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

[Hubbs]

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?"

Well, let's see. Expanding homeownership through the GSEs, especially by expanding their portfolios to hold large amounts of non-prime mortgages, was a Democrat thing. Beefing up defense spending in the face of huge deficits was a Republican thing. The aspects of financial deregulation that were demonstrably bad ideas were bipartisan things. And fighting of recessions via easier and easier credit was a Fed thing.

I'd say the major ingredients of this disaster were added by just about everyone. Stuff like cutting taxes on the wealthy doesn't have a direct relationship.

[ardowling]

Well, let's see. Expanding homeownership through the GSEs, especially by expanding their portfolios to hold large amounts of non-prime mortgages, was a Democrat thing. Beefing up defense spending in the face of huge deficits was a Republican thing. The aspects of financial deregulation that were demonstrably bad ideas were bipartisan things. And fighting of recessions via easier and easier credit was a Fed thing.

I'd say the major ingredients of this disaster were added by just about everyone. Stuff like cutting taxes on the wealthy doesn't have a direct relationship.

Winner!

[PeterMP]

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

He didn't say that, but everybody (even Dems (see Clinton's comments about the era of big government ending)) acknowledges that Reagan changed the way people look at government.

[Wrong Direction]

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

Here are the biggest public expenditures:

Medicare

Medicaid

Defense

Education

Social Security

Other welfare

Which of those have seen meaningful Republican reform? Just because R's have had some control (very little of which included Congress and the White House) doesn't mean their agenda has been implemented. And, unfortunately for the R's, the biggest chunk they did get implemented was during W's presidency and that R was anything but Conservative.

[Wrong Direction]

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.

There is no optimal level, IMO. However, if we had some form of optimal simplicity, the level could be easily tweaked up and down as required.

[PeterMP]

Expanding homeownership through the GSEs, especially by expanding their portfolios to hold large amounts of non-prime mortgages, was a Democrat thing.

Didn't Bush talk about an ownership society?

[Larry]

More like held it for ransom:ols:

I've greatly expanded my post.

(Whether I've actually made anything clearer is questionable.)

[Wrong Direction]

Didn't Bush talk about an ownership society?

Yeah, and Clinton talked about not cheating on his wife and Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on people making over 250k.

The ownership society makes a ton of sense if done right, but Bush never got close.

[Hubbs]

Didn't Bush talk about an ownership society?

Yep. He talked about small government, too.

(Both parties have certainly helped each other along the way. I was trying to be concise.)

[Larry]

Yeah, and Clinton talked about not cheating on his wife and Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on people making over 250k.

Uh, I may have missed something, along the way. But as far as I'm aware, he has not so much as proposed doing so.

[Stillers6SB]

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...

Republicans controlled the Senate through most of Reagan's 8 years. Dems had the House throughout.

For a great inside view of the Reagan budget making process, read this article about Stockman that was published in December 1981:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/5760/

George H.W. Bush was right on the money when he called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics".

[Larry]

Although, in Reagan's defense I do remember a really weird court case from back then.

(Note: Proceeding from Old Fart memory.)

Reagan wanted some program cut from the budget. Congress put it back in. Reagan signed the budget, then announced that a budget, even one he signed, does not compel the Executive to spend the money. And announced that he wasn't going to spend this money.

Somebody (Congress) took him to court, and the SC ruled that yes, the President is compelled to spend the money appropriated by Congress.

[Hubbs]

Ha, that's clever. Would have been a de facto line item veto.

[Wrong Direction]

Uh, I may have missed something, along the way. But as far as I'm aware, he has not so much as proposed doing so.

Yeah, I got that backwards.

[twa]

Uh, I may have missed something, along the way. But as far as I'm aware, he has not so much as proposed doing so.

Did ya miss healthcare is now a tax?

I can certainly understand your confusion though;)

[zoony]

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.

You're sounding more and more like a dirty libtard everyday What you're proposing is communism

Anyways, I agree with you, but trust me, the definition of "personal" on a business trip is a loose one. I travelled 40 weeks last year and did as many expense reports, and also approved another 100 or so. Trust me on that one

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.

But don't corporations use precious (scarce) societal resources? They should just be able to operate completely free of charge?

Environmental, infrastructure, workforce, etc. These are all things that need to exist for corporations to do business, and do business effectively. Shouldn't they pay in to the pot? They're the ones making money off of all of it, after all

[Johnny Punani]

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

Exactly. And that is why the Republicans and Democrats both suck. Both of them are nothing but corporate whores who do nothing but jockey for the biggest payout.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well just wait, if the GOP gets their wish then they will take control in the Fall and then take the White House in 2 years, and then they can really sell our nation to the businesses and the military industrial complex all while the Tea Partyers and Conservatives cheer wildly...only to later find that they've only cheered on their own destruction, but then like good group thinkers they'll just blame anyone who opposed them, all the while the businesses stand over them like the good puppet masters they are.

"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause."

[Rocky21]

Concerning his well thought out policy of Reaganomics, former chief of staff Donald Regan in his book For the Record states

“in the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one.

From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics.”

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Exactly. And that is why the Republicans and Democrats both suck. Both of them are nothing but corporate whores who do nothing but jockey for the biggest payout.

If it was "special interests" I might go along with this. But which corporations have the democrats whored out too?

[Hubbs]

You're sounding more and more like a dirty libtard everyday What you're proposing is communism

I know, it's hard to type with my hammer in one hand and my sickle in the other. :pfft:

Anyways, I agree with you, but trust me, the definition of "personal" on a business trip is a loose one. I travelled 40 weeks last year and did as many expense reports, and also approved another 100 or so. Trust me on that one

Yeah, I know. Can't win every battle. Just gotta keep trying to win as many of them as possible.

But don't corporations use precious (scarce) societal resources? They should just be able to operate completely free of charge?

Environmental, infrastructure, workforce, etc. These are all things that need to exist for corporations to do business, and do business effectively. Shouldn't they pay in to the pot? They're the ones making money off of all of it, after all

Free of charge? That's an interesting claim. Corporations are nothing more than mechanisms for one group of people to provide a good or service to another group of people. Without the cooperation of both the producers, who are taxed, and the consumers, who are taxed, a corporation cannot exist. Every single person who makes up a corporation pays taxes. Every single person who invests in a corporation pays taxes. Every single person who buys a good or service from a corporation pays taxes. To suggest that corporations could operate free of the "charge" of taxes - if corporate taxes were, in fact, done away with - is to suggest that a corporation can somehow form itself and operate itself, without any people involved.

(In case you're wondering, yes, this does mean that I don't like some of the ways that corporations have been granted personhood. Same with unions.)