Reagan Insider: 'GOP Destroyed U.S. Economy'

[Hunter44]

Commentary: How: Gold. Tax cuts. Debts. Wars. Fat Cats. Class gap. No fiscal discipline

"How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110297/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy?sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

This should be interesting....

[SkinsHokieFan]

It is pretty simple- both parties have sold their souls to corporations.

Matt Talibi had a great article in Rolling Stone about the charade the Senate leadership put out "debating" the financial reform bill, when in the background they were "****ing like rabbits in heat" watering it down

[Burgold]

It is pretty simple- both parties have sold their souls to corporations.

Matt Talibi had a great article in Rolling Stone about the charade the Senate leadership put out "debating" the financial reform bill, when in the background they were "****ing like rabbits in heat" watering it down

I think this is my problem in general with the Dem Congress. I like that they tackled Health Care, Energy, Financial Reform... I don't like that they tried to castrate their own bills before they even went out. Good ideas, but it's almost like they are doing everything they can to negate their own impact.

I'm overgeneralizing and a bit overdramatic, but I wish they would let the arrow fly and see where it lands. Before compromising themselves into impotency.

[Henry]

I've always wanted to do this:

:munchout:

[DjTj]

I think this is my problem in general with the Dem Congress. I like that they tackled Health Care, Energy, Financial Reform... I don't like that they tried to castrate their own bills before they even went out. Good ideas, but it's almost like they are doing everything they can to negate their own impact.

But what incentive do they have to go all the way on these issues? All political forces are pulling them back towards watering things down.

You would think that at least on financial reform, both parties would be competing with each other to hold Wall Street's feet to the fire, but the Republicans stayed with their traditional "pro-business" position, so there was no incentive for the Democrats to be any more aggressive.

On health care, the Democrats had to scratch and claw just to get to enough votes to pass what they did. All the forces (and some would say the majority of the country) were pulling in the other direction.

I'm overgeneralizing and a bit overdramatic, but I wish they would let the arrow fly and see where it lands. Before compromising themselves into impotency.

You're asking politicians to ignore politics, and that is not their job. They are only doing what the voters want, and the voters seem to just want soundbites.

[Burgold]

DJ,

With the country in the shape it is, they should all behave like responsible grown ups instead of Eagles' fans. I'm frustrated with all of them, dems, repubs, independents... even us.

I also agree with the premice of this thread, which is that Republican economic policies for over 20 years have hurt us and are detrimental to the health of this nation. If you look at what happens to this nation at the end of every Republican Administration, the fruits of their labors are always, always poisonous!

[Wrong Direction]

DJ,

With the country in the shape it is, they should all behave like responsible grown ups instead of Eagles' fans. I'm frustrated with all of them, dems, repubs, independents... even us.

I also agree with the premice of this thread, which is that Republican economic policies for over 20 years have hurt us and are detrimental to the health of this nation. If you look at what happens to this nation at the end of every Republican Administration, the fruits of their labors are always, always poisonous!

Lol. Carter's malaise and Clinton's .com market bubble burst, Palestinian intifada and rise of Al Qaida says it's not isolated to R's.

[Destino]

Money is speech and companies are people. How you are going to extract companies from Washington? You're not. This idea that democrats and republican sold their souls to corporations is ass backwards. The people sold their government to corporations.

You have to look at how things work in order to see why the current situation is what it is.

For instance: Lobbyist make life easy for people that don't know what they are talking about.

Say you're "Joe the Plumber" and you get elected Senator. You think that US energy policy is wrong minded and that we should be doing more of X and less of Y. Sadly you don't know **** when it comes to energy policy beyond that. In comes the lobbyist/energy company man. He offers to help you write a bill that will accomplish what you want and asks if you wouldn't mind helping them with a small issue. Joe not knowing **** about **** agrees. He gets a great bill to put his name on and the energy company gets a little something too.

