Was watching Maher and one of the guests essentially suggested that Reaganomics is a failure. How much blame can be placed on Reaganomics?
Reaganomics = Fail?
- Thread starter daveymark
- Start date
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Reaganomics FAIL? It might be so, but which part of it would you consider a failure? Wikipedia states this as Reagonomics:
1 reduce the growth of government spending,
2 reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital,
3 reduce government regulation of the economy,
4 control the money supply to reduce inflation.
The R's in power the past 8 years completely abandoned 1 in all but name. 2 was partially accomplished, but the manner of which it was done was questionable at best. 3 was done to a massive extent, which partially lead to our current predicamant (greed being the other half). 4 seems to be somewhat of a flop as we've been spending like drunken sailors on shore leave while creating massive deficits. It seems to be a moot point in an era of "deficits don't matter" scales of spending without an associated income/revenue/tax/whatever to pay for it. Thus, the value of our money drops and average Americans, who haven't seen much improvement in wages in decades, see prices continue to rise above their means, aside from their handy credit cards.
What I believe is a failure are some of the "derivatives" of Reagan's approach that his party seems to have taken up. What about Laissez-faire market economy (i.e. deregulation=best)? Trickle-down economics? Supply side economics (vs Keynsian demand/stimulus model)? These ideas don't seem to be holding much water as of late when we are about to write what effectively amounts to a blank check to get us out of this mess. Just a few years, such a bailout would've seemed completely out of the question.
I'm not sure you can exactly classify the prevailing economic idealogy in Washington the past 8 years as Reaganomics, but whatever you call it, it has turned out to be a bad deal for the majority of the American people. Bushnomics? FAIL. EPIC FAIL.
1 reduce the growth of government spending,
2 reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital,
3 reduce government regulation of the economy,
4 control the money supply to reduce inflation.
The R's in power the past 8 years completely abandoned 1 in all but name. 2 was partially accomplished, but the manner of which it was done was questionable at best. 3 was done to a massive extent, which partially lead to our current predicamant (greed being the other half). 4 seems to be somewhat of a flop as we've been spending like drunken sailors on shore leave while creating massive deficits. It seems to be a moot point in an era of "deficits don't matter" scales of spending without an associated income/revenue/tax/whatever to pay for it. Thus, the value of our money drops and average Americans, who haven't seen much improvement in wages in decades, see prices continue to rise above their means, aside from their handy credit cards.
What I believe is a failure are some of the "derivatives" of Reagan's approach that his party seems to have taken up. What about Laissez-faire market economy (i.e. deregulation=best)? Trickle-down economics? Supply side economics (vs Keynsian demand/stimulus model)? These ideas don't seem to be holding much water as of late when we are about to write what effectively amounts to a blank check to get us out of this mess. Just a few years, such a bailout would've seemed completely out of the question.
I'm not sure you can exactly classify the prevailing economic idealogy in Washington the past 8 years as Reaganomics, but whatever you call it, it has turned out to be a bad deal for the majority of the American people. Bushnomics? FAIL. EPIC FAIL.
Small government equals big rape. Get the government off our backs so we can rob the people blind. You are the government. They want you to be small.
Reagan is probably the most to blame IMO.
When I look at a variety of statistics from debt to when the economic growth started shifting to the top and the nation's concentration of wealth reversed direction to go up, Reagan marks all kinds of turning points bad for the nation that ended the good trends of the liberal era since FDR. He had some decent numbers at ending the problems from the 70's, but with borrowed money to pay for the good numbers. His anti-union position was a big blow to the middle class as well.
For several decades, the top tax rates had been 70% or higher, he slashed that to less than half that rate, out of ideology, with nothing much to show for it.
His 'trickle down economics' were a marketing sham to justify giving the rich more; while the lying propagandists said the tax cuts for the rich would return more than they cost from stimulating the economy, studies later showed they returned about 20 cents on the dollar, bad for the public but good for the rich.
This Wiki comment was interesting on Reagan's leadership:
It wasn't just Reagan's policies, it was his political role at uniting the right that made them really push the disastrous Milton Friedman policies (whenever Friedman comes up, I'll recommend Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine). Suddenly, for example, the praise of greed was fashionable - not just as it had always had a role in the economy for profit, but to shoot down all kinds of policies which put the public good ahead at the expense at times of the private profit of the most wealthy.
Reagan got into politics because he was pissed off at the tax rates he paid as a well off actor. We're all paying for his revenge.
When I look at a variety of statistics from debt to when the economic growth started shifting to the top and the nation's concentration of wealth reversed direction to go up, Reagan marks all kinds of turning points bad for the nation that ended the good trends of the liberal era since FDR. He had some decent numbers at ending the problems from the 70's, but with borrowed money to pay for the good numbers. His anti-union position was a big blow to the middle class as well.
For several decades, the top tax rates had been 70% or higher, he slashed that to less than half that rate, out of ideology, with nothing much to show for it.
His 'trickle down economics' were a marketing sham to justify giving the rich more; while the lying propagandists said the tax cuts for the rich would return more than they cost from stimulating the economy, studies later showed they returned about 20 cents on the dollar, bad for the public but good for the rich.
This Wiki comment was interesting on Reagan's leadership:
It wasn't just Reagan's policies, it was his political role at uniting the right that made them really push the disastrous Milton Friedman policies (whenever Friedman comes up, I'll recommend Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine). Suddenly, for example, the praise of greed was fashionable - not just as it had always had a role in the economy for profit, but to shoot down all kinds of policies which put the public good ahead at the expense at times of the private profit of the most wealthy.
Reagan got into politics because he was pissed off at the tax rates he paid as a well off actor. We're all paying for his revenge.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
McCain would, if he wins. For all his maverick image, at core he is a conservative in his basic ideas.
THis bank failure has nthing to do with Reaganomics and everything to do with very bad regulation. Government regulation intended to get more people in homes caused this. IF anything republicans attempted to fix these broken regulations and were largely stopped by democrats..
According to Republicans, none
They blame it all on Clinton and now I've seen blame going back to 1943 Democrats.
It is clear they would rather die than ever admit they are wrong with anything.
#3 is not the current administration or the Republicans.
Clinton deregulated and changed the financial infrastructure to allow lower economic levels to purchase houses and obtain
loans.
He said so himself last week.
I think he only admitted it to derail Obama and pave the way for Hillary in the future , but he said in nonetheless.
He had the benefits of the economic boom (thank you Reagan) and figured as long as things were booming he could pass the American dream on to the lower class.
That change in policy allowed many people to borrow money they could never afford to repay and encouraged investors to gamble in real estate and principle followings of that market.
The gamblers inflated prices in order to profit.
That inflation allowed even greater loans for equity in super inflated pricing and lead to the risks of variable rate purchases.
Lenders and real estate brokers profited , investors profited and reinvested , and Joe average bought houses they could never catch up with.
All of the above are taking a spanking for it now and we the taxpayer are expected to bail out these greedy bastards.
How about prosecution under the RICO statutes for fraud , and taking the 30 million a year from those greedy imbeciles to bailout the system?
When will limits be put on CEO's pay in situations where the market is invested? That money should be in your 401k , not the accounts of scandalous book cooking business managers. No one is worth 30 million dollars a year , especially in a mismanaged failing organization.
Lee Iaccoca wasn't then , even with success , and no one is now.
While they're at it , where are the prosecutions of Arthur Anderson , Tyco , World Com , Enron and the many others who are living on American workers 401k's now?
Loaning money to those who can clearly ill afford it for personal gain on cooked books is fraud in every aspect. Paying astronomic income to these CEO's is just as criminal.
While on the subject , where in the constitution does it say elected officials are entitled to astronomical benefits for life at your expense?
Should they not have to live in the same system they are charged with policing?
Those that borrowed are not without fault either.
