ATLANTA— From time to time I find it healthy and invigorating to go back and watch a good Ronald Reagan speech. The above one is a long one, but it is chock-full of relevant quotes concerning the dangers of central planning over the economy. This speech was as timely then as it is now. If we could only identify a new generation of Republican leaders who are remotely as articulate and clear-headed as Ronald Reagan, we would be doing well for ourselves, our children and our country’s future.
It is high time we reject the country club Republicans who came to the fore during the Bush Administration and the 109th Congress, who seemed to care only for using government power to preserve their own wealth and status. We need to start voting in principled conservatives whose core value is that undying call of freedom. The argument for freedom must be made untiringly, to each new generation.
Under Barack Obama, our government has arguably expanded faster and encroached further on our freedoms than under any Administration since FDR. The Barney Franks of the world, say, “We are trying on every front to increase the role of government.”
We know full well where this leads, because we know the heart of man. This leads to tyranny, coercion, cronyism and centrally mandated, wealth-destroying, freedom-limiting incompetence from which there can be no escape, if allowed to go on too far and too long.
This is a call out for freedom!
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
Freedom and democracy are fueled by a healthy middle class. Reagan’s and Bush’s war on the middle class has resulted in the destruction of our economy and the need for government interaction to save it from a complete collapse. You right-wingers like to call that interaction socialism, just like right-wingers called FDR’s interaction socialism.
If you believe that government policies should be geared towards helping only the wealthy, you’re a true conservative. And I’d like to know which of our freedoms our government has “encroached” on since Obama took office. It’s true that he has extended some of Bush’s programs that DID encroach on our liberties, but he’s eliminated others.
The “government interaction” in the form of taking money from the middle class and rich and giving it either to the poor like the proposed health bill or cash for clunkers or giving it to the rich like TARP and Obama’s GM “investment” are both forms of redistribution of wealth.
Any “interaction” by the government is in the form of taxes and regulation that benefit one group at the cost of another. In both cases you have policies proposed by Bush and Obama alike both paying off either the poor or the rich with generally the middle class stuck in between. Not sure what you’d call redistribution of wealth but that is what “government interaction” is.
As for government encroachment under Obama just look at the deficit expansion and explosion of national debt. This is the most serious encroachment of all the encroachments on our economic liberties and freedom.
The history of this country is founded on the right to religious freedom first and second economic freedom. For each dollar Obama prints to pay for this deficit and for each dollar in debt he takes out for which future dollars will have to be printed to pay China he devalues the dollars in our pockets and steals from us. Thievery is not giving freedom but taking freedom as the thief (Obama) doesn’t give us a fair choice and violates all social and political contracts.
A thief is one of the worst types of takers of freedom because they usually come in secret and wear a mask as they attempt to relinquish us of our earned goods. Yes, you are right when you say some of the policies like TARP started under Bush (he betrayed true conservatism). But many others Obama has started himself like ARRA (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). He had a chance to scale back TARP but only expanded it. This I think is why he is arguably the largest current threat to human freedom in this country. He has the power to make a difference and is committing criminal acts in the name of “change” TARP and ARRA were severe violations of our economic freedoms. He and his congress are literally robbing us, the middle class, blind.
However, you are correct that Obama is a bigot. Obama’s tax cuts for 95% of the country proves that fact pretty definitively. What would have been fair is equal tax cuts for all groups. Instead Obama and his supports support the inherent bigotry of punishing one class or group of people while rewarding others. Kind of like his treatment with GM as well. Punishing the investors while rewarding the UAW. I find it horrible that liberals of all types of people are so quick to jump on the band wagon of bigotry. Liberalism is entrenched in the belief of individual freedom and yet the liberals are the ones most apt to steal from another. Freedom is not purchased off the slavery of one class nor is freedom purchased by the ends justifying the means.
Well put, FT!
Ben, thanks for dropping by. We appreciate your reading and commenting.
>Reagan’s and Bush’s war on the middle class
I’m not sure I follow the specifics of this “war.” I agree Bush pushed through TARP, which had the affect of funneling our tax dollars to banks and car companies, which is a bad thing.
But the “wealthy” bear the bulk of the tax burden in this country. The Congressional Budget Office studies on this are irrefutable (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf). This has persisted under Bush, Reagan, etc.
Talking about the wage gap b/w rich and poor in this country can make interesting discussion, but there is not really much rational link you can make b/w that wage gap and the crisis we just endured.
The crisis we endured was caused by a conflux of bad government interest rate policy during the part of this decade and an imbalance b/w savings and consumption rates b/w East and West, with eastern capital flowing into western debt markets, artificially supressing long-term interest rates. These two factors above all else are responsible for sparking a remarkable credit bubble.
Anyone who wants to attribute this crisis to anything else is selling something.
>the need for government interaction to save it from a complete collapse.
I’m not so sure we can judge yet that the government has saved us from anything. Given a gigantic kick of the proverbial can down the road, yes. Saved the economy from “complete collapse,” hardly.
FDR gets credit in liberal circles for “saving” the economy in the Great Depression, but his New Deal began in 1932 and he ramped up government spending almost 50% annually for 2 or 3 years in a row, and the economy still collapsed back into depression by 1937. The depression in the United States lingered until the 1940′s, while other countries that were far less interventionist moved out of it by the end of the 1930′s.
Doesn’t sound like salvation. You certainly won’t be talking about salvation if we descend into an inflationary spiral by the end of Obama’s first term.
>If you believe that government policies should be geared towards helping only the wealthy, you’re a true conservative.
That’s your definition of conservative, but 99% of conservatives would reject that definition on its face because it simply does not marry up with the reality and thrust of the movement. You would be hard pressed to explain why conservatism is so pervasive in rural America, if you think that it’s true adherents only want to help the wealthy.
>And I’d like to know which of our freedoms our government has “encroached” on since Obama took office.
Encroached is broad word. Like FT below, I define in the context of Obama as primarly being an economic encroachment at this point. As more economic power is centralized within the government, is necessarily removed from the consumer and the individual entrepeneour. In stark terms, under his policies on health care, energy, etc. more of us will be in a position to take whatever the government let’s us have, versus being allowed to choose what we want for ourselves. Further, the degree taxes go up (across all income brackets, as they necessarily must to finance these deficits), that leaves less disposable income, which results in less economic freedom. Additionally, card check and other policies some Dems peddle would restrict freedoms and leave people prey to coercion, etc.
But in some of this legislation, there will be encroachments that spill over into religious encroachments (forced tax-payer funding of contraceptives, abortion, etc. through the health care bill, etc.).
It’s hard to argue similar encroachments occurred so many and so swiftly under any recent presidents. After all, who “accomplished” so much as Obama in his first 100 days?
I welcome your disagreement here and would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Hey Steve, good to have a civil discussion on the issues. That’s rare these days.
