-
Reaganomics vs Obamanomics, Reagan by a mile
Interesting article comparing the effects of Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics for the first 6 quarters after recession.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics/
Reaganomics produced 10 times more jobs.
-
49 Replies
-
Apples & Oranges and cherry-picking not to mention 6Q after election, Reagan’s popularity was worse than Obama’s & Reagan had a higher handicap both from an economic starting position & the tools available to address them.
This type of “analysis” belongs in Sports Illustrated or some sports fanzine.
-
First, I think it is unfair to Obama, because at this point with Reagan he wasn’t doing so great either.
I disagree that Obama had a bigger handicap though…Reagan had worse inflation, worse unemployment, and was fighting the cold war. Gas prices were skyrocketing, and we were much more dependent on the manufacturing sector at time, which was crumbling. So that is highly debatable.
I don’t think Obama is doing a great job, but to get real perspective we will probably have to wait for quite some time. I think, however, we will get some idea by 2012…if jobs are not coming back, that will haunt Obama.
-
Too early for a comparison. All signs point to an impending world-wide depression on a grander scale than the Great Depression. History is repeating itself, this time the crash is going to be harder. Debatable if Obama could do anything about it at this point, though nothing they are doing is making things any better.
-
I think here will be no great depression only a long mild recession,like japan in the 90’s, world today is much less dependent of usa because the rise of china,india and brazil
Here(I´m writing from brazil)the problem is the economic growth too much accelerated.-
ORIGINAL: nucmed
I think here will be no great depression only a long mild recession,like japan in the 90’s, world today is much less dependent of usa because the rise of china,india and brazil
Here(I´m writing from brazil)the problem is the economic growth too much accelerated.
I think Europe will go down first. It’s not something isolated to the USA. China, while on the rise, cannot fill the void that will be left when the US crashes. Thier ecomony is not even a third of ours and they depend on us. We go down, they go down too.
Last time I checked they dont even have an aircraft carrier yet, they cant project their power. The world will be chaos without the US policeman function, on a level we havent seen since ww2.-
Actually it is probably always apples to oranges to compare any two recessions. They have different causes and behave differently. From what I read this is the first postwar recession that hasn’t had the return of employment following the curve of return of corporate profits. What we don’t know and may not know for some time is this a more or less permanent bursting of the US econimc bubble. We have been living in a bubble for at least 20 years between dot.com and housing. It may be that we have lived beyond our means for as long as we can and may have a new paradigm of what is “normal” unemployment. I am also afraid that we are going to move further and further to a divide between the highly educated (and well to do) and the less educated. There will be fewer jobs to absorb the less than college grad. If we don’t find a way to get more educated it could lead to major problems with a permanent large underclass.
-
Agree with Raddoc…vastly different times. What Alda means Reagonomics were great for all us fat cats….for the average joe Reagan reversed vast gains the middle class had acheived….for the average Joe incomes levels have remaioned stagnant accounting for inflation……for the average Joe there wealth was tied up in homes NOT in stock market and that has crashed mightily following bank deregulation all begun under the auspices of Reaganomics.
-
That is actually not true…all incomes, even the lowest, increased under Reagan. Disparity did increase, however.
-
Not if inflation was taken into account!
-
Yes, even with inflation taken into account.
-
So then, what are your figures for the median household income of 1983 compared to today & then what is it when you apply inflation since 1983? All the figures I’ve seen show no increase in income.
-
Household income dropped from 2000 to 2008…I am not sure we have numbers since 2008, but if we do, I bet they dropped lower.
Household incomes steadily increased from 1983 to 2000 however.
So yes, incomes dropped under Bush…I have no argument for that fact.
The easiest way to see that is percent poverty. Poverty income levels are directly tied to inflation. Poverty hit a peak of about 16% in 1982. It then plummeted through out Reagan’s term,
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/index.html
But overall, income as linked to inflation has steadily increase until 2000, when it dipped. It started heading back up between 2004-2007, but of course the recent collapse wiped out any gains…so it is a lost decade.
