David Stockman : THE GOP DESTROYED U.S. ECOMONY

[firstandten]

This is from not a Dem but from Reagan's former budget director. This is a man who is a supply-side guru, who fed his boss the tripe he needed to convince the American public that trickle-down economics was the way to go.

He realized but couldn't keep his mouth shut to the fact that supply-side economics is a fraud, its simply a economic theory the Repub think tankers came up with so they could say they had a counter point to keynesian economic theories.

The mere fact that the right wing minions can convince people making under $250,000 that they should support the extention of the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 is short of genius.



http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madr...rector-david-s

[Jimaz]

Stockman on 60 Minutes

[Danny]

He's right. The Republicans destroyed our U.S. economy. It starts with the housing market

[Papasito]

Anyone who is not a partisan pawn who blindly follows thier political party of choice should know by now that the U.S. economy was [[and still is being) destroyed by both political parties.

When a foreign company can put a product on the shelf at thier retail price for less than it costs in energy [[excluding materials and workmanship - we are just talking energy) for an American company to make the same product.... something is very very wrong with the system.
I know I am preaching to the quior here.

But let's not be short sighted and act as though everything was one party's fault.
Free trade agreements, technology, and much much more were [[and still are) thrown around
with no care to American workers & industry by D's and R's.

*ps: is the http://mortgageblues.us/news/398 Glass-Steagall Act still repealed?
Yep, it sure is.
Another housing collapse is only a matter of time, considering the root causes
of this recession have yet to be repaired.

[maxx]

Papasito: *ps: is the http://mortgageblues.us/news/398 Glass-Steagall Act still repealed?

Uh, that piece was written in 2008. So what part of Glass-Steagall is not addressed in the new bank reform act?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...10-07-21-12200

[rb336]

He's right. The Republicans destroyed our U.S. economy. It starts with the housing market

no, it started with the union-busting of reagan, followed by reagan's policy of paying companies to move manufacturing off-shore, then deregulation, etc., etc.

Of course, the dems, hardly "liberal," have done the same thing. the "conservative" and "liberal" tags are utterly meaningless. the two parties are merely two sides of a single corporatist neo-fascist coin

[Big Dog]

rb336, you get a ka-ching, with that post.

[oladub]

no, it started with the union-busting of reagan, followed by reagan's policy of paying companies to move manufacturing off-shore, then deregulation, etc., etc.

Of course, the dems, hardly "liberal," have done the same thing. the "conservative" and "liberal" tags are utterly meaningless. the two parties are merely two sides of a single corporatist neo-fascist coin

No, it started with Woodrow Wilson allowing bankers to control our monetary policy, and the institution of the federal income tax during his administration. The bank owned Federal Reserve policies have since led to a 95% devaluation of the spending power of the dollar and repeated financial bubbles. Meanwhile, the institution of the federal income tax has allowed the transfer of tax payment from merchants who had to pay import taxes to working Americans who have to pay income taxes. The result of the latter is that it makes more for financial sense to import products than to employ Americans. Some years later, Wilson bemoaned his creation of the Federal Reserve as his major political regret.

I pretty much agree with your second paragraph except the oligarchy could care less about certain social issues and finer points about how we try to make a broken system work. So we still have lib vs. con things to argue about and other wise distract us from the oligarchy's systematic looting and increasing control of our economy. Yesterday the Senate, for instance, passed a 'food protection bill' which might as well have been written by Monsanto if it wasn't. Yet, the press pretty much ignored this 2,300 page bill which allows government agencies to write policy about who may grow or buy what. This bill is a shining example of the 'corporatist neo-fascist coin' of which you speak.

[rb336]

No, it started with Woodrow Wilson allowing bankers to control our monetary policy, and the institution of the federal income tax during his administration.

so the 20th Century US economy was worse than the 19th?

Meanwhile, the institution of the federal income tax has allowed the transfer of tax payment from merchants who had to pay import taxes to working Americans who have to pay income taxes.

I can go along with that, sort of.

Yesterday the Senate, for instance, passed a 'food protection bill' which might as well have been written by Monsanto if it wasn't. Yet, the press pretty much ignored this 2,300 page bill which allows government agencies to write policy about who may grow or buy what. This bill is a shining example of the 'corporatist neo-fascist coin' of which you speak.

exactly. They pawn it all off as a "farm bill" but it works against family farmers and for Big Agro. Despicable

[gdogslim]

Nice try on spin.
Obama's coming tax hikes are going to help kill jobs and the economy
His policies are ruining this country.
Davis Stockman, from MSU? Wasn't he partially responsible for Reagan's unprecedented 15 year reign of prosperity, low unemployment, high US growth.
Obama and Turbo Tax cheat Tim Geithner could learn something from Reagan and Stockman.
I guess according to democrats, the US needs more of Obama's unprecedented spending, tax increases, government hiring and 15% real unemployment, Cap and tax on carbon monoxide.
Almost everything Obama does is bad for the US.

