Obamanomics vs Reaganomics

38 posts / 0 new

Look at the mess Reagan inherited. It is crystal clear. IT WAS CARTER'S FAULT.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obama...

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Comments

Just for the record... the Reagan Great Recession didn't begin until summer 81... 6 MONTHS after he took office. Obviously the promise of massive, irresponsible tax cuts was not enough to stave that off any more than the existing Bush tax cuts inoculated us from the Bush Great Depression.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

According to you birds, recessions always start long before your guy is in office.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

One of the realities of economics, redneck, is the lag factor. When one begins with a big hole to fill, it takes time and resources to fill it before you get to start with level ground.

I am less enamored of arguments that are supposed to show short term economic lessons from what is happening with regard to what is being implemented than I am of sound theoretical explanations for long term evidence. Much of the Clinton Economic Miracle is of dot.com bubble enthusiasm, for example. Bill is the much better master of neocon/neoliberal econ than others like Greedspan, but for criticism and thinking outside the box you have to step outside our electoral politics.

I am also not very interested at all in rehashing, much less re-enacting, the history of our Economic Polemics in the great Capitalism v. Communism/Socialism cage match. There is also far less to gain from trying to squeeze the lessons of history from the American experience of limited options than from looking at what is working in many places. Our presumptions about the metaphysics of "private property" get in the way of imaginative design. We are also in a time of Ecological Crisis where we need to factor new metrics of time and space into our "bottom lines."

The ideological crash of the Wall St. Casino and the American Century New Rome is certain. Reality will not put up with this insult much longer. It is time for much fresher and expansive thinking and dreaming.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote Redwing:

According to you birds, recessions always start long before your guy is in office.

Gee Einstein, aren't YOU blaming Carter for the Reagan Depression?

Here are the official timelines: http://nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

It's as I said... it began six months AFTER Reagan took office.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Redwing:

Look at the mess Reagan inherited. It is crystal clear. IT WAS CARTER'S FAULT. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

You do realize that hack piece could just as well have come from Heritage or the WSJ editorial pages. But then that's why you love it so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Ferarra's that whiny voiced douchebag that comes on to debate Thom and almost ALWAYS loses it. I suppose one of his jobs is to come on progressive radio to parrot Heartland Institute propaganda, and sell conservative ideas, but he does a lousy job at it because he always comes off as a short tempered little whiny voiced brat. I realize Thom does try to provoke his conservative guests, but almost all of them handle it pretty well......not Ferrara. No surprise he kneels before the one who popped open the cork on the "Age of Greed." Just so happens we're finally experiencing the hangover for Reagan's "prosperity." Sorry, not buying his propaganda.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

Look at the mess Reagan inherited. It is crystal clear. IT WAS CARTER'S FAULT. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

To be fair Reagan had to deal with high energy prices and tight money by the Feds started by Carter. But Obama had to deal with a collapsing economy plus a imploding banking, housing, and automotive sectors.

But I'm sure in your mind Reagan had it far worst once he created his recession 6 months into his first year.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

The recession was caused by the policies of Paul Volker allowing high interest rates. Reagan left him in place until early 1983 and for last half of 1983 and into 1984 the economy's growth rate hovered between 7.4 and 5 percent.

If that was classified as a recession, what is this nightmare that Obama has created?

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

The CBO predicted under Carter a budget surplus by 1983. Fed Chair Volcker forced the recession under Carter's eye and approval, it was the right thing for the fed to do. Reagan got to increase spending to exit the recession, Obama has reduced spending slowing the current recovery pace. Every republican was allowed to increase spending to stimulate and exit recessions, and it always worked as Keynes taught. Obama is denied that option.

Ferrara is an asshole that shouldn't get on tv unless it's for fox dimwits.

Carter created more jobs in his 4 years than W did in his 8. With tax cuts for the job creators and deficit spending beyond all previous records, W proved voodoo economics was bunk.

Deregulation cost jobs, and set the stage for monopolies and bank fraud through securitization of mortgages and other debt. All of these were illegal under most state's constitutions, but the 'states rights/small government' party over ruled the state's wise protections and bankrupted many.