[image]local://4370/EA6BF7ABF0474DD7AB54EE62748715AD.gif[/image]
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Household income dropped from 2000 to 2008…I am not sure we have numbers since 2008, but if we do, I bet they dropped lower.
Household incomes steadily increased from 1983 to 2000 however.
So yes, incomes dropped under Bush…I have no argument for that fact.
The easiest way to see that is percent poverty. Poverty income levels are directly tied to inflation. Poverty hit a peak of about 16% in 1982. It then plummeted through out Reagan’s term,
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/index.html
But overall, income as linked to inflation has steadily increase until 2000, when it dipped. It started heading back up between 2004-2007, but of course the recent collapse wiped out any gains…so it is a lost decade.
[image]local://4370/EA6BF7ABF0474DD7AB54EE62748715AD.gif[/image]
I’d like to see how much of that median [i]household[/i] graph is due to the [u]femaie[/u] workforce kicking in during that time (creating a massive dual income household population). The graph might be more useful if it simply plotted median income [i]per earner.[/i]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: tigershark06
Too early for a comparison. All signs point to an impending world-wide depression on a grander scale than the Great Depression. History is repeating itself, this time the crash is going to be harder.
This is ridiculous-
Hey Aldaquack—-Did you see Reagan’s former economic advisor on Bill Maher? You should have he totally dissed your argument and stated unequivocally Reagan’s policies were flawed and ultimately contributed to much of current problems.
-
ORIGINAL: oupatientradiologyKAS
Hey Aldaquack—-Did you see Reagan’s former economic advisor on Bill Maher? You should have he totally dissed your argument and stated unequivocally Reagan’s policies were flawed and ultimately contributed to much of current problems.
What a joke!. Everyone knows that Reagan’s policies set us up for an unprecedented economic and military revival. He brought the country out of the Carter “malaise” and empowered entrepreneurship by slashing suffocating taxes. There would probably have been no Silicone Valley revolution without Reagan’s policies. In stark contrast, we now have the village idiot Obama throwing money at everything, and regulating the bejeezus out of everything with no tangible results. No wonder the recovery is almost imperceptible. Where are the jobs?
BTW, Outpatientradiology, you should change your name. Bad judgement lapse betting the farm on outpatient radiology. You will soon be beholden to some hospital for employment. Once again, those of us with better judgement opted for balanced practices. Better get back to work or you wont be able to generate the 25k RVU’s necessary to keep the doors open on the outpatient radiology side.
-
Yes Alda, but considering that Reagan borrowed his way out to prosperity is interesting in light of today’s “born-again” fiscally responsible Republicans. Like Ryan’s plan for instance that continues increasing the deficit for decades is fiscally visionary.
Alice in Wonderland.
-
Aldadoc…The irony is the future of medicare cuts is actually coming from the inpatient side of the house…..Most of our outpatient lobbying is now starting to be heard. In conversations with my local lawmakers and insurance execs they are starting to understand outpatient imaging is far cheaper and more efficient than inpatient imaging. I wouldn’t crow too loudly just yet. My income has mirrored the inpatient practice across the way to a Tee. We actually did very well with increased revenue in our switch to digital mammo with CAD and change in negotiations with insurers increasing reimbursements. Something we did (which I am sure you will cringe at) was sell out to a higher Health Care Organization. We were brought under a larger company with profit sharing–a nice arrangement. As employees of a larger organization our salary and profit sharing stayed essentially the same BUT our benefits were amazing under the new company. Also because the larger company had negotiating power we saw jumps in reimbursement for all our procedures with better reimbursement for everything across the board. We were surprised to see volume drop slightly as most have BUT we saw revenue either increase slightly or remain stable month to month. We are hearing from our corporate parent that inpatient cuts are becoming more likely every day…..I think I will do just fine…..and if not??? I will be fine with reductions in income as I transition to retirement over the next few years!!!
-
Frumi…what is Obama doing other than borrowing his way to prosperity?
Outpatient: if you think that the govt is going to sacrifice inpatient for outpatient…you are dreaming. They will wipe out outpatient care before they help crush hospitals, which they view as the backbone of the health care system. Hospitals are treading water already…
-
They aren’t talking crushing them simply reducing professional component and technical component equivalent to what they have done in outpatient arena…also closing loopholes where hospital associated outpateint centers can bill at inpatient rates!
-
And Alda is crazy if he thinks OP guys are going to become inpatient hospital employees. It would be the groups covering contracts for hospitals that would most likely go the route of employees well before we do!
-
Oh, I don’t think outpatient is going away…but I also don’t think the environment is going to get significantly better for them either.
-
ORIGINAL: oupatientradiologyKAS
And Alda is crazy if he thinks OP guys are going to become inpatient hospital employees. It would be the groups covering contracts for hospitals that would most likely go the route of employees well before we do!
The question is which is more efficient & better ROI. Right now there seems more a push to centralize things not fragment which means more hospital support, more “team” support. That said outpatient centers aren’t going the way of the dodo either.
-
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Frumi…what is Obama doing other than borrowing his way to prosperity?
Well that’s the irony, Republicans have said you can’t spend your way to prosperity but that’s exactly what Reagan did but Republicans love Reagan but hate Obama. I’m not sure the huge difference, you’ll have to explain it to me.
-
ORIGINAL: Frumious
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Frumi…what is Obama doing other than borrowing his way to prosperity?
Well that’s the irony, Republicans have said you can’t spend your way to prosperity but that’s exactly what Reagan did but Republicans love Reagan but hate Obama. I’m not sure the huge difference, you’ll have to explain it to me.
Isn’t even more irony that you are now blaming them for the same thing? So basically, Reagan was wrong because he didn’t admit he was doing it? Is that your argument?
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Well that’s the irony, Republicans have said you can’t spend your way to prosperity but that’s exactly what Reagan did but Republicans love Reagan but hate Obama. I’m not sure the huge difference, you’ll have to explain it to me.
Isn’t even more irony that you are now blaming them for the same thing? So basically, Reagan was wrong because he didn’t admit he was doing it? Is that your argument?
Alice in Wonderland arguments again. I don’t criticize Reagan for Keynesian stimulus, I do for Supply Side fantasies and “Starve the Beast” irresponsibility and I do for continuing a recovery by increasing liabilities rather than being fiscally responsible. We are stuck with Keynesian stimulus generating deficits now but I will criticize Obama & Democrats if they repeat Reagan’s & the Republican’s folly of leveraging our children’s future so we can have a TV in every room, etc as was done between 1981 & 2007.
-
I doubt you will criticize the Democrats for more spending. You don’t seem willing to really cut anything, so why should more spending bother you?
And as a percentage of GDP, Obama has leveraged our children’s future more than Reagan did in two terms. At what point will you consider Obama over leveraging?
-
Listen for Obama’s “investments” in the SOTU speech. “Investment” is the new code word for spending, union cronyism and state bailouts. Here’s the Rosetta stone for Demspeak at the SOTU address:
-Investment = liberal spending projects.
-Contribution = Raising taxes on businesses.
-Fairness – redistribution
-Health Care Reform = Government takeover of health care.
-New bipartisan approach = Somebody make the Republicans do what we want.
-Civil discourse = Conservatives shut up and sit down.
-Competitiveness = Let’s throw more money at the teacher’s unions.
-Freezing spending at current levels = How do we not roll back any of our pet spending projects.
-Peace dividend = Gut the military.
-Limited fixes to the ACA bill – Let’s kick the can down the road until Obamacare is fully institutionalized.
-Net neutrality – Government control of the internet and all communication lines.
-Financial reform = Overregulate and micromanage -
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
I doubt you will criticize the Democrats for more spending. You don’t seem willing to really cut anything, so why should more spending bother you?
