Harsh words from the co-founder/father of Reagonomics

[StageLeft]

Is he being contrite or as its co-founder should he be dismissed? In any case:

http://www.infowars.com/the-ecstasy-of-empire/

The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control.

Similar tone to the article from a week back from David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse...

---

In both articles as in most op-eds there are some intangibles, but a question Craig asks is The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher? And who really has a good answer to this that paints things in a different picture? I think it's beyond question that other than through heavy government stimulus things would be worse at this immediate time; still in recession or it would have gotten deeper. But looking beyond the next sunset what has the price been for what is very possibly just a respite from the pain, this stimulus spending having exacerbated it?

Imagine for a moment what the future would look like if the national debt was only a trillion or two. Think of the spare capacity the government would then have to do things? It's a shame it isn't, but it's been going down this treacherous path for too long.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Is he being contrite or as its co-founder should he be dismissed? In any case:

http://www.infowars.com/the-ecstasy-of-empire/



Similar tone to the article from a week back from David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1



---

In both articles as in most op-eds there are some intangibles, but a question Craig asks is The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher? And who really has a good answer to this that paints things in a different picture? I think it's beyond question that other than through heavy government stimulus things would be worse at this immediate time; still in recession or it would have gotten deeper. But looking beyond the next sunset what has the price been for what is very possibly just a respite from the pain, this stimulus spending having exacerbated it?

Imagine for a moment what the future would look like if the national debt was only a trillion or two. Think of the spare capacity the government would then have to do things? It's a shame it isn't, but it's been going down this treacherous path for too long.

Actually, it's only been 8 years or so :hmm:

With six weeks left in the budget year we are quickly approaching $1.4t --- August is normally a pretty good month for 'Federal collections' but it won't prevent us from going $1.5-$1.6t in the hole.

With receipts around 15% of GDP it ain't gonna work. Around 19% of GDP seems to be the sweet spot for revenues/expenditures.

And I got news for the guy in that article: If he has a job plan for returning our 'off-shored' employment we all want to hear it. The big fear in the US should be the possibility of a 'normal' 6-7 percent unemployment rate as the economy slowly recovers.




--

 

[BoomerD]

Actually, it's only been 8 years or so :hmm:

With six weeks left in the budget year we are quickly approaching $1.4t --- August is normally a pretty good month for 'Federal collections' but it won't prevent us from going $1.5-$1.6t in the hole.

With receipts around 15% of GDP it ain't gonna work. Around 19% of GDP seems to be the sweet spot for revenues/expenditures.

And I got news for the guy in that article: If he has a job plan for returning our 'off-shored' employment we all want to hear it. The big fear in the US should be the possibility of a 'normal' 6-7 percent unemployment rate as the economy slowly recovers.
--

I'd be happy as hell if the local unemployment rate was "only" 6-7 percent. It's much closer to 20 percent in my county and the surrounding counties.

 

[PokerGuy]

These guys coming out at the same time saying this stuff is not a coincidence. There's something afoot, Obummer and his administration are trying to divert from their failures and their skyrocketing spending sprees.

 

[ayabe]

These guys coming out at the same time saying this stuff is not a coincidence.

No shit, because it's true and a sizable portion of the electorate are dumb as fuck and we're only beginning to realize how fucked we truly are.

 

[StageLeft]

Actually, it's only been 8 years or so

Decades, more or less, with a small respite under the tail end of Clinton.

 

[SammyJr]

These guys coming out at the same time saying this stuff is not a coincidence. There's something afoot, Obummer and his administration are trying to divert from their failures and their skyrocketing spending sprees.

Yeah, because things were so great prior to Obama. For the most part, this started with Reagan and has continued through Obama. The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets told that "Made in China" will improve their job prospects.

 

[Phokus]

Yeah, because things were so great prior to Obama. For the most part, this started with Reagan and has continued through Obama. The rich get richer and the Middle Class gets told that "Made in China" will improve their job prospects.

"b-b-b-b-ut if we just cut taxes for the superwealthy, they'll give everyone jobs!" - Ronald Reagan and his retarded followers

 

[Perknose]

These guys coming out at the same time saying this stuff is not a coincidence.

Lol. Pathetic on your part.

Truth and reality: An insidious liberal plot now spearheaded by . . . wait for it, wait for it . . . high-placed Reaganite insiders!

 

[Vette73]

Lol. Pathetic on your part.

Truth and reality: An insidious liberal plot now spearheaded by . . . wait for it, wait for it . . . high-placed Reaganite insiders!

Yep, it was their 20-30 year plan. Ever thing is still on track. :awe:

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Now just imagine if those small government Tea Party folk had showed up back in 2000 when the Repubs were in power.

One can only dream!

 

[jman19]

Lol. Pathetic on your part.

Truth and reality: An insidious liberal plot now spearheaded by . . . wait for it, wait for it . . . high-placed Reaganite insiders!

LMAO, that was a pretty pathetic attempt by PokerGuy.

 

[manimal]

Imagine for a moment what the future would look like if the national debt was only a trillion or two. Think of the spare capacity the government would then have to do things? It's a shame it isn't, but it's been going down this treacherous path for too long.

This is a very important point to remember. Will we learn from this or just repeat it the next cycle? Sadly reinstating the Bush tax cuts and the failed policies of GODReagen will just be repeated by the next idiots in line.. What has surprised me is the failure to learn from failure.