[But the “wealthy” bear the bulk of the tax burden in this country. ]
That’s a complex topic.
First of all, the wealthy have gotten to where they are because our economic system provides opportunity to advance. To maintain our system, we need some semblance of a balanced budget, and the only way to do that is through a progressive income tax.
Second, when there is a low income tax on large salaries, CEOs have incentive to milk the company for all they can and shoot for short term gains. On the other hand, if income over a few million dollars is taxed very heavily, there is more incentive to put money back into the company or even do more hiring.
Third, the wealth have a lot more influence in government policy than the middle class, which is anti-democratic. There should be some cost for all that influence.
Fourth, at times when there is a large disparity between the wealthiest and the middle class, that’s a good indicator that the economy is unhealthy. That occurred back in the 20s and it occurred before the crash of our economy last year. One way to reduce the disparity is through a progressive tax.
Now, right-wingers will complain that a regressive tax is wealth distribution. In reality, it’s necessary for a healthy economy.
… more on the other topics later.
As far as the Reagan/Bush war on the middle class, let’s start with Reagan.
One thing he did was grant amnesty to four million illegal aliens. It used to be, people could work hard physically and get ahead. Construction workers and other blue collar workers could earn a decent living, purchase a house, raise a family, and basically achieve the American dream. Illegal aliens were more than willing to work for less and drove down wages. Also, Republicans have blocked efforts to crack down on companies that hire illegal aliens.
When Reagan first took office, he passed huge across the board tax cuts. When he saw the kind of deficits that resulted, he passed one of that largest tax increases in history — but only on the middle class.
Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in enormous deficits and as a result, Reagan tripled the federal debt.
I think the 4 million is an over estimate. And yes that Bipartisan Bill didn’t work like it was expected to although it did make it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, and it required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status. I suppose you don’t have a problem with that part of the bill?!?!? Although you say it’s Republican’s that oppose that when a Republican President made it illegal in the FIRST place doesn’t make to much sense.
And yes it granted amnesty to certain other illegal immigrants (who were already here) probably to avoid punishing those that were doing things prior to those things being made illegal. So, it wasn’t the best bill. I admit but it did make it illegal to begin with.
As for a war on the middle class it’s a BIG stretch though especially since it was intended to make that hiring of illegal immigrants in the FUTURE illegal. If anything it was for the middle class. Unless you think hiring illegal immigrants should be legal?
As for Reagan’s tax increases he was a net tax cutter cutting in ’81 increasing I think in ’82. Although later as income improved people paid more taxes as they went up in tax brackets in what is commonly understood to be the Laffer Curve.
With inflation already closing in at 6% and beginning to increase again and Obama’s tax increases we’ll see how the middle class fairs. Gas is already up to $3.00 here and milk seems to get more and more expensive every day.
One other thing I just realized about the Reagan and immigration legalization. It’s very two face to try and attack Reagan over that if your an Obama supporter. Obama co-sponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act which I didn’t pass but tried to do the same thing. Unlike Reagan though he didn’t stiffen penalties. Just thought I’d point out that fact.
Wait a minute Hoffman… the present tax structure in America is that the top 10% of income earners, anything over $115K AGI pay 70% of the Federal tax collected.
you said, “if you believe that government policies should be geared toward helping only the wealthy, you’re a true conservative.”
How does this policy benefit the wealthy… and these represent the bush tax cuts which liberals howl about as a giveaway to the rich.
Further, a full 50% of US workers pay zero tax. I would say that is a pretty sizable middle class that skates by with zero taxes. That leaves the remaining 40% of taxpayers paying just 30% of the tax.
So this is “fair” right Hoffman?
Just for historic comparison so I can demolish your arguments as vapid. Consider JFK compared to Obama.
1) JFK hated unions especially the steelworkers union
2) Obama started a trade war with China over tires on behalf of the steelworkers union. He wants Union votes to be subject to union thug pressure.
3) JFK believed in a strong military. He was a war hero.
4) Obama voting record was to oppose every bill for the military or benefits to soldiers. Obama never registered for the selective service and that is puzzling. Oh I forgot, anything about his age, or private records makes me a right wing conspirator.
5) JFK lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations to stimulate the economy.
6) Obama has done nothing but threaten US corps with hither taxes on every level from foreign earned income to raising capital gains. He claims to be fixing the economy by growing the government. Do you realize that small businesses which employ 60% of the US workers got ZERO tax benefit out of the stimulation bill.
Bottom line: US multinationals no longer have to put up with being taxed out of business. Look at Ford, they are building three new plants in China “as fast as they can” Every company has a US exits plan. Corp income tax by the way only accounts for 10% of the total federal tax collected. But the add ons like healthcare, and FICA and Social Security make our companies less competitive. In Asia they get a great workforce with none of the downside US policies or declining dollar.
Keep your hand out there Hoffman like we owe you a living. When there are no jobs and you are looking at 16% unemployment and IRS can’t collect enough tax to pay for 1/3 of the annual budget, then…. hey, you’re looking at Obama. So in conclusion let me phrase this so all liberals can understand it….. “obama, you are no JFK”
As an aside, I have enjoyed the many analogies of obama as the “next…… FDR, JFK, Lincoln, Christ, etc.” But Michele’s wearing the Jackie pill box hat was the last straw for me.
I think obama is the next jimmy carter on steroids” Socialist always plant the seeds of their own destruction because their reasoning if flawed. They want to distribute food to the poor so it makes them feel good. But they forget that in order to distribute food you first need a farmer willing to grow it. So without a doubt the most important person in the socialist scheme is the Capitalist producer. Kill the golden goose and you kill socialism.
Gotta jump in here
>First of all, the wealthy have gotten to where they are because our economic system provides opportunity to advance. To maintain our system, we need some semblance of a balanced budget, and the only way to do that is through a progressive income tax.
Ben – We have a progressive income tax now and our budget is far from balanced. What we need for a balanced budget is a reasonable form of taxation as well as government constraint. Right now we have neither. When the average American middle class taxpayer works until June to make his or her first dollar, while the government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out companies that should have been left to market forces, we have a huge problem – and it is not the rich.
>Second, when there is a low income tax on large salaries, CEOs have incentive to milk the company for all they can and shoot for short term gains. On the other hand, if income over a few million dollars is taxed very heavily, there is more incentive to put money back into the company or even do more hiring.
Respectfully – you are going to have to explain this one to me. I own a company of about 15 people. When I (as the CEO) have more disposable income I invest more in my business’s growth and distribute more profit to my stockholders. My stockholders profit and. as a result, invest more in my company as well. This stimulates further growth, hiring, and market expansion.
When I have to pay more in taxes, I have less to invest in my company because a larger percentage of my net income has to go toward maintenance rather than growth. My focus shifts from investment to cutting costs and making greater margins on jobs. Sometimes this will even involve layoffs.
