Failures of Reaganomics

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Those who praise Ronald Reagan as a good president rarely, if ever mention his numerous (and very serious) failures. Rarely do we hear from them any mention of immigration AMNESTY, Briggs Inititative, Iran-Contra, the Lebanon Marine barracks fiasco, or the worst job growth and GDP growths since 1950.

To boot, the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending 91981-1988) resulted in large budget deficits, an expansion in the U.S. trade deficit, as well as the stock market crash of 1987, while also contributing to the Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the Savings and Loan crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government. John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."

In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

FDIC: The S&L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment. (Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html

Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum: Lou Cannon: 9781891620843: Amazon.com: Books (see page 128)

Did Reagan's economic choices result in a downgrade of the United States' credit rating? Was there ever a discussion of multiple extended federal unemployment extensions that only results in driving the debt further while creating no real government revenue? Without the cost of those added extensions, this President began his legacy by adding $820 Billion to our debt through a stimulus bill. Does that mean we have forgotten those billions spent on: government incentives towards a Chevy Volt that failed to meet production goals, Solyndra ($528 Million bailout) ... Nevada Geothermal ($98 Million) .. Brightsource Energy ($1.4 Billion) .. First Solar ($2.1 Billion) ... then there is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at over $153 Billion. These few figures, as I'm sure there is more, puts in perspective the comparison of national debt that President Reagan added.

 

[Iceweasel]

And Cash for Clunkers. How did that work out? That's Lib-economics 101, just stimulate yourself into prosperity!

 

[Listening]

Those who praise Ronald Reagan as a good president rarely, if ever mention his numerous (and very serious) failures. Rarely do we hear from them any mention of immigration AMNESTY, Briggs Inititative, Iran-Contra, the Lebanon Marine barracks fiasco, or the worst job growth and GDP growths since 1950.)

wouldn't you have a lot less to talk about if you talked about the successes of reaganomics/voodoo economics?

Wouldn't you have more to talk about (rather than just posting your stupid one liners) if you knew what reaganomics/voodoo economics was ?

 

[Listening]

Well-articulated post. Thanks.

I'd be interested to know why, after all these years, some are compelled to try to assassinate the legacy of the best leader the US has had in living memory. I cannot believe that many regret the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, I don't think that the same wish that the era of peace and prosperity of over two decades which began and followed his administration hadn't happened.

What we are left with is the contrast to the ineptness of the countries current leadership or the long-standing damage done to left wing ideologues. Few blame Carter, Bush I or Clinton for America's contemporary problems, but it seems to be almost an article of faith on the left that Reagan (and Bush II of course) are to blame.

ars
Many don't recall that Reagan really did reach across the isle to work with people like Tip O'Niel. He also had many moderates on his team (James Baker being the most apparent). David Gergen was very much a fan of his and appreciated his ability to get things done.

For sure, things got away from him at the end of his 2nd term. But, he still outshines the past and present morons we've have since.

Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.

Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

 

[S.J.]

ars
Many don't recall that Reagan really did reach across the isle to work with people like Tip O'Niel. He also had many moderates on his team (James Baker being the most apparent). David Gergen was very much a fan of his and appreciated his ability to get things done.

For sure, things got away from him at the end of his 2nd term. But, he still outshines the past and present morons we've have since.

Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.

Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

Winning the Cold War left us with a huge military surplus, and with the Soviet Union collapsing, a balanced budget was easy to achieve. Thanks to Gingrich and the new Republican controlled Congress, we got that balanced budget, and even though Clinton fought against it, he still took credit for it.

 

[Londoner]

Let’s at least start with the basic principals of Supply Side Economics (which was crudely termed “Trickle Down Economics” by the Left, and “Voodoo Economics” by Bush 41). It might be nice to flesh some of this stuff out before we hurl talking points developed by think tanks and popular media. I get frustrated by listening to Limbaugh and Beck because they state “bumper sticker” conclusions without ever educating their audience on the seminal texts and policy applications.

The essential premise of Supply Side Economics is that tax cuts (and deregulation) will increase the return on investment, that is, it will incentivize the flow of capital into products and services which cause economic growth (the effect of which trickles down to the poor as jobs, higher wages and the material benefits that go along with economic growth). This is not hard to understand. Productive entrepreneurs are less likely to put their money at risk if the potential rewards are stolen by faceless bureaucrats and given to lazy people (who don't create jobs or produce life improving technology). Nor are investors likely to put their money at risk if costly union wages and needless regulations make it impossible for them to compete with suppliers in places like China where the government doesn't require struggling businesses to build handicap ramps, expensive smokestacks and dole out high wages.