Sadly what the energy company wanted upsets people in a different state. They are hopping mad and there are about 2500 of them. 2400 of them don't like to talk politics because it's so complicated and impolite. So you have 100 people calling the senate. Maybe they leave some voicemails... meanwhile the energy company is taking all the leaders they need to vote on the bill to lunch and shaking hands. They are offering to help them with issues in their own states.

I wonder why the companies always win... damn leaders selling their souls.

[techboy]

I'm frustrated with all of them, dems, repubs, independents... even us.

I posted this in another thread, but Jon Stewart's I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill pretty much sums this up.

[Burgold]

Lol. Carter's malaise and Clinton's .com market bubble burst, Palestinian intifada and rise of Al Qaida says it's not isolated to R's.

So, you're really a fan of cutting taxes while exponentially increasing spending and reducing regulations?

[Wrong Direction]

Money is speech and companies are people. How you are going to extract companies from Washington? You're not. This idea that democrats and republican sold their souls to corporations is ass backwards. The people sold their government to corporations.

You have to look at how things work in order to see why the current situation is what it is.

For instance: Lobbyist make life easy for people that don't know what they are talking about.

Say you're "Joe the Plumber" and you get elected Senator. You think that US energy policy is wrong minded and that we should be doing more of X and less of Y. Sadly you don't know **** when it comes to energy policy beyond that. In comes the lobbyist/energy company man. He offers to help you write a bill that will accomplish what you want and asks if you wouldn't mind helping them with a small issue. Joe not knowing **** about **** agrees. He gets a great bill to put his name on and the energy company gets a little something too.

Sadly what the energy company wanted upsets people in a different state. They are hopping mad and there are about 2500 of them. 2400 of them don't like to talk politics because it's so complicated and impolite. So you have 100 people calling the senate. Maybe they leave some voicemails... meanwhile the energy company is taking all the leaders they need to vote on the bill to lunch and shaking hands. They are offering to help them with issues in their own states.

I wonder why the companies always win... damn leaders selling their souls.

Nice. When I run for president, I will mention this in every issue.

Don't like our healthcare system...look right to the incentive to give everyone what they want.

Social Security debt got you bummed? What lobbies fight for the status quo?

Public education turning out too many dumb kids? Let's just rely on our politicians to fix it by throwing more good money after bad.

Defense spending totally out of whack? I wonder why.

Donald Trump lamented that it would never cost him $5 billion to build a wall in New Orleans. Gee...I wonder why it does.

If the spiral is ever to end, the way Washington works must be changed. They must get term limits. They must have real and significant ethics rules with real and significant penalties. They must revolutionalize campaign financing.

All of this other talk of how to fix healthcare, Wall St., immigration and the like are very interesting, but it will amount to spending trillions on the margins without the fundamental change that we need to fix the real problem...our very system of government.

[Wrong Direction]

BTW, to the OP, I couldn't see the comments but the article was terrible.

[DjTj]

BTW, to the OP, I couldn't see the comments but the article was terrible.

Stockman's original Op-Ed is better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

It used to be that Republicans were a counterbalance to government spending based on the idea that we should balance our budgets and not saddle future generations with debt. That doesn't seem to be the motivation anymore. Now it's just about how much money the government is taking out of your pocket right now. Lower taxes are the be-all and end-all to Republican fiscal policy.

As he says, starting with Nixon, the Republican Party changed from a party of balanced budgets and low debt to a party of tax cuts and high leverage.

The entire Republican Party today (and the Tea Party too) grew up on Reaganomics. The core of conservative economic policy seems to be that cutting taxes will solve all problems. Spending cuts are nice (but don't touch military spending), but if you can't cut spending that's no big deal. If you just cut taxes, the economy will get better, and everything will work itself out somehow.

Republican economic plan:

1. Cut Taxes

2. ???

3. Profit!

[aREDSKIN]

When has the US government EVER spent less year over year?? Out of control SPENDING has been and is the culprit. Everyone knows this. It's been going on since i been on the planet. David Stockman is he selling a book? The Gov't is full of group think belief that the gov't and not the individual is a better distributor or the country's wealth. In general the gov't doesn't create wealth, individuals do. Until such time the politicians can restrain SPENDING then the country's dilemma will just continue it's downward spiral. It's not that we are taxed too little it's we spend well beyond our means.

[Hubbs]

Let's not pretend that the Republicans didn't have help.

[Larry]

But what incentive do they have to go all the way on these issues? All political forces are pulling them back towards watering things down.

You would think that at least on financial reform, both parties would be competing with each other to hold Wall Street's feet to the fire, but the Republicans stayed with their traditional "pro-business" position, so there was no incentive for the Democrats to be any more aggressive.

On health care, the Democrats had to scratch and claw just to get to enough votes to pass what they did. All the forces (and some would say the majority of the country) were pulling in the other direction.

You're asking politicians to ignore politics, and that is not their job. They are only doing what the voters want, and the voters seem to just want soundbites.

I think thta part of it has been that the Republicans have made it very clear that anybody who in any way objects to "whatever big business wants" is communist/socialist/anti-capitalism/destroying the economy.

Opposing corporations now days makes you Satan.

I see it at lots of levels. Here in my city, Wal-Mart wants the city to give Wal-Mart an existing city park, in the center of a residential area, to build a supercenter on. (Wal-Mart offers to donate a bigger chunk of land, that's 10 miles outside of town.)

Anybody who objects? "Anti-business!!!"

[Larry]

The entire Republican Party today (and the Tea Party too) grew up on Reaganomics. The core of conservative economic policy seems to be that cutting taxes will solve all problems. Spending cuts are nice (but don't touch military spending), but if you can't cut spending that's no big deal. If you just cut taxes, the economy will get better, and everything will work itself out somehow.

Republican economic plan:

1. Cut Taxes

2. ???

3. Profit!

Remember a Mark Russel line, shortly after "Mission Accomplished":

Now all we have to do is to figure out how we're going to pay for all this.

But don't worry. If I know this Congress, it'll only take two or three more tax cuts.

[Wrong Direction]

So, you're really a fan of cutting taxes while exponentially increasing spending and reducing regulations?

Lol, I'd like to know where I said that. The conclusions some people jump to...

I didn't see his remarks so I can't comment on them. I read the article and it was terrible. That's all I said. I didn't say it didn't have any good points (e.g., the spending/taxing gap) but couldn't any buffoon say the exact same thing about Democrat big spending being the issue?

I'm no fan of the Republican party. They're part of the problem, just like the Democrat party. They're just a different part of the problem. That article was terrible because it didn't have that other part of the problem meaningfully represented. It just assigned all blame to one side.

[Burgold]

I think what was useful about the article (and I've been somewhat tongue and cheek throughout the thread) is you have a former Reagan insider admitting culpability. If this former Republican heavyweight said, "but it was them too" it would defuse the impact of the op-ed.

The strength of this article is something that American government has been lacking in recent decades... a sense of self-reflection and responsibility. It is about time someone looked in the mirror and admitted their flaws, more should, and then everybody should roll up their sleeves and start getting to work instead of playing political games.

[PeterMP]

I didn't see his remarks so I can't comment on them. I read the article and it was terrible. That's all I said. I didn't say it didn't have any good points (e.g., the spending/taxing gap) but couldn't any buffoon say the exact same thing about Democrat big spending being the issue?

The point of the article is that the Republicans stopped any meaningful actions with respect to controlling spending.

Once upon a time, the Dems said, 'we want to spend more.' The Republicans than said, 'Whoa, the debt will go up.'

The Dems then said, 'We will raise taxes.'

The GOP said, 'Whoa, taxes will get to high.'

Then there was a debate/compromise between the usefullness in the increase in spending and the tax increase required to cover it.