The expansion was not killed by GHW's tax increase. That increase spurred the growth that Clinton grasped and built upon. History is clear that the economy expands under higher tax burdens, the money invested in productive enterprises creates more jobs and expansion than money invested in bain style leveraged buyouts. The recent congressional research paper on tax burdens vs economic growth showed what history has shown, tax cuts don't lead to growth, tax increases don't hamper growth. The only tax cuts that are Keynesian are the lower end cuts, like the fica holiday and the lowest tax bracket getting more deductions. Those tax cuts are spent and are an effective stimulus.

An emergency trigger for deficit reduction could be enacted should the deficit exceed a certain percent relative to GDP. The emergency measure would not require revised marginal rates. LBJ enacted a surtax in the '60s and the same could be done today. I have written my senator and rep to seek a surtax whenever military adventurism causes the defense budget to overrun by 5%. Surtax is just a tax added to your taxes owed. A 5% surtax on your tax burden of 2000 would be a 100 dollars making your total tax 2100. An added benefit of a wartax, or war surtax would be anyone voting for military adventures would also be voting for tax increases. They don't mind spending other family's lives for their fantasies but if they have to spend their sugar daddy's dollars to fulfill their fantasy they might think twice.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
what is this nightmare that Obama has created?
Huh!?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

The recession was caused by the policies of Paul Volker allowing high interest rates. Reagan left him in place until early 1983 and for last half of 1983 and into 1984 the economy's growth rate hovered between 7.4 and 5 percent.

If that was classified as a recession, what is this nightmare that Obama has created?

As I said, Reagan didn't have to deal with collapsed banking, housing, or automotive sectors... not did he have 10 trillion in debt. And even if the recession "ended" in November 82, peak unemployment was higher under Reagan than under Obama at 10.8% and it was over 8% for 27 months until Jan 84 and was never below 7% until the last month of Reagan's first term. Reagan also didn't have to deal with insane free trade deals. These days companies can meet the needs of US consumers without having to expand US production. And in the 80's consumers had much less debt than than in 2009.

Obama got stuck with the legacy of irresponsible Reagan-esque policies... many approved by Clinton, and made the further mistake of not trying to reverse them. He SHOULD have pushed gone for re-regulating Wall Street to turn it away from reckless speculation into more productive activities. All we got was a weak Dodd-Frank. Reagan benefited from collapsing oil prices... no, they were NOT brought about by lifting price controls as your hack piece claimed. Today speculation in the oil markets is one area that would have greatly helped the economy instead of being a drag on it and Obama's done nothing to stop it. And Obama's wanted to expand irresponsible free trade deals.

So pray tell... economically you've gotten most of what you wanted over the past 30 years from both GOP and Dem presidents... and you're complaining now about where these right wing policies have taken the nation... without renouncing them? Of course as a rabid partisan you can live with such cognitive dissonance... because now you can blame Dems... even if they adopted right wing ideas.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

BTW, Reagan was a failure by his own standards:

http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2011/06/proof-reagans-tax-cuts-f...

I need to correct the unemployment rate there. It reached 8% in Nov 81.... through Jan 84.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Probably since both parties have adopted neo-liberalism, correct blame can go back and forth depending on which party is in control of government.

Reagan promoted outsourcing. Clinton had it codified into law beginning with NAFTA.

Reagan wanted de-regulation of finance. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.

Reagan wanted to dismantle welfare programs of FDR's New Deal. Clinton did it. Only a Dem could get away with gutting the New Deal and throwing the poor under the bus. Poverty rates among children quickly rose.

Bush's Head Bankster was re-appointed as Obama's Head Bankster. Bernanke.

Republicans propose...Dems carry through with the proposals.. It's called bi-partisanship by some. My own term is a "purposeful sell-out".

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Probably since both parties have adopted neo-liberalism, correct blame can go back and forth depending on which party is in control of government.

