Why Obamanomics Has Failed

[EriktheRed]

Obama inherited an economy on the brink. It was at the edge of completely imploding. He could have sat on his hands and done nothing and we could have ended up with a recession worse than the Great Depression. His stimulous program has kept this nation afloat, IMHO. The road back is slow and it is rocky. It is going to take a lot of time.

I share that opinion, but it's too bad he and his folks didn't listen to Krugman.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama inherited an economy on the brink. It was at the edge of completely imploding. He could have sat on his hands and done nothing and we could have ended up with a recession worse than the Great Depression. His stimulous program has kept this nation afloat, IMHO. The road back is slow and it is rocky. It is going to take a lot of time.

The economy, particularly the housing market, was expanding at a unsustainable rate. There had to be a correction. No one foresaw the magtitude of the crash. I really do not think housing values have bottomed out. But technically, we have been out of the recession for months. The jobs will be the last to come back. Palin and her "mama grizzlies" are praying that it doesn't come back before 2012.

The Dems.....well, the Dems are praying that Palin is the 2012 GOP nominee. She has some much baggage that a wink will do her no good.

No, actually that is not true. By the time Obama got into office the threats from collapse from large financial institutions were largely over. Bush extended the bailout to Chrysler and GM. Obama continued that. His stimulous program did nothing but increase debt and prolong the recession.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that $400B of the stimulus hasn't been spent (rather odd they won't use it to extend the unemployment benefits they think create jobs) - all it has really accomplished is to horrify businesses regarding the debt and tax climate so that they are not investing and hiring.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is? WHy is unemployment remaining stubbornly high? Why is the only growing component in GDP government spending? Why is everything stagnating? And with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts months away things will get worse, not better.
And btw your link doesnt work. I mean like I can't link to the story. That it doesnt work to support your argument is a given.

WHY haven't the Bush tax cuts, the magic elixir WORKED? They have been in place through the whole crisis!

The Kennedy tax cuts were too. They must also be a complete failure since they didnt stop the meltdown in 2007. Or 1990. Or 1987. Or....
Are you really this stupid?
Let's see what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire in January.

Rabbi, are you THAT stupid to believe that the circumstances in 1962 and today are the same? When Kennedy and Johnson cut taxes they faced the problem of a surplus. The top marginal tax rate in 1962 was 91% for income over $400,000; today that rate is 35% for income over $372,950. Those taxes were in place to pay for the recovery from The Great Depression, World War II, the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, and the Korean War.

The author of Kennedy's tax cuts was not a supply side economist, Walter Heller was a Keynesian.

The SAME economic theory JFK used is WHY it will help the economy if unemployment benefits are extended.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the article - it's actually quite simple.

Reduce tax rates - particularly corporate rates.

Initiate a 2-year spending freeze. No healthcare BS, no Cap n Trade BS. During that 2-year spending freeze, do an honest audit of all federal government programs and cut and/or eliminate those that are simply not necessary, such as the Dept. of Education.

Watch the business cycle boom, jobs created, people back to work...

What we have seen instead is a call for higher taxes, more regulation, a massive expansion of government and government spending - all things that history has proven to cripple economic growth - see Greece, Spain, Italy, former Soviet Union, etc...

LOL. Shut up.

Seriously. Any adult conservatives want to take up my challenge?

Running from your own challenge - weak as it was.

There you have it - cut taxes, federal spending freeze, full audit of programs followed by cuts and or elimination of programs.

The reduction in the corporate tax rate alone would initiate billions to pour into the American economy, followed by business reinvestment, job creation, and a booming economy.

Again - stark contrast to what we have today- call for higher taxes, further regulation, attacks against industry, massive government spending and expansion...etc.

JFK and Reagan were essentially right- not perfectly so of course, but the basic fundamentals of more money into the hands of the private sector is a good thing.

Obama and his Democrat leadership cohorts are wrong - they wish to take more from the private sector and give to government - the redistributive policy Obama has preached for many years now...

You can't use Reagan as an example because he ran up the deficit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the article - it's actually quite simple.

Reduce tax rates - particularly corporate rates.

