Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other

[Dot Com]

Thangod my Krugman thread xferred over @CrusaderFrank @Toro

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Have an adult explain it to you...

thats why I asked you. How will the liberal learn if he's afraid to try?

 

[Listening]

dear, can you say what your point is?

Have an adult explain it to you...

I agree.....

You certainly can't.

 

[Listening]

"Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-in—which includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reagan—has been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bush—the "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"—have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.

But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideology—just as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.

dear, can you say what your point is?

He can't.

And the whole premise is bullshit.

What works one day won't work the next. You have to take it all in context.

Which the left won't. I took this apart on my thread on Reaganomics.

Bush made several big blunders (and likely had no idea what he was doing).

Reagan....one of the largest contiguous expansions in history.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-in—which includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reagan—has been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bush—the "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"—have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.

But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideology—just as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.

dear, can you say what your point is?

He can't.

And the whole premise is bullshit.

What works one day won't work the next. You have to take it all in context.

Which the left won't. I took this apart on my thread on Reaganomics.

Bush made several big blunders (and likely had no idea what he was doing).

Reagan....one of the largest contiguous expansions in history.

Bush, like Reagan is conservative. BOTH represent the biggest failures in American history. It is the embodiment of a failed ideology.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

The Myths of Reaganomics
Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Listening]

"Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

For the last quarter century, Reagan's rhetoric and ideology have guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party, which were effectively fused during his presidency. The Reagan love-in—which includes a project led by GOP operative Grover Norquist to name something in every county in America after Reagan—has been gathering steam since his retirement. It reached an absurd peak at a Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when every candidate outdid the last to seize the late president's mantle.
What few of the GOP candidates would admit, though, is that the purest heir to Reaganism is George W. Bush. In 2003, Bill Keller of the New York Times even wrote a definitive 8,000-word article in the Sunday magazine called "Reagan's Son," which detailed striking similarities in the two men's personal styles, policies, and even staffing. Speaking to Keller, Norquist blessed the analogy. And since then the key traits that Keller identified as shared by Reagan and Bush—the "enthusiastic assumption of the role of solo superpower," "tax cuts with a supply-side bias," "a shift of responsibilities from government to the private sector, and from the federal government to the states"—have, if anything, intensified. Judging by those aspects of Reagan's record that his cheerleaders extol most ardently, Bush has actually proven more faithful to conservatism, not less, than his predecessor.

But Bush's new critics spare themselves the pain of finding fault with their hero through selective memory. They remember that Reagan was steadfast (most of the time) in his conservative rhetoric and ideology—just as Bush has been. They forget, however, that in practice Reagan veered from his official line as politics dictated or when, as invariably happened, different conservative ideals clashed.

dear, can you say what your point is?

He can't.

And the whole premise is bullshit.

What works one day won't work the next. You have to take it all in context.

Which the left won't. I took this apart on my thread on Reaganomics.

Bush made several big blunders (and likely had no idea what he was doing).

Reagan....one of the largest contiguous expansions in history.

Bush, like Reagan is conservative. BOTH represent the biggest failures in American history. It is the embodiment of a failed ideology.

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

The Myths of Reaganomics
Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

More bullshit.

Already showed how Reagan wasn't like Bush. Not gonna do it again.

You can keep masturbating to your fairy tale. I really don't care.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

 

[Listening]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

Yes, but what Bush practiced was not Reagnomics. There was no need for him to spend like he did (and what he spent on).

Reagan's policies provided a glide path for Clinton that would have eliminated the debt (which is why I tell the left to shove the "debt explosion" argument up their asses (sideways). Clinton (and the GOP house) was on target to eliminate the debt altogether. As much as I like Dick Cheney, I totally disagreed with his "deficits don't matter" argument. In context, they do. And Bush didn't need them...could not afford them.

The entire federal budget had gotten to the point where revenues were not going to catch up one way or the other. Addtionally, Bush took over in a very mild recession and there was not room for error. He borrowed to stave off the inevitable. And Obama has carried his legacy forward at the speed of light.

