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

[luckydevil]

Pretty decent piece. Reaganomics was simply military keynesianism.

[twa]

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

That is true,as is Hubs example .

We need someone to be a adult...and it ain't been the Reps(nor Dems)

Corps are not evil,nor business...but if you encourage bad behavior they certainly can look that way.

[Hubbs]

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.

I'm guessing that they've heard just about every suggestion about taxes ever conceived, but if there were significant interest, I'd write something up and make it available for people to co-sign with their real names to send to whichever legislators we thought should receive it.

[mardi gras skin]

Being the party tasked with saying no is a losing proposition. It only works if one of the two groups doesn't want the government to spend money on anything. If two groups want to spend money on different things, what's the incentive to be the responsible party?

[mardi gras skin]

I'm guessing that they've heard just about every suggestion about taxes ever conceived, but if there were significant interest, I'd write something up and make it available for people to co-sign with their real names to send to whichever legislators we thought should receive it.

Seriously, I like it. It makes tremendous sense to me. I'd lend my worthless signature to something like that. Hell, I'd vote for you!

[twa]

I'll add another facet

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/

When Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released the first Congressional Pig Book in 1991, the group was a lonely voice in the pork-barrel wilderness. There was only modest objection to the 546 projects worth $3.2 billion, and “earmark” was virtually unknown. The one constant since then has been the undisputed reign of the King of Pork, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

After Republicans took over Congress in 1994, pork-barrel projects started to be used as a currency of re-election. Over the following decade, they became a currency of corruption, and the explosion in earmarks to their peak at $29 billion in 2006 helped erase the Republican majority. The 9,129 projects in the 2010 Congressional Pig Book represent a 10.2 percent decline from the 10,160 projects identified in fiscal year 2009, and the $16.5 billion in cost is a 15.5 percent decrease from the $19.6 billion in pork in fiscal year 2009.

The reforms that were adopted when Democrats took over Congress in 2006 can be attributed to many years of work exposing earmarks, especially the outpouring of public outrage over projects such as $50,000,000 for an indoor rainforest in Iowa and $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina.

[mardi gras skin]

I thought Alaska was the pork capital. Hawaii has Alaska beat by almost double.

[Burgold]

I thought Alaska was the pork capital. Hawaii has Alaska beat by almost double.

It's all those luaus.

[elkabong82]

if you can teax the top 1% to the effect of dropping their income % in the nation from 66% to say even just 50%, it could go a long way.

and the government needs to institute across the country fiscal responsibility classes in high schools, actually prepare citizens for the real world.

[thebluefood]

I won't even pretend to say I know the first thing about economics in this country; but that seems to be the problem of a lot of our politicians, especially on the federal level. They think they know everything about everything when they really don't know the first thing about the people in their state, much less the rest of the country.

This is why I'm a big 10th Amendment guy. I really don't trust Congress to micromanage the affairs of this country; even economics.

But, once again, it's all way over my head. All I have to share are principals I've developed through observation.

[Mickalino]

I thought Alaska was the pork capital. Hawaii has Alaska beat by almost double.

It's all those luaus.

Just in case someone didn't get your pun

[@DCGoldPants]

Term limits for every elected position is a must. Especially Federal ones. Bring Senate terms down to 4 years and House up to 4 years. Max of 2 in each. So, if you're that good, you get your 16 years in Washington..... and that wouldn't be the case for most. Unless they are willing to go after more sitting folks from their own parties.

Stop the Madness

[Fergasun]

Two party reign is what sucks. We need a third party who is the true party of no. Honestly it will start with one guy, a person like Ross Perot, who goes on CNN and MSNBC to rail against the Republican, and then an hour later shows up on Fox News to rail against the Democrats. He formulates his own policy based on what he thinks is good, and he formulates this policy in a public manner. Every pitch he has ever gotten from a lobbyist goes public, so everyone can see what corporations inserted what into the bills. All the while he is able to raise campaign money and funds to run an uphill election battle again, and is also able to make his constituents happy.