And as a percentage of GDP, Obama has leveraged our children’s future more than Reagan did in two terms. At what point will you consider Obama over leveraging?
So again your criticism is that Obama should have cut spending in Jan 2009 so that he would not have to endure your criticism of increasing the deficit? Meaning your solution to the recession was to cut spending and the deficit. Maybe you an analyze for me where the spending went? Is the deficit higher because of higher spending or lower revenue? The 2 wars, TARP, support payments to states, tax cuts and slashed revenue collection due to the recession, Medicare, Social Security. What spending would you and Republicans cut to bring the deficit down to 2000 levels? I haven’t seen Republican proposals anywhere. There’s a difference between spending like a drunken sailor because it’s burning a hole in your pocket & because your policy is deliberate crippling of the government by “Starving the Beast” and deficit spending to stimulate the economy & support payments to individuals, businesses & States & interest payments because you have to.
Don’t be silly Mistrad. It’s been the Republican platform since Reagan. Supply Side Voodoo didn’t bring in receipts as promised & then it became Starve the Beast drunken spending until Clinton who decreased the deficit & then the Republicans controlled al 3 divisions of government & increased deficits again. When they broke the bank & gave Obama a bankrupt economy, you cry he should have made things worse by cutting spending. Even Ryan’s plan has higher deficit spending for decades & he’s supposed to be the fiscally responsible republican plan. You need to explain that kind of math because it doesn’t add up anymore than Supply Side did. The Republican fiscal plans have all been a lie.
-
It seems like your argument is that Reagan should have cut back early in his Presidency as well.
So I am just taking your own argument back at you. At what point do you think Obama, like Reagan, has overspent? 30 years after the fact?
And the silliness is all on the left. I haven’t heard one plan from Obama to lower spending…including his OWN deficit commission, which I support. If he accepts their suggestions, I will stop criticizing. But he has failed to do even that.
I am just making the point that by your own criticisms, it is fair to blame Reagan…but Obama is following the same path…or even worse, a more destructive path, and you say nothing.
-
You’re not arguing the facts. The facts are that Republican’s mantra was deficits don’t matter & starve the beast. That was their 30 year justification for willful deficit spending even in good times. That is all separate & apart from anything else.
You need to accept the Republican responsibility for a platform of massive deficit spending before you can point the finger. You can’t blame Obama for not solving the Republican irresponsibility of 30 years within 2 years. Residents of glass houses shouldn’t be so eager to throw stones.
As for cutting spending, let’s wait to see if Obama does a Clinton & possibly outflanks the Republicans who still haven’t proposed anything of substance within the past 2 years.
-
Aldaquack…….SO exactly what do you want to cut and slash from the budget???? Tell me what you would cut and how would you garner enough savings to actually do what you want??
-
Frumi…you take responsibility for current Dems racking up huge deficits, and I will take responsibility for the old Repubs doing the same.
But you are not willing to do the former, which is occurring in real time, right now. And that is my point…if you don’t act when you can, then blame all you want, but blaming itself is meaningless.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Frumi…you take responsibility for current Dems racking up huge deficits, and I will take responsibility for the old Repubs doing the same.
But you are not willing to do the former, which is occurring in real time, right now. And that is my point…if you don’t act when you can, then blame all you want, but blaming itself is meaningless.
I’d like to ask you specifically, how would you and the Republicans have done it instead, I mean attacking the recession by cutting what & allowing what to happen. What is your real world solution that would have not increased deficits by $1 & yet would have stopped the economy from its nosedive & reversed the loss of jobs so that we’d be back to 5% unemployment again now.
Seriously, what?
And then after you explain how you would have accomplished that please explain why it wasn’t screamed form the rafter by Republicans since it is so obvious.
-
How would you have gotten out of the 1980 recession? I can ask the same question. Would you have raised taxes even more, when unemployment was 11% and inflation was 10%?
Seriously, what would you have done?