[oladub]

rb336 : "so the 20th Century US economy was worse than the 19th? "

I'm not sure but there was faster economic growth in the 19th for a variety of reasons. Wilson and Reagan were, of course, both 20th Century presidents. The topic though had to do with the inception of many of our current problem. You cited Reagan. I cited Wilson for creating some even more systematic problems which enabled the Reagan and other administrations to divert wealth from US workers to elites.

[rb336]

I'm not sure but there was faster economic growth in the 19th for a variety of reasons.

oh really?

and gdog, once again you seem to be factually challenged

[oldredfordette]

It's kind of fun reading him, everything he says is exactly wrong.

[maxx]

gdog:Nice try on spin.
Obama's coming tax hikes are going to help kill jobs and the economy

You really do swallow all the Republican bilge, don't you? The fact that they are willing to cut off unemployment benefits to families to protect the tax cuts of billionaires tells you who they are working for. There is a third alternative: tax cuts only for people making $250,000 or less. The neocons were all concerned about how we are going to pay for the unemployment while they say "no" to an extra $700 billion in tax revenues. Unbelievable.

gdogavis Stockman, from MSU? Wasn't he partially responsible for Reagan's unprecedented 15 year reign of prosperity, low unemployment, high US growth.

Don't forget the kiddie tax and taxes placed on the tips of waiters and doormen. And waitresses I know still have to pay the full tax when people are only tipping 10% or less. And the prosperity was all at the top. Read the verdict on Reaganomics at alternet.org.

[oladub]

You really do swallow all the Republican bilge, don't you? The fact that they are willing to cut off unemployment benefits to families to protect the tax cuts of billionaires tells you who they are working for. There is a third alternative: tax cuts only for people making $250,000 or less. The neocons were all concerned about how we are going to pay for the unemployment while they say "no" to an extra $700 billion in tax revenues. Unbelievable.


Don't forget the kiddie tax and taxes placed on the tips of waiters and doormen. And waitresses I know still have to pay the full tax when people are only tipping 10% or less. And the prosperity was all at the top. Read the verdict on Reaganomics at alternet.org.

maxx, Raising taxes on the rich will take care of only 32% of the Present Obama annual budget deficit. How do you plan to cover the rest? I'm not even talking about the national debt; just the annual deficit. My proposal would be to also return federal spending to the levels Clinton left us and including an 34% increase in spending from Clinton levels to compensate for official inflation and population growth. Where is your enthusiasm for that?

To aid the discussion, the NY Times just printed numbers for what various spending cuts and/or tax increases would do to balance an annual budget. The Times doesn't take import taxes into consideration perhaps because of it's allegiance to the status quo but the numbers are otherwise a good selection of factoids.

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget [[NY Times)

[maxx]

oladub: Raising taxes on the rich will take care of only 32% of the Present Obama annual budget deficit.

So why bother, right? And instead, let's add another $700 B to the deficit. Taxing the people who made out like bandits under Reaganomics sounds like a start in the right direction to me. I doubt that the Republicans are going to entertain the closing of one military base. Sounds like you've swallowed the all or nothing argument of the neocons.

[oladub]

So why bother, right? And instead, let's add another $700 B to the deficit. Taxing the people who made out like bandits under Reaganomics sounds like a start in the right direction to me. I doubt that the Republicans are going to entertain the closing of one military base. Sounds like you've swallowed the all or nothing argument of the neocons.

Au contraire. I supported the Clinton budget and asked where you were going to make up the difference and even provided a superb link from a major liberal news source to help you use numbers. I'm all for resuming taxes on the rich and returning to Clinton spending levels as mentioned in my previous post. I think that's a doable package for anyone who supports bipartisanship. I think that it is you who is unwilling to compromise preferring instead to only spend, tax and run up debts. Wouldn't you agree that Bush was a big spender? Why are you supporting Bush's excessive spending? So let's go back to Clinton's budget which at least was balanced and received bipartisan support.

[firstandten]

Nice try on spin.
Obama's coming tax hikes are going to help kill jobs and the economy
His policies are ruining this country.
Davis Stockman, from MSU? Wasn't he partially responsible for Reagan's unprecedented 15 year reign of prosperity, low unemployment, high US growth.
Obama and Turbo Tax cheat Tim Geithner could learn something from Reagan and Stockman.
I guess according to democrats, the US needs more of Obama's unprecedented spending, tax increases, government hiring and 15% real unemployment, Cap and tax on carbon monoxide.
Almost everything Obama does is bad for the US.

What spin ? The man said what he said
Here's a gem from the article

Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble [[from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad [[GOP)economic policy."

Remember deficits don't matter as long as they come from tax cuts

I see why Stockman was taken to the woodshed at least once that we know of by Reagan

[rb336]

My proposal would be to also return federal spending to the levels Clinton left us and including an 34% increase in spending from Clinton levels to compensate for official inflation and population growth. Where is your enthusiasm for that?

That sounds fairly reasonable, but cut defense spending big time.