Then things changed. The Dems (and in many cases the Republicans, especially related to the military) kept saying, we are going to raise spending, but the Republicans said:

'Well that is fine. As long as you do not increase taxes.'

The Republicans quit making half of the argument.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The point of the article is that the Republicans stopped any meaningful actions with respect to controlling spending.

Once upon a time, the Dems said, 'we want to spend more.' The Republicans than said, 'Whoa, the debt will go up.'

The Dems then said, 'We will raise taxes.'

The GOP said, 'Whoa, taxes will get to high.'

Then there was a debate/compromise between the usefullness in the increase in spending and the tax increase required to cover it.

Then things changed. The Dems (and in many cases the Republicans, especially related to the military) kept saying, we are going to raise spending, but the Republicans said:

'Well that is fine. As long as you do not increase taxes.'

The Republicans quit making half of the argument.

I remember my friend arguing with me VIGOROUSLY that if we lowered income taxes, the government would raise more revenue.

Your post just really reminded me of that.

[The Evil Genius]

I remember my friend arguing with me VIGOROUSLY that if we lowered income taxes, the government would raise more revenue.

Your post just really reminded me of that.

Great. You just had to call out the Laffer 'tards.

:evilg:

[Hubbs]

I remember my friend arguing with me VIGOROUSLY that if we lowered income taxes, the government would raise more revenue.

Your post just really reminded me of that.

Well, it's true to a certain extent. The trick is being specific. "Cut taxes" and "raise taxes" aren't really the choices, even though people like to pretend they are for the purposes of attacking one party or the other.

For example, if we raised all taxes on business to 90%, we'd pull in less revenue than we're getting now, because most of them would go bankrupt. Now, that's obviously an absurd example, and many would argue that we've cut taxes past the point at which the additional growth makes up for lost revenue. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it would behoove (that's right, behoove) us to be specific about what taxes should be raised, and what taxes should be cut. As I've said in other threads, I think the most effective change we could make while still using our current main tax structure (progressive income) would be to raise taxes on the top two or three brackets, eliminate business expenses for any sort of personal perks at the executive level, and then eliminate corporate income taxes outright. By doing so, we would maximize the amount of money going towards private business growth - which, regardless of opinions about the stimulus, both Democrats and Republicans agree is the only kind of growth that will allow us to once again enjoy a robust economy in the long run - while compensating for the lost tax receipts with money that's specifically not going towards job creation. This plan would also have the lovely benefit of making both parties turn their brains on to analyze the pros and cons, because it contains a carrot and a stick for each of them.

[mardi gras skin]

The point of the article is that the Republicans stopped any meaningful actions with respect to controlling spending.

Once upon a time, the Dems said, 'we want to spend more.' The Republicans than said, 'Whoa, the debt will go up.'

The Dems then said, 'We will raise taxes.'

The GOP said, 'Whoa, taxes will get to high.'

Then there was a debate/compromise between the usefullness in the increase in spending and the tax increase required to cover it.

Then things changed. The Dems (and in many cases the Republicans, especially related to the military) kept saying, we are going to raise spending, but the Republicans said:

'Well that is fine. As long as you do not increase taxes.'

The Republicans quit making half of the argument.

In other words, the Republicans STOPPED being the "party of no".

[mardi gras skin]

I think the most effective change we could make while still using our current main tax structure (progressive income) would be to raise taxes on the top two or three brackets, eliminate business expenses for any sort of personal perks at the executive level, and then eliminate corporate income taxes outright. By doing so, we would maximize the amount of money going towards private business growth - which, regardless of opinions about the stimulus, both Democrats and Republicans agree is the only kind of growth that will allow us to once again enjoy a robust economy in the long run - while compensating for the lost tax receipts with money that's specifically not going towards job creation.

That's excellent. Why don't you shoot that idea up to your congressman and senator. We could all co-sign with you if that would help.