Supply Side Economics - a faith in the rational self interest of free suppliers/consumers over the limited information, incompetence and corruption of government planners - takes partial root in the tenets of Classical Liberalism (most famously associated with Adam Smith and John Locke, as well as their modern variants, Friedman and Hayek). However, it wasn’t until the 70s (when the “Demand Side” policies of the postwar years contributed to stagflation) that the Supply Siders had their first legitimate opening since the Gilded Age.

Perhaps the best argument against Keynes is this: When government stimulates the economy in order to maintain full employment, then prices go up, which “inflates away” the very gains which government was trying to bestow upon workers, and it has the double curse of putting workers in a higher tax bracket - see law of unintended consequences. FYI: The Keynesians were willing to accept some inflation if it maintained high employment, but when unemployment skyrocketed starting in 1973, Keynesian stimulus was seen as a failure. FYI 2: Friedman’s success is partly due to predicting this and asserting that there was no longterm tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

Capitalizing on the breakdown of the postwar Keynesian System, the Supply Siders stepped in to unburden capital with the historic Reagan tax cuts, the war on unions, and wholesale deregulation across every industry, most notably energy and finance (two forms of deregulation that some have argued were mismanaged and lead to corruption and massive capital destruction. FYI: Carter started deregulation in Transportation and Communications). Next chapter we will go over the traditional criticisms of Supply Side Economics.

 

[Londoner]

Did Reagan's economic choices result in a downgrade of the United States' credit rating?

Reagan went to Congress, hat in hand, 18 times to ask for debt ceiling increases. FYI: I agree with some of his spending because I think his "Military Keynesianism" actually produced fruitful technology and created a lot of domestic (government) jobs, which put more consumers on main street, i.e., people with government jobs have to spend money too. Anyway, Reagan wanted these absurdly high spending increases partly to bankrupt the Soviets through ramping up weapons expenditures, which backfired a little when the bills started coming due. At no time did Tip O'neill - who disagreed strongly with his military spending, and spent next to nothing under Carter - threaten to default on Reagan's unprecedented spending. The Credit Rating fiasco happened because Boehner said he was not going to authorize the payment of our bills, many of which came from programs/policies which were put in place by Big Government Conservatism, under Bush.

Also, your point about misguided subsidies is well taken (and we largely agree), but I'm guessing your comments were delivered from a position of relative ignorance about government subsidies in general (-meaning you got your data from cut-&-paste Rightwing sites which tend not to explain the entire context and history of Government subsidies. That is, people like you are raised to believe that Government hasn't routinely lead the development of vital technology by funding certain industries. And let's not even talk about government partnerships with places like MIT and Stanford, two universities which have developed loads of technology for the defense industry).

Are you aware that both sides of the political aisle have placed many successful bets across the technoscape? Most notably aerospace (through the defense budget, going largely to Boeing). Also internet/computer technology (Defense & NASA budgets), and the satellite system (Defense & NASA budgets). Many of the technologies that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA programs have immensely profitable and life-improving commercial applications. Do you know the technological burden of modern warfare? Do you know the technological burdens that come with stabilizing and managing an unstable globe? There is a reason why government subsidized the development of all these technologies. You should know more about this, and you should know the kinds of profits that accrued across the private sector by standing on the shoulders of these government/industry partnerships. You don't want to be stuck inside Rightwing talking points which divide the world into evil government on one side, and business on the other. This is talk radio propoganda meant to cover-up the interdependency of government and business (Meaning: if the taxpayer injects massive subsidies into a corporation, than he gets some of that investment back when gold is discovered in them there hills. You get this right? If you want nanny-state patent protection, legal protection, infrastructure, subsidies and bailouts, than you got to pay some taxes to replenish the revenue you've tapped. Or, you can put your voters in a media bubble (by investing in Rightwing think tanks and pop media) which keeps people ignorant about the subsidies you've received from government ... thus putting downward pressure on your taxes)

