get some people off food stamps?

Yes.....................10.10 would be enough to make people ineligible for food stamps. Only problem is, with various trade agreements that we already have (NAFTA), and ones that Congress is trying to pass (Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP), the countries that sign on will have access to trade with us, and various corporations over here will see they can do business over in places like S. Korea and Taiwan much cheaper because of the labor laws of those countries and end up moving their manufacturing over there, because under the trade agreements they can legally do so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It would be nice if some employers would pay more rather than hoard it all. But I guess that is the part of trickle down which doesn't really happen.

Then why don't you start a business where the proceeds go to the employees rather than offering you a return on your investment, talent, and work?

No one will stop you, I guarantee it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It would be nice if some employers would pay more rather than hoard it all. But I guess that is the part of trickle down which doesn't really happen.

Then why don't you start a business where the proceeds go to the employees rather than offering you a return on your investment, talent, and work?

Companies that do that, do well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

Reagan's boy-wiz budget director, dummy. David Stockman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Brain357]

It would be nice if some employers would pay more rather than hoard it all. But I guess that is the part of trickle down which doesn't really happen.

Then why don't you start a business where the proceeds go to the employees rather than offering you a return on your investment, talent, and work?

No one will stop you, I guarantee it.

I don't think it will have a very big effect on the country.

Do you think it is good that Walmart pays so little the employees are on welfare? Meanwhile the Waltons make billions. That is just making people dependent on the government while making the Waltons richer.

 

[Brain357]

The OP didn't quite get the quote right. The correct version of that metaphor is "a rising tide lifts ALL boats", meaning that whether you are in a rowboat, outboard motorboat, houseboat or yacht (meaning the different income levels), a rising tide (good economy and livable wage), will lift up everyone.

It's not a question about how expensive the boat is or how many there are.

And..........if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, the current minimum wage would be around 10.50/hour, and if people have more money to spend, then everyone will do better, because the poor will have more money to buy necessities, the middle class will have more disposable income, resulting in the wealthy that own corporations and factories will have more people buying their product, resulting in even more wealth for them.

Does a rising tide lift all boats? You bet.

On the other side of the coin is "trickle down economics", and that will NEVER work, because those at the top who get the money first will hold onto it, resulting in less and less making it down to the middle class and poor. If you want to see a concrete example of that one, look no farther than the water wars that have happened over the years. Those at the beginning of the stream (top) have first access to the water for their farms and animals, while those who are farther down end up with less and less water to work with because those at the top have already used it for themselves.

Me personally? I think the minimum wage (which is what many jobs pay nowdays) should be raised to at least 10.10, so that those at the bottom can at least keep up with inflation.

I tend to agree that is a better option than increasing taxes and trying to distribute it to the less fortunate. I'm not sure how much of an effect it would really have. There aren't that many people at min wage. Would 10.10 get some people off food stamps?

Yes.....................10.10 would be enough to make people ineligible for food stamps. Only problem is, with various trade agreements that we already have (NAFTA), and ones that Congress is trying to pass (Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP), the countries that sign on will have access to trade with us, and various corporations over here will see they can do business over in places like S. Korea and Taiwan much cheaper because of the labor laws of those countries and end up moving their manufacturing over there, because under the trade agreements they can legally do so.

Do you think trade then is the big reason our wages are stagnant?

 

[Brain357]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

Reagan's boy-wiz budget director, dummy. David Stockman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our spending problems really started with Reagan.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

Reagan's boy-wiz budget director, dummy. David Stockman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He was off in the trillion column, he's as wrong as Krugman

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While trickle down didn't work, that is sort of the theory. Everyone eventually has more. Now the right seems to think just the rich should have more.

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

Reagan's boy-wiz budget director, dummy. David Stockman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our spending problems really started with Reagan.

You mean with Tip O'Neill

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't think it will have a very big effect on the country.

Why not?

There are millions of leftists like you bleating the same slogans

I'm sure that Mary Kay Henry - president of SEIU donates her $3.2 million a year salary to the workers, right? I mean the c{}nt is behind many of the mindless slogans you chant - so she must not be "greedy" like all those business owners.

So all the magnanimous leftists are joining you in giving all proceeds to the workers. Far left Apple didn't make a dime in profit last year, they made sure it all went to benefit the workers.

I mean, you leftists are just whiny ******* hypocrites trying to steal everything that isn't tied down, you're dedicated social warriors who walk the talk - right?

Do you think it is good that Walmart pays so little the employees are on welfare? Meanwhile the Waltons make billions. That is just making people dependent on the government while making the Waltons richer.

Do I think it's good that stupid people spew dishonest slogans that they are trained to repeat by hate sites?

Not really...

 

[Brain357]

I don't think it will have a very big effect on the country.

Why not?

There are millions of leftists like you bleating the same slogans

I'm sure that Mary Kay Henry - president of SEIU donates her $3.2 million a year salary to the workers, right? I mean the c{}nt is behind many of the mindless slogans you chant - so she must not be "greedy" like all those business owners.

So all the magnanimous leftists are joining you in giving all proceeds to the workers. Far left Apple didn't make a dime in profit last year, they made sure it all went to benefit the workers.

I mean, you leftists are just whiny ******* hypocrites trying to steal everything that isn't tied down, you're dedicated social warriors who walk the talk - right?

Do you think it is good that Walmart pays so little the employees are on welfare? Meanwhile the Waltons make billions. That is just making people dependent on the government while making the Waltons richer.

Do I think it's good that stupid people spew dishonest slogans that they are trained to repeat by hate sites?

Not really...

It's a fact that Walmart employees collect welfare. You support the government getting bigger then? Cause that's what is happening with all the corporate welfare.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm sure that Mary Kay Henry - president of SEIU donates her $3.2 million a year salary to the workers, right?

Why do you hate the rich?

 

[Brain357]

"Trickle down" was a derogatory term coined by the left in hopes of smearing the supply side economics that created the longest sustained economic growth in American history.

Trickle down never existed - no more than "starving children" and "grandma thrown in the street" was - it was never anything other than demagoguery by the shameful democrats.

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

Reagan's boy-wiz budget director, dummy. David Stockman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our spending problems really started with Reagan.

You mean with Tip O'Neill

I don't recall him being president. Not do I recall Reagan trying to do anything to slow spending. Only thing that slowed spending was ross Perot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Stockman's disillusionment didn't take long. While his compatriots were eager to cut taxes, he found that they were unwilling to shrink the government, that special interests were able to beat back any cuts he proposed, and that supply-side economics wasn't as effective as he'd hoped. These concerns spilled out in a lengthy December 1981 Atlantic cover story, written by William Greider, in which Stockman provided a tick-tock of his efforts since taking office, which ended with exploding deficits and an economy veering toward recession.

Autumn was cruel to David Stockman's idea of how the world should work. The summer, when furious legislative trading was under way, had tattered his moral vision of government. Politics, in the dirty sense, had prevailed. Now he was confronted with more serious possibilities--the failure of the economic strategy and the political unraveling that he had feared from the beginning. On Capitol Hill, where Stockman was admired and envied for his nimble mind, where even critics conceded that his presence in the Cabinet was essential to Ronald Reagan's opening victories, politicians of both parties were beginning to reach a different conclusion about him. Despite the wizardry, Stockman did not have all the answers, after all. The wizard was prepared to agree ....
Stockman's prospects for balancing the budget were getting worse, not better. The optimistic economic forecast made in January to improve his original budget projections came back to haunt him in September. The inflation rate was down considerably (a prediction fortuitously correct because of oil and grain prices) but interest rates were not: the cost of federal borrowing and debt payments went still higher.

Where did things go wrong? Stockman kept asking and answering the right questions. The more he considered it, the more he moved away from the radical vision of reformer, away from the wishful thinking of supply-side economics, and toward the "old-time religion" of conservative economic thinking."
How David Stockman Became Democrats Favorite Reaganite - The Atlantic

Who the **** is Stockman? He was wrong then, he's wrong now

Reagan's boy-wiz budget director, dummy. David Stockman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our spending problems really started with Reagan.

You mean with Tip O'Neill

I don't recall him being president. Not do I recall Reagan trying to do anything to slow spending. Only thing that slowed spending was ross Perot.

1980 platform plank: abolishing Department of Education

In 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency on a platform that included abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Only recently created by President Jimmy Carter as a political favor to the teachers' unions, the department had failed to deliver either better test scores or more rigorous curriculum dedicated to academic excellence. That sounded like a good idea to me, because I have never believed in federal control of the schools. The vast majority of parents can figure out for themselves how to educate their children and how to provide them with good values. And if some parents can't do so, well, there's most likely someone nearby who can step in. That's what I mean by local control and by the wisdom of letting the fifty states--all those separate laboratories of democracy--chart their own courses on education. The challenge of good schooling, I firmly believe, is best addressed as close to the student as possible.

Ronald Reagan on Education