The problem is you have a double standard. I am willing and open to blaming Reagan for his huge deficits. I think it has set up the massive deficit spending we have gone through since the 1980s. I actually agree with you on that. I still believe if Reagan had a Republican congress, he would have cut spending much more. He never had that luxury like Obama did.
But you are stating that fact, you are unwilling to learn that lesson of the past. You say Reagan had too much budget deficit spending when he had to recover form a terrible recession…but Obama’s is for some reason ok? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
So either you support Obama’s deficits AND Reagan’s, or you state that both are wrong and should course correct. But you want your cake and to eat it too.
-
You’re playing games. I never criticized Reagan for increasing the deficit to stimulate the 1980 economy, only that deficits became the norm for easy and political reasons. If you are going to complain that Obama increased the deficit more than any Republican ever did before, my simple question is how you would not have done it while saving the economy. it’s a simple question not requiring dodgy maneuvers. Let’s stay here and now & leave Reagan, both Bushes & Clinton completely out of it. How would you have solved the recession without increasing the deficit by $1?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
Prior to being elected as the President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying “John Anderson tells us that first we’ve got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you’ve got a kid that’s extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker.” It appears the earliest use of the term “starving the beast” to refer to the political-fiscal strategy was in a Wall Street Journal article in 1985 where the reporter quoted an unnamed Reagan staffer.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=50&articleID=641
Reagan promised not to ask for a tax increase in 1982, but this promise proved
to be one he could not keep. Later that year he signed into law the Tax Equity and
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S.
history (Tempalski 2003).11 It proved to be the first of many tax increases to which
Reagan would ultimately acquiesce, as shown in table 1.
Although Republicans saw Reagans support for tax increases as a betrayal,
Democrats concentrated on the spending side of the budget deals that contained the
tax increases. They saw the spending cuts as a culmination of the starve-the-beast
philosophy. [b]Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) (1983, 1985) regularly
blamed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director David Stockman, his
former student, for selling Congress a pig in a pokepromising that the 1981 tax cut
would so expand the economy that revenues would not fall,[/b] while knowing all along
that they would, thereby forcing massive cuts in social spending.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp
Kristol wrote then, and still believes, that “We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse.”
On the political level, treating deficits as a non-issue also proved a successful strategy. After all, despite the torrent of red ink that splashed across the national budgets during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected by a substantial margin.
The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn’t matter, but were a force for economic good.
But that was then, and this is now. The economy, growing at an annual rate of 3.5 percent to 4.0 percent, is hardly in need of further fiscal stimulus. Yet the budget that the president sent to Congress last week promises deficits as far ahead as the eye can see–if the eye is practiced in reading these massive documents.
-
That last Weekly Standard article from 2005 is precious (and oh so wrong about the future)
Here are my favorites:
“The president {Bush} claims that his $2.57 trillion budget is the first step on the road to fulfilling his campaign promise to halve the deficit by 2009, even if Congress agrees to make his tax cuts permanent and enacts still more reductions. That claim is completely unfounded. Indeed, if the White House team that drafted this budget were subject to Sarbanes-Oxley, criminal indictments would be flying….
But even if the budget is adopted, it will not begin to cut into the federal deficit, for several reasons. First, spending on the largest items–Medicare, Social Security and the military–is scheduled to increase. Second, the budget does not include any money beyond this year’s outlays for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, it does not include the trillions that will be required if the president succeeds in persuading Congress to allow some participants to divert to private accounts a portion of the money they are now paying into the Social Security system. ”
Anyone who think Repubs will cut the deficit while trying to elicit further tax cuts are seriously deluded. Moreover, it is also clear that they are no more serious about spending cuts then the Dems. -
Well, I have to agree with your cynicism. Republicans failed miserably over the past decade, and your cynical view is the price they are paying.
I will tell you this: if Republicans don’t attack costs, they will pay a heavy price. This is where the tea party is based. You guys are suspicious of them, but their one and only issue is spending. If Republicans bail on that, it is unlikely that many will support the Republicans in 2012. And even if they are only 5% of the electorate, that would guarantee Democrat victories next time around.