Alas, we do agree on some levels. Government places bad and/or corrupt bets all the time. I remember when the Lefties complained about the insane Iraq Halliburton contracts. And I remember when they talked about all the corruption and waste generated by the weapons lobbying empire, or the 2003 Republican Drug Bill which fleeced consumers by awarding Ely Lilly above market drug rates for Bush's Medicare Part D. Point is, if you want to wade into the topic of government subsidies, you really have to invest more time into figuring it out. I think you're on the right track, but I honestly believe you can do better. For starters, you should investigate Reagan's big bet on petroleum. Carter warned us that rapidly diminishing global oil supplies coupled with rising demand from China/India would eventually lead to the $4/gallon (and worse), which would cripple the American economy (e.g., strapped consumers would need to take on more and more debt to pay for the rising costs of everything). Carter said we should build a moonshot around creating a less petrol-intensive transport and production system. He had no illusion of getting off oil, but he wanted to limit the impact of rising oil prices along with our dependency on terrorist petrol-states. Reagan, who was supported heavily by big oil, convinced the American people that Carter was wrong, and that the Middle East would not be a problem. So he ramped up the military budget and started playing an expensive chess game in the region, with generous funding across the region, including money/weapons to Hussein and his so called freedom fighters in Afghanistan (the mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda). Now we are living not only with Reagan's big bet on middle east petroleum, but we've had to deal with all the monsters he funded. You can argue with this all you want, but you should become more literate on some of the huge bets your side has made. Like me, if you did deep enough you will likely find plenty of good and bad bets.

 

[Iceweasel]

Reagan wanted these absurdly high spending increases partly to bankrupt the Soviets through ramping up weapons expenditures, which backfired a little when the bills started coming due.

...and the Democrats went back on their word to cut spending. You left that part out. Since the USSR did collapse it was money well spent. I know I don't want to live under communism and will fight if need be.

no time did Tip O'neill - who disagreed strongly with his military spending, and spent next to nothing under Carter - threaten to default on Reagan's unprecedented spending. The Credit Rating fiasco happened because Boehner said he was not going to authorize the payment of our bills, many of which came from programs/policies which were put in place by Big Government Conservatism, under Bush.

What has that got to do with supply side economics? You went off on a tangent to blame some Republicans for something. You forgot to mention any Democrat involvement. Again.

Also, your point about misguided subsidies is well taken (and we largely agree), but I'm guessing your comments were delivered from a position of relative ignorance about government subsidies in general (-meaning you got your data from cut-&-paste Rightwing sites which tend not to explain the entire context and history of Government subsidies. That is, people like you are raised to believe that Government hasn't routinely lead the development of vital technology by funding certain industries. And let's not even talk about government partnerships with places like MIT and Stanford, two universities which have developed loads of technology for the defense industry).

Wow, you're God. You got all that from him posting data from a rightwing misinformation hate site huh? Maybe you're just too full of yourself and can't get enough hateful spew out so you use any opportunity to do so?

I think we all know public money has funded things that have panned out for us. Not all government spending is wasteful and I don't know who said it was.

You don't want to be stuck inside Rightwing talking points which divide the world into evil government on one side, and business on the other.

You've got a toggle switch for a brain and you're going to lecture people on critical analysis?

This is talk radio propoganda meant to cover-up the interdependency of government and business (Meaning: if the taxpayer injects massive subsidies into a corporation, than he gets some of that investment back when gold is discovered in them there hills. You get this right? If you want nanny-state patent protection, legal protection, infrastructure, subsidies and bailouts, than you got to pay some taxes to replenish the revenue you've tapped. Or, you can put your voters in a media bubble (by investing in Rightwing think tanks and pop media) which keeps people ignorant about the subsidies you've received from government ... which puts downward pressure on your taxes)

so government is responsible for business success? Fascinating stuff.

Now we are living not only with Reagan's big bet on middle east petroleum, but we've had to deal with all the monsters he funded. You can argue with this all you want, but you should become more literate on some of the huge bets your side has made. Like me, if you did deep enough you will likely find plenty of good and bad bets. .

No telling what all is up your ass, your deep scan is bound to find even more to blame on Reagan. After all these years and with all the Democrats holding the purse strings. Fascinating.

 

[protectionist]

Read 'em and weep. Recent YouGov/Economist poll of presidents since Teddy Roosevelt:

Great

Reagan 32%
FDR 31
JFK 30

Worst

Obama 37%
Bush II 32
Nixon 30

Puts this puppy to sleep.

New Poll: Reagan Ranked Greatest President Of Last Hundred Years; Guess Who’s the Biggest Failure?[97698]/0/

This shows how pathetic forum posts can be, and to what depths they can descend.

A "new poll" huh ? From whom ? Some pollster nobody ever heard of (survey taken outside the local bar at 1 AM, when by that time everyone was drunk).