I agree with Destino, we sold our government out to the corporations. We don't want to back. We get all of our news from corporations (CNN/Fox/NBC, major networks). We get all of our entertainment from corporations. If you were to poll who does better, the unions or the chamber of commerce, it would be the unions who lose in a land-slide, when the chamber of commerce is equally damaging.

We need to break the parties.

Term limits won't do, the parties will just keep cycling people in and out. I have no idea if our system has never been like this, but I think with the Internet there is the ability to organize politically around things other than the two parties. Of course they keep attempting to co-opt any organization for their own means as well.

The people need their own system, their own spokespeople, their own folks to battle against the -ocracy that we have. We are screwed, because anyone who has the type of skills needed would immediately sell out for a higher paying job with the parties. I hope one day we have 435 people like Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich in the House and 100 more in the Senate.

When I speak to my dad I see someone who is politically brainwashed. We need people who understand how politics works, and can see through the BS as an electorate rather than brainwashed Republicans or Democrats. My dad was visiting me railing on Obama this, Obama that. It was horrible. I don't support Obama, but he didn't see the big political picture. The fact that both parties have sucked America dry, and sold out the people. That it's all false, that even watching the Congress "debate" is not a debate since everything has been negotiated behind closed doors (maybe its been ilke that forever).

[Smoot Point Really]

How many think that if Reagan had Republicans in congress he would've increased the budget?

You have to go more on what Reagan said more than what he ended up having to live with...

[Wrong Direction]

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.

That was A point of the article, but certainly not the only one. I don't disagree with the point - sort of. I just didn't like the article. He said the GOP destroyed the US economy and the article focused on that point as if it were true. It's a simplistic and incorrect point because of its simplicity.

In a nutshell, he's saying that politics is as simple as a yin (spend) and a yang (don't spend). But that's just not true. It's also folly that just because taxes didn't keep up with spending that the people who allowed spending but didn't allow taxes are the ones at fault. That assumption puts higher spending above lower taxation in terms of importance.

If anyone wants to discuss the bad part of the GOP, I'm on board. I just think this actual article failed to adequately do so, though I admit it made a couple of good points.

[Larry]

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

This is probably a better post for me to attach my observations than any other.

I haven't heard anybody, no matter how partisan, try to claim that no Democrat, ever, has ever done anything bad.

However, I will strongly insist that the bulk of the blame (and credit) for the way our country's economy has moved, for the last 30 years, lies with the Republicans.

Because the Republican agenda has been implemented for the last 30 years.

Yeah, there have certainly been times where the Democrats have been in control of one part of the government or another. But even in those times when they've been fully in control, they haven't done squat.

Whereas every single Republican Pendulum swing has resulted in Republican Policy going through.

The Republicans have been yanking the nation's steering wheel hard in their direction, for 30 years.

The Democrats have been throwing up their hands and saying "What do we do?"

[Wrong Direction]

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

:evilg:

People don't generally acknowledge the nuance of the Laffer argument. There are degrees to which tax cuts are offset by increases in revenue. Much like Obama's stimulus spending, the pump priming can be somewhat offset by corresponding "new" economic activity. People like me think that the tax cut offset of new revenue is much greater than the spending offset of new revenue.

Depending on the before and after of a particular tax cut, it could pay for itself, but that would be pretty extreme. For example, if we cut corporate taxes from 80% to 20%, they'd almost certainly pay for themselves. On the other hand, our taxes aren't at extreme levels now so, even though a good tax cut* would be offset somewhat by revenue generated by its stimulus, it's unlikely that any simple tax cut that most foolish politicians today design would ever actually pay for itself.

* one time tax rebates are a good example of a bad tax cut

[twa]

You have to go more on what Reagan said more than what he ended up having to live with...

That is true with every president, including O.

We don't elect rulers.

[mardi gras skin]

However, I will strongly insist that the bulk of the blame (and credit) for the way our country's economy has moved, for the last 30 years, lies with the Republicans.

Because the Republican agenda has been implemented for the last 30 years.

