"It Worked"

[Bronson]

We know what didn't work and thats trickle down economics. We know Keynisian worked because it helped to create the middle class. So damn right it worked and it's the only thing that is keeping this country from falling apart at the seams.

Romney is basing his entire campaign on taking Obama out of context and not telling us a thing about what he would do to create jobs or turn this country around. He's a fraud.

Revenue to the treasury doubled under Reagan after he cut taxes. He presided over the largest peace time expansion in American History, and saw 8-9% gdp growth and a million jobs added in one month. For an Obama supporter to claim "trickle down economics didn't work" is akin to the coach with a 0-15 record claiming the world champion's tactics didn't work or something. It's laughable. The raw economic data is beyond refute. Reagan's economic policies > Liberal Economic policies. The only thing that saved Clinton was his lurch to the right after getting stiomped his first mid term election. He's known for balancing budgets and welfare reform. Both accomplished with a Conservative Congress. Obama's record and neo keynesian garbage economic policies are an absolute disaster. 15% Real Unemployment = Failure

 

[Moot]

Revenue to the treasury doubled under Reagan after he cut taxes. He presided over the largest peace time expansion in American History, and saw 8-9% gdp growth and a million jobs added in one month. For an Obama supporter to claim "trickle down economics didn't work" is akin to the coach with a 0-15 record claiming the world champion's tactics didn't work or something. It's laughable. The raw economic data is beyond refute. Reagan's economic policies > Liberal Economic policies. The only thing that saved Clinton was his lurch to the right after getting stiomped his first mid term election. He's known for balancing budgets and welfare reform. Both accomplished with a Conservative Congress. Obama's record and neo keynesian garbage economic policies are an absolute disaster. 15% Real Unemployment = Failure

Whats even more lafferable is that you conviently left out that to pay for his taxcuts for the wealthy, Reagan started borrowing from foreign countries and for the first time in US history the country went from a creditor nation to debtor nation as the national debt went from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. Then he presided over the two largest tax increases (1982 and 1983) of any US peacetime president, while his spending on defense went from 4.9% of GDP to 6% of GDP, numbers not seen since Vietnam and we weren't even at war. Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency and his so called economic expansion can largely be attributed to the money policy of Paul Volker under Jimmy Carter that ended the stagflation and the baby boomers entering the work force. Oh and lets not forget Reagans deregulation policy that directly led to the savings and loan scandle that cost tax payers billions or the Iran Contra affair that undermined every thing honest this country ever stood for. And really, how hard was it to scapegoat and dehumanize single mothers by calling them welfare queens, a stigma they are still living with to this day so he could pander for votes? No sir, Reagan was the real disaster and did more to sabotage this country than any petty dictator in the ME could ever hope to. GWBush continuing Reagans economic policies is what finally brought this country to it's knees and blaming Obama for it is like blaming a gun for murder when we all know it's people that kill people, right? So there you go the raw economic data has just refuted your claims and if Romney is elected you can finally kiss this country good bye and say hellooo China, we wanna be just like you.

 

[cpwill]

We know what didn't work and thats trickle down economics. We know Keynisian worked because it helped to create the middle class

American History fail: the American Middle Class was a product of the 1920's; they suffered grievously throughout the 30's. By the end of the Great Depression (which we didn't really get out of until the end of the 40's), an estimated 50% of Americans had been knocked back below the poverty level.

Also an Economic History fail. If you look at every major attempt at fiscal stimulus in the OECD since 1970, the ones that failed were the ones built around distribution payments, while the ones that succeeded were the ones built around business tax cuts.

 

[cpwill]

Whats even more lafferable is that you conviently left out that to pay for his taxcuts for the wealthy, Reagan started borrowing from foreign countries and for the first time in US history the country went from a creditor nation to debtor nation as the national debt went from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion

This is incorrect - revenues went up in the 1980's, not down. We increased spending on the military, which is what caused deficit spending.

if Romney is elected you can finally kiss this country good bye and say hellooo China, we wanna be just like you.

do you have any idea what you are talking about whatsoever?

 

[Somerville]

American History fail: the American Middle Class was a product of the 1920's; they suffered grievously throughout the 30's. By the end of the Great Depression (which we didn't really get out of until the end of the 40's), an estimated 50% of Americans had been knocked back below the poverty level.

Also an Economic History fail. If you look at every major attempt at fiscal stimulus in the OECD since 1970, the ones that failed were the ones built around distribution payments, while the ones that succeeded were the ones built around business tax cuts.

For some reason those advocating more government cutbacks today, prefer not bringing up the subject of WWII and its rather stimulative spending, governmental spending that created the largest debt to GDP ratio in the country's history. To help reduce the debt ratio, some of the highest income taxes ever seen in this country were put in place, yet the austerians seem to think that cutting historically low tax rates at a time of increasing debt will cure everything.

The Alesina/Ardagna paper has been shown to have some problems. They failed to look at instances of fiscal contraction caused by economic slowdown, only using those cases of governments cutting spending in efforts to slow inflationary problems.

The following paper used historical records from 17 nations in an attempt to better understand the seeming contradiction of fiscal austerity bringing about economic upswings.
Expansionary Austerity: New International Evidence

Our estimates imply that a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation reduces real private consumption over the next two years by 0.75 percent, while real GDP declines by 0.62 percent.

 

[AdamT]

And I agree with them. We should bloc grant both welfare and medicaid, and hold growth in expenditures in both to inflation.

Even if that includes counting PTA meetings as "work"?!

 

[OpportunityCost]

In other words, you don't really believe in states' rights. You think that everything should be dictated to them from Washington. Every single Republican governor in the United States disagreed with you in 2005.

Well there is something to think about from the AHCA. Namely that the fed cant tell the states how to spend money it allocates to them such as mandatory changes to medicare that was included by the health care law but struck down in the health care ruling. So Im kind of wondering if they cannot do this on their own anyway. But if they were to do so, they would need to have plans in place to keep people from just going on welfare indefinitely, that isnt a decent solution for anyone.

 

[Moot]

American History fail: the American Middle Class was a product of the 1920's; they suffered grievously throughout the 30's. By the end of the Great Depression (which we didn't really get out of until the end of the 40's), an estimated 50% of Americans had been knocked back below the poverty level.

Everytime you say "fail" it almost always ends up being you, cpwill. ROTFL

Before the Great Depression people were borrowing to pay for houses they couldn't afford and borrowing to speculate in the stock market and so when the market crashed and the depression hit a new poor working class was created, not a middle class.

Also an Economic History fail. If you look at every major attempt at fiscal stimulus in the OECD since 1970, the ones that failed were the ones built around distribution payments, while the ones that succeeded were the ones built around business tax cuts.

LOL Almost every member country of the OECD has some sort of a distribution system and few would call them failures in any meaningful sense. It wasn't until the late 1980s and globalization (IMF, WTO, GATT, NAFTA,) that some of those countries noticed a difference in their quality of life taking a turn for the worse. But that isn't the blame of Keynesian economics, that Laizzez Faire, the very thing that OECD supports. When the OECD expressed sympathy for foreign aid to third world countries back in 2005, the Koch's, "Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation" jumped down their throats and they backed off and that report you linked to is direct result of that about face. Nahhh, that organization ain't biased. pfffft....ROTFL

 

[Moot]

This is incorrect - revenues went up in the 1980's, not down. We increased spending on the military, which is what caused deficit spending.

I said it once and I'll say it again...

REAGAN RAISED TAXES HIGHER THAN ANY PEACETIME US PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY....TWICE!!!

Where else would those revenues come from? :roll:

So are you saying that for the first time in US history Reagan turned this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation so he could spend on military defense during peace time??? Yeah, thats what I thought you said.

do you have any idea what you are talking about whatsoever?

One thing is for sure, you sure as hell don't.

 

[AdamT]

Well there is something to think about from the AHCA. Namely that the fed cant tell the states how to spend money it allocates to them such as mandatory changes to medicare that was included by the health care law but struck down in the health care ruling. So Im kind of wondering if they cannot do this on their own anyway. But if they were to do so, they would need to have plans in place to keep people from just going on welfare indefinitely, that isnt a decent solution for anyone.

That's not quite what the SC said. What they said was that the feds can't renege on existing funding in order to force the states to accept new regulations. They can, however, refuse new funds if the states don't go along with the new regulations. That implies that they could yank previous Medicare fundig if the states violate the previous Medicare rules.

 

[Born Free]

We know what didn't work and thats trickle down economics. We know Keynisian worked because it helped to create the middle class. So damn right it worked and it's the only thing that is keeping this country from falling apart at the seams.

Romney is basing his entire campaign on taking Obama out of context and not telling us a thing about what he would do to create jobs or turn this country around. He's a fraud.

Reagan cut taxes and this country enjoyed his leadership it right the economy after Carter. And we enjoyed one of the largest GDP economies we've ever hard, only something Obama could dream about.

Now take your Keynisian ways by Obama, we have a national debet increase by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs, unemployment at over 8% for 40+ months. A GDP growth rate of 1.5%, more poor under Obama than any president before him. The first president to have our debt downgraded. The black community has over 14% unemployment. I could go on and on, so now tell me how Obama has helped the middle class? And then tell me how your Keynisian worked for you and the middle class.

 

[Karl]

Yes it's just SOOOO complicated that your messiah has accumulated 5 trillion in debt over 4 years, all of economic policies have failed, and he's sitting at 15% Real Unemployment

You are not a rational human being.

Says someone who calls the President a "messiah". . . . . . .

By the way, could you U6 fans in this thread link to your howls of woe when 'real unemployment' was 14% during Bush's last month in office? S'okay, we'll wait :2razz:

 

[poweRob]

Reagan cut taxes and this country enjoyed his leadership it right the economy after Carter. And we enjoyed one of the largest GDP economies we've ever hard, only something Obama could dream about.

Now take your Keynisian ways by Obama, we have a national debet increase by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs, unemployment at over 8% for 40+ months. A GDP growth rate of 1.5%, more poor under Obama than any president before him. The first president to have our debt downgraded. The black community has over 14% unemployment. I could go on and on, so now tell me how Obama has helped the middle class? And then tell me how your Keynisian worked for you and the middle class.

‘Reagan is the Keynesian,’ Obama ‘has been the anti-Keynesian’

On Sunday’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman made a case for conservative champion and former President Ronald Reagan, but probably not in a way many conservatives would agree with.

According to Krugman, this economy — unlike the ailing economy in the early 1980s — still hasn’t improved because the public sector is so much smaller than it was in the Reagan era. Krugman said, in his view, Reagan was the Keynesian and Obama was the anti-Keynesian, despite Obama’s passage of an $850-billion stimulus program back in 2009.

“On the Reagan thing, if public sector had continued to expand the way it did during Reagan’s first term, instead of falling by 600,000 as it has, right there, we would have something 1.4 million people working in this country,” Krugman proclaimed. “If you actual look at the actual track record of government spending, government employment, Reagan is the Keynesian. And Obama, mostly because of political constraints, a little bit because of lack of conviction from his own people, has been the anti-Keynesian. He’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer.”

Krugman went on to advise the administration to make a better case for more government spending.

“If I have a political critique, this administration has been very reluctant to make that case. They have been very hesitant about saying, ‘Look, we’ve been trying to do the right thing but those guys won’t let us,’” Krugman said. “[W]hat do I know about political strategy, but they have to say, ‘Hey look, we could have made this better and it’s, you know the ‘Harry Truman do-nothing’ Congress.”​

 

[Karl]

[...] the number of people [...] on food stamps [...] are at record highs.

I love debating the talking point crowd... they're just so... so... uninformed :mrgreen:

First, is the population at a record high? If so, would you not expect other population counts to follow suit? Food stamps? The number of foreclosures?

Second, we are in a record economic slump. Would you not expect food stamps (and unemployment, and foreclosures) to also be at record levels?

Third, under Bush the number of people on food stamps increased by 14.7 million (source (USA Today/Factcheck)). Under Obama, in admittedly slightly less than half the time, the number of people on food stamps have increased by a similar amount. Where were the conservative cries about food stamp participation when Bush was in office? In FY2008 the number of people on food stamps was at a record high! In FY2009 the number of people on food stamps was at yet another record high!! Where was the right wing outrage?

Fourth, 47% of food stamp recipients are under 18. This will be the eventual downfall of the GOP -- not only their hatred of poor people, but their willingness to send little Susie to bed hungry.

 

[Karl]

I said it once and I'll say it again...

REAGAN RAISED TAXES HIGHER THAN ANY PEACETIME US PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY....TWICE!!!

Where else would those revenues come from? :roll: [...]

Oh -- oh -- oh -- I know!!!

If you reduce taxes, the government gets more money.

So, if you eliminate taxes, the government will get all the money.

Silly Democrats -- they don't know that :2razz:

 

[OpportunityCost]

‘Reagan is the Keynesian,’ Obama ‘has been the anti-Keynesian’

On Sunday’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman made a case for conservative champion and former President Ronald Reagan, but probably not in a way many conservatives would agree with.

According to Krugman, this economy — unlike the ailing economy in the early 1980s — still hasn’t improved because the public sector is so much smaller than it was in the Reagan era. Krugman said, in his view, Reagan was the Keynesian and Obama was the anti-Keynesian, despite Obama’s passage of an $850-billion stimulus program back in 2009.

“On the Reagan thing, if public sector had continued to expand the way it did during Reagan’s first term, instead of falling by 600,000 as it has, right there, we would have something 1.4 million people working in this country,” Krugman proclaimed. “If you actual look at the actual track record of government spending, government employment, Reagan is the Keynesian. And Obama, mostly because of political constraints, a little bit because of lack of conviction from his own people, has been the anti-Keynesian. He’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer.”

Krugman went on to advise the administration to make a better case for more government spending.

“If I have a political critique, this administration has been very reluctant to make that case. They have been very hesitant about saying, ‘Look, we’ve been trying to do the right thing but those guys won’t let us,’” Krugman said. “[W]hat do I know about political strategy, but they have to say, ‘Hey look, we could have made this better and it’s, you know the ‘Harry Truman do-nothing’ Congress.”​

Sorry, I can't take anything Krugman says at face value, his economic credibility is pretty much shot unless you are a liberal kool aid drinker and want political cover for bad policies.

 

[Moot]

Sorry, I can't take anything Krugman says at face value, his economic credibility is pretty much shot unless you are a liberal kool aid drinker and want political cover for bad policies.

Then what economist do you think is credible?

 

[poweRob]

Sorry, I can't take anything Krugman says at face value, his economic credibility is pretty much shot unless you are a liberal kool aid drinker and want political cover for bad policies.

Yeah. Those economic idiots over there at Nobel. Screw 'em.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

I used selective graphs? I posted actual results, which is the way most people talk about such things. Getting twisted off in some type of budget to actual comparison three years after the fact is the unconventional (selective use of graphs) way to talk about such things.

Given, however, you are such a purist on budgets to actuals, you truly must have lost all faith in the Regressives. After all, when we were all sold the bill of goods that is commonly referred to as the Bush tax cuts of 2001/03, we were told they would lead to a COMPLETE payoff of the national debt by the year 2010. If I recall, the national debt was over $10T in 2010. They kind of missed that one. I dare say that missing a budget forecast by $10T has to be the biggest budget bust in the history of civilization.

Sorry, but missing a projection of unemployment by a couple of percentage points is downright accuracy compared to the largest budget bust of all-time.

The Man Behind Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Got the Tax Cuts Wrong, Too - Tina Dupuy - The Atlantic

Heritage Foundation Clings To Myths To Defend Bush Tax Cuts | Political Correction (now I appreciate this might require you to slip into the back room of smut, but no one is watching. The link, mid-document dated 4-27-01, is the Heritage Foundation Study of the Economic Impact of Bush's Tax Relief Act. It is 100% pure right wing folly, un-retouched by Media Matter hands)

Perhaps you would like to rethink your line of argument as this one sure does not look like a winner for you.

BTW... the $16T was largely the result Republican malfeasance. You can't raise spending, start wars and cut taxes and expect to do anything but increase deficits and therefore debt. Debt to GNP consistently goes up in Republican adminstrations and down once the adult's take charge. Unfortunately, this time the bar tab was too big.

Yes... You selectively use graphs which leave out the real perspective... and you've done so again...

yet again you miss the mark, depicting the problem of debt onto republicans...

Only, this chart more accurately adds the other actors on the budget, the 2 legislative bodies, and what parties controlled them...

This shows a closer correlation. When neither party controls both houses of the legislature, there isnt a major effect on the debt one way or the other. When Republicans control both houses of the legislature, the debt comes down. When Democrats control both houses of the legislature, the debt soars.

That makes sense, given the different theory behind the liberal and conservative approaches. The Democrats believe in creating government programs and making the government the answer to everyone's problems. The Republicans believe in letting the people decide their own fate, and giving the government less control of daily life.

So, while you posted a chart that showed the presidencies alone... it did not illustrate how those presidencies were effected by the legislatures they worked with during their reign...

You show Reagan/Bush as increasing the debt, but who controlled the legislature at the time that it went soaring? Democrats

Clinton did a heck of a job reducing the debt... With Republican control of both houses of the legislature...

When Bush had Republican control he was actually was limiting the size of the debt, until the Democrats won control, then suddenly the debt went soaring again... Even for all the talk of Bush expanding debt, it was never above 70% of GDP... under Obama its well over 100%...

The times that debt was effected the worst, and the only two times it went over 100% of our GDP, was when Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and the presidency... Conversely, the sharpest declines in the debt occured when Republicans took back control of both houses of the legislature following the Democrats controlling all 3...


Your naivete regarding the common mistargeting of CBO forecast data decades in advance is quite humorous... They each are printed as if this that and the other thing is going to happen, yet, reality always intervenes and something else goes on...

Although, you're quite mistaken here... The Bush administration was lowering the size of the debt and shrinking the deficit... until the Democrats won control in 2007...


However, the fatal flaw you make is trying to turn this argument into a Bush vs. Obama argument... as Bush is not the one running here...

I never once voted for Bush. I voted for Nader in both the 2000 and 2004 elections hoping he could get the key 10% and 15% funding objectives to try and break up the 2 party duopoly... Unfortunately, the nation has become far more polarized as a result of the last 2 administrations, and there is very little chance of that happening...

Romney is no Bush, or for that matter Obama either. You know, there's a lot of truth to sizing someone's abilities up by the things they've done over the greater span of their life. Bush was a guy of mixed results, with successes and failures. Obama was hyped up with all sorts of promise, even though all he had done was a lot of talking in pretty sounding speeches, but never delivered any actual results... It's not odd that each of their presidencies seem to reflect that in a lot of ways...

With Romney, it's different. Romney has been successful at EVERYTHING he's done in his adult life. This includes numerous executive roles in business, non-governmental agencies, and government. In all of those function Romney has a proven record of balancing budgets, reducing deficits, creating growth, achieving objectives, accomplishing things, and turning around fiscal nightmares.

Romney has already turned a $3B deficit into a $2B rainy fund, working together with a legislature made up of 85% of the opposite party... Romney has created jobs, romney has managed large scale infrastructure projects, etc. and he's even done that in his governmental experience alone... He has real world experience dealing with the problems we face as a nation, and producing success.

This is a no brainer. We have never had a candidate that was as qualified to do the job we need done at the time we need it done. This isn't about Bush vs Obama. This is about not looking a gift horse in the mouth... Romney is the best candidate to turn around the stagnant economy, improve the fiscal situation, revise our entitlement programs, and manage our infrastructure repairs...

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Then what economist do you think is credible?

None... they're all speculators... Nothing in economics has ever, or could ever, be proven... Its psuedo science and psuedo mathmatics combined...

 

[poweRob]

None... they're all speculators... Nothing in economics has ever, or could ever, be proven... Its psuedo science and psuedo mathmatics combined...

That's not very accurate. Economists, like all "speculators" as you put it, get proven as their theories get laid out over time showing them to be either right or wrong. Also, when economists reinforce their "specualtion" through learning from past economic occurances... wouldn't you think?

 

[IndepCentristMA]

That's not very accurate. Economists, like all "speculators" as you put it, get proven as their theories get laid out over time showing them to be either right or wrong. Also, when economists reinforce their "specualtion" through learning from past economic occurances... wouldn't you think?

The trouble is, you can't fully isolate a single variable, or set a single constant with which to prove anything... so no, they don't get proven right over time... The best anyone can link in economics is correlation, and as we all know, correlation does not equal causation...

For example... 1 approach was taken to recover from the great depression... how do we know another approach would not have worked? or perhaps worked even better?

Instead, now with the 1 time sole occurance, everyone uses the model used for the great depression recovery as the sole standard of how to approach a recovery...

So, with just as much science, I'm going to wear my lucky underwear tomorrow...

 

[Moot]

The trouble is, you can't fully isolate a single variable, or set a single constant with which to prove anything... so no, they don't get proven right over time... The best anyone can link in economics is correlation, and as we all know, correlation does not equal causation...

For example... 1 approach was taken to recover from the great depression... how do we know another approach would not have worked? or perhaps worked even better? ...<snip>..

We know because Herbert Hoover tried the Laizzez Fair free market way first, which made the depression worse....and then he tried the Keynesian way just before he got ousted from office by starting work projects such as the Hoover Dam that put thousands to work and helped to build the economy in the Southwest....

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Romulus]

Then what economist do you think is credible?

Hayek or Friedman.

Btw..happy b-day Milton.

 

[Moot]

Hayek or Friedman.

Btw..happy b-day Milton.

Friedman said the Federal Reserve could have prevented the GD by printing more money. That doesn't sound very Libertarian or Laizzez Fair to me, does it to you?