And that's the problem here. If corporate DLC Dems adopt right wing policies... they remain right wing ideas. Yet Conservatives can't even identify their own ideas. But then that could just be because once Dems adopt them, it moves the debate further to the Right... and the Right then just gets more looney. We saw this with the Tea Crackpots.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Reagan (and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress) INCREASED TAXES, SPENDING AND REGULATION during the 80's. Reagan was a protectionist. Liberals should love the guy and real conservatives should despise him, but for some reason the roles are reversed.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Redwing-read a little economics. 2008 was a deleveraging recession-economists say they generally take 10 years to recover from. Reagan, thru Volcker, actually purposefully created a recession to stop runaway inflation. And Reagan didn't have to deal with too big to fail-the financial conquest of America hadn't happened yet.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote LysanderSpooner:

Reagan (and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress) INCREASED TAXES...

Reagan did both... but the cuts in 81 were greater than his large tax hikes in 82 and 83.

What Reagan really did was shift taxes downward... plus raise debt. So if there ever was to be debt paydown, it would fall more heavily away from the rich.

And this is the Right's game plan to sabotage the fiscal health of the nation by creating more debt and cutting taxes until the system begins to fail. At that point the Right will claim we can no longer afford the New Deal and Great Society. As they wipe off their fingerprints from their treachery, we can hear them say... gee, how did that happen!

Sounds like a far Right version of Cloward and Priven.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Cheney/Bush and now Obama.... neo-liberal war criminals all and nary a hairs difference between them in policies which really matter..... Observing the continuing debate on lesser evilism is fascinating.... Though hard to beat Reagan's lasting devastating impact on the people of the US and the people of the rest of the world....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Some of us do find it fascinating as in of serious pathological interest and need to know. If you go outside the American narrative far enough, it all flows in one stream with little to distinguish the liberals from the conservatives. However, if you want something more useful than a gloss of generalization, you do want to pay attention to the differences between the addicts and the co-dependent enablers.

You can blame the co-dependent for not stopping the addicts. But those shooting up and intimidating the rest of the family are the more serious of the two problems. Getting the co-dependent to interven instead of cover up is a political task worth considering. Getting the addicts to give up their crack is far less likely to result from anything we do, but helping those who feel enclosed in the DC Bubble to find a way out of that bad place has a real chance.

Besides, it involves getting us doing something to be able to bring the intervention that DC cannot bring upon itself from inside the pathology.

My analogy is that the Dysfunctional Family, the Duopoly, is failing and the "adults" have abandoned the family leadership to go out drinking, drugging and whoring with their DC power friends. This causes a crisis of confidence in whether the outside public will continue to think the family is a fine model of public leadership working hard to serve the community and provide for the common good.

The Dems are the older children who take over when their parents fail. They keep the family business together and get the younger kids fed, dressed and off to school as if everything was ok. Their big worry is that someone will find out about the parents, so they do not complain about the things the parents are doing as they keep the lawn mowed and the walks swept. They don't talk about the abuse they suffer either.

They also continue the family business, dealing with the people their parents did business with as if nothing had really changed. Their hope is to do the job of family management that their parents do very poorly when they even try. Their despair is not seeing anyone they can go to for help. So they continue to reassure us that we can trust the family to be the great community asset we want it to be if we will just close our eyes and believe in fairies.

Larry Wilkerson gave a very interesting interview in dialogue with Norman Solomon on Democracy Now! Amy moderated. Solomon was making the strong case that anyone serious ought to have had enough doubts about the weapons of mass destruction 'intelligence' to ask serious questions instead of going along with the Bush Admin. Wilkerson, who is adamant about the negativity of the drones was trying to explain how he and Colin Powell got sucked into the Iraq propaganda. He really resists any idea that there was complicity or a desire to let an attack happen on 9/11, and he goes on to say that the 'serious people' in the Bubble really did believe the cooked intelligence.

Solomon was having very little of it, and the point Wilkerson was making got a bit lost in the I can't believe all you intelligent people could be taken in by such crappy lying disinformation. Wilkerson kept complaining that Norman had never called him and Solomon kept saying that they were issuing their press releases and had no easy access to him or the Power Towers. It seems to me that we could learn to make sure the messages are delivered, but more importantly we have to appreciate how hard it is to penetrate the Bubble with credibility.

In addition to the imperial powers behind the throne making any President dance to their tune to some major extent, you have the culture of power and all those insider rules of who can and cannot say anything that anyone else takes seriously. You have the mover and shaker money doing just that to "our" Congress. Why would anyone observing this objectively expect the parties to be big agents of change rather than a sort of pendular hypnotic device to convince people that their political action really matters and that they are citizens of a democracy? If you can see it as an Empire, it moves and shakes imperially as one would expect. Those inside the Bubble may have herd instinct about who has the power instead of a clear understanding. They continue to bleat and baah, but neither the sheep nor the goats can change their nature and butt the power brokers out of the way.

The good news is that the drones are stinking up the place. Kudos to Wilkerson for much that he has done in his post-Powell aide life, but I still was dumbfounded by his defense of the lying Bushies and their 'mushroom cloud' and 'tubes' that were easily dismissed by experts. I can see no good reason why he would make this case to defend himself or Powell. He already has told about how badly Powell was treated and how used he felt. He might want to explain why Colin trusted his CIC as a good soldier, but why was he given the turd sandwich to begin with? Has he not really understood PNAC and the American Century fanatics? Why still give them cover as honest players when it is clear that they all were pushing an agenda with deep roots?

It is the same about 9/11, of course. We get the wise people telling us that the conspiracy theory is too big and too many people would have had to know, meaning someone would have told or blown the whistle. BS. If what Wilkerson is saying about the Bubble and DC is true, those few just get isolated as people your career does not want on your resume, and they can have their hair on fire and be in a position of some authority and still get nowhere. Screaming about al Qaeda and planes being used to attack buildings with Osama at the command post did not get the Cheney to leave the Enron Encampment. Money wanted the oil and therefor the war.

In that kind of atmosphere, I know too many smart and patriotic people who find a way to justify their career path as do the banksters who say that their business plan was legal so they are not responsible for what it did. After all, they did not vote for "war' when they gave Bush that authorization to use force in last resort emergency context with him supposedly coming back to get a final ok on war if that was where it went. Please, with the self-deception this obvious, try to figure out why YOU were fooled and stop trying to convince me that it was an honest mistake. Even if you did not know better, the "honest mistake" excuse falls flat. Last resorts require a lot more effort and caution.

Finally, norske, you are right about Reagan and that most unfortunate 'revolution.' At exactly the point when we ought to have put the American Century under the microscope to find a way out of its spell, we 'doubled down' on the narrative in its Southern cultic version. Had our Peace Movement been a rejection of being The Last Empire as defender of the neo-colonial order against national liberation movements, we might have looked away from empire and to what it would take to be a democracy and a global citizen. But, lets face it, Americans were much more ready to get back on the American Century Cold War narrative than to face learning the lessons of history. Reagan gave them more than permission as he smiled and did his pilgramage to Phila. Miss. Then he did the wars that made Vietnam look half decent as a mistake compared to Iran/Contra.

The roots go back before WWII, but Ronnie Popular sealed the deal for the Neocons and Americans bought the myth like candy. It no longer shocks me that Americans are so ready to believe bullshit because I see the art and skill of the deception. What matters to me is what we can do because we know enough from the outside to get back inside effectively. Unless we are going to be spectators at our own train crash, we might want to see what does make some difference for us politically so we can be equally artful and knowledgeable about being human with other humans. Not only is despair not an option, it is something we have to keep for better times. The politics of the Bubble includes the controlling narratives. Why so many of us are invested in and unwilling to let go of that narrative is what makes Americans unlike those who can look at us from abroad and wonder, and maybe even an affordable despair.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote norske:

Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Cheney/Bush and now Obama.... neo-liberal war criminals all and nary a hairs difference between them in policies which really matter..... Observing the continuing debate on lesser evilism is fascinating.... Though hard to beat Reagan's lasting devastating impact on the people of the US and the people of the rest of the world....

You forgot FDR,Wilson, and Truman

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:

Reagan (and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress) INCREASED TAXES...

Reagan did both... but the cuts in 81 were greater than his large tax hikes in 82 and 83.

