The Deification of Reagan

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Your not attempting to make comparisons in deficit spending from the Reagan era to what we are seeing today, really... are you? From a spending stand point, you could easily label Bush as a big spending dem also could you not?

Comparing some of our most recent presidents, it appears that Clinton held our countries fiscal situation in pretty good form but some of that was smoke and mirrors also attributed to a slight swing to the center and spending being held in check by congress.

Argue the merits of Reagan's policies all you want but I personally don't see the comparison an honest and accurate one. We're definitely in a nasty pickle but thats a bit of a stretch I think.

If a persons weight could be viewed as deficit spending, it would be the equivalent of comparing the health ramifications of a 175 lb healthy guy to a 1800 lb dude with diabetes and heart disease eating the same triple cheese burger.

I'm basically saying what David Stockman recently said in the piece that Eddie linked to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...tonwoodssystem

Today's GOP continues to insist upon the virtues of Reagonomics. Dubya was the first President to launch a war (two actually) without a plan to pay for it. Correction - his plan to pay for it cut taxes. We're living the legacy of Reagan's ridiculous economic policy.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm basically saying what David Stockman recently said in the piece that Eddie linked to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...tonwoodssystem

Today's GOP continues to insist upon the virtues of Reagonomics. Dubya was the first President to launch a war (two actually) without a plan to pay for it. Correction - his plan to pay for it cut taxes. We're living the legacy of Reagan's ridiculous economic policy.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Nixon eliminated Bretton Woods in an effort to pay for the Vietnam war and to fund the Great Society. Now who do we have to thank for both of those?

Since, the Keynesians have been running amuck. As a rule, the Republicans want to lower taxes while the Democrats want to spend ourselves rich...although it's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Stockman is correct in criticising the Republicans, which appears to me to be the point of his article.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Nixon eliminated Bretton Woods in an effort to pay for the Vietnam war and to fund the Great Society. Now who do we have to thank for both of those?

Since, the Keynesians have been running amuck. As a rule, the Republicans want to lower taxes while the Democrats want to spend ourselves rich...although it's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Stockman is correct in criticising the Republicans, which appears to me to be the point of his article.

Chas

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

That's because everyone wants a tax cut, Finn. Just another way of buying votes is all it is. Reagan knew it, but his fans are a little slow to catch on.

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

In theory, reducing taxes and leaving more money in the hands of consumers and business to spend and invest will grow the economy and create a larger tax base, and therefore expand the public coffers...a smaller slice of a much larger pie. The basics of Reaganomics.

And a small part of the overall economic equation.

Actually, Reaganomics and Keynesian economics have become meaningless terms. Where the problem lies is with the fact that we can no longer raise taxes enough to pay for the spending which we can no longer afford.

Unless we cut spending, there is no way to balance the budget, no matter how high we raise taxes. Other than inflation, which is what we are in the process of doing, and have been doing, for a long time.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

I understand that Greenspan was an advocate of a strong dollar...until he became chairman of the Fed Reserve.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

In theory, reducing taxes and leaving more money in the hands of consumers and business to spend and invest will grow the economy and create a larger tax base, and therefore expand the public coffers...a smaller slice of a much larger pie. The basics of Reaganomics.

And a small part of the overall economic equation.

Actually, Reaganomics and Keynesian economics have become meaningless terms. Where the problem lies is with the fact that we can no longer raise taxes enough to pay for the spending which we can no longer afford.

Unless we cut spending, there is no way to balance the budget, no matter how high we raise taxes. Other than inflation, which is what we are in the process of doing, and have been doing, for a long time.

Chas

Chas, I agree with almost everything you say here. Only lost me at the end. I do think we could pay for the programs we demand. We just chose not to. But for the most part, I'm totally with you. I'm curious, though, where you would look to cut- if you could just make the call an not have to worry about being elected.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

I think it pissed him off.

[Brother_Karl]

Originally Posted by Charles

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

The egg came first.