Hubris on a national level....

 

[Craig234]

This is a very important point to remember. Will we learn from this or just repeat it the next cycle? Sadly reinstating the Bush tax cuts and the failed policies of GODReagen will just be repeated by the next idiots in line.. What has surprised me is the failure to learn from failure.


Hubris on a national level....

I'm for greatly reducing the deficit (really, eliminating it to have a surplus and pay off debt eventually) after the economy has whatever stimulus it needs in the short term.

This includes spending cuts. We have been spending on things we shouldn't, and not on some of what we should, while the cheap price of imports hides the problem.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Part of the master plan of the Republicans for a long time is to put the government far enough in the hole that they sound legitimate when they shout that there is no money left for any social programs.

The previous highlights were that we can't afford: Social Security, Medicare, welfare, Headstart, college aid, etc..

Current examples are that we can't afford: extended unemployment benefits, mortgage assistance, stimulus spending, additional funds for 9-11 responders, etc..

They are desperate to keep their tool effective by demanding further tax cuts for the wealthy so the government collects less money. Anything so they can keep claiming that we can't afford to do anything for the poor and middle class. And they continue with the BS argument that if we give bigger plates to the rich, enough crumbs will fall off to make things better for the less than wealthy.

Bush's wars had great collateral benefits for this strategy, a way to channel 10s of billions to big contractors, and even greater debt so they could claim there was nothing left for the little guy.

This pattern has been obvious for a long time.

 

[PokerGuy]

You guys really need to adjust your tin foil hats, coming up with these grand conspiracy theories, trying to shift the blame for the current failures to a president who was in office more than 20 years ago. Brilliant!

 

[PokerGuy]

Lol. Pathetic on your part.

Truth and reality: An insidious liberal plot now spearheaded by . . . wait for it, wait for it . . . high-placed Reaganite insiders!

No, these guys have obviously been given a reason to all of a sudden come out on the attack over something that happened 25 years ago. "Here, focus on the president from 30 years ago, not the idiot that's spending at unprecedented levels now!"

 

[Craig234]

You guys really need to adjust your tin foil hats, coming up with these grand conspiracy theories...

No, these guys have obviously been given a reason to all of a sudden come out on the attack over something that happened 25 years ago.

Wow, in back to back posts, you go from accusing someone of a conspiracy theory, to saying that Reagan officials have had some mysterious unnamed source order them to provide cover for the Obama administration by issuing false confessions of what they did to help Obama not talk about his policies.

What a nut. These people aren't taking mysterious orders, they're saying their opinions.

It's amazing how righties are so gullible when their people say crazy things that are ideologically acceptable, but the moment one admits error, they're attacked.

'He's trying to sell a book' is a standard attack for pretty much every such person who writes a book that admits things.

 

[soulcougher73]

"b-b-b-b-ut if we just cut taxes for the superwealthy, they'll give everyone jobs!" - Ronald Reagan and his retarded followers

b-b-b-b-ut they will give people jobs....in India...oh and China...maybe Mexico too.

 

[SammyJr]

No, these guys have obviously been given a reason to all of a sudden come out on the attack over something that happened 25 years ago. "Here, focus on the president from 30 years ago, not the idiot that's spending at unprecedented levels now!"

The thing is, they've all been spending like crazy and wasting money. They all support the perpetual wars/military actions. They've all supported extremely low taxes on the wealthy. They've all supported the Free Trade Religion. They've all been indifferent or hostile to the Middle Class. There's no reset button when the Presidency changes. Its been one long experiment, beginning with Reagan, and continuing through the present day. And its been successful - the wealthy are more wealthy than ever before and are so powerful that they can convince morons to vote in direct opposition to their own interests.

And the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans, so no partisan crap.

 

[PokerGuy]

What a nut. These people aren't taking mysterious orders, they're saying their opinions.

Two men, within a week of each other, state some pretty outlandish claims vilifying the policies under Reagan from 25 years ago. Of course, the do this just at the time when the public starts figuring out that the limitless spending is going to nail us all. Basically, they are trying to shift the attention away from the current spending problems. I don't pretend to know their motivations, but I find it highly suspect that they'd both have nothing to say for 25+ years, then both come out now proclaiming similar BS. You do the math.

 

[jackschmittusa]

PokerGuy

Sometimes it takes a period of observation to determine just how toxic something is. This is also a time when some are calling for another dose of Reaganomics quite loudly. Perhaps the time is appropriate.

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy

Sometimes it takes a period of observation to determine just how toxic something is. This is also a time when some are calling for another dose of Reaganomics quite loudly. Perhaps the time is appropriate.

Yes, certainly, 25+ years after the fact and within a week of each other they both decide they've achieved the right "period of observation"? Of course.

Nobody's been calling for Reaganomics. People are calling for fiscal restraint, which has very little to do with Reaganomics.

 

[jman19]

You guys really need to adjust your tin foil hats, coming up with these grand conspiracy theories, trying to shift the blame for the current failures to a president who was in office more than 20 years ago. Brilliant!

Um, what? YOU are the one saying there is some sort of conspiracy...

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey was not only Reagan, Clinton pushing NAFTA and other free trade agreements didn't help us either.