What Reagan really did was shift taxes downward... plus raise debt. So if there ever was to be debt paydown, it would fall more heavily away from the rich.

And this is the Right's game plan to sabotage the fiscal health of the nation by creating more debt and cutting taxes until the system begins to fail. At that point the Right will claim we can no longer afford the New Deal and Great Society. As they wipe off their fingerprints from their treachery, we can hear them say... gee, how did that happen!

Sounds like a far Right version of Cloward and Priven.

The true level of taxation is really the level of spending. Reagan increased spending. Cutting tax rates is not the same as cutting taxes. It is also a myth that the Right in this country opposes the New Deal and the Great Society. Outside of Ron Paul, show me a Republican who has actually cut anything or proposed cutting anything.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:The true level of taxation is really the level of spending. Reagan increased spending. Cutting tax rates is not the same as cutting taxes. It is also a myth that the Right in this country opposes the New Deal and the Great Society. Outside of Ron Paul, show me a Republican who has actually cut anything or proposed cutting anything.

Not sure what you're getting at except possibly all tax cuts made when there are deficits = future tax hikes plus interest.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote drc2:

Larry Wilkerson gave a very interesting interview in dialogue with Norman Solomon on Democracy Now! Amy moderated. Solomon was making the strong case that anyone serious ought to have had enough doubts about the weapons of mass destruction 'intelligence' to ask serious questions instead of going along with the Bush Admin. Wilkerson, who is adamant about the negativity of the drones was trying to explain how he and Colin Powell got sucked into the Iraq propaganda. He really resists any idea that there was complicity or a desire to let an attack happen on 9/11, and he goes on to say that the 'serious people' in the Bubble really did believe the cooked intelligence.

Wilkerson and Powell are both war criminals... and in a more sane and just world would be joining all living presidents and their adminstrations in being tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

The recession was caused by the policies of Paul Volker allowing high interest rates. Reagan left him in place until early 1983 and for last half of 1983 and into 1984 the economy's growth rate hovered between 7.4 and 5 percent.

If that was classified as a recession, what is this nightmare that Obama has created?

So in other words you ARE blaming Carter for the Reagan Recession so your claim... which I assume was aimed at me,

Quote Redwing:

According to you birds, recessions always start long before your guy is in office.

now also applies to YOU?

I'm totally confused with your position.... but apparently less confused than you.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote norske:

Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Cheney/Bush and now Obama.... neo-liberal war criminals all and nary a hairs difference between them in policies which really matter..... Observing the continuing debate on lesser evilism is fascinating.... Though hard to beat Reagan's lasting devastating impact on the people of the US and the people of the rest of the world....

You forgot FDR,Wilson, and Truman

You forgot Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Wilson's war was unneccessary. Coolidge and Hoover's prohibition was unneccessary. Which of the WWll theaters were unneccessary? Paleocon Buchanon thinks Europe was unneccessary, I don't know what he thought of the Pacific but I bet he liked the nukes [they were war crimes]. Korea was unneccessary. Pre-Wilson had TR's Philipines and it was unneccessary and almost genocide. [it runs in the blood, genocide is in our DNA from the early slaughter of the natives on Hispaniola (Haiti-Dominican)] The Cuba invasion and Maine sinking were precursers to Tonkin gulf and WMD.

GHW's Panama was a farce too. Reagan's little island war satisfied the prerequisite that presidents have to have a war in their terms- [reason for Panama]. Obama got his with Libya. 2016 will bring Hillary where will the war be then? A war every 4 years ought to offer an opportunity for derivitives plays. France is taking Mali. Obama's south Pacific buildup means Africa and Mid-east may not be the next war.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:

Reagan (and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress) INCREASED TAXES...

Reagan did both... but the cuts in 81 were greater than his large tax hikes in 82 and 83.

What Reagan really did was shift taxes downward... plus raise debt. So if there ever was to be debt paydown, it would fall more heavily away from the rich.

And this is the Right's game plan to sabotage the fiscal health of the nation by creating more debt and cutting taxes until the system begins to fail. At that point the Right will claim we can no longer afford the New Deal and Great Society. As they wipe off their fingerprints from their treachery, we can hear them say... gee, how did that happen!

Sounds like a far Right version of Cloward and Priven.

The true level of taxation is really the level of spending. Reagan increased spending. Cutting tax rates is not the same as cutting taxes. It is also a myth that the Right in this country opposes the New Deal and the Great Society. Outside of Ron Paul, show me a Republican who has actually cut anything or proposed cutting anything.

They want them cut, just without their fingerprints on the guillotine. The orchestrration of all the self inflicted blows are supposed to give cover for tearing up the entire 20th century progress and returning to late 19th century robber barons and the gay 90s. Their mouthpieces have already started pitching the storyline that retirement is a recent phenomenon. The old protestant work till you die, preferably sunup to sundown is the goal. Haven't you heard Pete Peterson? and Forbes and Fortune. Pensions were the problem and they got rid of them. USPS has pensions and they are on the block by way of Issa.

That protestant ethic was deep in the slave master's ideology. Work and suffering is the proper life. The Natives on Hispaniola lived peacefully and had no wants. They also were part naked. The christians showed them the way to riteousness by hunting them with dogs, slaughtering and enslaving any left. They learned the christian work ethic.That is right wing ideology in a nutshell.

Arawak/Taino genocide for jesus

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:The true level of taxation is really the level of spending. Reagan increased spending. Cutting tax rates is not the same as cutting taxes. It is also a myth that the Right in this country opposes the New Deal and the Great Society. Outside of Ron Paul, show me a Republican who has actually cut anything or proposed cutting anything.

Not sure what you're getting at except possibly all tax cuts made when there are deficits = future tax hikes plus interest.

Yes. Spending must be paid for. Either by inflation (an indirect tax supported by most progressives) or future taxes. I would prefer that the debt be defaulted on but that isn't even considering a possiblility by anyone group save libertarians.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:

Reagan (and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress) INCREASED TAXES...

Reagan did both... but the cuts in 81 were greater than his large tax hikes in 82 and 83.

What Reagan really did was shift taxes downward... plus raise debt. So if there ever was to be debt paydown, it would fall more heavily away from the rich.

And this is the Right's game plan to sabotage the fiscal health of the nation by creating more debt and cutting taxes until the system begins to fail. At that point the Right will claim we can no longer afford the New Deal and Great Society. As they wipe off their fingerprints from their treachery, we can hear them say... gee, how did that happen!

Sounds like a far Right version of Cloward and Priven.

The true level of taxation is really the level of spending. Reagan increased spending. Cutting tax rates is not the same as cutting taxes. It is also a myth that the Right in this country opposes the New Deal and the Great Society. Outside of Ron Paul, show me a Republican who has actually cut anything or proposed cutting anything.

They want them cut, just without their fingerprints on the guillotine. The orchestrration of all the self inflicted blows are supposed to give cover for tearing up the entire 20th century progress and returning to late 19th century robber barons and the gay 90s. Their mouthpieces have already started pitching the storyline that retirement is a recent phenomenon. The old protestant work till you die, preferably sunup to sundown is the goal. Haven't you heard Pete Peterson? and Forbes and Fortune. Pensions were the problem and they got rid of them. USPS has pensions and they are on the block by way of Issa.

That protestant ethic was deep in the slave master's ideology. Work and suffering is the proper life. The Natives on Hispaniola lived peacefully and had no wants. They also were part naked. The christians showed them the way to riteousness by hunting them with dogs, slaughtering and enslaving any left. They learned the christian work ethic.That is right wing ideology in a nutshell.

Arawak/Taino genocide for jesus

Slavery and genocide are inconsistent with my libertarian principles. Retirement is a relatively recent phenomenon but there is no reason why it can't continue.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote norske:

Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Cheney/Bush and now Obama.... neo-liberal war criminals all and nary a hairs difference between them in policies which really matter..... Observing the continuing debate on lesser evilism is fascinating.... Though hard to beat Reagan's lasting devastating impact on the people of the US and the people of the rest of the world....

You forgot FDR,Wilson, and Truman

You forgot Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Wilson's war was unneccessary. Coolidge and Hoover's prohibition was unneccessary. Which of the WWll theaters were unneccessary? Paleocon Buchanon thinks Europe was unneccessary, I don't know what he thought of the Pacific but I bet he liked the nukes [they were war crimes]. Korea was unneccessary. Pre-Wilson had TR's Philipines and it was unneccessary and almost genocide. [it runs in the blood, genocide is in our DNA from the early slaughter of the natives on Hispaniola (Haiti-Dominican)] The Cuba invasion and Maine sinking were precursers to Tonkin gulf and WMD.

Prohibition was ratified by the States. I don't think the President has any say over the matter. As a libertarian, I, of course, oppose Prohibition. WWII, both theaters, were unnecessary. Dropping the nukes was a War Crime. Korea was unnecessary. It was run by the U.N.. I thought progressives love the U.N. The Spanish-American war was unnecessary. War crimes were committed in the Phillipines. The Anti-Imperialist League, comprised mostly of classical liberal supporters of laissez-faire opposed the War.

Quote douglaslee:

GHW's Panama was a farce too. Reagan's little island war satisfied the prerequisite that presidents have to have a war in their terms- [reason for Panama]. Obama got his with Libya. 2016 will bring Hillary where will the war be then? A war every 4 years ought to offer an opportunity for derivitives plays. France is taking Mali. Obama's south Pacific buildup means Africa and Mid-east may not be the next war.

No disagreement here. You seem to want to pigeonhole me "on the right". But I'm a libertarian, not a Rightist in any current meaning of the word.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Redwing:

The recession was caused by the policies of Paul Volker allowing high interest rates. Reagan left him in place until early 1983 and for last half of 1983 and into 1984 the economy's growth rate hovered between 7.4 and 5 percent.

If that was classified as a recession, what is this nightmare that Obama has created?

So in other words you ARE blaming Carter for the Reagan Recession so your claim... which I assume was aimed at me,

Quote Redwing:

According to you birds, recessions always start long before your guy is in office.

now also applies to YOU?

I'm totally confused with your position.... but apparently less confused than you.

You are confused on a lot of fronts. You were better as a bomb carrying cat.

I don't care who is perceived to have created the problem. I will support and cheer the person that got us out of the mess. It is the progressives that win the blame game prize. Hatrmann is the king, with his unbelievable hatred of Reagan. It is amazing to listen to.

Beware of progressives that do not fart, It just comes out later as drama.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Lysander wrote: Retirement is a relatively recent phenomenon but there is no reason why it can't continue.

poly replies: Actually, that isn't true. While it's fairly recent in market economic systems, it was pretty much the norm in reciprocal economic systems. There was no reduction in living standards when a person got too old to work

Lysander wrote: I would prefer that the debt be defaulted on but that isn't even considering a possiblility by anyone group save libertarians.

poly replies: That isn't true either. I'm not a Libertarian and have often proposed defaulting on the debt and re-booting with public banking. Most of the debt is illigimate...generated by our peculiar monetary system that requires government to borrow non-existent money from banks through fractional reserve banking before it can print it.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote pierpont:

Not sure what you're getting at except possibly all tax cuts made when there are deficits = future tax hikes plus interest.

Yes. Spending must be paid for. Either by inflation (an indirect tax supported by most progressives) or future taxes. I would prefer that the debt be defaulted on but that isn't even considering a possibility by anyone group save libertarians.

Yikes... Libertarians who hold the voluntary contract and the market sacred want to default on the debt? You mean Libertarians now want to deprive others of $16 TRILLION of their property????? This would be the biggest heist in history and has to be the brainchild of some small splinter group of Libertarians who are terribly sleep deprived or have taken too much acid and have become enchanted with eXtreme irony.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

I am not for defaulting per se. The debt was scheduled to be retired in full before W got appointed. The WWll debt was paid back for the most part and our current debt could be paid back as well. The Eisenhower tax rates worked to retire WWll debt and still funded the biggest infrastructure expansion in history before the current China projects. A lot of the debt is owed to Americans, the ones that worked and contributed to fica. Hedge funds and bain trusts don't pay fica and rich execs pay very little. The tax rates for the top 1% averaging 13% are ridiculously low. Hedge fund managers actually pay no tax at all.