So we shall see. If they don’t go after spending, they have no one to blame but themselves when they get slaughtered next time around.
-
Frumi
Actually, I think your links are very informative. Many of the lame arguments conservatives were making for increased spending are the same arguments I hear from Democrats today. The wheel of history goes round and round.
Let me say this: Reagan and Clinton showed one thing for sure: that only a good economy can ever hope to close the budget deficit. Reagan’s biggest failure is that once the economy was going, he didn’t clamp down on spending. He never held himself or Dems in Congress to account. And for that, history will blame him.
Obama had the same bad choices. Instead of tax cuts, he went with government spending, but it is both a relatively Keynesian response. Now, by 1985 or so, Reagan’s economy was booming, tax proceeds were skyrocketing…and nobody cut spending.
My point about Obama is this: I don’t actually want a lot of cuts this year, or next for that matter. But there are things we can attack. Defense is one, and Obama seems like he will go after spending there, which I am fully supportive of. Ending the wars will definitely help.
At the same time, Obama is missing a once is a lifetime chance. He could attack social security. We all know how to solve the gap in social security…heck, Moynihan had the solution 3 decades ago. Increase the cap on FICA taxes, reduce benefits to the rich, increase the retirement age. That is what every rational review of the system says must happen.
Politically, I believe that only a Democrat president can solve the social security mess. Republicans simply are not trusted on the issue. Bush spent a lot of political capital, and was destroyed for it. Obama could do so much more.
My point is not to close the deficit today, or even tomorrow. But first, you have to stop increasing spending. Freezing spending to, say, 2009 rates is not unreasonable at all. But spending is still increasing. Stop creating new programs unless you have a way to pay for it. All of Obama’s investments? Not paid for.
I agree that some conservatives are going too far in cutting spending…but Obama is not moving even a little on this. So far, his cuts proposed in SOTU would account to $75 billion over 5 years, or $15 billion a year. We accumulate that much debt in less than a week. He has to do better.
I will leave you with this. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 for two reasons: the economy was good, and he finally seem to attack spending. I am not against voting for Obama if he does the same. I have yet to see a Republican that I would be happy with. Obama has a huge opening here, if he would only take it. It would be good for him politically, and heck, it would be even better for the country as a whole.
-
MISTRAD,
The Tea Party doesn’t have a monopoly on the concern about cutting spending! [u]EVERYONE’s[/u] concern is “spending” and the deficit, and most of us have been voicing that concern from various angles with specific analysis. But the tea party and its enveloping Republican Party have been suspiciously mum about proposing HOW to cut spending, or any other solution for the current economy, for that matter. Even Ryan and Bachmann didn’t mention any specifics in their global spotlight the other night. And their unwillingness (or inability) to share any details to substantiate their objections to Obama’s SOTU was very conspicuous. Without presenting any counter-proposals, they came across as a couple of whiners.
-
I agree with that Splectus. My only hope would be that Democrats would get serious on this. Obama’s SOTU address was not a serious approach to cutting spending. He barely even talked about it. That is fine, maybe there is a different venue. But to me, he is simply delaying the topic. He has not openly even talked about his own commission results. At the very least, tell us which commission results he favors, and which he opposes. That would be a good place to start.
Ultimately, Obama must be the leader on this. Congress can act, but Obama has the bully pulpit. If we are going to convince Americans to sacrifice, only Obama can sell that.
-
Yes, I was surprised that he felt the need to give a lofty pep talk rather than lay out his own decree about what he thinks should be done. I interpret that to mean he sees so much partisan contention in the ranks, that it was way too premature to try to get into the nitty gritty until both sides buy in to some semblance of cooperation. Not a good situation to be in at a time like this.
I didn’t like the homogeneous seating. I get a kick out of their across-the-aisle segregated responses at these things. I hope they go back to that!
And I wish SCOTUS wouldn’t attend. It serves no purpose for them to be there (other then to “pay their respect”) and it’s distracting. Looked like Ruth was sleeping through the whole thing. I hope her pancreas ca isn’t having a relapse (from ’09). She lost her husband to cancer this past summer.