Initiate a 2-year spending freeze. No healthcare BS, no Cap n Trade BS. During that 2-year spending freeze, do an honest audit of all federal government programs and cut and/or eliminate those that are simply not necessary, such as the Dept. of Education.

Watch the business cycle boom, jobs created, people back to work...

What we have seen instead is a call for higher taxes, more regulation, a massive expansion of government and government spending - all things that history has proven to cripple economic growth - see Greece, Spain, Italy, former Soviet Union, etc...

LOL. Shut up.

Seriously. Any adult conservatives want to take up my challenge?

Running from your own challenge - weak as it was.

There you have it - cut taxes, federal spending freeze, full audit of programs followed by cuts and or elimination of programs.

The reduction in the corporate tax rate alone would initiate billions to pour into the American economy, followed by business reinvestment, job creation, and a booming economy.

Again - stark contrast to what we have today- call for higher taxes, further regulation, attacks against industry, massive government spending and expansion...etc.

JFK and Reagan were essentially right- not perfectly so of course, but the basic fundamentals of more money into the hands of the private sector is a good thing.

Obama and his Democrat leadership cohorts are wrong - they wish to take more from the private sector and give to government - the redistributive policy Obama has preached for many years now...

Exxon, one of the most profitable corporations in the world, paid ZERO US federal income taxes last year.

Tell us, what would you lower their tax rate to in order to stimulate the economy?

 

[The Rabbi]

WHY haven't the Bush tax cuts, the magic elixir WORKED? They have been in place through the whole crisis!

The Kennedy tax cuts were too. They must also be a complete failure since they didnt stop the meltdown in 2007. Or 1990. Or 1987. Or....
Are you really this stupid?
Let's see what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire in January.

Rabbi, are you THAT stupid to believe that the circumstances in 1962 and today are the same? When Kennedy and Johnson cut taxes they faced the problem of a surplus. The top marginal tax rate in 1962 was 91% for income over $400,000; today that rate is 35% for income over $372,950. Those taxes were in place to pay for the recovery from The Great Depression, World War II, the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, and the Korean War.

The author of Kennedy's tax cuts was not a supply side economist, Walter Heller was a Keynesian.

The SAME economic theory JFK used is WHY it will help the economy if unemployment benefits are extended.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Are you that stupid to believe what you've plagiarized from someone with one more brain cell than you have?
There is no such thing as "stimulating demand by consumers". Gov't cannot do that. It can only take money from one group and give it to another. This creates nothing. Your whole notion of tax cuts and how they work is simply wrong. This was already written about extensively in 1949 by Hazlett.
In fact you missed my entire point of referring to Kennedy's tax cuts. The point had been made that Bush's tax cuts, in 2001, were responsible for the economic melt down in 2007. If that were so, then why not blame the Reagan tax cuts for 1990 as well as 2007? Why not blame the Kennedy tax cuts for all of it and then some?
You can't. There is no correlation between the Bush tax cuts and events of 2007. None whatsoever. There is a correlation and causation of the easy money policies of the Fed. But you ignore that because you don't understand it.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Kennedy tax cuts were too. They must also be a complete failure since they didnt stop the meltdown in 2007. Or 1990. Or 1987. Or....
Are you really this stupid?
Let's see what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire in January.

Rabbi, are you THAT stupid to believe that the circumstances in 1962 and today are the same? When Kennedy and Johnson cut taxes they faced the problem of a surplus. The top marginal tax rate in 1962 was 91% for income over $400,000; today that rate is 35% for income over $372,950. Those taxes were in place to pay for the recovery from The Great Depression, World War II, the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, and the Korean War.

The author of Kennedy's tax cuts was not a supply side economist, Walter Heller was a Keynesian.

The SAME economic theory JFK used is WHY it will help the economy if unemployment benefits are extended.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Are you that stupid to believe what you've plagiarized from someone with one more brain cell than you have?
There is no such thing as "stimulating demand by consumers". Gov't cannot do that. It can only take money from one group and give it to another. This creates nothing. Your whole notion of tax cuts and how they work is simply wrong. This was already written about extensively in 1949 by Hazlett.
In fact you missed my entire point of referring to Kennedy's tax cuts. The point had been made that Bush's tax cuts, in 2001, were responsible for the economic melt down in 2007. If that were so, then why not blame the Reagan tax cuts for 1990 as well as 2007? Why not blame the Kennedy tax cuts for all of it and then some?
You can't. There is no correlation between the Bush tax cuts and events of 2007. None whatsoever. There is a correlation and causation of the easy money policies of the Fed. But you ignore that because you don't understand it.