The progressive caucus has proposed a budget that balances and preserves the prepaid entities the rest of the country count on. Killing carried interest and oil and gas subsidies are only a few of the measures a legitimate functioning democratic republic would have adopted. I think there really was a semblance of a functioning representative govt at one time in the US.

Maybe some Spanish authors did some works like Dickens and Swift reflecting life under fascism that have been translated and could be a guide book for today. George Orwell faught against the fascists and reflected some of the dystopia he felt present there in his works.

http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139055499 down for maintenance

restricting-brilliance-literature-during-francisco-francos-regime/

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

I am not for defaulting per se. The debt was scheduled to be retired in full before W got appointed. The WWll debt was paid back for the most part and our current debt could be paid back as well.

First those projections applied only to the public debt. In the mean time the intragovernmental debt would continue to grow. Second... they were only projections. It was unlikely the then record long economic boom would last... which is why it was MORE irresponsible for Bush to push for round after round of tax cuts when we in 2001 had 6 TRILLION in debt.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Tac cuts were especially irresponsible if you were going to start 2 unfunded wars and give a Christmas gift to big pharma with the non-bidding medicare Part D.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

Tac cuts were especially irresponsible if you were going to start 2 unfunded wars and give a Christmas gift to big pharma with the non-bidding medicare Part D.

Of course of the GOP is trying to starve the beast... then the added debt would HELP that cause.

Bush ran on paying down the debt to preserve Social Security. So what does it then say about his true intent when Bush went out of his way to INCREASE debt?

http://romcache.tripod.com/bush2000.pdf

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

The Irresistible Beauty Of All Things.

was written by an author under fascism. He was assassinated. Right wing ideology forbids such thinking.

That is our future. This is some of what he wrote:

For me, imagination is synonymous with dis­covery. To imagine, to discover, to carry our bit of light to the living penumbra where all the infinite possibilities, forms, and numbers exist. I do not believe in creation but in dis­covery, and I don’t believe in the seated artist but in the one who is walking the road. The imagination is a spiritual apparatus, a luminous explorer of the world it discovers. The imagi­nation fixes and gives clear life to fragments of the invisible reality where man is stirring.

The imagination merely discovers things already created, it does not invent, and whenever it does so it is defeated by the beauty of reality. The imagination hunts for images using tried and true techniques of the hunt. The mechanics of poetic imagination are always the same: a concentration, a leap, a flight, a return with the treasure, and a clas­sification and selection of what has been brought back. The poet dominates his imagination and sends it wherever he wants. When he is not happy with its services he punishes it and sends it back, just as the hunter pun­ishes the dog who is too slow in bringing him the bird. Sometimes the hunt is splendid, but the most beautiful birds and the brightest lights almost always get away.

The imagination is limited by reality: one cannot imagine what does not exist. It needs objects, landscapes, numbers, planets, and it re­quires the purest sort of logic to relate those things to one another. The imagination hovers over reason the way fragrance hovers over a flower, wafted on the breeze but tied, always, to the ineffable center of its origin.

This next is beautiful

The daughter of the imagination – the logi­cal and legitimate daughter – is the metaphor, which is sometimes born from a sudden stroke of intuition and sometimes brought to light by the slow anguish of forethought.

The poet strolls through his imagination, limited by it. He hears the flowing of great rivers. His forehead feels the cool of the reeds that tremble in the midst of nowhere. He wants to hear the dialogue of the insects be­neath the boughs. He wants to penetrate the current of the sap in the dark silence of great tree trunks. He wants to understand the Morse alphabet spoken by the heart of the sleeping girl.

He wants. We all want. But this is his sin: to want. One shouldn't want, one should love. And so he fails. Because when he tries to express the poetic truth of any of these motifs, he will have to make use of plastic analogies that will never be sufficiently ex­pressive, for the imagination cannot reach those depths.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system