If CEO’s “milk” their corporation stockholders loose, funds disinvest, the company looses operating capital, and entire markets can be lost as a result. CEO’s usually make a large chunk of their income through golden parachute stock deals based on growth targets, and milking the company will cause them to loose big. Most CEO’s I have known and worked with over the years are fixated on growth and profitability for stockholders not “milking.” I respect your views Ben, as well as the opportunity to debate you, but I think you are simply dead wrong on this one.
[Respectfully – you are going to have to explain this one to me. I own a company of about 15 people. When I (as the CEO) have more disposable income I invest more in my business’s growth and distribute more profit to my stockholders.]
It always baffles me when business owners make that argument.
If you keep your profits, it’s income and taxed as income tax. If you put your profits back into the company, you can deduct it as operating costs — often at 100%.
Before Reagan cut income taxes for the wealthy, income over three million dollars was taxed at about 70%. With those rates, there was little incentive to pocket the profits. It was better to just reinvest back into the company.
Now that income taxes for the wealthy are low, corporations are taking the profits and giving out huge salaries and bonuses instead of reinvesting in the company.
It’s because MOST businesses are Small Enterprises. They don’t file separate business and personal returns. Unless the business can figure out how to spend the money in the fiscal year it get’s taxed anyways. The owner of the business may put that money in a savings account for when the business or he personally needs it (perhaps a not so profitable year). This is the LARGE majority of rich business owners your car dealers, real estate agencies, restaurants, etc. etc. And also the bulk of US tax revenue.
OK,
Let me make sure I understand what you are arguing.
I think it can only be one of two things.
1. Businesses who pay higher taxes on their income will somehow be compelled to invest more of their pre-income revenue into their business as operating costs.
— So, by your argument, the more you tax my income, the more I will be compelled to build plants and hire workers….hmmm.
If I clear so much money after my costs and my taxes are paid, it is income. I, as the lead of my company, decide what kind of distributions of that profit I want to make. In a S Corp or LLC that distribution does not have to be equivalent to an investor’s direct share of the company…it can be any percentage. So, in calculating that percentage, I take into account how much ROI my investors expect for their continued investment in my enterprise. I pay that first. I back into my business investment figure based on this number. If I cannot pay my investors first then I shoot my company in the foot. When you increase my taxes you lower my available net income for distribution, so I have to cut operating costs and business investment to make it up, not increase them.
2. Now, that being said, if your argument is that CEO’s, when given smaller progressive tax burdens, will negotiate for more salary, vice deferred benefits in their personal compensation contract, then I really have a hard time pushing the “I care” button.
For most corporations this cost is incidental and market driven. If a corporation makes 20 billion in revenue and the CEO makes 10 million a year in salary, I say good for him. The market clearly supports it and his leadership is clearly profitable to the company. Why should he pay a disproportionate amount in taxes? If 10% is good for a 50K a year earner why not a 5M a year earner?? Why does hed deserve a progressive penalty for being an entrepreneur? Respectfully, it just makes no sense.
What really troubles me about your argument however, is the presupposition that CEO’s and entrepreneurs are somehow inherently corrupt and solely out for short term self gain. Because of this only the government can keep them honest. This is a tragic stereotype of reality, and speaks volumes about your world view. You believe that profit is somehow dirty and people that make “too much” of it are somehow less honest than people who make less. The poor are somehow ” more good” and the wealthy are “more bad”. So certainly, you would be in favor of oppressive progressive taxation because it suits this world view perfectly. Though I disagree with it, I accept it as being ideologically honest and respect it.
Where you clearly fall down here though is in your effort to justify higher taxes as better for business investment. Sorry, just can’t swallow that one.
Because Chuck took the first two I won’t bother.
The third I don’t get. Why allow that kind of disparity in the first place. The income tax with all it’s loopholes creates that K-Street mob in the first place. Term limits and eliminate the ability to attach line items to bills. It’s like legalizing prostitution and then blaming the John’s for their corruption. It’s not rich peoples fault they can buy out the Bushes and Obamas it’s the Bushes and Obamas that are to blame. Why tax the influence and legitimize it. That would be horrible.
Fourth… You want to punish those for being more successful? Kind of like the whites punished the blacks for a different skin tone. Or the liberals speak of the uneducated and dumb masses of country Bible belt Republicans. Any body that makes over $250,000 a year should be punished for earning that much. Because now those that are successful have gotten even more successful the need to be punished for who they are. They are different so punish them because there difference has gotten so great. And that makes since to you? Well, to each their own. I personally believe that because people are different they shouldn’t be oppressed. The path to equality is not made by punishing those that are different. Unlike you I don’t believe that what makes up a person is a reason to punish them.
Okay, this debate is going off on all sorts of tangents. This may take a while, but that’s okay. We’ll take them one at a time.
[— So, by your argument, the more you tax my income, the more I will be compelled to build plants and hire workers….hmmm. ]
That’s my argument only if you earn millions of dollars a year, which I seriously doubt. I’m also a small business owner and I don’t make anywhere near that, either.
Before Reagan cut taxes on the uber-wealthy, anything someone made over three million dollars was taxed at a rate of 70%. That took away incentives for these ridiculous salaries and bonuses. It was also good for sports because in effect, it imposed a salary cap. The working class could have an outing at the ball park without having to take out a loan. It also resulted in more balanced federal budgets.
[If a corporation makes 20 billion in revenue and the CEO makes 10 million a year in salary, I say good for him.]
If a corporation is profitable, the CEO’s shares in the company will appreciate in value. Generally, if a company earns that kind of money, though, it’s through risky activities, such as with AIG, Goldman Sachs, et al. Either that, or they’re engaged in illegal and unethical business practices (see Microsoft).
[What really troubles me about your argument however, is the presupposition that CEO’s and entrepreneurs are somehow inherently corrupt and solely out for short term self gain. ... This is a tragic stereotype of reality, and speaks volumes about your world view.]
I’m a realist.
These views I posted apply to large corporations. I’m all for tax breaks for small to medium sized businesses. They are the employers of the most people in America and the ones who contribute most to a healthy middle class. They are also the ones hurt most by Reagan’s and Bush’s policies.
Also, it’s important to note the rich is not defined as million but currently it seems anything over $250,000.
If a corporation is profitable, the CEO’s shares in the company will appreciate in value. Generally, if a company earns that kind of money, though, it’s through risky activities, such as with AIG, Goldman Sachs, et al. Either that, or they’re engaged in illegal and unethical business practices (see Microsoft).
Not all shares can be cashed out at the time of appreciation, hence high salaries.
Second, high profits does not equal illegal, unethical, or high risk. Such an accusation is in itself dishonest and, to take Nancy’s favorite slogan, Un American (innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers)
But, if that is the route you wish to travel please be consistent. Tell all your favorite politicians to stop accepting money from Google, George Soros and Warren Buffet as well. They all make huge profits therefore they must all be doing something illegal or unethical.
Interesting points. I disagree by the way that this is tangent. I am simply trying to assess your arguments on the merits of their detail.
> That’s my argument only if you earn millions of dollars a year, which I seriously doubt. I’m also a small business owner and I don’t make anywhere near that, either.
Why are market principles different for small businesses? They have less money most certainly, but profit incentives are largely the same.
>>Generally, if a company earns that kind of money, though, it’s through risky activities
Once again your presupposition is showing. There are many large companies who generate billions in revenue and profit from perfectly basic business models – they just do it in very high volume. General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin all make billions while strictly observing Sarbanes Oxley regulatory law as well as a myriad of of other Title 10 and Title 32 regulations and audits. Once again, if your are making too much money – you must be doing something dubious…right?
>>That took away incentives for these ridiculous salaries and bonuses..
Who determines what is ridiculous for each market? How about a talentless movie star who makes 23 million (more than most CEOs make in a year) for a 3 month movie shoot? I mean really, what is “ridiculous” and who gets the honor of drawing that line across multiple industries in an equitable way? Why do we feel like we need to penalize success when the market supports it? Again, your ideology is showing.
> >I’m a realist..
No, you are actually not a realist. You are an idealist that is frustrated by the reality of our free market system. You are frustrated because it is not “fair” and because it can sometimes be downright brutal. You are of the ideology that society owes people some type of fiscal parity and it bothers you when the “good” poor folks suffer while the “bad” wealthy folks take vacations. “From each according to his ability – to each according to his need.”
It sounds great to the proletariat, but in reality only creates mediocrity, stifles innovation and entrepreneurial risk, and creates bread lines and misery for everyone. By the way, a progressive tax was at the heart of Karl Marx’s model.
The trick to beating this frustration, by the way, is to understand that a free market only owes you “opportunity.” Nothing else. No return, no stability, no guarantees….just opportunity. Those willing to take the risk, have a shot at the reward. But it is still just a shot. It is that simple. Get your mind around this point and you will be much happier with our economic system, and less eager to tax success.
Appreciate the debate!
[Why are market principles different for small businesses? They have less money most certainly, but profit incentives are largely the same.]
That’s true. I was talking about tax policy, specifically that from before Reagan and that of after Reagan. B.R & A.R. Before Reagan, we had a federal debt of about 700 billion dollars. After Reagan’s two terms, it was about 3 trillion. We had a balanced budget after Clinton raised taxes during the 90s and a healthy economy. Bush in turn cut taxes and doubled the national debt.
Sometimes you have to get beyond your ideology and think about what is best for our country.
[There are many large companies who generate billions in revenue and profit from perfectly basic business models – they just do it in very high volume. General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin all make billions while strictly observing Sarbanes Oxley regulatory law as well as a myriad of of other Title 10 and Title 32 regulations and audits. Once again, if your are making too much money – you must be doing something dubious…right?]
Those companies exist primarily off of government contracts. They spend millions of money paid to them with our tax dollars on lobbying. Several of them have been convicted of illegal activity. What you have with the military industrial complex is corporatism.
[You are frustrated because it is not “fair” and because it can sometimes be downright brutal.]
Not at all. I just don’t want to see the end of our country as we know it. Our federal debt is going to hit 12 trillion dollars pretty soon. You right wingers like to espouse the greatness of a free market and low taxes, but the fact is, our country is in big trouble because of Reaganomics.
I am a realist. Our system before Reagan worked fairly well. With Reagan began the mass flood of our manufacturing overseas. We used to be the world’s leading exporter of products. Now we’re the leading importer. We don’t make anything here any more. How the hell is our economy going to recover without a manufacturing base? We’re at the mercy of China and other creditors to loan us money. We pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on interest on the federal debt. What’s going to happen if we get into another war. Where’s the money going to come from to pay for it?
We’re screwed.
Great debate, guys. Enjoying reading this. Not much time to respond.
But Ben, I do have one comment of yours that I was anticipating early on and that you ultimately made that I wanted to respond to with a question.
Your comment was:
“Fourth, at times when there is a large disparity between the wealthiest and the middle class, that’s a good indicator that the economy is unhealthy. That occurred back in the 20s and it occurred before the crash of our economy last year. One way to reduce the disparity is through a progressive tax.”
I have read this on a handful of liberal blogs, etc. I find it to be a novel fact, but I fail to see the linkage between that disparity and the ensuing crises in both eras. At present, it appears to be an unsubstantiated non-sequitor. Meaning, I do not know that I have seen any liberals establish a direct link b/w income disparity and the crises that resulted.
Above, in my hastily written post, I offered my views on this present crisis. Specifically, I believe artificially low interest rates caused the boom and bust we just endured. To me, this explains why there were housing and asset bubbles in other countries, similar to our own (even where those other countries did not have wage disparities similar to our own). It also explains the severity of the crisis and the reason market participants did not anticipate it (the government turned off the warning lights by keeping interest rates too low).
I really just fail to see how income disparity plays into this at all. I want to understand the A to B to C of the comment you made above.
In short, my question is, can you explain your position on income disparity as being a key cause of our present economic crisis in laymen’s terms?
[In short, my question is, can you explain your position on income disparity as being a key cause of our present economic crisis in laymen’s terms?]
I didn’t say it was the cause; I said it was an indicator. There seems to be a high correlation between large income disparity and debt, which means our economy is unhealthy.
Mr. Van Nuys did a good job describing how economies that maintained a low disparity in income still suffered through a collapse. Despite that low dispairty, the economy sunk. Correlation is not causation. Hence, it is not possible to say that income disparity is a “good indicator” of anything concerning economic crises.
And lastly, the definition supplied in your first post concerning “conservatism” is laughable and disingenuous.
Concur with the Big Easy here, Ben. At best in bringing this up, you could say income disparity is a symptom (i.e. indicator) of a bigger economic problem.
I’m not so sure I would go that far, given that other countries with much lower disparities have endured similar, if not worse, economic crises- Europe, for instance, in many ways may have been impacted worse then we were by this recession- Spain has 18-20 percent unemployment, by some estmates.
But if I did grant you that income disparity is a symptom, it makes no sense to treat “symptoms” as you would proposed doing by suggesting the following “One way to reduce the disparity is through a progressive tax.”
I’m not sure that would get us to the underlying problem of bad interest rate policy.
>After Reagan’s two terms, it was about 3 trillion. We had a balanced budget after Clinton raised taxes during the 90s and a healthy economy. Bush in turn cut taxes and doubled the national debt.
This is a completely unfair comparison. Both Reagan and Bush were wartime presidents. Reagan brought down the Berlin wall and spent the Soviets into the poor house forcing the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
Bush had to respond to the single deadliest day on American soil since Antietam. I would certainly agree with you that he did preside over the TARP and I strongly disagreed with him on that. However, much of the deficit prior to that was due to a just war.
Clinton basically had 8 years to focus on “fairly moderate” fiscal issues. Bosnia was on his watch but there is no comparison to what both Reagan and Bush had to face. To infer that tax cuts were alone the cause of deficits is inaccurate at best.
>>Those companies exist primarily off of government contracts. They spend millions of money paid to them with our tax dollars on lobbying.
Again, your contempt for business is showing. BTW these companies build the systems which keep our men and women alive. Had it not been for the innovation of these companies, many thousands more Americans would not have come home over the past 8 years. I know this first hand, as I spend much of my time as a “corporatist” over on that side of the world and use these systems regularly.
Also, you make a statement that is inaccurate. If you look at the Fortune 500 list there are many companies that are not part of the defense industrial complex raking in the big money. Many of these companies lobby (not a crime) and do quite well. Well most of them..
How about these:
WalMart – 405B revenue 13B Profit
GE – 117B revenue 17B Profit
General Motors – 148B revenue -30B Loss
(But now that the Unions and Uncle Sam own it, I am sure that they will turn right around…)
AT&T – 124B revenue 13B profit
I can go on but will save space. The fact of the matter is that these companies do well because they provide products that consumers want at a value. This is why they are so large, not because they are part of a government / industry cabal. BTW the defense industrial complex employs millions of hard working people, supports organized labor, and puts billions into the advancement of science and technology, so don’t be too rough on them.
>I am a realist. Our system before Reagan worked fairly well…
Ok, where to start… how about the National Misery Index!
Not sure I know where you are coming from on this one. Did you forget about Jimma? When he ran for office the national “misery index” was at 13.57%. As a candidate Jimma talked about this a lot. He regularly noted:
“no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President.”
In 1980, when President Carter was running for reelection, the national misery index was its highest since the measurement’s creation at 21.98%.
When Reagan left office 8 years later it was at 9.72%
The economy was strong, the iron curtain had been ripped in two, and Americans were enjoying the most prosperous market in decades. The deficit was there, but productivity would out-pace it if given a chance.
The bottom line is the worst times in American economic history were presided over by labor friendly anti-business liberal left wingers. (I do not count Kennedy in that mix. He was a Democrat, but not a liberal)
>We don’t make anything here any more.
Semiconductors … US$50.2 billion (4.3% of US total Exports, down 4.3% from 2006)
Complete civilian aircraft … $48.8 billion (4.2%, up 19.6%)
Automotive parts and accessories … $44.2 billion (3.8%, up 2%)
New and used passenger cars … $43.7 billion (3.8%, up 28.6%)
Other industrial machines … $38.3 billion (3.3%, up 17.1%)
Pharmaceutical preparations … $35 billion (3%, up 13.2%)
Telecommunications equipment … $31.4 billion (2.7%, up 10.8%)
Organic chemicals … $31.4 billion (2.7%, up 15.7%)
Electric apparatus … $31.1 billion (2.7%, up 4.2%)
Computer accessories … $29.4 billion (2.5%, down 18.7%)
Plastic materials … $29.1 billion (2.5%, up 15.6%)
Medicinal equipment … $23.8 billion (2.1%, up 5%).
Fastest-Growing U.S. Exports
Listed below are product categories for American exports that increased by experienced the highest percentage gains in 2007.
Business machines excluding computers … US$5.4 billion (up 99.6% from 2006, up 179.8% from 2003)
Wheat … $8.5 billion (up 99%, up 111.6%)
Sorghum, barley and oats … $1.2 billion (up 74.7%, up 82.4%)
Dairy products and eggs … 2.5 billion (up 64.2%, up 229.1%)
Oilseeds and food oils … $2 billion (up 53.1%, up 43.4%)
Nonmonetary gold … $13.3 billion (up 51.7%, up 178.2%)
Steelmaking materials … $9,9 billion (up 46.2%, up 281.5%)
Soybeans … $10.5 billion (up 43.5%, up 29.9%)
DVDs, tapes and disks … $4.9 billion (up 39.8%, up 55.2%)
Musical instruments … $2.1 billion (up 37.9%, up 103.7%)
Natural gas … $3.1 billion (up 36.2%, up 118.1%)
Corn … $11.2 billion (up 36.2%, up 94.8%).
This list represents only represents about 40% of our total US exports. Source – http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_american_exports_in_2007#ixzz0VvSOzb99
So, contrary to your statement, we make lots of stuff…and making a lot more of it than we used to. The US wagon wheel industry died because no one needed them anymore. Industries come and go and flexible free markets adapt and overcome. Our country had survived a lot, if it fails it will not be because of free market economics.
[Both Reagan and Bush were wartime presidents. Reagan brought down the Berlin wall and spent the Soviets into the poor house forcing the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.]
You’re speaking as an apologist here, Chuck. The Soviet Union was on its way down before Reagan took office and didn’t fall until several years after Reagan left office. And it’s not the Soviets that he spent into the poor house; it was our country.
Saying Bush was a wartime president is a load of crap. Our mission in Afghanistan should have been the equivalent of what Clinton did in the Balkans. But instead, Bush’s incompetency turned it into a major war. And we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Bush became a wartime president intentionally so he could advance his political agenda, which included major tax cuts for the rich. That is what caused most of our debt and resulted in the doubling of our national debt. Bush damaged our country far more than the 9/11 attack.
[Again, your contempt for business is showing.]
I don’t have contempt for business. I’m a small business owner.
[WalMart – 405B revenue 13B Profit]
WalMart has driven hundreds, if not thousands of small businesses out of business. They pay their employees so little that many of them qualify for Medicaid. They sell products made in China where workers are paid so little, they might as well be slaves.
I DO have contempt for WalMart.
[GE – 117B revenue 17B Profit]
GE is a HUGE conglomerate, a big part of which is defense contracts. They are also one of the largest polluters in the U.S. They have been convicted of misleading investors and of defrauding the department of defense.
GE is a trust that should be busted.
[In 1980, when President Carter was running for reelection, the national misery index was its highest since the measurement’s creation at 21.98%.
When Reagan left office 8 years later it was at 9.72%]
That’s true, but Carter inherited a bad economy, also. As a direct result of Regan’s policies, we had massive budget deficits and the Savings and Loan scandal that cost the public about 125 billion dollars.
But the real question is, how much did Reagan’s policies contribute to the mild recovery our country experienced during the 80s. Some of that can be attributed to the mini tech boom at the time. The PC was introduced around 1980 and the VCR gained in popularity during Reagan’s tenure. The oil industry was fairly big in the early 80s, also.
[The bottom line is the worst times in American economic history were presided over by labor friendly anti-business liberal left wingers. (I do not count Kennedy in that mix. He was a Democrat, but not a liberal)]
How can you say that? What about the economic boom of the Clinton years? And Kennedy, by today’s standards, was a bleeding heart liberal. Eisenhower was also. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of a military industrial complex.
As far as the stuff we make, we’ll sure, when I said we don’t make anything I was speaking in relative terms. Compared to before Reagan, we don’t make anything. Just try to buy something made in the U.S. any more. It’s not easy.
I think this touches on a big difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives like to say how great our country is. Liberals want to make our country even better.
And it’s not the Soviets that he spent into the poor house; it was our country
Not sure how you can make this argument and yet support the current president in his endevours to spend more than Reagan and Bush combined. I can only conclude that it isn’t the spending that bothers you, but the object of the spending, or at least the Party in the White House that signs off on it (as Congress holds the power of the purse and Democrats were in control of Congress during the Reagan years).
Mr. Obama takes what he called a terrible deficit of about 450 billion and turns it into a deficit of almost 2 trillion with future projections equally stagering, yet this is supposed to be the way to go? You can’t have it both ways.
What about the economic boom of the Clinton years?
It is disengenous to credit Mr. Clinton for economic success when he followed similar free market principles of those you detest. Reagan presided over an historic economic recovery… an economy when viewed via inflation adjusted DOW Jones values which were equal to 1933 levels. Reading this site, there are some good articles on just such topics discussing party and economics: http://americanmissive.com/2008/10/26/capitalism-is-a-failure/
Conservatives like to say how great our country is. Liberals want to make our country even better.
Again this is terribly disingenuous and a very odd thing to say after spending the entire post blasting America and half its citizens as corrupt, fraudulant, and evil in need of busting or imprisonment.
Something I have yet to understand is why the attack on Walmart and not Target or K-Mart? All of these stores have super centers. Small Businesses employ more people than all these stores combined and every entrepreneur knows not every small business will succeed. Why blame just the one? Is it because it’s an easier target now that the old man in the trailer has died, or is the red circle with a dot in the middle too hypnotic?
How much extra above what you have to pay in taxes do you give to the government? You know you can send in more if your feeling guilty for earning to much. Instead of hoping the government steals from others instead. Perhaps if more liberals paid a higher tax rate that would solve the problem. I would vote for that anybody that is a registred democrat has to pay 20% extra on whatever their tax rate is.
That is just as fair as saying anybody that earns X amount of dollars has to pay taxes. Stealing is a crime. Punishing people for being different is bigotry. It’s amazing how you logically try to stand up for what is “fair” when fair is defined as stealing and bigotry. Yet when Chuck tries to stand up for two War time president’s you disregard this with a “load of crap” comment. Saying Bush should have done a police action for a declaration of war from Afghanistan and the Taliban. Perhaps he should have repeated the soviets activities their only a few decades earlier.
Regardless of what liberals want to make our country it’s not the ends that justify the means. Bigotry and thievery won’t make anything better. You can’t punish the rich and steal from people and expect that to solve anything…
I’m a conservative and I think this country is messed up. It has been since the civil war and the disgusting 14th amendment. You argue to punish the rich by taking their wealth and giving it to the government.
Yet you argue how the government under Reagan and Bush has wasted the money. I don’t completely disagree they have wasted it as well as liberals have wasted. Your argument of punishing one class by stealing from them to give to the government doesn’t contain any LOGIC. We need logic to make things better. This is what you’re missing. Just think about what you’re saying…
Ben,
There is so much wrong with what you have written above I do not know where to start.
I suppose the just thing to do is to make WalMart pay a penalty because they have low prices and the “free to choose” American consumer chooses to shop there. How dare WalMart be so successful! The nerve… No worries though Cap-n-Trade will fix their wagon. You got that to look forward to.
Big Easy is absolutely correct about Clinton. The reason that he enjoyed an economic boom was that he stayed the hell out of the way and let our market function as it was designed to. Good for him by the way. I give Clinton a lot of credit for being a sound moderate when it came to corporate regulation.
I will save the “just war” debate for another time and another post, but I would be happy to have it with you anytime.
Finally conservatives recognize that, even with its faults, our country is the greatest power for good and prosperity on earth and we are not ashamed to stand up for her. Liberals on the other hand latch onto the exceptions in our system and brood over them until they are too full of animus to see any good whatsoever. You criticize the right yet, when you have power, you seem to muck things up even worse. The sad part about it is, liberals never learn. You always go back to the same old broken populist ideology that history has proven time and again does not work. Liberals will never be happy until everyone around them is equally as miserable.
Ben – my impression of you is that you are a passionate and intelligent person. You are also very true to your liberal ideology. I think it is wrong (completely so) but I respect your zeal and passion for it just the same. Debate does make our country great, no one can deny this, and I have enjoyed this one….you are still wrong though.
[I give Clinton a lot of credit for being a sound moderate when it came to corporate regulation.]
My biggest criticism of Clinton is what he did with corporate regulation. He signed legislation that relaxed media ownership rules, which resulted in huge conglomerates controlling most of the media. He signed legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall and another that allowed commodity futures to be traded by speculators. That deregulation is what destroyed our economy.
[Ben – my impression of you is that you are a passionate and intelligent person. You are also very true to your liberal ideology.]
You conservatives always have to get personal with your “debates.” You people are far too emotional.
That deregulation is what destroyed our economy.
That deregulation led to the “the economic boom of the Clinton years.” In one post you praise and credit Mr. Clinton for the economic success and hoist it up as a model to follow. In the next you discredit him for the steps he took to acheive such success.
Emotional is one thing I think conservatives are far from. We don’t talk about being “fair” and differences between the poor middle and upper classes. Those are ideological concepts based on emotion and not logic.
[That deregulation led to the “the economic boom of the Clinton years.”]
No, the deregulation came in 1999 and 2000. The boom started around 1993 or 1994 and was driven by the advent of the Web and other technological advances.
Actually, the dot.com boom began in July of 1998 and lasted through April of 2001. It was this boom that lead to the massive increase in tax receipts and resulted in a Surplus. It was also the crash of this boom that lead to a decrease in tax receipts and eventually a deficit. Mr. Clinton lowered the capital gains tax in late 1997.
Visuals sometimes help: http://americanmissive.wordpress.com/files/2009/11/clinton-surpluss.png
No, you’re referring to the dot.com stock bubble.
The economic expansion began in 1991 and continued until 2001, but the first few years were a recovery from the deep recession we were in from the late ’80s.
Again, you’re refering to the stock market bubble and bust, which may indeed have been fueled by the tax cut, but also of the ease of online Web based trading. Without the stock market boom, the economy still would have seen enormous growth.
The NASDAQ is the tech market, that was where the majority of investment went. Under Mr. Clinton, it was the biggest boom. Again, yes, the “Clinton boom” was brought on by the internet and technology, a boom we now call the “bubble” but during Mr. Clinton’s tenure was known as the tech boom or internet boom. It was partially a result of a decrease in capital gains taxes, from 28% to 20% by Mr. Clinton. It was also a result of all the free trade agreements that Mr. Clinton signed. i.e. Mr. Clinton saw a “boom” in the economy by following the path of free markets. Hence, you can’t praise Mr. Clinton for his boom, yet detest the measures he took which allowed for such an economic boom. Those measures were deregulation. Deregulation of trading and capital markets.
The cut in capital gains occurred in 1997. How can you say it caused the economic boom? It did help cause the dot-com stock market bubble, which was not part of the healthy economic expansion since all bubbles eventually burst as that one did in 2000.
Had the capital gains tax been higher, we might not have seen as much speculation in the markets driven by irrational exuberance. Just as the dot-com bubble caused the recession of 2001, the housing market bubble caused the massive recession we’re in right now, or coming out of, depending on how you view the data.
As far as NAFTA, that led to the flood a lot of our manufacturing jobs to other countries. That’s hardly something to be proud of.
Ben, if you look at the history of the markets in that time, the cuts did aid the boom. The bubble was aided by many factors, not just limited to the processes you despise. In addition you have yet to show any policy similarity between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama that would have resulted in fostering the economic boom of the Clinton years other than party affiliation.
Secondly, you still praise the boom, despite the fact that it was brought on by a laisse faire approach to the markets (i.e. free market principles and conservative prinsiples, Mr. Clinton passed massive Welfare reform initiatives as well during this time which aided the economic boom) in correlation with fed monitary policy. Basically you can’t site the boom of Mr. Clinton’s presidency as good and then undercut everything which lead to, caused, and/or sustained it for an eight year period.
As for NAFTA, according to the International Monitary Fund, it has been a net benefit for this nation as well as for Mexico. But I guess I should hold that thought and ask, what source would you accept as credible? Do you think the IMF is a credible source for analysis of such treaties?
Here is the IMF report concerning the historical record of the story of NAFTA and Mexico in case you do accept the IMF as a credible source:
He thinks Reagan was soft on immigration even though Reagan was the one that made hiring illegal immigrants illegal in the first place. And that conservatives are to emotional in their debates even though he brings up completely emotional arguments like “fair” and the difference between poor, middle and upper classes as a reason for taxing or regulating one group.
NAFTA helped companies get richer and this of course is a bad thing (somehow). None of those monies ever got to the middle and poor and this is probably another reason why he want’s the government to oppress the upper class (top 5-10% or something). Liberals want to win the debate with emotion and by so doing get us to willing submit to this type of oppression.
Yep, you’re free to make stuff up and I’m free to ignore it.
You wrote.
The fact is Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and required employers to attest to their employees’ their immigration status.
I didn’t make that up.
You wrote (excuse me for excerpting).
These could be read in summary as, “The current system has made people wealthy let’s change that system and punish the wealthy for their power and influence with more progressive taxes.” Again, you wrote what you wrote. I only inferred what your response would be to the NAFTA regulation from your ideological and emotionally charged class discrimination and your previous definition of “war” on the middle class.
I’m not making anything up your only ignoring yourself as strange as that is…
>Yep, you’re free to make stuff up and I’m free to ignore it.
That’s what libs say when they’re getting schooled. You’re getting schooled, Ben. Sorry, buddy.
But thanks for coming back by.
No, I’m just not going to debate straw-man arguments or logical fallacies.
What national debt is a fallacy? Or is Obama a straw-man that has nothing to do with the national debt (even though he is president)?
Why am I not surprised at your take on Clinton…
I like how you left out the “you are wrong” part from your quote…anyway I enjoyed our encounter.
It is sad that you libs are too angry to even accept a compliment.
Cheers
“You are wrong” is not a valid argument. And I am not angry. I’m not even fully awake yet.
What does that mean Hoffman? That when you fully awake we can expect a single lucid argument instead of more of the breznhev party line.
Me neither, and I have been up for 7 hours….more coffee…
the economic boom of the Clinton years
driven by the advent of the Web and other technological advances
the dot.com boom [internet and technology boom] began in July of 1998 and lasted through April of 2001
Yes. I’m talking about the “advent of the Web and the other technological advances” which resulted in the fastest growth in US History, and eventually collapsed in the crash of 2001. That boom was what brought the surpluses’ It was the quintessential “economic boom of the Clinton years.” His work prior to that was to maintain free markets, not regulate as Mr. Obama has done. His lack of government intrusiveness in the market was a result of his colossal failure in his health care “reform” attempts dubbed Hillarycare, which occurred in 1993.
[Basically you can’t site the boom of Mr. Clinton’s presidency as good and then undercut everything which lead to, caused, and/or sustained it for an eight year period.]
The economic boom was caused by the tech boom. It wasn’t the result of any deregulation or welfare reform or tax cuts or whatever other right-wing talking points you have.
I’ve been watching this debate progress, but haven’t been able to join in. I think you are (partly) on to something there, Ben. I believe the technological advances of the 1990′s clearly played an enormous role in the boom of that period. But there were other factors at play as well. Clinton ran some pretty lean budgets in those years, placing primary emphasis on reducing the deficit above all else, to the chagrin of hyper-liberal advisors like Reich and Stiglitz. The purpose of reducing the deficit was to lower long-term interest rates, which were annoyingly high in the early 1990′s b/c of an inflation premium that bond-holders were demanding at the time (because of their fear of the impact of runaway deficits on inflation). Clinton gave up on government-financed universal health care and other big spending radical left-winger initiatives. Instead, he cut regulations, cut unnecessary welfare spending (which, as any good “right-winger” would predict, had the affect of reducing unemployment rates), etc. etc. Clinton was arguably center-right on economic policy and Arthur Laffer claims Clinton was a better supply-sider than Ronald Reagan. So of course Clinton presided over an economic boom.
Barack Obama most definitely will not preside over a similar boom. It is clear he does not trust free markets to produce positive economic results, relying instead on government control and regulation to achieve “fairer” results. Naturally, this will lead to distortions in the markets and the inefficienty distribution of capital. The primary and most obvious example of this will be General Motors, which should have been allowed to file for bankruptcy but was nonetheless propped up by the government for political purposes. Obama may succeed in creating small, short-term bubbles, but his deficit-bloating economic policies will be a burden on longer-term economic growth and my guess is our economy will underperform its potential for a decade as result of his fiscal wrecklessness. I’m still convinced we’ll see inflation blowing through the economy by 2012 and we’ll still have unemployment rates around 8 percent.
If the Republicans can find someone who is level-headed and can play to the middle, that person will pummel Obama in the presidential elections. Obama has already broken so many of his campaign promises that he will hardly have the ability to run a campaign as sappy as the one he ran last summer. Nobody will believe him.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. The short of it is, I’ve come to respect Bill Clinton’s economic policies over the years. Just ask Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Reich if they were left-wing, progressive policies.
[Obama may succeed in creating small, short-term bubbles, but his deficit-bloating economic policies will be a burden on longer-term economic growth]
And what deficit bloating policies might they be?
>And what deficit bloating policies might they be?
Two come to mind for starters:
-This health care reform in Congress
-The stimulus package cost $787 billion, which is being borrowed from abroad.
There are plenty more where this comes from.
Apparently you haven’t been keeping tabs. : )
Health care reform as a “deficit nuetral” package is a lie being force-fed to us by an ideological, liberal-led Congress. They have front-loaded the taxes and back-loaded the entitlements, such that over a 10 year horizon, it looks like it reduces the deficit. No serious commentator believes this thing will be deficit nuetral over the long haul.
Plus, how many people honestly think government will be able to cut-out $500 million from MediCare to finance this? Ending MediCare advantage is going to have serious political consequences and my guess is any attempt to do so will be overturned.
Obamanomics is a budget-busting massacre. He’ll double the national debt in 8 years, according to the CBO.
A pretty impressive reenactment of the George W Bush presidency, if you ask me- this time with a liberal slant…
Two come to mind for starters:
[-This health care reform in Congress]
They haven’t even passed it yet, and if they do, it won’t be implemented in several years, and Obama promised he wouldn’t sign it unless it was deficit neutral.
[-The stimulus package cost $787 billion, which is being borrowed from abroad.]
Most economists agreed the stimulus was necessary to keep us from plummeting into a full scale depression. Many also claim it wasn’t big enough. That money is creating and saving jobs as well as investing in renewable energy recourses. In addition, that money is spread out over five years.
You’re just repeating right-wing talking points. Obama isn’t bloating the national debt with spending.
>Obama isn’t bloating the national debt with spending.
Yikes! You honestly believe that?
Wow! You believe Obama when he says he won’t sign it unless it is revenue neutral! By who’s definition? The governments! Probably. Even the CBO admits it’s not revenue neutral. Yet, Obama hasn’t sent them back to the table saying he wouldn’t sign the bill they are working. That’s not nice to let them work under the assumption he’ll sign the bill only to then not sign it. I don’t see that happening. He’ll sign it regardless because he is a liar.
The stimulus package was not a stimulus package but a new spending bill that as you admit will go on for YEARS and probably MUCH more. And MOST economists don’t agree it was needed much less that more is needed perhaps some agree. Maybe some economist that thought the housing bubble was needed in the first place for example!!!
Second their is absolutely ZERO proof that the stimulus bill is creating or saving any jobs. That is party lines if anything has EVER been party line. Even the government on Recovery.gov pretends it’s only saved 640,000 which is like saying that they basically did nothing anyways!!! The fact that the money is spread out over many years means it’s even worse of a waste because by the time we’re hopefully out of this boondoggle we’ll still be spending money on the boondoggle. But I suspect they’ll keep spending money because why would they want to cut the money going to pay for the pretend 640,000 jobs they created thus causing 640,000 layoffs.
I helped oversee a federally funded abstinence education program that was cut by Obama. Guess what when the government funding was cut so were the jobs. Big surprise their I’m sure. This is how the real world works. When their is money to pay for those jobs they are there when the money goes away they go away. Simple logic. You can’t pay somebody with nothing. Yet, by saying the saved jobs one is saying that either that spending will go on indefinitely or that eventually people will pay people for nothing because the government said so meaning they really haven’t created or saved 640,000 jobs. They’ve only temporarily (for as long as they want to spend the 158 billion that created/saved those jobs so far) kept those people from being laid off or allowed them to be hired. To create a job you have to do something that creates VALUE. This is pure simple economics and business you have to create VALUE in order to create jobs. Logic not party line.
As for the investment in renewable energy resources please show me ONE renewable energy resource that costs less then coal, natural gas, or oil for the return in energy. There isn’t, which means the government is just speculating (i.e. gambling) with our money NOT investing. Investing is by definition when you get a return on your investment. However, instead of letting us choose what energy investments we want to make the government is trying (and failing) to do this for us. I figure this will turn out almost as good as Obama’s prediction of a 5 year 19,000+% return on his “GM” investment. Again, that is party line…not logic.
It is you that are using party lines and not Mr. VanNuys.
The economic boom was caused by the tech boom. It wasn’t the result of any deregulation or welfare reform or tax cuts or whatever other right-wing talking points you have.
Ben, thank you for this statement. The end refrain is nothing but a partisan cop-out which was slid in for whatever reason (sadly distancing your argument from a civil conversation). However, the initial sentence discredits any claim you previously laid at the foot of traditional democratic policies being a starter for the economic boom which occurred during Mr. Clinton’s tenure in office, the crux of my point. There is more in Mr. Clinton’s tenure in office to credit free market principles for the economic boom than there would be of a progressive, regulation heavy agenda. And your retort of placing the entire boom as a result of rapid advancement in a free market only supports the position.
I might disagree with Mr. Van Nuys concerning the magnitude of the impact of various instigators for the economic boom of the “Clinton Years” but I am fairly certain we are in agreement that Mr. Clinton’s overall free market policies supported and improved the economy during his tenure.
[However, the initial sentence discredits any claim you previously laid at the foot of traditional democratic policies being a starter for the economic boom which occurred during Mr. Clinton’s tenure in office, the crux of my point.]
No, you just made that up. I didn’t credit any policies for the tech boom.
But now that you mention it, Al Gore did introduce the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, which led to the development of the National Information Infrastructure and the fiber optic network that became the Internet as we now know it.
You credited Mr. Clinton as a labor-friendly, anti-business liberal left winger…
Chuck: the worst times in American economic history were presided over by labor friendly anti-business liberal left wingers…
Ben: How can you say that? What about the economic boom of the Clinton years?
Now, go back and read all the points I made. Mr. Clinton was not a “labor friendly, anti-business, liberal left winger”. Perhaps if this is all a miscommunication, you could have pointed out as much to begin with. Or, more to the point, not listed Mr. Clinton and the economy of the 1990s as a response to Chuck’s assertion, as it is entirely misplaced.
As for Al Gore’s Internet… sheeesh. The World Wide Web, the internet as we know it, was invented by English scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. The ground breaking research into the process began in 1958 with the creation of the ARPA in the United States. The first two connected nodes were in 1969 in California. It exploded in growth in 1996 and 1997 and was followed by the dot-com boom which was largely funded by increased capital investment towards the later part of 1997 and increased in 1998. The growth in use of the web was almost entirely a result of a lack of central administration and open protocols.
[The World Wide Web, the internet as we know it, was invented by English scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.]
You don’t know the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web. The Internet is the network. The Web is the protocol for transferring and formatting data to be displayed in a browser.
Said network was developed long before Al Gore.