Actually, Reagan was "Great".

1. For illegal alien invaders wanting amnesty.

2. For queer teachers wanting to teach in California public schools.

3. For Muslim terrorists in Lebanon.

4. For the rich wanting to be richer (while the poor get poorer)

5. For state terrorists in Iran.

Reagan couldn't even win a political popularity contest in his own family. His own kids, Ron and Patty would vote against him.

 

[Kosh]

Yet another thread proving that the far left is not connected to reality.

 

[protectionist]

You're not unique. I know a parrot when I see one.

Like a parrot who recites the FACTS.

You have no facts, you have fantasies.

This is a confirmation that you are just talking mindless hot air.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taxratesgrowth.jpg

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/88/ReaganDebt.png

LiveLeak.com - President Ronald Reagan meets his Taliban friends in the White House.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ma-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

And the list of wars in post # 115. Are those just "fantasies" too ?

 

[protectionist]

Yet another thread proving that the far left is not connected to reality.

What does the far left have to do with it ? This is a debate between Reaganist psuedo-conservatives and Eisenhower REAL conservatives. We all know the far left is detached from reality (or goes to the lunatic fringe for votes). Thar's besides the point.

 

[Londoner]

so government is responsible for business success? Fascinating stuff.

This is a strawman, as are most of your comments. I claimed that many useful and profitable technologies were created by a partnership between various industries and government, primarily in the Defense sector. This is why I chose words like interdependency. I speculated that people like you had no idea about this partnership because your news sources never talk about it - and you don't question them. They only teach you to be angry at government (which is completely understandable because there are a lot of reasons to be angry).

Study how satellite technology was developed. Then study the number of industries that draw immense profits from it, not least telecom. You will find that your bifurcation of evil government on one side and independent entrepreneur on the other is an over-simplification. Instead, many technological advances have come from a complicated government/industrial partnership, one where research assistance and lush subsidies flowed from Government into technology. While you're at it check out the "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)" which develops sophisticated military technology, some of which has turned out to have extremely beneficial commercial applications. To the chagrin of most anti-war liberals, the Defense and NASA sectors have partnered with industry to create immensely profitable technology. [You understand lobbying right? A large part of it involves large corporations pitching government for subsidies so they can develop potentially vital technologies. The government has placed a huge number of bets and formed many productive partnerships across different sectors. Please turn off FOX News and study, say, the history of Boeing and the number of subsidies that have flowed from the Pentagon Budget into the development of aerospace technology.]

Secondly, your yammering about Democrats not cutting spending is insane because Democrats claim to be the party of spending, that is, they believe that government spending can play a role in both the Supply Side (through subsidies) and the Demand side (by stimulating consumer demand during downturns). Tip O'neill just happened to believe that Reagan's unprecedented military spending was too much. He was use to Carter's level of spending and debt, which was nothing compared to Reagan. Reagan was a spender like no president prior, and his trade liberalization + war on Labor lead to a reduction of wages/benefits, which was "solved" by a massive expansion of credit so that a struggling middle class could stay afloat and keep consuming. Problem is, 30 years of borrowing (to compensate for frozen wages and disappearing benefits) has left the middle class too indebted to consume, which is partly why no amount of tax cuts to the wealthy are going to jumpstart the economy. Why? Because corporations are not going to start hiring until consumption, in the aggregate, comes back - but it can't come back under the low wage regime of Reaganomics. So we're stuck.

But if you want to understand who the biggest spender is, compare the debt accrued by Tip & Carter to what happened when Reagan entered the picture. Only then does the joke Reagan played on future generations emerge. The ol' B actor promised to be a responsible spender, just like W when your party controlled the Senate and House for several years of his presidency. Indeed, with complete control of the presidency and purse strings, the Bushies voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times (-the other times were done with Pelosi, not surprisingly). People like you didn't make a peep when a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House raised the debt ceiling multiple times. Why didn't you make a peep? Because you didn't even know about it, which is why it's hard for us to take you seriously.

And you also don't know how many government jobs Reagan added to the Federal workforce compared to Carter and Clinton. He grew the government more than any president in my lifetime. (The complicated part is that I agree with some of his military Keynesianism. Military bases across the country along and industrial defense sector jobs in places like Orange and San Diego County put thousands of well paid workers on Main Street, spending money, buying things, allowing small businesses to retain and grow jobs. You need to learn stuff like this so you can enter these discussions with more information. Like I've said before, turn off talk radio and go to a library. Try to study this stuff from different angles.)

Let's look at how Reagan grew government. Like I said, nobody in my lifetime comes close to the Reagan growth of big government.


Ronald Reagan
- Started: 2,875,000
- Ended: 3,113,000

Reagan EXPANDED the Federal Workforce by 238,000

Bill Clinton
- Started: 3,083,000
- Ended: 2,703,000

Clinton REDUCED the Federal Workforce by 380,000

George W Bush
- Started: 2,703,000
- Ended: 2,756,000

Bush EXPANDED the Federal Workforce by 53,000

Obama's numbers cannot be tallied yet because he is still in office, but here are some interesting facts.

By the end of 2010, the United States had less employees than we did at the end of Reagan even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

REAGAN VERSUS OBAMA
1988 — 3,113,000 

2010— 2,840,000

In his 3rd year Reagan added 1.2 million government employees, which not only improved his employment stats, but it put more spenders/consumers in the economy which prevented main street layoffs. By contrast Obama laid-off 250,000 government employees during his 3rd year.

(Do you understand the Reagan hoax?)

Reagan created the biggest government this country has ever had.

And stop blaming the Dems for everything that happened under Reagan and Bush, especially because you keep telling the Obamanites to take accountability. Seriously man, it's embarrassing. People from your side tell us that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. The Housing Meltdown was Carter's fault (CRA) and the Wall Street Meltdown was Clinton's fault. Somehow, when you control the White House, nothing is ever your fault, including the insane money you spent when you controlled the presidency and congress. If you want the Dems to take accountability, you have to start by taking accountability yourself, but you never do.

If you want to understand the Housing Meltdown, listen to the actual words of the man who was in charge when it happened. He spells out in clear detail his plan to deregulate lending over & above anything the Dems could ever dream up, and he lays out a very specific plan to partner with Fannie/Freddie to aggressively expand home ownership. [Whereas under Carter/Clinton, these mortgage policies were much more tightly controlled and didn't lead to one of the greatest meltdowns in U.S. History. FYI: Bush called it the ownership society. He believed that if poor people had more skin in the game - a large taxable asset - then they'd be more likely to vote for the party of low taxes. They would go from dependents to owners - and with that ownership, they would take more accountability for themselves and their neighborhoods. [Bush's ownership society was modeled on something Thatcher tried] Anyway, rather than letting Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and Savage tell you about the Housing Meltdown, why don't you for once get your information from the horse's mouth and listen to what Bush actually says. If you do this - if you listen to what Bush says in plain english - you will understand the financial nuclear bomb your leader dropped on our nation.

 

[protectionist]

They got a lot of mileage out of Bush bashing but few are buying it at this point. Reagan was too long ago for most younger kids so all they know is what their socialist sociology and poly-sci teachers fed them. The crux of the matter is the age old capitalism vs. socialism argument and since they can't point to a lot of success there's little else but to try to make the other side look bad. It's what they do.

I've pointed to a lot of success in this thread, with solid sources/facts.

What was your best example of a recent socialist mandate? I hope you aren't going to say the ACA.

That depends on how you're defining "socialist". A top bracket tax of 75-80% perhaps ? (vs one of 28-31% ?)

 

[protectionist]

Those who praise Ronald Reagan as a good president rarely, if ever mention his numerous (and very serious) failures. Rarely do we hear from them any mention of immigration AMNESTY, Briggs Inititative, Iran-Contra, the Lebanon Marine barracks fiasco, or the worst job growth and GDP growths since 1950.

To boot, the combination of significant tax cuts and a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending 91981-1988) resulted in large budget deficits, an expansion in the U.S. trade deficit, as well as the stock market crash of 1987, while also contributing to the Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the Savings and Loan crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government. John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."

In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

FDIC: The S&L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment. (Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html

Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum: Lou Cannon: 9781891620843: Amazon.com: Books (see page 128)

Did Reagan's economic choices result in a downgrade of the United States' credit rating? Was there ever a discussion of multiple extended federal unemployment extensions that only results in driving the debt further while creating no real government revenue? Without the cost of those added extensions, this President began his legacy by adding $820 Billion to our debt through a stimulus bill. Does that mean we have forgotten those billions spent on: government incentives towards a Chevy Volt that failed to meet production goals, Solyndra ($528 Million bailout) ... Nevada Geothermal ($98 Million) .. Brightsource Energy ($1.4 Billion) .. First Solar ($2.1 Billion) ... then there is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at over $153 Billion. These few figures, as I'm sure there is more, puts in perspective the comparison of national debt that President Reagan added.

The perspective that is unavoidable is the US national debt going from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. HA d this not happened there maybe never would have been a national DEBT, period.

As for what Obama has done, lots to talk about there (in another thread)

 

[protectionist]

and cash for clunkers. How did that work out? That's lib-economics 101, just stimulate yourself into prosperity!

off topic!!

 

[P@triot]

What a coincidence! That's exactly what I was thinking about you. Well, read my posts (if you ever read them in the first place) and click the links, whenever you feel like removing head from sand.

You're a waste of time. Get back to me when you can think for yourself.

What are you talking about ? What leads you to say I'm not thinking for myself ????

I suppose you mean other than the fact that you parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism????

 

[protectionist]

ars
Many don't recall that Reagan really did reach across the isle to work with people like Tip O'Niel. He also had many moderates on his team (James Baker being the most apparent). David Gergen was very much a fan of his and appreciated his ability to get things done.

For sure, things got away from him at the end of his 2nd term. But, he still outshines the past and present morons we've have since.

Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.

Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.

 

[P@triot]

You misunderstand. I am not saying capitalism doesn't work. I am not saying the wealthy do not create jobs. I am saying that when it comes to stimulating growth in this country's economic system, merely stimulating supply side is not ENOUGH. Stimulating supply side, while important, means dick if you do not stimulate demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy if the lower classes see no growth. The middle class is vital to this economy. Bush did not understand this. Obama did.

Obama's stimulus package did stimulate growth. Why? Because it cut taxes for the MIDDLE class and it provided extra demand to the poor through the extension of unemployment benefits. Unemployed people who would otherwise would not be spending money were spending money because of the government
assistance. Why wasn't it not enough to fix our economic woes? Because it wasn't big enough. Had it been bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. You can thank republicans for that.

How do I know I am right? Because corporate profits are at an all time high. If trickle down economics was the only answer to our economic problems, we would be out of this mess.

[MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION]

But you're wrong. Obama asked for and received THREE rounds of stimulus packages and each time he said "we just didn't spend enough". That's literally as stupid as a person standing in a bucket and saying that they just didn't pull hard enough to pull themselves up

Corporate profits are high right now because Dumbocrats drove jobs overseas and countries such as China and India are benefiting from those American jobs. Had Dumbocrats not drive those jobs overseas, American's would be benefitting from those jobs and we would be out of this mess.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. Source? The stimulus created or saved 2.5 million jobs. The CBO, Moody, and JP Morgan all confirm this fact.

I am so sick of this blame democrats crap. Why don't you explain HOW democrats have anything to do with jobs going overseas? What the fuck are you talking about? Are corporate profits not the entire point? What is stopping them from setting up jobs here?

I'm absolutely stupefied by the fact that you have to ask this question. How have Dumbocrats forced jobs overseas? What is stopping corporations from setting up jobs here?

Ignorant left-wing Dumbocrat communism is the answer. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That is an undeniable, indisputable fact.

Then we have bullshit like Obamacare which makes the cost of hiring employees skyrocket due to taxes, certain mandatory regulations, etc.

Then we have bullshit like unions which extort businesses and demand that a fuck'n grease monkey turning a wrench on an assembly line make $25 per hour, plus a cadillac health care plan, plus an exorbitant retirement pension (gee, I wonder why GM needed many billions of unconstitutional government dollars to keep from closing their doors).

And of course, Dumbocrats are doing all of this while screaming "fuck the 1%, lets punish those mother-fuckers". Cause, you know, that sends a great message to job creators.

So to recap, you crush job creators with taxes, you crush them with regulations, you crush them with unions, and then you slam them publicly and try to turn public opinion against them. And you guys stand around scratching your heads trying to figure out why there are never any jobs wherever liberal policy is in effect

Meanwhile, nations like China and India welcome them with open arms and provide them with extremely low taxes, no regulations, no unions, and no attempts to turn the public against them.

 

[protectionist]

You're a waste of time. Get back to me when you can think for yourself.

What are you talking about ? What leads you to say I'm not thinking for myself ????

I suppose you mean other than the fact that you parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism????

What leads you to say that I parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism???? >> when my facts are from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Policy Center, and White House Council of Economic Advisors, all from the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as other presidential administrations,