Borrowing with risk is a choice we should not be responsible for.
You borrowed it , it's time to pay the piper or take your losses.
The money is now in the pockets of fraudulent bankers and brokers who knew good and well it was a facade.
It's been know for several years , at least , that it was coming. But , the Democrats have blocked action and continued to promise ,and to some degree provide , the world to the lower economic rung of this country.
Now , we pay the price for the economic slavery that is Democrat policy.
People have to earn what they get , not be enabled by the handouts of Democrats redistribution of wealth.
People working at minimum wage aren't supposed to have a livable wage. Leave the McDonlad's jobs to school kids and the elderly (for benefits) , it is not feasible to expect those jobs to support a household.
By raising the minimum wage , we the people merely get a pay reduction . not the other way around.
The costs incurred for payroll to increase this wage are passed on to the consumer, minimum wage earner included , thereby increasing costs on all and benefiting no one but the minimum earner , if then.
It is detrimental to the entire economy to push economics from the bottom and futile at best.
It lessens the value of those who get an education and skilled positions in multiple ways , inflation being the first and a direct reduction of economic value the most.
That is the "trickle up" economics of the Democrats. Give to the bottom and allow the top to pay for it.
Fine , but those of us in the middle pay for it first and with much more detriment to our own situation.
Getting an education is just as much a decision as taking out risky loans.
You choose not to integrate into society and pursue the American dream , don't expect to reap the rewards this country has to offer.
That's the beauty of capitalism , you can make your own way successfully or make that money for someone else.
Clinton deregulated and changed the financial infrastructure to allow lower economic levels to purchase houses and obtain
loans.
He said so himself last week.
I think he only admitted it to derail Obama and pave the way for Hillary in the future , but he said in nonetheless.
He had the benefits of the economic boom (thank you Reagan) and figured as long as things were booming he could pass the American dream on to the lower class.
That change in policy allowed many people to borrow money they could never afford to repay and encouraged investors to gamble in real estate and principle followings of that market.
The gamblers inflated prices in order to profit.
That inflation allowed even greater loans for equity in super inflated pricing and lead to the risks of variable rate purchases.
Lenders and real estate brokers profited , investors profited and reinvested , and Joe average bought houses they could never catch up with.
All of the above are taking a spanking for it now and we the taxpayer are expected to bail out these greedy bastards.
How about prosecution under the RICO statutes for fraud , and taking the 30 million a year from those greedy imbeciles to bailout the system?
When will limits be put on CEO's pay in situations where the market is invested? That money should be in your 401k , not the accounts of scandalous book cooking business managers. No one is worth 30 million dollars a year , especially in a mismanaged failing organization.
Lee Iaccoca wasn't then , even with success , and no one is now.
While they're at it , where are the prosecutions of Arthur Anderson , Tyco , World Com , Enron and the many others who are living on American workers 401k's now?
Loaning money to those who can clearly ill afford it for personal gain on cooked books is fraud in every aspect. Paying astronomic income to these CEO's is just as criminal.
While on the subject , where in the constitution does it say elected officials are entitled to astronomical benefits for life at your expense?
Should they not have to live in the same system they are charged with policing?
Those that borrowed are not without fault either.
Borrowing with risk is a choice we should not be responsible for.
You borrowed it , it's time to pay the piper or take your losses.
The money is now in the pockets of fraudulent bankers and brokers who knew good and well it was a facade.
It's been know for several years , at least , that it was coming. But , the Democrats have blocked action and continued to promise ,and to some degree provide , the world to the lower economic rung of this country.
Now , we pay the price for the economic slavery that is Democrat policy.
People have to earn what they get , not be enabled by the handouts of Democrats redistribution of wealth.
People working at minimum wage aren't supposed to have a livable wage. Leave the McDonlad's jobs to school kids and the elderly (for benefits) , it is not feasible to expect those jobs to support a household.
By raising the minimum wage , we the people merely get a pay reduction . not the other way around.
The costs incurred for payroll to increase this wage are passed on to the consumer, minimum wage earner included , thereby increasing costs on all and benefiting no one but the minimum earner , if then.
It is detrimental to the entire economy to push economics from the bottom and futile at best.
It lessens the value of those who get an education and skilled positions in multiple ways , inflation being the first and a direct reduction of economic value the most.
That is the "trickle up" economics of the Democrats. Give to the bottom and allow the top to pay for it.
Fine , but those of us in the middle pay for it first and with much more detriment to our own situation.
Getting an education is just as much a decision as taking out risky loans.
You choose not to integrate into society and pursue the American dream , don't expect to reap the rewards this country has to offer.
That's the beauty of capitalism , you can make your own way successfully or make that money for someone else.
Regulation is what encouraged sub-prime/low income borrowing. Government effectively pushed home ownership which is what got us into this predicament.
:roll: Sorry, more government = more tax dollars. Why not donate more of your paycheck to Uncle Sam? Please stop trying to take mine.
Tell me again how regulation forced lenders to ARMs, sub-prime, Alt-As, Pick-A-Pays, etc?
Then please explain how the Bush Administration protected lending institutions by circumvented consumer protection laws and regulations by invoking the Supremacy Clause in 2003.
I'll tell you, the Community Reinvestment Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Read up, grasshopper. It is an idealist socialist program to "advance society" that essentially forced banks to reduce their lending standards and loan money to people who did not have the means to pay it back.
Here's another government "regulation" that incentivized massive risk. Price fixing of interest rates down to 1% by the Federal Reserve in 2000 essentially told people "screw saving money or investing in bonds, you only get a 1% return that way. Go speculate somewhere else." And this was when tech stocks collapsed, causing that money to go into real estate and commodities, which of course, are excluded from the government's inflation measurements which makes them not show up as bubble to people who blindly believe in them. Including Federal Reserve chairmen. Greenspan had no idea he was inflating a second bubble, he actually praised the real estate market for several years thereafter and egged it on.
Here's another one, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pseudo-government institutions that were created with the intention of making home mortgages more affordable for Americans. They ended up achieving the exact opposite as they are now trying to prop up bubble prices by stealing from savers through inflation. Several CEOs from these institutions were connected to the Clinton administration, they completely cooked the books throughout the 90s and left the companies with over 50 million each. In fact, FM&FM was the source of some the most lobbying money being channeled towards political campaigns. The whole thing was extremely incestuous.
Before all of this madness, people actually had to go in to their bank and prove their income, show tax records, pay a down payment, all that good stuff.
Government encouraged loans to lower income market and Fannie/Freddie started buying lower quality loans. This, along with lower interest rates sparked a free for all where other banks, hedge funds, investors started doing the same thing and securitization market boomed. The leveraged piled up and the house of cards is falling right now.
Question is, if the government did not encourage home ownership (the biggest benefit being mortgage interest tax deduction), would we currently be in this situation? If Fannie/Freddie had never existed and securitization market of MBS was small, would we be in this crisis?
But to blame "Reaganomics" for this is just silly.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Let's look at the figures.
Growth of Real GDP
Reagan's eight years 1981 to 1988 3.52%
Prior eight years 2.5%
Growth of Real GDP per capital
1981-1988 2.59%
1973-1981 1.46%
BTW Clintons Real GDP growth was 3.8%. So despite the fact that he took over a growing economy he barely beat Reagan's full term growth.
Growth of Real GDP
Reagan's eight years 1981 to 1988 3.52%
Prior eight years 2.5%
Growth of Real GDP per capital
1981-1988 2.59%
1973-1981 1.46%
BTW Clintons Real GDP growth was 3.8%. So despite the fact that he took over a growing economy he barely beat Reagan's full term growth.
No it didn't you parroter of right-wing lies. Besides how small a part of the picture the loans for the poor are, the repayment rates for those loans are reportedly very high.
From your own link:
To discuss this, you tell me: what is the repayment rate of CRA mortgages compared to others?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter