1RuleNoRules's Comments

Could Better Capital Regulation Have Averted the Crisis?

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:37:26 -0500

The rules of the game make the game.
The game is a confusing jumble of distorted markets.
No surprise.
The cry for more regulation comes from the left because they believe capitalism is evil and only government can fix this. The crisis is their opportunity to win favor and the continued decline in American wealth and prosperity.

U.S. Forfeiting Billions in Future Taxes So Citi Can Exit TARP

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:17:15 -0500

Why should not NOL's incentivize strong banks buying weak and failing banks or any corporation? The real problem in this equation is how can the strong banks flip or spin-off these banks after they have become solvent again as to not create a too big to fail scenario?

Taxation must be seen as a necessary evil and not a revenue generating opportunity. To see taxation as income is to create bureaucracy and government institutions that become uncontrollable, power hungry entities that will fight all efforts to control.

Government must implement taxation strategy that is minimal and single layered. A strategy that does not distort markets, creates proper incentives and taxes all institutions at a single point in order to minimize the distortions to the market place. Taxes should add cost only as the institution adds burden to public resources such as transportation and pollution. This is why our manufacturing sector has been shrinking for the last 40 years. It has been burden unfairly with taxes and other disincentives.

How to Fix the Fed - A Lesson from AIG

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:54:48 -0500

Yes the "winners curse", low interest rates in the early 2000's aided an anemic economy and pushed the housing bubble out 5 or 6 years and would have been further if not for rising oil prices that started to topple the house of cards. Alan Greenspan often warned about Fannie and Freddie flooding housing market with money and even mentioned the word bubble without causing panic by adding what a great job the banks were doing. I heard it. I remember it. Am I still the only one?

How Big Is Too Big for Banks?

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:25:38 -0500

Government has created an environment that businesses, not just banks, swallow smaller companies to get tax benefits, that is where the true economy of scale resides. Realigning tax structure to cause businesses to spin off divisions will solve this problem overnight. Know what caused the problem always shows the simple fix. Allow dividends paid to parent corporations to be received tax free. This simple fix would stabilize stock market prices, cause corporations to invest in profitable corporations without takeovers or buyouts, spin-off winning companies as quickly as they can create them and probably create millions of jobs.
Government created this problem of too big to fail. Undoing what government has done is the way out of most of our problems.

How Washington's Policymakers Are Damaging the U.S. Economy

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:33:41 -0400

Whether correctly interpreted or not Keynes made it OK for government to spend to generate growth, when intuition tells us that the less government takes from the private sector the more the private sector will grow. What our founding father tried to avoid, boundless government, Keynes has established through economic theory. Keynes, has empowered socialism through the interpretation of his theories and for this his theories are un-American. Let the Europeans experiment with Keynesianism.

Outlandish CEO Pay: How to Fix the Problem

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:29:00 -0400

The consensus here seems to be government needs to fix it.
When we change he question, less government is the answer.

What is wrong with our economy and the labor market for CEO's that even bad CEO's get ridiculous amounts of compensation? Big government has decimated the "farm system" of small and intermediate businesses that should have been creating the super stars of enterprise.Unemployment and stagnation are only the last symptoms of an economy under stress. The first signs(that we ignored) were stagnant wages, disposable everything from cars to toasters. Before layoffs came insidious cost cutting and stagnant wages because of endless erosion of opportunity that began in the late 60's.

www.cato.org/pub_displ...

www.house.gov/jec/grow...

The Economist on the Failure of Economics

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:35:25 -0400

Without creating panic and sell-offs. Allen Greenspan has been warning of the housing bubble and banking problems for at least 10 years. He has been complaining about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pointing to derivatives as the vehicle that enables the process and the bubble to come clearly to Congress. The Bubble gum media did not see the words of a statesman as the warning bell that it was and Congress was unable to act because of decades of rhetoric and political posturing. Economics be damned as long as the bubble does burst during their term.
Now, the bubble gum media points to Greenspan as the source instead as the only culpable villain is Congress.

Don't Confuse Higher Tax Rates with Higher Tax Revenues

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:40:23 -0400

So you agree that revenue went up under the Reagan administration even though you cherry picked your years. I now assume that because you have such a secure grip on the facts that you already knew that economists do not look to the affects of a phased tax cut until after the final year. Going no further I see that the facts are not what you are looking for. The original argument for supply side tax cuts was that the small decrease in revenue would be offset by the greater increase in economic production. The problem with this was that revenue did indeed go up as you have pointed out after being pressed for more info, and the supply siders did not expect that. True, I don't have the details as you do but I do have the truth my friend. Perhaps you need to reread your data and first remove your bias.

Don't Confuse Higher Tax Rates with Higher Tax Revenues

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:05:58 -0400

I thought tax revenues doubled under Reagan.
Complete and utter nonsense is looking to to Treasury Dept. for unbiased reporting of their own failures.
Your numbers only show why phased tax cuts only count in the year after the last phase, Spending and investment is delayed until the complete tax cut. Phasing in Reagan tax cuts only prolonged the recession.
So what happened to revenue in '85, '86, '87, '88, '05?

On Jul 15 11:36 AM Vox Rationalis wrote:

> "Time and time again, we have seen how tax rate cuts have spurred
> employment, economic growth, and tax revenues."
>
> Complete and utter nonsense. This is a favorite line of the anti-tax
> crowd, repeated so often in so many forums that many people have
> come to accept it unquestioningly. But I've yet to see a good argument
> supporting the notion that in our economy, with tax rates comparable
> to ours, lowering tax rates results in more tax revenue or raising
> them leads to less.
>
> I invite anyone who disagrees to build an argument against me on
> this. But before you do, note that one of Bush's chief economic
> advisors has clearly stated that tax cuts do not pay for themselves
> (Greg Mankiw, "Principles of Economics, 1998). And the 2003 Economic
> Report of the President makes clear that while the economy should
> grow in response to tax cuts, the economy is "unlikely to grow so
> much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level
> of economic activity."
>
> Not satisfied? Read the 2003 Treasury Department report (revised
> 2006) titled "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills." Here are the percentage
> effects on revenue of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, in the subsequent
> 4 years:
>
> 1981: -5.7, -12.3, -16.5, -18.6
> 2001: -1.7, -3.9, -4.4, -4.2
> 2003: -6.3, -3.4, -0.4, -0.1
>
> Now, here's what the Bush Treasury Department report says happened
> when Clinton raised taxes:
>
> 1993: +2.0, +3.5, +3.9, +4.7
>
> I eagerly await any analysis supporting your assertion.

Why Macroeconomists Are Particularly Obtuse

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:18:00 -0400

WHOA!!
Tax revenue double under Reagan because of his tax cuts. Spending was philosophically entrenched and controlled by mostly a democratic congress. The Reagan Administration was taken to the whipping post(in the broadcast media) on every proposed reduction in future spending, it was ridiculous, reports of future cuts in spending would be backdropped by poor hungry children sitting on a porch in impoverished W.VA. Between Bush and Reagan wee balanced budgets and $0 debt.
Thank Ronald Reagan and the wave of supply side congressman that followed his lead.
Please eliminate spiked Kool-Aid from the disscusion.

The Deficit Has Become Sexy Again

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:59:43 -0400

The same is true for answer A.
They want to know if accept the answer even if the result is bad.

On Jun 21 10:49 AM nobby73 wrote:

> Question 24 is framed to lead people to answer B, through the second
> half of each statement.
>
> We all know what needs to happen and now the people are being prepared
> for the spending cuts and tax increases to come. After all, the
> foreign holders of US assets are driving the bus now and this is
> where they want to go...

The Deficit Has Become Sexy Again

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:56:38 -0400

It has been the(supply side) argument that tax cuts generate revenue not decrease it at high bracket taxation levels. It also has been customary for CBO and WHBO to project reductions in revenue for tax cuts and increases in revenue for tax hikes with the result being the opposite. I remember David Stockman testifying before congress that deficits will be ballooning and continuing into the new millennium. He did not foresee balanced budgets and $0 debt in between while he complained of tax cuts.
$0 debt coincidentally occurred during the administration of a Democrat, and more importantly, Gingrich as speaker as if things needed to be more confusing.

Greenspan's Ghouls, Kool-Aid Drinkers and the Shortcomings of Obama's Reforms

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:53:35 -0400

It seems to me that we are falling short on our attempts to see the big picture, except for some commentators. The 2 primary arguments against regulation are interference in the free market as an undesirable event and that the Government cannot arbitrate and regulate without becoming advocates for the industry and entities they are empowered to oversee. The previous argument has been proven by our recent experience, especially when the banking industry did it gallant best to absorbed junk debt generated by, more government, Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. Perhaps now we need to see the main argument against Government regulation is incompetence. Government is not competent to oversee or regulate anything. It is the prevalence of this view compared to other countries that has helped provide us with our successes.
Bush Republicans (<-- interesting slang connotation arises here) are not competent to deregulate, and were unable to accept the Reagan arguments against big government but were able to at least see the selling features of low tax rates. And equally incompetent in claiming victory when those tax cuts generated higher tax revenues. Our liberal media ignores these facts as coincidental.
The constant theme of correcting what has gone wrong with banking is controlling banks. Very marketable idea and very wrong. We, as a nation, must see that the villain was and is government and its approach to providing a level playing field. Probably the most damaging effect of regulation was its probably unintended consequence of encouraging merger and acquisition and creating institutions that are too big to fail. Our tax system is a very strong incentive(or disincentive) to industry and should be used to encourage all large enterprises to spin off successful divisions and departments. Taxes should not reward or even mitigate failure, and easily could provide the means to guide corporate structures to enhance the public good while creating a level playing field which should be the extent and limit of government intervention and regulation.
To blame anything other than the philosophy of government on banking, finance and even auto industry problems is misguided and doomed to more failure both foreseen and unforeseen.
It seems odd, I hope not just to me, that blame is directed toward Greenspan when it was his lone voice was heard clearly complaining of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac and without causing panic and sell-offs. It is unfortunate although not rare that the cure gets the blame in deregulation.

When Economics Collide with Politics

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:55:33 -0400

You imply that after a far swing to the far economic right it now swings to the far left. True Reagan was on the economic right but he pushed the pendulum to the center and it has drifted back ever since, particularly after Gingrich left office. The swing to the left began in the 30's and we will now see it swing to the right over the next 60-80 years. What we are experiencing now is a rebellion against the caretaker administrations after Reagan. As anemic growth gives way to stagnation during the caretaker regimes Americans will again demand what Reagan was selling, American Greatness. This pendulum is swing has a much bigger amplitude than 15 years.

United States vs. European Union: Who Games the Crisis Better?

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:19:11 -0400

What I don't get is why didn't any nation dramatically cut spending and top tax rates as a stimulus. Especially when cutting top tax rates have been the most successful method in recent history to stimulate growth(and reduce deficits).
Test tubes like this don't come around often and no one tried the tried and true.

Who Is to Blame for the Deficit? (Hint: It Doesn't Matter)

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:46:27 -0400

Not knowing who to blame is not knowing how to vote.
We definitely don't know who is to blame.

Household Net Worth's Big Declines - Why a Graph Tells a Better Story

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:32:51 -0400

How much of that wealth was unrealized property value?
Paper wealth that was not seen and was in real estate appraisals over that 15years.

Economic Challenges: Comparing Obama to FDR

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:29:52 -0400

Milton Friedman stated that the Great Depression was caused by the Feds failure to maintain the money supply. There was a sharp decline in the money supply as the 2 main branches of the Fed argued over who was calling the shots. According to Milton Friedman, the recovery came as money supply was corrected. This would make FDR irrelevant. For that matter, Obama will also be irrelevant if the current crisis has been created by a steadily growing government drawing wealth and resources from the private sector.
So, You all don't know what you are talking about : )

It's the Soil That's Bad, Not the Green Shoots

Thu, 28 May 2009 21:53:28 -0400

>The pervasive irrational mindset that the largest industrialize >nation’s infrastructure can be had with niggardly taxation defies logic.

The source of this logic is increased revenue immediately after Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and decreased revenue following tax increases. WBO and CBO have consistently errored in its estimates of revenue after changes in tax rates. We have reached the logical limit of taxation and it is not at extremely high levels (See Laffer curve).

The Housing Bubble: Greenspan's Wayward Son

Mon, 18 May 2009 01:47:29 -0400

Public policy through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the reason for the housing bubble. These 2 giants pumped money into the housing markets leaving mortgage brokers with the choice of lending to the unworthy or letting their competitors lend to the unworthy. The flood of questionable loans created the market for exotic financial instruments that banks finally choked on. If you want someone to blame for this housing bubble look in the mirror, everyone look in the mirror, we voted for this now enjoy it. Ronald Reagan said all too often Government is the problem here is the proof once again. Quoting Reagan is not enough, believing that government can fix any problem is the heart of the problem that affect this nation.

Stimulus Watch: How the Devil Are They Going to Finance All of It?

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:20:46 -0500

Pay for it all with TAX CUTS.

Aurthur Laffer suggested that taxes as with all else is subject to the law of Diminishing returns. In the famous Laffer curve, written on a napkin, he suggested that reducing taxes could increase revenue because we had past the point of increasing returns and now would be experiencing diminishing returns with every tax increase. From what I have heard and read, tax cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, Gulianni sales tax cut and Whitman's NJ state income tax cut all saw greater returns in the near term. Correspondingly, tax increases have seen declines in revenue for as far as I can remember as reported by the media after the fact. We will not see any significant improvement until we as a nation wrap our collective heads around this fact. This is what Reagan ran on. This is what Reagan won on. Reagan was right and nearly everyone else was wrong and we still don't get it. No one believed Reagan. He won on his charisma and the strength of his belief. We are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve then tax cuts are win-win....for everyone but liberals. The stimulus should be solely comprised of tax cuts, large across the board, no winners, no losers, corporate, personal and retroactive. How does it go, every calamity hides an opportunity. The opportunity here is to fix the tax code.

How Big Was the NYC Housing Bubble?

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:55:21 -0500

Entry into the markets you sited is not open and growth is limited by space, city politics, regulation and the high cost of doing business in Manhattan. The rise in prices may very well be from an increase in demand vs supply and not a bubble of speculation. What is the current state of rent control and how does that affect prices stated?

The Tipping Point: Stimulus Needs Credibility

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:14:30 -0500

Wrong side of the Laffer curve.

Aurthur Laffer suggested that taxes as with all else is subject to the law of Diminishing returns. In the famous Laffer curve, written on a napkin, he suggested that reducing taxes could increase revenue because we had past the point of increasing returns and now would be experiencing diminishing returns with every tax increase. From what I have heard and read, tax cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, Gulianni sales tax cut and Whitman's NJ state income tax cut all saw greater returns in the near term. Correspondingly, tax increases have seen declines in revenue for as far as I can remember as reported by the media after the fact. We will not see any significant improvement until we as a nation wrap our collective heads around this fact. This is what Reagan ran on. This is what Reagan won on. Reagan was right and nearly everyone else was wrong and we still don't get it. No one believed Reagan. He won on his charisma and the strength of his belief.

Also it appears to me, a slightly more than casual observer, that the higher a nation's tax rate the lower the growth rate, generally speaking. Comments concerning this and links to empirical data would appreciated.

Spending
Now, wouldn't you think that spend happy Dems(and Republicans lately) would love the higher returns from tax cuts. Maybe not. If taxation so damages the economy that reducing taxes creates more revenue, then where does the tax cutting stop? Where is the greater good, in the benefits that government bestows through public works projects of housing, transportation, education and wealth redistribution or though a robust, dynamic and vibrate economy? Once the Dems put down the Kool-Aid and admit that tax cuts of Reagan and Bush increased revenue, then the tax cutting begins with budget cuts to follow. The conclusion would necessarily be that government cannot spend money better than the private sector. When tax cutting brings us to the point where tax cuts actually reduce revenue( never seen in our lifetimes) then the benefit to the economy will be the goal of more tax cuts paid for by reducing the role and size of government. This is what the Dems and Liberals will avoid to their last dying political breath. If we are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve then tax cuts are win-win....for everyone but liberals.

Back stimulus, the stimulus should be solely comprised of tax cuts, large across the board, no winners, no losers, corporate, personal and retroactive. How does it go, every calamity hides an opportunity. the opportunity here is to fix the tax code.

Humility of Realism II: Seven Thoughts about Our Whole System

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:46:12 -0500

Excellent idea, use taxes to punish or discourage bad or undesirable behavior. Democrats fight this idea because it goes their philosophy of taxation, maximize revenue. If you can use taxation to get beneficial results you won't need government to fix all problems. Smaller government is not the goal of Liberals. Unfortunately it was not the goal of the Republican congress under Bush.

On Jan 31 01:13 PM johnny g wrote:

> I have an idea that can help resolve the problems facing both our
> economy and financial industry. Front lines reports from academia,
> government, and the media explain in good measure that banking industries
> uncertainties and fears regarding asset viability on their own and
> others balance sheets have created immovable road blocks to reasonable
> distribution and capital access.
>
> The idea seeks to collapse the period of time to which a more predictable
> and reliable flow of capital through our system can be arrive at;
> it cannot in and of itself resolve all systemic problems. The limited
> and uncertain access to capital has in large measure hobbled our
> collective economic system; interested parties to productive assets
> have been beset by a vicious cycle of pessimism and diminishing valuations,
> many times leading to a complete loss to owners and counter parties.
> The recommendation is designed to impose upon the banking system
> requirements to fully deploy their capital, with the aim of arresting
> this downward cycle and arriving at the nexus where collateral valuations
> are affirmed and once again become a measure of strength and not
> weakness.
>
> The basic tool and in this solution is taxation. A new piece of legislation
> is to be formed in which banks are taxed when not meeting the required
> leveraging minimums, and somehow rewarded when they demonstrate full
> leveraging deployment. Despite the cajoling of the Feds and Treasury
> after massive capital injections and asset swaps, the banking industries
> collective uncertainties are preventing their raison d'être, banks
> continue to under deploy and hoard capital, this is where we are
> collectively bogging down.
>
> As commercial banks comply with new leveraging requirements, they
> deploy capital to the most favorable credit risk. A new competitive
> lending environment will spring forth; banks will compete with other
> banks to actively seek out the best risk reward borrowers for their
> offerings, or be subject to this new Federal tax or penalty. This
> new velocity of money will energize our economy, restore asset predictability
> and grow balance sheet valuations without further deficit spending.
>
>
> This novel catalyst along with other primers will reduce the distance
> and time that the wheels of Capitalism need to travel before growth
> and optimism is restored; preventing unneeded failures, losses, and
> human hardship due to degrading asset valuations and capital deprivation.
>
>
> Let the chip fall where they may there after, a force new beginning
> will have started.

Humility of Realism II: Seven Thoughts about Our Whole System

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:37:10 -0500

David,
You mention government mismanagement, Are we on the wrong side of the Laffer curve or not? And wouldn't that be the biggest mismanagement of them all?

Orwellian Finance: Is 1984 Happening in 2009?

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:38:38 -0500

Ron Paul is a whack job.
Poor people need homes.
Tax the rich and corporations and give the middle class a break.
Taxation is the cost of civilization.
Terrorists are everywhere waiting to attack us.
The world would fall apart if the US military came home from their overseas bases.
Homeland Security is necessary to protect us.
The media is free and open and will point out the corruption and our failings.
Now, let me finish my Kool-Aid in peace.

Team Obama vs. Team Reagan

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:33:32 -0500

You need to learn about Reagan, Reagan has been going through a spin cycle recently. If you read here than you should have better clues. You don't hear anybody saying how great Carter was, you don't even hear much about how great Clinton was. And it was the Republican congress and Gingrich that made the Clinton years. There is a lot of lefty spin. Contract with America and a balanced budget was congress(R). Clinton was not a very powerful president starting with the failure to pass his health care program, right out of the box. Consistently, we have blamed the President for the failures and successes of congress. And recently we hear that Congressional spending pulled us out of recession in the 80's, how convenient.

On Jan 19 01:49 PM H.J. Huneycutt wrote:

> I agree with Zeus up to the point where he talks about Obama. Reagan,
> more than any other President, is responsible for the change in direction
> of government that has led to our own economic downfall. But it's
> too early to know how the Obama Administration will turn out. To
> be totally honest, my perception of Obama right now is that he is
> extremely similar to Reagan:
>
> (1) He has a large number of fanatical, ideological supporters who
> would believe he was the greatest President ever no matter what he
> did
>
> (2) He likes cutting taxes and raising spending with little regard
> to the national debt and future generations
>
> (3) He relies on "voodoo economic" theories if his vote on TARP is
> any indication
>
> (4) He's an outstanding and charismatic public speaker, but seems
> to have little substance behind his rhetoric
>
> (5) He understands diplomacy.
>
> Thank God for #5 --- at least that will make Obama an improvement
> over Bush the Younger. But I'm not optimistic about Obama's economic
> policy. I hope I'm proven wrong, but thus far, it looks to me that
> Obama is simply continuing with the same economic policies from the
> Clinton and Bush II years that got us in this mess to begin with.

The Reagan Counterrevolution

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:11:49 -0500

Both WHBO and CBO predicted decreases in tax revenues in the outgoing years after the tax cuts. This is not a test tube we will never have a "controlled experiment" the models are all wrong. The ignorance is not to cut taxes while revenues go up and more ignorance, to stop cutting taxes to abet runaway spending when revenues start going down. I suspect that we agree more than we disagree but it seems to me that you are caught on the correctness of the facts. Cutting taxes is a win-win revenue goes up, until they go down. When revenues go down, spending is hopefully less attractive. We must continually remind ourselves that there are few thing that government need do and nothing it does well. The trick is to find a way for the private sector do those things outside of what government need do.

On Nov 10 12:00 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> !RuleNoRules said:
>
> "We should not be having this argument. Reagan was the proof. After
> tax CUTS, tax revenue went UP. thats it game over, argument done."

>
>
> That observation has no meaning. One needs a controlled experiment
> to be able to make a valid conclusion. If, under essentially similar
> circumstances, tax rates remained unchanged, how would tax revenue
> have changed? You don't know so the conclusion in the quote has
> no value.
>
> In fact, several studies have been made (hypotheticals) that have
> argued that if the Reagan tax cuts had not been made, or if they
> had been reversed as the economy recovered during the 1980's, tax
> revenues would have risen much more.
>
> The problem is that no one has been using both sides of the fiscal
> policy equation. Since 1980, there have essentially been only tax
> cuts (except for Bush 1 in 1990). We would have better control over
> the business cycle fluctuations if we worked both ways on the Laffer
> curve, increasing taxes during expansions and cutting taxes during
> contractions. To make this work, of course, there must be discipline
> on the spending side so that deficits are run only during contractions.

>
>
> Too many argue that Laffer showed that the more you cut taxes, the
> greater the tax revenue produced. That shows ignorance. The Laffer
> curve predicts that when you cut high taxes, tax revenues will increase;
> when you cut moderate taxes there is little impact on tax revenue;
> and when you cut low taxes, tax revenue will decrease. Obviously,
> going all the way to zero taxes means that tax revenues will decrease
> to nothing.
>
> It is disturbing that this debate among supposedly informed people
> often degenerates to uninformed demagogery rather than logical argument.

>
>

Why Mortgage Payments Should Be Lower Than Rents

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:21:53 -0500

Did you say "affordable-housing"? That is lefty spin terminology. Housing is housing. A glut of luxury rentals will cause all rents to fall. Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Marxism is dead. There is no class struggle. affordable-housing means build more dumps, don't want it don't need it. Let them build housing at the high- end, or the most profitable end. All rents will be affected and EVERYONE benefits. Liberals talk about affordable-housing. Let me translate. Government intervention, political jobs for my political supporters to interfere in free markets to buy votes from undereducated Kool-Aid drinkers by promising an advantage or handout.

Would Defeat of Obama's Stimulus Plan Be a Good Thing?

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:39:34 -0500

Would Defeat of Obama's Stimulus Plan Be a Good Thing?
Yes and no.
20 years after Ronald Reagan the spin is in. Reagan deficits carried the economy. Have you heard this? My head was spinning. I looked for something to throw at the TV. RR success(tax revenue double) is now from spend happy Democrats(at that time it was the Dems). RR said that revenues would go up after his tax cuts, then as now no one believes it, even after the fact.
I believe that the defeat of Obama stimulus plan would be a good thing but, only if we have learned our lesson. If it succeeds and fails then we may learn something as voters. Namely that government is the problem. Government borrowing is bad. Government spending is bad. Their is no Problem that government cannot make worse through intervention. And everything else Ronald Reagan said.
If Obama's plan passes and succeeds then we will test new spending highs and new deficit lows, and RR will be forever forgotten. Ronald Reagan was of a more a Libertarian than we give him credit for.