Do you mean Hazlitt, as in Henry Hazlitt? One of the fucking totally CLUELESS Von Mise morons?

If those Von Mise morons ever get their paws on our economy, they will make Hitler look like a humanitarian.

FACT: Public consumption spurs economic activity.

FACT: Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it.

FACT: You are a REAL fucking idiot.

 

[Oddball]

Do you mean Hazlitt, as in Henry Hazlitt? One of the fucking totally CLUELESS Von Mise morons?

If those Von Mise morons ever get their paws on our economy, they will make Hitler look like a humanitarian.

FACT: Public consumption spurs economic activity.

FACT: Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it.

FACT: You are a REAL fucking idiot.

Fact: Gubmint doesn't have any money of its own...Everything that the "put into the economy" is expropriated or printed up out of thin air.

You've met the idiot and he is you, Herr Godwin.

 

[Charles_Main]

For the same reason Socialism has failed in every attempt ever tried. It is unsustainable.

 

[Oddball]

You eventually run out of other peoples' money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Keynes is the ManMade Global Warming school of economics.

(I'm still working on it, I know there's a pharse in there somewhere)

 

[Charles_Main]

You eventually run out of other peoples' money.

Actually usually from the start there never is enough of other peoples money to begin with.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you mean Hazlitt, as in Henry Hazlitt? One of the fucking totally CLUELESS Von Mise morons?

If those Von Mise morons ever get their paws on our economy, they will make Hitler look like a humanitarian.

FACT: Public consumption spurs economic activity.

FACT: Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it.

FACT: You are a REAL fucking idiot.

Fact: Gubmint doesn't have any money of its own...Everything that the "put into the economy" is expropriated or printed up out of thin air.

You've met the idiot and he is you, Herr Godwin.

Fact: NO ONE has any money of its own. It is earned as payment for services rendered.

I guess Jethro and his pea brain coalition are looking for free handouts out of 'thin air'...free military, free veteran's benefits, free domestic security, free roads, free free safe drinking water, free power grid, free communications, free police protection, free fire protection...

Jethro and his pea brain coalition...free of adult supervision

 

[Toro]

For the same reason Socialism has failed in every attempt ever tried. It is unsustainable.

Sweden is doing pretty well.

 

[Meister]

For the same reason Socialism has failed in every attempt ever tried. It is unsustainable.

Sweden is doing pretty well.

Any others besides Sweden?

 

[Toro]

For the same reason Socialism has failed in every attempt ever tried. It is unsustainable.

Sweden is doing pretty well.

Any others besides Sweden?

Finland. Norway. Denmark. Germany.

So I guess "failed in every attempt ever tried" is false.

 

[Meister]

Sweden is doing pretty well.

Any others besides Sweden?

Finland. Norway. Denmark. Germany.

So I guess "failed in every attempt ever tried" is false.

That was't my point. I respect your knowledge, Toro....and just asking. Why has socialism worked in those countries?

 

[Toro]

Any others besides Sweden?

Finland. Norway. Denmark. Germany.

So I guess "failed in every attempt ever tried" is false.

That was't my point. I respect your knowledge, Toro....and just asking. Why has socialism worked in those countries?

There are many reasons.

Those countries tend to be friendly to capital, allow the price system to work and are free trading nations, despite having high taxes and extensive social programs. They also have strong senses of civic duty. They are highly educated. But more importantly, people work hard for other reasons besides compensation.

 

[Meister]

Finland. Norway. Denmark. Germany.

So I guess "failed in every attempt ever tried" is false.

That was't my point. I respect your knowledge, Toro....and just asking. Why has socialism worked in those countries?

There are many reasons.

Those countries tend to be friendly to capital, allow the price system to work and are free trading nations, despite having high taxes and extensive social programs. They also have strong senses of civic duty. They are highly educated. But more importantly, people work hard for other reasons besides compensation.

Would population and size of the country ( land mass ) enter into the equation?