-
I don’t mind him not mentioning in SOTU…but the budget is coming by Feb 15, I believe, I hope he takes a stand on the budget deficit then.
-
[b]50 Years of Tax Cuts for Rich Didnt Trickle Down[/b][/h1]
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/fifty-years-of-tax-cuts-for-rich-didn-t-trickle-down-study-says]Bloomberg[/link]: Tax cuts for rich people breed inequality without providing much of a boon to anyone else, according to a study of the advanced world that could add to the case for the wealthy to bear more of the cost of the coronavirus pandemic.
The paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of Kings College London, found that such measures over the last 50 years only really benefited the individuals who were directly affected, and did little to promote jobs or growth. -
Jeez, Alda. I forgot about this thread comparing inflation to an almost full depression.
As for Supply-Side, its been a zombie belief since Reagan. But the rich need all those tax breaks. The Sheriff of Nottingham would be envious. -
Frumious:
In case you hadn’t noticed, avoiding the debate by avoiding facts, while misquoting other people’s statements, twisting their logic, and trying to throw it back on their shoulders instead of doing homework on the facts so that we can have an interesting and productive debate has been MISTAD’s new strategy. You two just went back and forth a handful of times, and every time you asked a simple and direct question, MISTRAD simply fired back another question in an attempt to neutralize your question without offering any answers whatsoever. Very poor debating ethic.
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: Frumious
Yes Alda, but considering that Reagan borrowed his way out to prosperity is interesting in light of today’s “born-again” fiscally responsible Republicans. Like Ryan’s plan for instance that continues increasing the deficit for decades is fiscally visionary.
Alice in Wonderland.
Reagan’s deficit was due to Tip O’Neil and the Democrats refusing to cut spending. Reagan wanted a much smaller government (exempting the military). By forcing tax cuts, Reagan effectively “killed the beast” and eventually achieved the desired effect. This time around the Republicans are going to force spending cuts. Obama is the anti-Reagan, everything he has done has grown government. The only thing being cut is the military.
-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Reagan’s deficit was due to Tip O’Neil and the Democrats refusing to cut spending. Reagan wanted a much smaller government (exempting the military). By forcing tax cuts, Reagan effectively “killed the beast” and eventually achieved the desired effect. This time around the Republicans are going to force spending cuts. Obama is the anti-Reagan, everything he has done has grown government. The only thing being cut is the military.
Come on Alda, are you that young that you can feign ignorance about the discussions about Supply Side? You are giving the recent Republican revisionism & not the truth that Supply Side argument was that it would generate more revenue than the equivalent tax cuts.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Supply-side_economics
In 1981, Robert Mundell told Ronald Reagan that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates, and by lowering tax rates on capital gains, national output would increase and as a result government tax revenues would also increase. The economic expansion would also mop up excess liquidity and bring inflation back under control. Revenues did not increase, and federal budget deficits exploded; however, the incentive to invest in equities worked: in 1982 the stock market began a rally which nearly tripled the Dow Jones between its low in 1982 and its pre-crash high in August 1987.
[b]This failure of expected revenues to materialize caused a search for “reasons”[/b], and increased the level of criticism from those who had stated before the 1981 tax package that reducing revenues and increasing spending would lead to deficits. [b]It was in this atmosphere that David Stockman, the self-proclaimed supply-side Budget Director under Reagan, admitted that the “Rosy Scenario” which he used to justify the predictions was “cooked” and “So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”[/b]1 lousy year later Reagan signed the largest tax increase in history to partially counteract free-fall of the fast growing deficit. The bleeding never stopped but continued to grow. The whole recovery was due to the US taking out a huge home equity loan with the fantasy that it would never have to be paid back. And if it did have to be paid back, “Starve the beast” issues would take precedence until the beast could be drowned in a small bathtub as was the Republican fantasy about government.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