 

[Dot Com]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

by giving 100's of BILLIONS in BORROWED taxpayer $$$ to defense contractors? Surely you jest. Thats the embodiment of corporate cronyism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

by giving 100's of BILLIONS in BORROWED taxpayer $$$ to defense contractors? Surely you jest. Thats the embodiment of corporate cronyism.

actually it was embodiment of winning the cold war, saving the world from nuclear anniliation, and freeing a billion people or so!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

by giving 100's of BILLIONS in BORROWED taxpayer $$$ to defense contractors? Surely you jest. Thats the embodiment of corporate cronyism.

Provide for common defense is the only spending allowed for in the Constitution

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

by giving 100's of BILLIONS in BORROWED taxpayer $$$ to defense contractors? Surely you jest. Thats the embodiment of corporate cronyism.

Provide for common defense is the only spending allowed for in the Constitution

Isn't it interesting that liberals are opposed to defense spending?
Its almost as if they think our country is not worth defending.

?
+

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't it interesting that liberals are opposed to defense spending?
Its almost as if they think our country is not worth defending.

?
+

They're forever butthurt that Reagan defeated their home team the USSR

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Isn't it interesting that liberals are opposed to defense spending?
Its almost as if they think our country is not worth defending.

?
+

They're forever butthurt that Reagan defeated their home team the USSR

Interesting predicament for Obama now. His Islamic caliphate is now a reality and he is trying to dramatically cut the military.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

Yes, but what Bush practiced was not Reagnomics. There was no need for him to spend like he did (and what he spent on).

Reagan's policies provided a glide path for Clinton that would have eliminated the debt (which is why I tell the left to shove the "debt explosion" argument up their asses (sideways). Clinton (and the GOP house) was on target to eliminate the debt altogether. As much as I like Dick Cheney, I totally disagreed with his "deficits don't matter" argument. In context, they do. And Bush didn't need them...could not afford them.

The entire federal budget had gotten to the point where revenues were not going to catch up one way or the other. Addtionally, Bush took over in a very mild recession and there was not room for error. He borrowed to stave off the inevitable. And Obama has carried his legacy forward at the speed of light.

Reaganomics worked.

Obamanomics failed

Yes, but what Bush practiced was not Reagnomics. There was no need for him to spend like he did (and what he spent on).

Reagan's policies provided a glide path for Clinton that would have eliminated the debt (which is why I tell the left to shove the "debt explosion" argument up their asses (sideways). Clinton (and the GOP house) was on target to eliminate the debt altogether. As much as I like Dick Cheney, I totally disagreed with his "deficits don't matter" argument. In context, they do. And Bush didn't need them...could not afford them.

The entire federal budget had gotten to the point where revenues were not going to catch up one way or the other. Addtionally, Bush took over in a very mild recession and there was not room for error. He borrowed to stave off the inevitable. And Obama has carried his legacy forward at the speed of light.

Reagan provided a path to ruin. Many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency.

It took EVERY president from George Washington to Jimmy Carter to create one trillion dollars of debt. It took Reagan only 5 YEARS to create the second trillion dollars of debt. How did Reagan do it? With a welfare queen mentality. Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Reagan engineered the creation of more new debt than the combined deficits of all previous Presidents. He assailed Jimmy Carter's $73.8 billion deficit in the 1980 campaign, but the deficit reached $220.7 billion in 1986. The deficits rose from 2.6 percent of the gross national product in the fiscal year 1981 to 6.3 percent in 1983.

While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government, the Federal civilian work force increased during his Presidency by 150,000, growing to more than 3 million.

While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing Government spending, it rose by $321 billion during his Presidency, to more than a trillion dollars. Federal outlays rose from 22.7 percent of the gross national product in 1981 to 24 percent in 1985.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, Reagan ruined the USSR and the "American" Left hates him for that

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, Reagan ruined the USSR and the "American" Left hates him for that

Reagan s Tear Down This Wall Myth

Even former State Department official George F. Kennan, whose seminal analysis of the Soviet system in 1947 helped launch the Cold War, objected to the Republican claims of "winning" the Cold War.

In his book, At A Century's Ending, Kennan wrote that "the suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish."

Kennan noted that by the late 1940s and the early 1950s, "it was visible to some of us then living in Russia that the Soviet regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns and hopes of the Russian people. …

“It was quite clear, even at those early dates, that the Soviet regime as we had known it was not there for all time. We could not know when or how it would be changed. We knew only that the change was inevitable and impending.

“By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many members of the Communist Party had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous, and unnecessary."

Slowing the Inevitable

In Kennan's view, the escalation of U.S. military pressure delayed, rather than accelerated, the demise of the Soviet dictatorship.

"The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line circles in this country over the ensuing 25 years, had the consistent effect of strengthening comparable hard-line elements in the Soviet Union." Kennan argued.

"The more American political leadership was seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military, rather than political, resolution of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies within the regime.

“Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook that country at the end of the 1980s.

"What did the greatest damage was ... the unnecessarily belligerent and threatening tone in which many of [the U.S. military strategies] were publicly carried forward. For this, both of our great political parties deserve a share of the blame.

“Nobody 'won' the Cold War. It was a long and costly political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength of the other side."

In other words, in Kennan’s view, Reagan – along with “Team B” and other U.S. hardliners – did more to extend the Cold War than to “win” it.

 

[dblack]

Yes, Reagan ruined the USSR and the "American" Left hates him for that

Reagan s Tear Down This Wall Myth

Even former State Department official George F. Kennan, whose seminal analysis of the Soviet system in 1947 helped launch the Cold War, objected to the Republican claims of "winning" the Cold War.

In his book, At A Century's Ending, Kennan wrote that "the suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish."

Kennan noted that by the late 1940s and the early 1950s, "it was visible to some of us then living in Russia that the Soviet regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns and hopes of the Russian people. …

“It was quite clear, even at those early dates, that the Soviet regime as we had known it was not there for all time. We could not know when or how it would be changed. We knew only that the change was inevitable and impending.

“By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many members of the Communist Party had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous, and unnecessary."

Slowing the Inevitable

In Kennan's view, the escalation of U.S. military pressure delayed, rather than accelerated, the demise of the Soviet dictatorship.

"The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line circles in this country over the ensuing 25 years, had the consistent effect of strengthening comparable hard-line elements in the Soviet Union." Kennan argued.

"The more American political leadership was seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military, rather than political, resolution of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies within the regime.

“Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook that country at the end of the 1980s.

"What did the greatest damage was ... the unnecessarily belligerent and threatening tone in which many of [the U.S. military strategies] were publicly carried forward. For this, both of our great political parties deserve a share of the blame.

“Nobody 'won' the Cold War. It was a long and costly political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength of the other side."

In other words, in Kennan’s view, Reagan – along with “Team B” and other U.S. hardliners – did more to extend the Cold War than to “win” it.

Both sides lost the cold war. It was a colossal waste of human potential and wealth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, Reagan ruined the USSR and the "American" Left hates him for that

Reagan s Tear Down This Wall Myth

Even former State Department official George F. Kennan, whose seminal analysis of the Soviet system in 1947 helped launch the Cold War, objected to the Republican claims of "winning" the Cold War.

In his book, At A Century's Ending, Kennan wrote that "the suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish."

Kennan noted that by the late 1940s and the early 1950s, "it was visible to some of us then living in Russia that the Soviet regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns and hopes of the Russian people. …

“It was quite clear, even at those early dates, that the Soviet regime as we had known it was not there for all time. We could not know when or how it would be changed. We knew only that the change was inevitable and impending.

“By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many members of the Communist Party had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous, and unnecessary."

Slowing the Inevitable

In Kennan's view, the escalation of U.S. military pressure delayed, rather than accelerated, the demise of the Soviet dictatorship.

"The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line circles in this country over the ensuing 25 years, had the consistent effect of strengthening comparable hard-line elements in the Soviet Union." Kennan argued.

"The more American political leadership was seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military, rather than political, resolution of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies within the regime.

“Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook that country at the end of the 1980s.

"What did the greatest damage was ... the unnecessarily belligerent and threatening tone in which many of [the U.S. military strategies] were publicly carried forward. For this, both of our great political parties deserve a share of the blame.

“Nobody 'won' the Cold War. It was a long and costly political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength of the other side."

In other words, in Kennan’s view, Reagan – along with “Team B” and other U.S. hardliners – did more to extend the Cold War than to “win” it.

^ So bitter that Reagan destroyed the USSR. So, so bitter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Notice how unhappy the "American" Left is at the defeat of their home team, the USSR