Yeah, there have certainly been times where the Democrats have been in control of one part of the government or another. But even in those times when they've been fully in control, they haven't done squat.

Whereas every single Republican Pendulum swing has resulted in Republican Policy going through.

The Republicans have been yanking the nation's steering wheel hard in their direction, for 30 years.

The Democrats have been throwing up their hands and saying "What do we do?"

You really believe Tip O'Neil was just rubber stamping Reagan's agenda?

[Hubbs]

How many think that if Reagan had Republicans in congress he would've increased the budget?

Well, Republicans controlled Congress under Clinton and Bush and deficits remained a constant problem with one brief reprieve provided by the dot com bubble, which, seeing as we can now pretty firmly put bubbles in the "bad" category, wasn't much of a reprieve at all... so, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say it still would have happened.

Seriously, I like it. It makes tremendous sense to me. I'd lend my worthless signature to something like that. Hell, I'd vote for you!

Stop it, you're giving zoony nightmares.

I'll see if anyone else feels like they'd want to add their name to something like that.

[Wrong Direction]

Pretty decent piece. Reaganomics was simply military keynesianism.

Wow. :gus:

Others (like me) would make the case that it's the equivalent of an economic civil rights act.

[Larry]

Depending on the before and after of a particular tax cut, it could pay for itself, but that would be pretty extreme. For example, if we cut corporate taxes from 80% to 20%, they'd almost certainly pay for themselves. On the other hand, our taxes aren't at extreme levels now so, even though a good tax cut* would be offset somewhat by revenue generated by its stimulus, it's unlikely that any simple tax cut that most foolish politicians today design would ever actually pay for itself.

* one time tax rebates are a good example of a bad tax cut

The way I heard it pointed out was "cutting the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% almost certainly resulted in increased revenues. On the other hand, reducing the tax rate to 0% is guaranteed to cut revenues to zero."

I think that everybody (everybody who's rational) agrees that there's an optimum number. The question is where.

[Larry]

How many think that if Reagan had Republicans in congress he would've increased the budget?

You have to go more on what Reagan said more than what he ended up having to live with...

Right.

Because everybody knows that the slogans a politician spouts are a more telling indicator of his agenda than, say, the actual budgets that he actually proposed.

Reagan proposed increasing federal spending, across the board, every single year he was in office.

But you're right. The slogans he spouted didn't say that.

[Larry]

You really believe Tip O'Neil was just rubber stamping Reagan's agenda?

The facts say that he did.

The actual budgets passed by Congress, during the Reagan Administration, differed from Reagan's budget proposals by less than 4%. (And most of those 4% differences were spending shifts from one item to another. Total spending was less than 1% higher than proposed.)

Edit: I've been checking for substantiation for this. (Since I'm getting it because I remember reading it, decades ago.)

What I'm actually finding are some places that claim it's been shown that, if Congress had passed every one of Reagan's budgets without change, then the deficits would have been higher than they were.

The explanation for this is that a lot of what goes into the proposals and the budgets aren't so much budgets as they are predictions. The actual law passed by Congress says "pay every person who's unemployed XXX dollars". If unemployment is low, then the government doesn't spend much. If unemployment is high, then it spends more. But there is no actual "budget" for "how much are we going to spend on unemployment, next year?" There are predictions. Many of Reagan's predictions were, shall we say, excessively optimistic.

(Like, say, predicting that there will not be a single disaster anywhere in the nation requiring federal disaster funds, next year. If there actually

is

a disaster, then actual spending will be more than you proposed, but it won't be because that awful Congress forced you to spend more than you requested.)

However, virtually all of the places making that claim are quotes of one particular article, this one.

This author cites a document from the GPO:

House Appropriations Committee, Regular, Annual, Supplemental, and Deficiency Appropriations Bills: Comparison of Administration Budget Requests and Appropriations Enacted, Sep. 30, 1994.

Which I cannot seem to find. (OK, I found one place, here, which will apparently permit me to download it as a pdf, if I pay them.)

[twa]

The facts say that he did.

More like held it for ransom:ols: