The White House vs. Rick Santelli 35 comments
February 22, 2009
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The Rick Santelli "Rant of the Year" is now legendary in the investment blog world so I won't waste any time discussing it. The clip is below:
What is less well known is the response from the Obama Administration by Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary. The clip is below. The Gibbs part starts about 20 seconds in.
"I also think it’s extremely important for people who rant on cable television to be responsible and understand what they’re talking about," he said. "I feel assured that Mr. Santelli doesn’t understand what he’s talking about."
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
On Feb 22 03:19 PM mediapro wrote:
> Those who like Santelli's, Cabrera's, and that stupid guy with the
> glasses that looks like an overweight chicken (what's his name?)
> all subscribe to the dangerous Chicago School and Uncle Miltie Friedman's
> failed supply side gambit that we have been playing for the past
> thirty years.
>
> Remember the Laffer Curve?
>
> It claimed that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production
> would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax
> revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically
> not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw
> Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist,
> and the only propounder of his famous curve.
>
> If your memory is fuzzy on the path we've travelled since 1980, let
> me remind you:
>
> Flash back to the neo-con's answer to 1970's stagflation and Milton
> Friedman's Shock Economics Theory he plied so well in South America
> for right wing fascists.
>
> Roll tape a bit forward to the Gipper. Cut taxes, spend on defense
> out the wazoo, run record deficits, de-regulate markets and watch
> Uncle Milties' magic work.
>
> While every right wing neo-con tape loop is buzzing with out-of-control
> GSEs, we all seem to conveniently ignore how all of this silly and
> frightening theoretical economic approach played out around the world
> through the likes of the IMF, World Bank, Halliburton, and their
> ilk.
>
> Look at any country where this supply-side, trickle down, deregulated
> gambit has played and look at how eeiry is the similarity between
> those countries and this one:
>
> 1. The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The
> top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial
> wealth at a whopping 8%.
>
> 2. In terms of inherited wealth only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000.
> 91.9% receive nothing. Yet the "death tax" was/is the highest priority
> on the ultra-conservative agenda.
>
> Now for some sobering reminders:
>
> Under Clinton we enjoyed a $287 Billion SURPLUS that's now an ever-growing
> DEFICIT that at last peek was nearing $1.4 Trillion and national
> debt that has grown from $5.7 Trillion to $10.2 Trillion in just
> seven years.
>
> Under Reagan the deficit increased to, at that time, a whopping $200
> Billion from $50 Billion under Carter.
>
> It wasn't because Clinton was an economic genious. He simply returned
> out-of-control revenue reduction (tax cuts) back to the Reagan rates
> and chose folks who shared his philosophy of government and its role.
> I'll put my money in the hands of the guys that believe that it's
> the government's job to invest in the 80% of us that need practical
> ways to grow our own wealth (smart energy policy, infrastructure
> development, education).
>
> As for the free market to right the ship by itself "over time", I
> have a few tickets on the Good Ship Lollipop for those knuckle dragging
> leftovers that can't seem to get it through their heads that they
> lost the last two national elections trying to teeter on the same
> tired platform that got us into this mess.
1. Congress was controlled by the dems during the Reagan administration. Net gov't tax revenue more than doubled under Reagan. They outspent the gains.
2. You talk about the deficit ballooning from 50 to 200 billion? Why not look at it as a % of GDP. Oh, because that makes your point moot. Reagan had a recession right after he took office. The REAL stimulus was his tax cuts. The stock market took off, inflation fell to 3%, unemployment fell sharply, and we had a very good economy. The budget deficit as a % of GDP when he took office was 2.8% and rising. When he left, it was 2.8% and falling. Which is better?
3. There were no record deficits under Reagan. In dollars, yes, but read above. The ONLY legitimate way to view that is as a % of GDP, and it was NOWHERE close. But the socialist viewpoint always spins the truth on this.
4. The Laffer Curve is all about finding the optimal tax rate. Too high, and there is a disincentive to work and produce. Too low, and not enough revenue comes in.
www.heritage.org/Resea...
5. I'll only address those left-wing terms such as trickle down as to say that's what the left throws out there, ignoring facts. But if we're going down that road, then right now we are doing TRICKLE UP economics. Law of Gravity isn't the only thing fighting that.
6. Whenever taxes have been cut across the board, the % paid by the top wage earners has gone UP. EVERY time. It happened with Bush 43, Reagan, and Kennedy. To suggest anything else is to ignore the facts.
7. As to what got us in the credit mess, well, the pres. and McCain tried to warn everyone in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Frank and Dodd aruged against them saying they wanted more credit expanded to those who the banks knew couldn't pay it back.
8. The end of your rant leads to one conclucsion. Welcome to Seeking Alpha Mr. Gibbs.
On Feb 22 03:19 PM mediapro wrote:
> Those who like Santelli's, Cabrera's, and that stupid guy with the
> glasses that looks like an overweight chicken (what's his name?)
> all subscribe to the dangerous Chicago School and Uncle Miltie Friedman's
> failed supply side gambit that we have been playing for the past
> thirty years.
>
> Remember the Laffer Curve?
>
> It claimed that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production
> would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax
> revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically
> not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw
> Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist,
> and the only propounder of his famous curve.
>
> If your memory is fuzzy on the path we've travelled since 1980, let
> me remind you:
>
> Flash back to the neo-con's answer to 1970's stagflation and Milton
> Friedman's Shock Economics Theory he plied so well in South America
> for right wing fascists.
>
> Roll tape a bit forward to the Gipper. Cut taxes, spend on defense
> out the wazoo, run record deficits, de-regulate markets and watch
> Uncle Milties' magic work.
>
> While every right wing neo-con tape loop is buzzing with out-of-control
> GSEs, we all seem to conveniently ignore how all of this silly and
> frightening theoretical economic approach played out around the world
> through the likes of the IMF, World Bank, Halliburton, and their
> ilk.
>
> Look at any country where this supply-side, trickle down, deregulated
> gambit has played and look at how eeiry is the similarity between
> those countries and this one:
>
> 1. The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The
> top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial
> wealth at a whopping 8%.
>
> 2. In terms of inherited wealth only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000.
> 91.9% receive nothing. Yet the "death tax" was/is the highest priority
> on the ultra-conservative agenda.
>
> Now for some sobering reminders:
>
> Under Clinton we enjoyed a $287 Billion SURPLUS that's now an ever-growing
> DEFICIT that at last peek was nearing $1.4 Trillion and national
> debt that has grown from $5.7 Trillion to $10.2 Trillion in just
> seven years.
>
> Under Reagan the deficit increased to, at that time, a whopping $200
> Billion from $50 Billion under Carter.
>
> It wasn't because Clinton was an economic genious. He simply returned
> out-of-control revenue reduction (tax cuts) back to the Reagan rates
> and chose folks who shared his philosophy of government and its role.
> I'll put my money in the hands of the guys that believe that it's
> the government's job to invest in the 80% of us that need practical
> ways to grow our own wealth (smart energy policy, infrastructure
> development, education).
>
> As for the free market to right the ship by itself "over time", I
> have a few tickets on the Good Ship Lollipop for those knuckle dragging
> leftovers that can't seem to get it through their heads that they
> lost the last two national elections trying to teeter on the same
> tired platform that got us into this mess.
On Feb 22 03:19 PM mediapro wrote:
> Those who like Santelli's, Cabrera's, and that stupid guy with the
> glasses that looks like an overweight chicken (what's his name?)
> all subscribe to the dangerous Chicago School and Uncle Miltie Friedman's
> failed supply side gambit that we have been playing for the past
> thirty years.
>
> Remember the Laffer Curve?
>
> It claimed that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production
> would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax
> revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically
> not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw
> Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist,
> and the only propounder of his famous curve.
>
> If your memory is fuzzy on the path we've travelled since 1980, let
> me remind you:
>
> Flash back to the neo-con's answer to 1970's stagflation and Milton
> Friedman's Shock Economics Theory he plied so well in South America
> for right wing fascists.
>
> Roll tape a bit forward to the Gipper. Cut taxes, spend on defense
> out the wazoo, run record deficits, de-regulate markets and watch
> Uncle Milties' magic work.
>
> While every right wing neo-con tape loop is buzzing with out-of-control
> GSEs, we all seem to conveniently ignore how all of this silly and
> frightening theoretical economic approach played out around the world
> through the likes of the IMF, World Bank, Halliburton, and their
> ilk.
>
> Look at any country where this supply-side, trickle down, deregulated
> gambit has played and look at how eeiry is the similarity between
> those countries and this one:
>
> 1. The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The
> top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial
> wealth at a whopping 8%.
>
> 2. In terms of inherited wealth only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000.
> 91.9% receive nothing. Yet the "death tax" was/is the highest priority
> on the ultra-conservative agenda.
>
> Now for some sobering reminders:
>
> Under Clinton we enjoyed a $287 Billion SURPLUS that's now an ever-growing
> DEFICIT that at last peek was nearing $1.4 Trillion and national
> debt that has grown from $5.7 Trillion to $10.2 Trillion in just
> seven years.
>
> Under Reagan the deficit increased to, at that time, a whopping $200
> Billion from $50 Billion under Carter.
>
> It wasn't because Clinton was an economic genious. He simply returned
> out-of-control revenue reduction (tax cuts) back to the Reagan rates
> and chose folks who shared his philosophy of government and its role.
> I'll put my money in the hands of the guys that believe that it's
> the government's job to invest in the 80% of us that need practical
> ways to grow our own wealth (smart energy policy, infrastructure
> development, education).
>
> As for the free market to right the ship by itself "over time", I
> have a few tickets on the Good Ship Lollipop for those knuckle dragging
> leftovers that can't seem to get it through their heads that they
> lost the last two national elections trying to teeter on the same
> tired platform that got us into this mess.
To User 273...:
1. Congress was controlled by the dems during the Reagan administration. Net gov't tax revenue more than doubled under Reagan. They outspent the gains.
Answer:
The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.
2. You talk about the deficit ballooning from 50 to 200 billion? Why not look at it as a % of GDP. Oh, because that makes your point moot. Reagan had a recession right after he took office. The REAL stimulus was his tax cuts. The stock market took off, inflation fell to 3%, unemployment fell sharply, and we had a very good economy. The budget deficit as a % of GDP when he took office was 2.8% and rising. When he left, it was 2.8% and falling. Which is better?
Answer:
In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
Some economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that wouldn't budge, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history.
One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
3. There were no record deficits under Reagan. In dollars, yes, but read above. The ONLY legitimate way to view that is as a % of GDP, and it was NOWHERE close. But the socialist viewpoint always spins the truth on this.
Answer: Comrade, please see above.
4. The Laffer Curve is all about finding the optimal tax rate. Too high, and there is a disincentive to work and produce. Too low, and not enough revenue comes in.
The Laffer curve rises again!
Just a couple of minor points.
1. Tax collections fall to zero at 100% tax rate. This is always stated as a truism. However, there are many examples of people working for nothing (which is an equivalent thing). The one that comes to mind were the "dollar a year men" of the WWII era. Obviously money wasn't the motivator in their case. Charity work could also be cited.
2. There is a curve between the two zero points which has a maximum point for tax collection. This is also stated as a truism. In fact there are an infinite number of curves that can be drawn between the two points and there is no evidence that a parabolic shape is the correct one.
3. Taxes are in brackets so there is no reason to believe that there is only one Laffer curve. There might be a different curve for each bracket since people at different economic levels respond to different stimuli.
4. For the Laffer curve to have any value as a policy tool it should be presented with appropriate data points in any discussion. However, no one ever does so, it is always discussed in theoretical terms. If no one can display the curve how can those who quote it claim that we are on the side where lowering tax rates will raise revenue?
The Laffer curve doesn't exist.
heritage.org/Resea...
5. I'll only address those left-wing terms such as trickle down as to say that's what the left throws out there, ignoring facts. But if we're going down that road, then right now we are doing TRICKLE UP economics. Law of Gravity isn't the only thing fighting that.
You can't address "trickle down" simply because it is a wacko concept promoted by Friedman, Laffer, Stockman (until he saw how intellectually dishonest the term was), and the "intellectuals" behind the Laffer Curve, Jude Wanniski and his handservant, that famous quarterback turned economist, Jack Kemp. What application of the Laffer Curve and trickle-down economics in the real world has proved is born out by the unfathomable national debt after the final eight years of this lunacy. What's even more incredible are the promoters who claim that without tax reductions under G.W. Bush the situation would have been worse than it is.
6. Whenever taxes have been cut across the board, the % paid by the top wage earners has gone UP. EVERY time. It happened with Bush 43, Reagan, and Kennedy. To suggest anything else is to ignore the facts.
Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Didn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.
Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes went up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.
The highly ballyhooed Tax "Reform" Act of 1986 was supposed to be economically healthy as well as "fair"; supposedly "revenue neutral," it was to bring us (a) simplicity, helping the public while making the lives of tax accountants and lawyers miserable; and (b) income tax cuts, especially in the higher income brackets and in everyone's marginal tax rates (that is, income tax rates on additional money you may earn); and offset only by plugging those infamous loopholes. The reality, of course, was very different, In the first place, the administration has succeeded in making the tax laws so complicated that even the IRS admittedly doesn't understand it, and tax accountants and lawyers will be kept puzzled and happy for years to come.
Secondly, while indeed income tax rates were cut in the higher brackets, many of the loophole plugs meant huge tax increases for people in the upper as well as middle income brackets. The point of the income tax, and particularly the marginal rate cuts, was the supply-sider objective of lowering taxes to stimulate savings and investment. But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.
Not only were taxes increased, but business costs were greatly raised by making business expense meals only 80% deductible, which means a great expenditure of business time and energy keeping and shuffling records. And not only were taxes raised by eliminating tax shelters in real estate, but the law's claims to "fairness" were made grotesque by the retroactive nature of many of the tax increases. Thus, the abolition of tax shelter deductibility was made retroactive, imposing huge penalties after the fact. This is ex post facto legislation outlawed by the Constitution, which prohibits making actions retroactively criminal for a time period when they were perfectly legal.
But the bottom line on the tax question: is what happened in the Reagan era to government tax revenues overall? Did the amount of taxes extracted from the American people by the federal government go up or down during the Reagan years? The facts are that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut. But how about taxes as a percentage of the national product? There, we can concede that on a percentage criterion, overall taxes fell very slightly, remaining about even with the last year of Carter. Taxes fell from 18.9% of the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%. A large absolute increase in taxes, coupled with keeping taxes as a percentage of national product about even, is scarcely cause for tossing one's hat in the air about a whopping reduction in taxes during the Reagan years.
7. As to what got us in the credit mess, well, the pres. and McCain tried to warn everyone in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Frank and Dodd aruged against them saying they wanted more credit expanded to those who the banks knew couldn't pay it back.
Oh yes, that was the same John McCain who had Phil Gramm as his chief economic advisor, whispering in his ear as late as July 2008 that the economy was "fundamently sound". As for Bush, when he wasn't on vacation, there was as much political bravery in criticizing Freddie and Fannie as his brave move as a Texas draft dodger.
If you look at the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Gramm's eleventh hour amendment that eliminated oversight of the derivatives market, the repackaging of most mortgages into mortgage backed securities, and the subsequent "insuring" of those mortgages into consolidated debt obligations, Freddie and Fannie look like Kindergarten comparatively.
8. The end of your rant leads to one conclucsion. Welcome to Seeking Alpha Mr. Gibbs.
If I were only half as smart as Mr. Gibbs, I would gladly accept your welcome!
CNBC what a shameful financial cable station, that would allow staff to behave this way...I've decided never to watch again.
Thank God for Bloomberg....
Santelli and wall street wake up. There is no "stimulous package" for wall street. In case you haven't heard, wall street.........You've been knocked off the top of the totem pole. You're down a few rongs on the ladder. The President has the American people on top. That's his first concern. Wall street can wait. The President has a "let'em eat cake" attitude. Wake up wall street and Santelli. Are you aware of the sentiment the American people have for wall street? Are you kidding or something? Wall street is more out of touch with main street than the government is. Americans hate the Santelli's of wall street, banks, and wall street itself. Americans feel the banks and wall street gave the USA a good screwing. The hedge fund crooks, the derivtive theives, the greed bags, the Madoffs and the Santelli's. That's the mood in America, wake up wall street and smell it. You too Santelli. Jack ass.
The CME floor is a 'statistical cross-section' huh? I wonder how many pit traders are making the median income or below....
Said Santelli: " You know, the new administration's big on computers and technology-- How about this, President and new administration? Why don't you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages; or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water?"
Ahh yes, "the losers". So, was there not another 'loser' in each of these deals, that being the lender who accepted the risk that the borrower could pay and that their collateral would not decrease in value, especially in the circumstances of mass defaults? Sorry, its not the consumer that is the 'stupid loser' here, its the banks that managed to lose billions, if not now trillions on making these deals. Yes, both sides are to blame, but Mr.Borrower didn't take out a thousand stupid mortgages; he's only responsible for one, and yes, he shares some blame. But the *single* counterparty opposite their borrowers is *more* stupid for doing a massive volume of business of deals that would go bad.
Yes, the consumer should read the fine print, and they have a responsibility there. But does not the lender have responsibilities to make loans that have a reasonable chance of repayment? Do they not have the responsibility to make that 'fine print' clear to the borrower, and not instead engage in more ways to make the 'fine print' even finer through teaser rates and high-complicated amortization (or non or negative amortization) structures?
Why do mortgage brokers exist? Because they are suppose to be the *expert* to help the consumer enter the best mortgage for them, and a mortgage is an expensive and complicated contract. But when brokers are incentivized to originate at the highest possible rates, the part of *expert* becomes the skill of a predatory lender.
Some borrowers were malicious, and should not get support. Some were dumb or worse, mislead. They deserve some sympathy, and perhaps modifications. The Lenders are the dumbest of them all though, for they seem not to realize that if they could put a floor under the falling asset prices, their portfolios of toxic assets would be much more manageable. It is the Lenders who undertook unacceptable risk, and now they want to collect the collateral, without realizing that doing that just crushes the prices of the rest of the underlying, and still-good assets in their portfolios.
Everyone screwed up here, not just Mr.Borrower. So let's figure out the least-painful way to get things back on track. And personally, I don't think its a rush to the bottom as some pure-market advocates are saying.
1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control, inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He, and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains. Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent. That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything, then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending. Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.
2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.
And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired. The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.
3. Don't call me comrade. I find that offensive. And read what I have written in both posts.
4. You are spinning in a major way on the Laffer curve. I don't have time to debunk your points one by one. But the concept is given in the links above, let the other readers decide. I will post a quote here that I think is relevant, and very true. It also is why socialism that you propose never works.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005
5. www.house.gov/jec/fisc...
This clears up all of your mis-statements on Reagan's tax cuts. Notice that in fact, the highest tax brackets saw a 9 point jump in what they paid, but the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. The middle class as defined in there saw their burden shifted upward, % by %.
I encourage all to read that link. It provides all the facts, the ones that people with socialistic principals spin the other way. Media, for all of your long-winded writing, your points are not borne out by the overall facts. In fact, I think you wrote all of that to convince others by volume instead of substance.
6. You have BDS. Point the finger where it belongs, at Dodd, Frank, Obama, Pelosi, et al. Frank was arguing for expansion of FNM last July! He's the chairman of the finance cmte.! He had no clue apparently. You can insult Bush and others by talking about irrelevant issues, but that is only to dodge the facts. Bush wanted more regulation. Frank and Dodd said no. And this crisis had it seeds long before Bush took office.
7. For a matter of record, I was always opposed to the elimination of Glass-Steagle. And I have always been for balanced budgets. If we as a nation were able to have discipline to do that on a regular basis, then some deficit spending when needed wouldn't be so painful.
8. Bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the Nat'l Guard. Clinton dodged the draft. But if you are going to go down that road, I could bring up a whole lot of stuff now, but I won't. That rhetoric only serves to distract, usually when the message isn't sound.
Bottom line is, tax cuts grow gov't income and revenue and increase growth. Budget deficit issues are spending problems, which neither party ever wants to get under control.
On Feb 22 10:28 PM mediapro wrote:
> Since most of the comments on my post were about me buttoning up
> my lip, I'll deal with the one substantive take on my analysis.<br/>
>
> To User 273...:
>
> 1. Congress was controlled by the dems during the Reagan administration.
> Net gov't tax revenue more than doubled under Reagan. They outspent
> the gains.
>
> Answer:
>
> The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's
> budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference
> between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to
> the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.<br/>
>
> 2. You talk about the deficit ballooning from 50 to 200 billion?
> Why not look at it as a % of GDP. Oh, because that makes your point
> moot. Reagan had a recession right after he took office. The REAL
> stimulus was his tax cuts. The stock market took off, inflation fell
> to 3%, unemployment fell sharply, and we had a very good economy.
> The budget deficit as a % of GDP when he took office was 2.8% and
> rising. When he left, it was 2.8% and falling. Which is better?<br/>
>
> Answer:
>
> In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal
> government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of
> the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion,
> an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing
> government expenditures.
>
> Some economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison,
> that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage
> of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite
> direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated
> by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then
> be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending
> achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more
> money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal
> spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years
> of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal
> spending to net private product, that is, production of the private
> sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in
> 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration brought
> us a substantial increase in government spending.
>
> by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the
> deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level
> that wouldn't budge, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures
> in one-shot reductions.
>
> This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history.<br/>
>
> One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan
> era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime.
> At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative
> Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits
> would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they
> were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual
> increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally
> with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had
> they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were
> doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan"
> to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and
> the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead,
> they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge
> permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate
> deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring
> confusion.
>
> 3. There were no record deficits under Reagan. In dollars, yes, but
> read above. The ONLY legitimate way to view that is as a % of GDP,
> and it was NOWHERE close. But the socialist viewpoint always spins
> the truth on this.
>
> Answer: Comrade, please see above.
>
> 4. The Laffer Curve is all about finding the optimal tax rate. Too
> high, and there is a disincentive to work and produce. Too low, and
> not enough revenue comes in.
>
> The Laffer curve rises again!
>
> Just a couple of minor points.
>
> 1. Tax collections fall to zero at 100% tax rate. This is always
> stated as a truism. However, there are many examples of people working
> for nothing (which is an equivalent thing). The one that comes to
> mind were the "dollar a year men" of the WWII era. Obviously money
> wasn't the motivator in their case. Charity work could also be cited.
>
>
> 2. There is a curve between the two zero points which has a maximum
> point for tax collection. This is also stated as a truism. In fact
> there are an infinite number of curves that can be drawn between
> the two points and there is no evidence that a parabolic shape is
> the correct one.
>
> 3. Taxes are in brackets so there is no reason to believe that there
> is only one Laffer curve. There might be a different curve for each
> bracket since people at different economic levels respond to different
> stimuli.
>
> 4. For the Laffer curve to have any value as a policy tool it should
> be presented with appropriate data points in any discussion. However,
> no one ever does so, it is always discussed in theoretical terms.
> If no one can display the curve how can those who quote it claim
> that we are on the side where lowering tax rates will raise revenue?
>
>
> The Laffer curve doesn't exist.
> heritage.org/Resea...
>
> 5. I'll only address those left-wing terms such as trickle down as
> to say that's what the left throws out there, ignoring facts. But
> if we're going down that road, then right now we are doing TRICKLE
> UP economics. Law of Gravity isn't the only thing fighting that.
>
>
> You can't address "trickle down" simply because it is a wacko concept
> promoted by Friedman, Laffer, Stockman (until he saw how intellectually
> dishonest the term was), and the "intellectuals" behind the Laffer
> Curve, Jude Wanniski and his handservant, that famous quarterback
> turned economist, Jack Kemp. What application of the Laffer Curve
> and trickle-down economics in the real world has proved is born out
> by the unfathomable national debt after the final eight years of
> this lunacy. What's even more incredible are the promoters who claim
> that without tax reductions under G.W. Bush the situation would have
> been worse than it is.
>
> 6. Whenever taxes have been cut across the board, the % paid by the
> top wage earners has gone UP. EVERY time. It happened with Bush 43,
> Reagan, and Kennedy. To suggest anything else is to ignore the facts.
>
>
> Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in
> 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted
> tax reform law of 1986? Didn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition,
> heroically held the line against all tax increases?
>
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous
> "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates
> for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person,
> taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole,
> the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of
> tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly
> but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you
> pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate
> schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher
> taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which
> helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when
> the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink
> of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading
> Reaganomist, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission.
> The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes
> then and forevermore.
>
> Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore,
> taxes went up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan
> administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities,
> they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were
> attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely
> everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement,"
> and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists
> slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue
> was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax
> increases.
>
> The highly ballyhooed Tax "Reform" Act of 1986 was supposed to be
> economically healthy as well as "fair"; supposedly "revenue neutral,"
> it was to bring us (a) simplicity, helping the public while making
> the lives of tax accountants and lawyers miserable; and (b) income
> tax cuts, especially in the higher income brackets and in everyone's
> marginal tax rates (that is, income tax rates on additional money
> you may earn); and offset only by plugging those infamous loopholes.
> The reality, of course, was very different, In the first place, the
> administration has succeeded in making the tax laws so complicated
> that even the IRS admittedly doesn't understand it, and tax accountants
> and lawyers will be kept puzzled and happy for years to come.
>
> Secondly, while indeed income tax rates were cut in the higher brackets,
> many of the loophole plugs meant huge tax increases for people in
> the upper as well as middle income brackets. The point of the income
> tax, and particularly the marginal rate cuts, was the supply-sider
> objective of lowering taxes to stimulate savings and investment.
> But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform
> Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal
> tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority
> that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10%
> or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not
> only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower
> savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes
> on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt
> by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to
> IRAs.
>
> Not only were taxes increased, but business costs were greatly raised
> by making business expense meals only 80% deductible, which means
> a great expenditure of business time and energy keeping and shuffling
> records. And not only were taxes raised by eliminating tax shelters
> in real estate, but the law's claims to "fairness" were made grotesque
> by the retroactive nature of many of the tax increases. Thus, the
> abolition of tax shelter deductibility was made retroactive, imposing
> huge penalties after the fact. This is ex post facto legislation
> outlawed by the Constitution, which prohibits making actions retroactively
> criminal for a time period when they were perfectly legal.
>
> But the bottom line on the tax question: is what happened in the
> Reagan era to government tax revenues overall? Did the amount of
> taxes extracted from the American people by the federal government
> go up or down during the Reagan years? The facts are that federal
> tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In
> 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever
> that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut. But how about taxes as
> a percentage of the national product? There, we can concede that
> on a percentage criterion, overall taxes fell very slightly, remaining
> about even with the last year of Carter. Taxes fell from 18.9% of
> the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net
> private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%. A large absolute increase
> in taxes, coupled with keeping taxes as a percentage of national
> product about even, is scarcely cause for tossing one's hat in the
> air about a whopping reduction in taxes during the Reagan years.
>
>
> 7. As to what got us in the credit mess, well, the pres. and McCain
> tried to warn everyone in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Frank and Dodd
> aruged against them saying they wanted more credit expanded to those
> who the banks knew couldn't pay it back.
>
> Oh yes, that was the same John McCain who had Phil Gramm as his chief
> economic advisor, whispering in his ear as late as July 2008 that
> the economy was "fundamently sound". As for Bush, when he wasn't
> on vacation, there was as much political bravery in criticizing Freddie
> and Fannie as his brave move as a Texas draft dodger.
>
> If you look at the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Gramm's eleventh hour
> amendment that eliminated oversight of the derivatives market, the
> repackaging of most mortgages into mortgage backed securities, and
> the subsequent "insuring" of those mortgages into consolidated debt
> obligations, Freddie and Fannie look like Kindergarten comparatively.
>
>
> 8. The end of your rant leads to one conclucsion. Welcome to Seeking
> Alpha Mr. Gibbs.
>
> If I were only half as smart as Mr. Gibbs, I would gladly accept
> your welcome!
If you truly believe that tax cuts, increased spending and unfettered capitalism are the answers to our economic woes, then you should feel comfortable with the past eight years that culminated the lunacy of the supply-side hypothesis.
You and I are the only ones paying attention to this string, and you are a lost soul imprisoned in your blinder collar of loyalty to a man and ideas that have been not only proven false, but will perhaps bankrupt the country.
More and more people are concerned about the disparity in wealth as not only immoral, but a dangerous precursor to revolt. It's hard to conceive of Americans finally realizing the tragedy of the past thirty years and radically changing this government, yet had we not taken a side step to give a more balanced view of history and economics a chance, you and I might be having quite a different discussion.
Oh well, since you actually might read my retort to your poorly framed responses here goes:
1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control, inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He, and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains. Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent. That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything, then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending. Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.
It's no political football at all. Reagan went on the same spending spree that you are now deriding Obama undertaking. His happened to be on wasteful and illogical defense projects (remember Star Wars?). If Reagan wrote about his disappointments in later years, he should have had the moral courage to corral his colleagues into a Senate fillibuster or veto the spending bills. The truth that you won't admit is that Reagan's compromise was over the margins of the budgets, not out of any concern for deficits or balanced budgets.
2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.
And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired. The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.
Please take another stab at defending your guy's results. I spent a good paragraph showing your own analysis to be wrong based on historical fact:
But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal
> spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years
> of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal
> spending to net private product, that is, production of the private
> sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in
> 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration brought
> us a substantial increase in government spending.
3. Don't call me comrade. I find that offensive. And read what I have written in both posts.
OK
4. You are spinning in a major way on the Laffer curve. I don't have time to debunk your points one by one. But the concept is given in the links above, let the other readers decide. I will post a quote here that I think is relevant, and very true. It also is why socialism that you propose never works.
Get off the Laffer Curve already. It has been thoroughly debunked beacuse it cannot be demonstrated that a parabola is the correct curve when applied to those zero points, and you are embarrasing yourself by even mentioning it in your argument.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005
To you and Mr. Rogers, I would say that today is not a lovely day in the neighborhood. In no part of my post did I suggest that a plan for wealth redistribution. I would reiterate, however, if we had stayed on the path that you suggest (tax cuts, unfettered capitalism, more of the same), your's and the 20 percent's comfort level with their accumulated wealth would have been in jeopardy.
Even America is vulnerable to a revolt of the have-nots. In every foreign intervention that the Coporatocracy has engaged in since WW II (Iran, Nicaraugua, Argentina, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.), the scheme of bribing the corrupt oligarchs to build infrastructures that benefitted the corporate interests of this country yet could not be supported by the wage levels of these countries, imposing usurous terms for IMF and World Bank loans when the country's inevitably went into default, and propping up these hand-picked right wing strong men, all led to unforeseen consequences. If you cry about the circumstances in these countries relative to our relations with their current leaders, you have no one to blame but yourself and Mr. Rogers for being so blind about the results of unfettered belief in capitalism.
5. house.gov/jec/fisc...
This clears up all of your mis-statements on Reagan's tax cuts. Notice that in fact, the highest tax brackets saw a 9 point jump in what they paid, but the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. The middle class as defined in there saw their burden shifted upward, % by %.
I encourage all to read that link. It provides all the facts, the ones that people with socialistic principals spin the other way. Media, for all of your long-winded writing, your points are not borne out by the overall facts. In fact, I think you wrote all of that to convince others by volume instead of substance.
I encourage you to re-read the reality stated in my previous post. In fact, Reagans tax cuts weren't real tax cuts at all for the predominant tax paying wage earner. And the mess he created by his tax reforms in later years resulted in this analysis by the National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act showing that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower
savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes
on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt
by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to
IRAs.
6. You have BDS. Point the finger where it belongs, at Dodd, Frank, Obama, Pelosi, et al. Frank was arguing for expansion of FNM last July! He's the chairman of the finance cmte.! He had no clue apparently. You can insult Bush and others by talking about irrelevant issues, but that is only to dodge the facts. Bush wanted more regulation. Frank and Dodd said no. And this crisis had it seeds long before Bush took office.
I'll agree that the crisis had its seeds long before Bush. Trace it all the way back to our Pax Americana crusade that even Eisenhower warned us about in his end-of-term declaration about the military-industrial complex. Reagan, Bush and neo-cons simply poured more gasoline on the fire when they began to believe their own rap and had the power to implement it.
Give me a break. There were eight long years that we suffered through an administration hell bent on war, contempt for regulation of markets, doubling the national debt through an irresponsible transfer of middle class wealth to the top twenty percent and spending over 4,000 innocent young lives and more than $1 trillion dollars on a stupid war of their choice.
7. For a matter of record, I was always opposed to the elimination of Glass-Steagle. And I have always been for balanced budgets. If we as a nation were able to have discipline to do that on a regular basis, then some deficit spending when needed wouldn't be so painful.
Bully for you. But Glass-Steagle had nothing to do with balanced budgets. And if you are such a fan of balanced budgets, did you vote twice for Reagan and twice for Bush? Both of those geniouses managed to rise to the top of the deficit olympics. Or did you conveniently forget that we had a budget surplus under a more moderate, less ideological Clinton?
8. Bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the Nat'l Guard. Clinton dodged the draft. But if you are going to go down that road, I could bring up a whole lot of stuff now, but I won't. That rhetoric only serves to distract, usually when the message isn't sound.
I won't get into a pissing contest about Bush's war record. Suffice it to say that while I and my friends were sweating it through the days of Nixon's draft lottery, Bush's dad greased the skids so that GW could jump to the top of the line of more than 1,000 young Texans waiting for the National Guard escape hatch. Since Bush by his own admission can't remember ever having made an error in judgment, it's no surprise that he can't see past his benefit from privelege and the untold number of young Texas boys that did get drafted and never lived to experience the continued benefits of privelege bestowed upon this sorry excuse for a human being.
The message is as sound as the coming indictments. Stay tuned.
On Feb 24 11:37 AM User 273178 wrote:
> Mediapro: Your answers to my statements do not refute them, just
> spin them.
>
> 1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control,
> inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals
> enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He
> wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He,
> and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains.
> Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent.
> That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who
> was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything,
> then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending.
> Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.
>
> 2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That
> is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger
> current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
>
> The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially
> in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan
> for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other
> president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism
> and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it
> by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read
> what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how
> frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
> To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest
> in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.
>
> And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired.
> The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say
> it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise
> than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to
> admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.
>
>
> 3. Don't call me comrade. I find that offensive. And read what I
> have written in both posts.
>
> 4. You are spinning in a major way on the Laffer curve. I don't have
> time to debunk your points one by one. But the concept is given in
> the links above, let the other readers decide. I will post a quote
> here that I think is relevant, and very true. It also is why socialism
> that you propose never works.
>
> "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
> out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
> person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give
> to anybody anything that the government does not first take from
> somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do
> not have to work because the other half is going to take care of
> them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good
> to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,
> that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply
> wealth by dividing it."
>
> Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005
>
> 5. www.house.gov/jec/fisc...
>
> This clears up all of your mis-statements on Reagan's tax cuts. Notice
> that in fact, the highest tax brackets saw a 9 point jump in what
> they paid, but the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5
> percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. The middle class as defined
> in there saw their burden shifted upward, % by %.
>
> I encourage all to read that link. It provides all the facts, the
> ones that people with socialistic principals spin the other way.
> Media, for all of your long-winded writing, your points are not borne
> out by the overall facts. In fact, I think you wrote all of that
> to convince others by volume instead of substance.
>
> 6. You have BDS. Point the finger where it belongs, at Dodd, Frank,
> Obama, Pelosi, et al. Frank was arguing for expansion of FNM last
> July! He's the chairman of the finance cmte.! He had no clue apparently.
> You can insult Bush and others by talking about irrelevant issues,
> but that is only to dodge the facts. Bush wanted more regulation.
> Frank and Dodd said no. And this crisis had it seeds long before
> Bush took office.
>
> 7. For a matter of record, I was always opposed to the elimination
> of Glass-Steagle. And I have always been for balanced budgets. If
> we as a nation were able to have discipline to do that on a regular
> basis, then some deficit spending when needed wouldn't be so painful.
>
>
> 8. Bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the Nat'l Guard. Clinton
> dodged the draft. But if you are going to go down that road, I could
> bring up a whole lot of stuff now, but I won't. That rhetoric only
> serves to distract, usually when the message isn't sound.
>
> Bottom line is, tax cuts grow gov't income and revenue and increase
> growth. Budget deficit issues are spending problems, which neither
> party ever wants to get under control.
>
> On Feb 22 10:28 PM mediapro wrote:
Not only do you spin, lie, and distort, but you put words in my mouth. Where did I EVER say I was for increased spending?
Fact is, you can have your opinions. You cannot have your facts though, and I have disproven yours and proven mine.
I will no longer respond to this or you. "A man convinced against his will, is of his same opinion still".
BTW, hell-bent on war?
Go do some research and look up 9/11/01. Something happened that day.
And yes, I will PROUDLY take capitalism over socialism or communism ANY day of the week.
One more point. Why did Clinton have a balanced budget?
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA! Hate to break it to you, but Gingrich and co. took over the house in 1994 and greatly weakened Clinton. Their initiatives went through, and a stagnate economy in 1994 took off in 1995.
www.house.gov/house/Co...
Man, talk about revisionist history. How you can give Clinton credit for that defies all logic. I can give him credit for signing the legislation. However, if he didn't, he would have likely paid the price in the next election.
<Shakes head at all of this>
On Feb 24 10:38 PM mediapro wrote:
> Revisionism is the child of desperation.
>
> If you truly believe that tax cuts, increased spending and unfettered
> capitalism are the answers to our economic woes, then you should
> feel comfortable with the past eight years that culminated the lunacy
> of the supply-side hypothesis.
>
> You and I are the only ones paying attention to this string, and
> you are a lost soul imprisoned in your blinder collar of loyalty
> to a man and ideas that have been not only proven false, but will
> perhaps bankrupt the country.
>
> More and more people are concerned about the disparity in wealth
> as not only immoral, but a dangerous precursor to revolt. It's hard
> to conceive of Americans finally realizing the tragedy of the past
> thirty years and radically changing this government, yet had we not
> taken a side step to give a more balanced view of history and economics
> a chance, you and I might be having quite a different discussion.
>
>
> Oh well, since you actually might read my retort to your poorly framed
> responses here goes:
>
> 1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control,
> inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals
> enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He
> wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He,
> and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains.
> Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent.
> That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who
> was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything,
> then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending.
> Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.
>
> It's no political football at all. Reagan went on the same spending
> spree that you are now deriding Obama undertaking. His happened to
> be on wasteful and illogical defense projects (remember Star Wars?).
> If Reagan wrote about his disappointments in later years, he should
> have had the moral courage to corral his colleagues into a Senate
> fillibuster or veto the spending bills. The truth that you won't
> admit is that Reagan's compromise was over the margins of the budgets,
> not out of any concern for deficits or balanced budgets.
>
> 2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That
> is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger
> current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
>
> The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially
> in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan
> for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other
> president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism
> and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it
> by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read
> what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how
> frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
> To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest
> in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.
>
> And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired.
> The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say
> it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise
> than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to
> admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.
>
>
>
>
> Please take another stab at defending your guy's results. I spent
> a good paragraph showing your own analysis to be wrong based on historical
> fact:
>
> But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal
www.startribune.com/po...
This is in addition to the stimulus bill.
"Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, counted 8,570 pet projects totaling $7.7 billion inserted into the bill by lawmakers."
The one that deserves some mention, since you are obviously a BIG Bush fan, I would ask you about 9/11. What would any President have done about a direct attack on the U.S. homeland? It took no great intellect or courage to know that you go after the rag tags that took this on.
No, it was the lies, lies and more lies about Iraq's connection to Al Queada, WMD or lack thereof, making Iraq a beacon of democracy in the Middle East or whatever story these numbnuts could fashion on any given day that made us less safe with an amazing price tag. Al Queada by any analysis is a loose network of radicals that look for opportunity. It takes a blind leap of faith or outright devious planning to connect 9/11 to anything other than that.
Whether you agree with increased spending or not is up to your own interpretation of spending. I would say that going from a $50 Billion in 1979 to a $200 Billion in 1986 is increased spending no matter how you slice it.
Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income up to those captains of industry combined with narry a veto on six years of spending bills full of Republican pork projects, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek is an ingenious spin on what constitutes increased spending if not outright delusion.
I agree with one thing you said, however. Since no one really cares what you or I think, we should part agreeing with at least one thing: We are ostensibly residents of the same planet.
On Feb 25 09:55 AM User 273178 wrote:
> Media,
>
> Not only do you spin, lie, and distort, but you put words in my mouth.
> Where did I EVER say I was for increased spending?
>
> Fact is, you can have your opinions. You cannot have your facts though,
> and I have disproven yours and proven mine.
>
> I will no longer respond to this or you. "A man convinced against
> his will, is of his same opinion still".
>
> BTW, hell-bent on war?
> Go do some research and look up 9/11/01. Something happened that
> day.
>
> And yes, I will PROUDLY take capitalism over socialism or communism
> ANY day of the week.
>
> One more point. Why did Clinton have a balanced budget?
> CONTRACT WITH AMERICA! Hate to break it to you, but Gingrich and
> co. took over the house in 1994 and greatly weakened Clinton. Their
> initiatives went through, and a stagnate economy in 1994 took off
> in 1995.
>
> www.house.gov/house/Co...
>
> Man, talk about revisionist history. How you can give Clinton credit
> for that defies all logic. I can give him credit for signing the
> legislation. However, if he didn't, he would have likely paid the
> price in the next election.
> <Shakes head at all of this>
There are things Bush did that I didn't like. But you don't know all that was going on about the Iraq war. Did you know that Al Qaeda's no. 1 fled to Baghdad to get treated for injuries during the Afghan war? Ever hear of Salman Pak terrorist training camp where they found a hollowed-out Boeing with boxes of box cutters? Did you know that on 7/21/01 in the Iraq state-run newspaper Al Nasyria they did an expose on bin laden who talked about how he was going to bomb us? Was Hussein not a terrorist? Did he not kill his own people and continually violate UN resolutions by shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone? Did we not free 25 million people who don't have to worry about being gassed tonight?
Did you know that when terrorists went to attack installations in Jordan including ours, Al Qaeda confessed on tv that they got Iraq's WMD's that were buried in the sand in Syria? Did you know the whole world knew he had them because he used them on his own people? Or that a few of our troops got injured when they did find sarin and mustard-gas laden shells?
Newsflash. We got attacked on 9/11. To you maybe it was no big deal, but to most of America it was a direct attack on us, as we spent too long ignoring threats-waiting to be attacked instead of dealing with the problem. Did you criticize all of the dems that voted for the Iraq war? I guess they lied too, as well as the U.N., and the rest of the world. Why did you leave them out?
Constitutionally, one of the few jobs the gov't has is to protect its citizens. I thank President Bush for keeping us safe. NOT in the constitution is redistributing wealth and bailing out anyone.
archive.newsmax.com/ar...
archive.newsmax.com/ar...
archive.newsmax.com/ar...
www.frontpagemag.com/A...
archive.newsmax.com/ar...
If you insist on me trying to dig up the story on Jordan, which I cannot find at the moment, I will do so. But read those for starters. I am sure you support bringing Bush up on charges, I say go ahead and do it. I'd LOVE to see this stuff disclosed for all the world to see, instead of most in the MSM ignoring it because it discredits their position.
And, I don't have the kind of time to get you to see things properly on the prior topics. Everything you have said I have already addressed above, an with proof. Not just with harsh talking points. In my mind, those issues are settled.
Oh, and nice spin on the current deficit. I don't ever recall saying I supported that, in fact, I've made it quite clear I'm against the wasteful spending that is going on. You mentioned Reagan. I properly used the budget deficit as a % of GDP. Since you lost that round, all of a sudden you moved the goal posts. To a different stadium.
On Feb 25 10:35 AM Eric J. Fox wrote:
> "With one of their own in the White House, Democrats in Congress
> are moving to give domestic government agencies 8 percent more money,
> on average, to spend this year atop the whopping $787 billion in
> economic stimulus funds."
>
> "Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, counted 8,570
> pet projects totaling $7.7 billion inserted into the bill by lawmakers."
Let me try to enlighten you, although I doubt that is possible.
You said: Did you know that Al Qaeda's no. 1 fled to Baghdad to get treated for injuries during the Afghan war? Ever hear of Salman Pak terrorist training camp where they found a hollowed-out Boeing with boxes of box cutters?
SO apparently your point is that that the proper reaction to someone seeking medical care and hiding a stash of box cutters is to launch an all-out "shock and awe" offensive against the people we were "liberating" at a cost of untold numbers of innocent lives and the loss of our young men and women in battle along with more than $1 trillion in national treasure?
You said: Did you know that on 7/21/01 in the Iraq state-run newspaper Al Nasyria they did an expose on bin laden who talked about how he was going to bomb us?
My question back to you would be the same one carefully posed by the 9/11 Commission. Where was our vaunted intelligence network as these public admissions and reports were being circulated, and where were the bimbos and bimbettes at the White House that were even earlier ignoring Presidential Briefing memos alerting the Bushmen to the possibility of terrorists using ariplanes as weapons against our major cities. Remember Condy's reply to the question? "I thought that it was an historical document."
Was Hussein not a terrorist? Did he not kill his own people and continually
violate UN resolutions by shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone?
Were the Khmer Rouge terrorists? Was Idi Amin a madman? Pick your dictator and let the wars rage. If you really want to know the source for Hussein's weaponry and WMD, go back to the 1980-1984 period of U.S. support for Iraq against Iran and you will find numerous reports of extensive weapons sales, chemical stockpiles and even photos of Donald Rumsfeld making nice-nice with this hated dictator who killed his own people.
Actually, you also have your facts askew about violations under Saddam:
In his thoroughly cited book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder", Vincent Bugliosi (the successful prosecuotr of Charles Manson and over 100 murder convictions without a loss), explains this episode:
Bugliosi actually agrees with you and points out an amazing fact. Saddam shot at our airplanes, who at the time were violating the no-fly zone created by the U.N. and agreed to by the Security Council. WE were the ones violating the air space, and he was justified in defending the U.N. Resolution. Even with that, Iraq fired a total estimated 853 anti-aircraft ordinance and never hit one single plane. As Buglisosi says, "Either these folks were the worst shots in the history of warfare, or Saddam never intended to provoke America, since he knew that a war would be his death sentence."
And as for our intense desire to find WMD:
I do encourage you to search the history and ask yourself this question" "Why was Bush in such an incredible hurry to go to war?". Please consider these facts presented by Bugliosi:
"There were over 100 U.N. Inspectors who between November 2002, and March of 2003 conducted 731 inspections and had found nothing to indicate WMD programs or the existence of WMD weapons."
On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix, U.N. chief weapons inspector, addressed the Security Council and reported that he and his team had faced "relatively few difficulties" and "we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance." He continued that "after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side" that "can be seen as active, even proactive". He added that "no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far and that for his inspectors to confirm that Iraq had no WMD "will not take years, nor weeks, but months".
Mohamed ELBaradi, Chief U.N. nuclear inspector reported to the Security Council, "We have to date found no eveidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
There is every indication that at this point Bush & Co, suspected that they were wrong and, if proved wrong, they would lose their window of opportunity to go to war. Yu will recall that it was at this point that Bush raised the bar by demanding that Saddam immediately resign and leave Iraq, a condition that Bush knew Hussein would never accept. It's hard to reach any other conclusion, when you read the Manning Memo, than the one of Bush looking for a way to provoke a war, as he realized that his WMD justification for premption was slipping through his fingers.
Now ask yourself: Who was creating this impression if not Bush & Co?, when they knew there was never any connection except two discredited reports of a meeting in Germany from a source called "Curveball" (his handlers even called him crazy). Was it you? Me? Fox Mulder?
You said: Did we not free 25 million people who don't have to worry about being
gassed tonight?
See above for the original source of chemical weapons. If you doubt the veracity, there are only two countries that reused to sign the U.N. ban on chemical weapons, the United States and the Soviet Union. They were the only ones with stores. Answer for yourself whether the Soviet Union had any motivation to supply Saddam.
No instead we bombed this formerly relatively modern country back to the stone age, killing hundres of thousands of Iraqis and managing to spend our national treasure and precious young blood in the process.
You said: Newsflash. We got attacked on 9/11. To you maybe it was no big deal, but to most of America it was a direct attack on us, as we spent
too long ignoring threats-waiting to be attacked instead of dealing
with the problem. Did you criticize all of the dems that voted for
the Iraq war? I guess they lied too, as well as the U.N., and the
rest of the world. Why did you leave them out?
Since you are so insulated from world news, here's another flash: Nearly sixty years of constant bombardment and terrorism on both sides in Palestine. A constant struggle involving terrorism on both sides between England and Northern Ireland. A European continent that has experienced terrorist incidents since before WW II.
I, too, decry any violence based on ideology and/or religion, but your assumption that terrorism against this country and the indescrimanantly violent reaction perpetrated by your guy is either the best, proper, moral or intelligent reaction stretches credulity.
Congress did not vote for war. They voted in a time of extreme concern about terrorism and Bush's assurances that they had the goods on Saddam for the AUTHORIZATION of war if all diplomatic efforts failed.
If Congress was lied to about the circumstances leading up to the invasion, then why wouldn't most elected officials trust their President. Here's what they didn't know:
In his October 7, 2002 speech, (from Cincinnati, Ohio, Bush's first address to the nation on the Iraq threat):
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?...Iraq can decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group...The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terrorist network...Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun-- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Perhaps the most damning evidence against Bush's premeditation lies in the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate (October 1, 2007), released to the Administration just six days before his speech to the nation in Cincinnati. A sanitized, unclassified version with numerous deletions, known as the White Paper, was released on October 4, 2007, by the Bush Administration:
That classified estimate (subsequently declassified in 2004) did include opinions that Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW) could exist, but footnotes in the document clarify these as just that -- guesses, opinions, hunches. One example: "Although we have little specific information on Iraq'a CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons..."
But, in the White Paper, these footnoted qualifications were deleted and the most significant statement in the NIE was totally excised:
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorit attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqui involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war. Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable."
In other words Baghdad, according to our intelligence agencies, had no intention of provoking a war, and the White House knew it before scaring the begeezus out of all of us.
If you've followed the lead up to the war in any detail and remember the "Downing Street Memo", where "fixing the facts" to support the war was allegedly discussed, forget it. Read the "Manning Memo", two weeks before Bush went before the American people on national TV with "incontrovertible proof that we were in imminent danger of being attacked". In this meeting a Brit third party recorder of the meeting noted Bush's insistence that "we" (the Brits and U.S.) could paint drone airplanes with U.N. colors, draw Saddam into firing on U.N. craft and that would suffice for justification. When Blair recoiled at the suggestion, Bush was recorded as stating "F*** it, we're going in."
You said: Did you know that when terrorists went to attack installations in
Jordan including ours, Al Qaeda confessed on tv that they got Iraq's
WMD's that were buried in the sand in Syria? Did you know the whole
world knew he had them because he used them on his own people? Or
that a few of our troops got injured when they did find sarin and
mustard-gas laden shells?
Again, please ask yourself what was the original source of any chemical weapons? Get your head out of the Jordanian sands before you stretch your argument to such absurd comparisons with the bloodshed and wasting of our respect around the world.
You said: Constitutionally, one of the few jobs the gov't has is to protect
its citizens. I thank President Bush for keeping us safe. NOT in
the constitution is redistributing wealth and bailing out anyone.
If you can face all of the facts we know today, even if you would naturally claim that it's 20/20 hindsite, and look carefully at what the Bush Adminstration knew and manufactured and when they knew and manufactured "facts", then you are welcome to share the bubble with those who still deny climate change, believe that Creationism is a science, and love their buddy Bush for saving our country.
In the face of what we have remaining as Bush's gift to Americans, the world and the Iraqi populous who can't wait for us to leave, please ask yourself whether Bush has made us safer, left us with a healthy economy, etc. and please ask yourself the following before you defend again his war:
1. What was the reason for Mr. Bush's sudden reversal on the importance of finding Bin Laden six months before the Iraq invasion?
2. Why did The American Afghanistan contingent not actively engage until six months after hostilities, allowing the Northern Alliance to do all the fighting?
3. What did Rumsfeld actually admit when Bin Laden was trapped in Tora Bora?
4. Why would we leave his capture at Tora Bora up to ~50 Northern Alliance fighters, not stationing a division of American troops on the Pakistani border and allowing him to slip into Afghanistan with the protection of a former Taliban freedom fighter under the Soviet invasion for the paltry sum of $13,000?
5. Why was the Bin Laden unit of the CIA, established under Clinton, disbanded a year ago?
6. Why did Bush do everything in his power to prevent the 9-11 Commission from happening, and why did he do everything he could to retard their progress?
On Feb 26 09:31 AM User 273178 wrote:
> media,
>
> There are things Bush did that I didn't like. But you don't know
> all that was going on about the Iraq war. Did you know that Al Qaeda's
> no. 1 fled to Baghdad to get treated for injuries during the Afghan
> war? Ever hear of Salman Pak terrorist training camp where they found
> a hollowed-out Boeing with boxes of box cutters? Did you know that
> on 7/21/01 in the Iraq state-run newspaper Al Nasyria they did an
> expose on bin laden who talked about how he was going to bomb us?
> Was Hussein not a terrorist? Did he not kill his own people and continually
> violate UN resolutions by shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone?
>
> Did you know that when terrorists went to attack installations in
> Jordan including ours, Al Qaeda confessed on tv that they got Iraq's
> WMD's that were buried in the sand in Syria? Did you know the whole
> world knew he had them because he used them on his own people? Or
> that a few of our troops got injured when they did find sarin and
> mustard-gas laden shells?
>
> Newsflash. We got attacked on 9/11. To you maybe it was no big deal,
> but to most of America it was a direct attack on us, as we spent
> too long ignoring threats-waiting to be attacked instead of dealing
> with the problem. Did you criticize all of the dems that voted for
> the Iraq war? I guess they lied too, as well as the U.N., and the
> rest of the world. Why did you leave them out?
>
> Constitutionally, one of the few jobs the gov't has is to protect
> its citizens. I thank President Bush for keeping us safe. NOT in
> the constitution is redistributing wealth and bailing out anyone.
>
>
> archive.newsmax.com/ar...
>
>
> archive.newsmax.com/ar...
>
>
> archive.newsmax.com/ar...
>
> www.frontpagemag.com/A...
>
>
> archive.newsmax.com/ar...;s=lh
>
>
> If you insist on me trying to dig up the story on Jordan, which I
> cannot find at the moment, I will do so. But read those for starters.
> I am sure you support bringing Bush up on charges, I say go ahead
> and do it. I'd LOVE to see this stuff disclosed for all the world
> to see, instead of most in the MSM ignoring it because it discredits
> their position.
>
> And, I don't have the kind of time to get you to see things properly
> on the prior topics. Everything you have said I have already addressed
> above, an with proof. Not just with harsh talking points. In my mind,
> those issues are settled.
> Oh, and nice spin on the current deficit. I don't ever recall saying
> I supported that, in fact, I've made it quite clear I'm against the
> wasteful spending that is going on. You mentioned Reagan. I properly
> used the budget deficit as a % of GDP. Since you lost that round,
> all of a sudden you moved the goal posts. To a different stadium.
All you have done (from the parts of your novel I actually read) was quote extreme left view points that have little basis in fact.
Fact that you avoid is that EVERYONE in the world said he had them, dems and repubs, but you accuse ONE of lying. Did you ever think that he had information that we don't have?
And the information I posted was pretty strong.
Again, I am not on this earth, nor do I have time, to get you to see things the right way. Those links I provided are proof enough. I can just say I am very glad you are not President.
Because we had to give Iraq notice when we were going in, it allowed them to truck out their WMD's. And we know they did that.
He used them on his own people. You should read "Saddam's Secrets", by Iraqi General Georges Sada. There are about 20 pages at the back of the book detailing the WMD program and what happened to them.
Open your eyes.
You're right that it's a waste of time to talk with someone that will neither listen noe read anything counter to their firm, fixed world view.
Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
On Feb 27 06:46 AM User 273178 wrote:
> media,
>
> All you have done (from the parts of your novel I actually read)
> was quote extreme left view points that have little basis in fact.
>
>
> Fact that you avoid is that EVERYONE in the world said he had them,
> dems and repubs, but you accuse ONE of lying. Did you ever think
> that he had information that we don't have?
> And the information I posted was pretty strong.
>
> Again, I am not on this earth, nor do I have time, to get you to
> see things the right way. Those links I provided are proof enough.
> I can just say I am very glad you are not President.
>
> Because we had to give Iraq notice when we were going in, it allowed
> them to truck out their WMD's. And we know they did that.
>
> He used them on his own people. You should read "Saddam's Secrets",
> by Iraqi General Georges Sada. There are about 20 pages at the back
> of the book detailing the WMD program and what happened to them.
>
>
>
> Open your eyes.
On Feb 22 10:28 PM mediapro wrote:
> Since most of the comments on my post were about me buttoning up
> my lip, I'll deal with the one substantive take on my analysis.<br/>
>
> To User 273...:
>
> 1. Congress was controlled by the dems during the Reagan administration.
> Net gov't tax revenue more than doubled under Reagan. They outspent
> the gains.
>
> Answer:
>
> The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's
> budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference
> between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to
> the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.<br/>
>
> 2. You talk about the deficit ballooning from 50 to 200 billion?
> Why not look at it as a % of GDP. Oh, because that makes your point
> moot. Reagan had a recession right after he took office. The REAL
> stimulus was his tax cuts. The stock market took off, inflation fell
> to 3%, unemployment fell sharply, and we had a very good economy.
> The budget deficit as a % of GDP when he took office was 2.8% and
> rising. When he left, it was 2.8% and falling. Which is better?<br/>
>
> Answer:
>
> In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal
> government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of
> the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion,
> an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing
> government expenditures.
>
> Some economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison,
> that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage
> of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite
> direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated
> by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then
> be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending
> achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more
> money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal
> spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years
> of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal
> spending to net private product, that is, production of the private
> sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in
> 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration brought
> us a substantial increase in government spending.
>
> by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the
> deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level
> that wouldn't budge, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures
> in one-shot reductions.
>
> This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history.<br/>
>
> One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan
> era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime.
> At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative
> Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits
> would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they
> were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual
> increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally
> with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had
> they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were
> doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan"
> to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and
> the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead,
> they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge
> permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate
> deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring
> confusion.
>
> 3. There were no record deficits under Reagan. In dollars, yes, but
> read above. The ONLY legitimate way to view that is as a % of GDP,
> and it was NOWHERE close. But the socialist viewpoint always spins
> the truth on this.
>
> Answer: Comrade, please see above.
>
> 4. The Laffer Curve is all about finding the optimal tax rate. Too
> high, and there is a disincentive to work and produce. Too low, and
> not enough revenue comes in.
>
> The Laffer curve rises again!
>
> Just a couple of minor points.
>
> 1. Tax collections fall to zero at 100% tax rate. This is always
> stated as a truism. However, there are many examples of people working
> for nothing (which is an equivalent thing). The one that comes to
> mind were the "dollar a year men" of the WWII era. Obviously money
> wasn't the motivator in their case. Charity work could also be cited.
>
>
> 2. There is a curve between the two zero points which has a maximum
> point for tax collection. This is also stated as a truism. In fact
> there are an infinite number of curves that can be drawn between
> the two points and there is no evidence that a parabolic shape is
> the correct one.
>
> 3. Taxes are in brackets so there is no reason to believe that there
> is only one Laffer curve. There might be a different curve for each
> bracket since people at different economic levels respond to different
> stimuli.
>
> 4. For the Laffer curve to have any value as a policy tool it should
> be presented with appropriate data points in any discussion. However,
> no one ever does so, it is always discussed in theoretical terms.
> If no one can display the curve how can those who quote it claim
> that we are on the side where lowering tax rates will raise revenue?
>
>
> The Laffer curve doesn't exist.
> heritage.org/Resea...
>
> 5. I'll only address those left-wing terms such as trickle down as
> to say that's what the left throws out there, ignoring facts. But
> if we're going down that road, then right now we are doing TRICKLE
> UP economics. Law of Gravity isn't the only thing fighting that.
>
>
> You can't address "trickle down" simply because it is a wacko concept
> promoted by Friedman, Laffer, Stockman (until he saw how intellectually
> dishonest the term was), and the "intellectuals" behind the Laffer
> Curve, Jude Wanniski and his handservant, that famous quarterback
> turned economist, Jack Kemp. What application of the Laffer Curve
> and trickle-down economics in the real world has proved is born out
> by the unfathomable national debt after the final eight years of
> this lunacy. What's even more incredible are the promoters who claim
> that without tax reductions under G.W. Bush the situation would have
> been worse than it is.
>
> 6. Whenever taxes have been cut across the board, the % paid by the
> top wage earners has gone UP. EVERY time. It happened with Bush 43,
> Reagan, and Kennedy. To suggest anything else is to ignore the facts.
>
>
> Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in
> 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted
> tax reform law of 1986? Didn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition,
> heroically held the line against all tax increases?
>
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous
> "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates
> for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person,
> taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole,
> the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of
> tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly
> but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you
> pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate
> schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher
> taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which
> helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when
> the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink
> of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading
> Reaganomist, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission.
> The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes
> then and forevermore.
>
> Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore,
> taxes went up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan
> administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities,
> they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were
> attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely
> everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement,"
> and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists
> slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue
> was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax
> increases.
>
> The highly ballyhooed Tax "Reform" Act of 1986 was supposed to be
> economically healthy as well as "fair"; supposedly "revenue neutral,"
> it was to bring us (a) simplicity, helping the public while making
> the lives of tax accountants and lawyers miserable; and (b) income
> tax cuts, especially in the higher income brackets and in everyone's
> marginal tax rates (that is, income tax rates on additional money
> you may earn); and offset only by plugging those infamous loopholes.
> The reality, of course, was very different, In the first place, the
> administration has succeeded in making the tax laws so complicated
> that even the IRS admittedly doesn't understand it, and tax accountants
> and lawyers will be kept puzzled and happy for years to come.
>
> Secondly, while indeed income tax rates were cut in the higher brackets,
> many of the loophole plugs meant huge tax increases for people in
> the upper as well as middle income brackets. The point of the income
> tax, and particularly the marginal rate cuts, was the supply-sider
> objective of lowering taxes to stimulate savings and investment.
> But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform
> Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal
> tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority
> that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10%
> or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not
> only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower
> savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes
> on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt
> by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to
> IRAs.
>
> Not only were taxes increased, but business costs were greatly raised
> by making business expense meals only 80% deductible, which means
> a great expenditure of business time and energy keeping and shuffling
> records. And not only were taxes raised by eliminating tax shelters
> in real estate, but the law's claims to "fairness" were made grotesque
> by the retroactive nature of many of the tax increases. Thus, the
> abolition of tax shelter deductibility was made retroactive, imposing
> huge penalties after the fact. This is ex post facto legislation
> outlawed by the Constitution, which prohibits making actions retroactively
> criminal for a time period when they were perfectly legal.
>
> But the bottom line on the tax question: is what happened in the
> Reagan era to government tax revenues overall? Did the amount of
> taxes extracted from the American people by the federal government
> go up or down during the Reagan years? The facts are that federal
> tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In
> 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever
> that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut. But how about taxes as
> a percentage of the national product? There, we can concede that
> on a percentage criterion, overall taxes fell very slightly, remaining
> about even with the last year of Carter. Taxes fell from 18.9% of
> the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net
> private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%. A large absolute increase
> in taxes, coupled with keeping taxes as a percentage of national
> product about even, is scarcely cause for tossing one's hat in the
> air about a whopping reduction in taxes during the Reagan years.
>
>
> 7. As to what got us in the credit mess, well, the pres. and McCain
> tried to warn everyone in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Frank and Dodd
> aruged against them saying they wanted more credit expanded to those
> who the banks knew couldn't pay it back.
>
> Oh yes, that was the same John McCain who had Phil Gramm as his chief
> economic advisor, whispering in his ear as late as July 2008 that
> the economy was "fundamently sound". As for Bush, when he wasn't
> on vacation, there was as much political bravery in criticizing Freddie
> and Fannie as his brave move as a Texas draft dodger.
>
> If you look at the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Gramm's eleventh hour
> amendment that eliminated oversight of the derivatives market, the
> repackaging of most mortgages into mortgage backed securities, and
> the subsequent "insuring" of those mortgages into consolidated debt
> obligations, Freddie and Fannie look like Kindergarten comparatively.
>
>
> 8. The end of your rant leads to one conclucsion. Welcome to Seeking
> Alpha Mr. Gibbs.
>
> If I were only half as smart as Mr. Gibbs, I would gladly accept
> your welcome!
Compared to the numbnuts and knucledraggers that got us into this mess (Did you ever notice how Bush swung his hands when he walks? The exact posture of a baboon!), I guess that makes me twice as smart as those guys!!
Got to go eat my pablum now.
On Mar 02 12:13 PM 19709 wrote:
> Let's see. If you were half as smart as Gibbs, your IQ would be
> about 30.