PDA

View Full Version : Reagan's tax cut man sings a different tune



MiddleAgesMan
08-02-2010, 06:38 PM
David Stockman is singing a different tune today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

Ian McColgin
08-02-2010, 06:44 PM
The professional economist is a bit like the professional weatherman, so used to being wrong that he or she feels no responsibility for having theory have anything to do with reality. The economists I admire are really more, and they know this honestly, moral and political philosophers. They recognize that economics, like any normative study such as aesthetics or ethics, is really about values.

MiddleAgesMan
08-02-2010, 06:46 PM
First Stockman, then Allan Greenspan: "Let the Bush tax cuts expire."

Tom Montgomery
08-02-2010, 07:18 PM
This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

No kidding? :rolleyes:

Reagan and Stockman started this mess with their strategy of "starving the beast." It was precisely for that reason that I concluded, after voting for Ronald Reagan, that the GOP had become grossly irresponsible and so abandoned it. The GOP has become even more irresponsible over the intervening years. :mad:

Keith Wilson
08-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Mr Stockman has the great handicap, at laast if one wants a career in politics, of having become an honest man. The Republican party totally abandoned fiscal responsibility when they began believing (or pretending to believe) in supply-side economics, "starving the beast" and the tax fairy ("tax cuts pay for themselves"). An analogy: to lose weight one must either do more or eat less. Republican policy since Reagan has been to claim that exercising less will actually increase the number of calories burned, and to sit on the couch eating ice cream. This has been popular, for obvious reasons.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-02-2010, 09:53 PM
I'm suprised anyone is still pondering Stockman's current views. He recanted his Reagan era pronouncemnts a long time ago.
In the case of Alen Greenspan, I am not sure if he knows what a jonah he is. He was on Meet the Press last week and I couldn't bring myself to watch. The man has no shame.

C. Ross
08-02-2010, 10:30 PM
Actually...same song second verse. This is a twenty five year old story, for any of you old enough and attentive enough to politics.

Some might remember him being "taken to the woodshed" by Reagan after opposing the tax cuts. He quit in 1985, at the beginning of Reagan's second term. He even wrote a memoir, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.

There are a bunch of us Republicans still out in the woodwork who believe in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

SMARTINSEN
08-02-2010, 10:33 PM
There are a bunch of us Republicans still out in the woodwork who believe in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

In the wilderness, seemingly.

Too bad, because this is what this country needs.

Keith Wilson
08-02-2010, 10:34 PM
I do remember Stockman's troubles with the supply-siders. He may have been the one of the last genuinely fiscally conservative Republicans in a position of power.


There are a bunch of us Republicans still out in the woodwork who believe in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.And a damn good thing too. Now if you could just manage to nominate some people to run for office. . . .

Lew Barrett
08-02-2010, 10:47 PM
There are a bunch of us Republicans still out in the woodwork who believe in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Name 3 currently holding office (not including yourself)! :D And sadly, you don't hold elected office!

If you were running, I'd give you a vote. Move here and run for Mayor.

As a comment, I might suggest that not speaking up or speaking one's convictions is a pretty direct way of suggesting that the convictions hold no great importance.

James McMullen
08-02-2010, 11:23 PM
If Republicans actually stood for social liberalism and fiscal conservatism then I might actually vote for one again. As it stands now, though, I can't imagine ever voting for another Republican for any post of any sort under any circumstances ever again.

PS. I'm one of the younger voices on this forum and everyone my age or younger who isn't a know-nothing redneck agrees with me.

perldog007
08-02-2010, 11:40 PM
I remember the time I pulled the Communist party lever. The republican and democrat were equally shocking to my sensibilities. GHWB and Dukakis... So I voted for Gus Hall, American Communist Party. It was a protest vote for sure. SHUDDDUP LJ you were in short pants, I don't want to hear it!!! :D

That and the notion that on the Island of Brigantine N.J. circa back in the day having a vote counted for the communist party would cause a few meetings to be held :)

Captain Intrepid
08-03-2010, 12:11 AM
There are a bunch of us Republicans still out in the woodwork who believe in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Amusingly, the name for those these days that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, is liberals.

Gerarddm
08-03-2010, 12:34 AM
Well, Stockman can be a good guy now, but forever I feel grumpy about him because he told Reagan that the White House solar hot water system the company I worked for installed during the Carter era wasn't 'cost effective', and they ripped it out. Bloody hell.

C. Ross
08-03-2010, 12:39 AM
Name 3 currently holding office (not including yourself)! :D And sadly, you don't hold elected office!

If you were running, I'd give you a vote. Move here and run for Mayor.

As a comment, I might suggest that not speaking up or speaking one's convictions is a pretty direct way of suggesting that the convictions hold no great importance.


In the Senate, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, George Voinovich and maybe, just maybe, hopefully, Scott Brown. Richard Lugar on some issues and the old John McCain. Sen. Chuck Hagel gets a nod, recently out of office.

I'm less current on the House, but here's a few. Mark Kirk (running for Senate in Ill, which he probably screwed up by inflating his military record), Fred Upton (he was a protege of Stockman and took his old seat), Mike Castle. I had high hopes for Erik Paulsen. I'd have to google to find more in the House, and it's getting late here.

Governors: Arnold Schwarzenegger, and if I knew more about Linda Lingle in Hawaii and Jodi Rell in CT I might suggest them too.

The alumni society of sensible Republicans is very large. Many quit or lost seats between 2002 and 2008. I wish I knew what it would take to mount a counter-insurgency. Lew, I would be completely, hopelessly and utterly unelectable. But I am pretty active in politics and government, especially these days.

Tom Montgomery
08-03-2010, 07:14 AM
If Republicans actually stood for social liberalism and fiscal conservatism then I might actually vote for one again.

Unfortunately this is not what Dick Armey means when he says "Republicans should act like Republicans."

The GOP of 2010 is not interested in governing. It is only interested in dismantling. David Brooks characterized GOP thought perfectly when he said the standard Republican line that "government is the problem, not the solution"* is merely a form of nihilism.

*In a critique of a speech by Bobby Jindal.

C. Ross
08-03-2010, 08:02 AM
Milo- Of course! Good catch.

Kaa
08-03-2010, 09:39 AM
...economics, like any normative study such as aesthetics or ethics, is really about values.

Interesting. How does one study the empirical consequences of various decisions concerned with production, money, etc. -- is there a name for such a field of research?

Kaa

Kaa
08-03-2010, 09:41 AM
...I can't imagine ever voting for another Republican for any post of any sort under any circumstances ever again.

PS. I'm one of the younger voices on this forum and everyone my age or younger who isn't a know-nothing redneck agrees with me.

ROFL...

Kaa

ccmanuals
08-03-2010, 02:06 PM
Ross Perot. Now that boy knew his charts!

C. Ross
08-03-2010, 05:15 PM
I notice that you are the only Conservative economist who regularly posts to the Bilge. I also note that your opinions are either ignored or disagreed with by the bulk of the forumites on the Right.

Paul Pless is a conservative economist - I'm trying to remember where he got his degree but he really knows his stuff. And we still have hope for David G, an actual bona fide economist, who is so damn smart that he might sometimes pass as a Conservative.

My opinions are ignored for lots of reasons!

Mostly I post about economics because it's unrelated to my real day job and I won't get into trouble musing online about Keynes and Lucas and Prescott!

C. Ross
08-03-2010, 05:33 PM
Well, on the one hand... I really have no idea how it breaks down liberal/conservative. I'd enjoy seeing a survey.

My bias is that if you asked anyone with an economics degree the midpoint would be right of center because of people who self-select to study economics, but if you asked only academic economists the midpoint would be left of center because of the bias of academics and academic institutions to lean left.

I figure as long as Paul Krugman is the Poster Boy For Liberal Economists, conservative economists look absolutely brilliant and emotionally well-balanced in contrast.

C. Ross
08-03-2010, 05:50 PM
Oh man, sounds like a fun trip. Are you going through St Anthony Locks? If you do, let me know and maybe we can meet up in the gorge upstream from L&D 1.

Lady Cliff draws 3' 3". Charts say the channel is maintained to milepost 857.6 (which you already knew). It's just another short 3 miles to 694 and ten miles to the Coon Rapids damn, and marked on DNR charts as small boats only ... I wonder what kind of industrial scrap metal, keel scraping, hull puncturing junk is in that stretch.

When you were on the URS boats, did you ever churn up a car between Hidden Falls and Monkey Rudder Bend? A friend who lives right by Hidden Falls says the police are forever hauling out stolen cars that joyriders dump into the river at the Hidden Falls boat ramp...that's gotta be hell even on a towboat prop.....

John Smith
08-03-2010, 06:22 PM
First Stockman, then Allan Greenspan: "Let the Bush tax cuts expire."
I must have been ahead of my time. I didn't like Reagan's policies back when he was president.

For all those who believe we should not let the upper end income tax cuts expire based on the belief such tax cuts create jobs, where are all the jobs they've created during the ten years they've been in existence?

John Smith
08-03-2010, 06:25 PM
No kidding? :rolleyes:

Reagan and Stockman started this mess with their strategy of "starving the beast." It was precisely for that reason that I concluded, after voting for Ronald Reagan, that the GOP had become grossly irresponsible and so abandoned it. The GOP has become even more irresponsible over the intervening years. :mad:

If I may, I find it funny that today's conservatives go back, past both Bush's to Reagan in order to find a champion of their principles. However:

RONALD REAGAN, AN AMERICAN MYTH..
It’s interesting to note that today’s conservatives go back to Ronald Reagan as the president who best supports their positions. We’ve had two Republican presidents since Reagan that the conservatives don’t seem to ever refer to. Guess today’s conservatives don’t like their records.
I remember Reagan’s presidency. Those who now worship him as some Supreme example of they believe in, apparently don’t remember him so well. If they did, I don’t think they would like his record any better.
I remember defining Reagan as a president who practiced "sleight of mouth". He spoke in "headlines" but governed in "fine print. Yes, he "preached" balancing the budget. He did state government was the problem, not the answer, and it needed to be smaller.
Trouble is that the man never lived up to the myth. In fact, here are some things people believe Reagan stood for, but those beliefs oppose what he actually did..
TODAY’S CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN SHRINKING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT: REAGAN GREW GOVERNMENT.
From: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2007/06/comparing-presidents-size-of-government.html
"His is one of only two administrations to increase the number of federal civilian employees. (And please... I recognize that there are long term trends out there, but I don't see how anyone can argue that the Preznit doesn't have the ability to shrink the size of gubmint if he chooses.) If he really believed gubmint was the problem, why was he trying to afflict the rest of us with more gubmint?"
TODAY’S CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN BALANCED BUDGETS; REAGAN GREW THE DEBT AND DEFICIT DRAMATICALLY.
From: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ronald-reagan-the-bad-and-the/
"The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion. That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years. In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.
Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion.
Given the spending habits established by the legacy of Ronald Reagan the national debt is now a little over $7 trillion (http://zfacts.com/p/461.html)!
 
The interest cost on the national debt now runs about $318 billion (http://www.federalbudget.com/) a year! When Ronald Reagan took office they were about $53 billion a year".http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ronald-reagan-the-bad-and-the/ (http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ronald-reagan-the-bad-and-the/)
Today’s conservatives believe illegal immigrants should get no amnesty, just like Reagan.
From: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672)
"As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.
But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism."
 
 
TODAY’S CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN CUTTING TAXES; REAGAN RAISED TAXES SEVERAL TIMES.
From: http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1632/reagans-tax-increases
/ (http://forum.woodenboat.com/)/blog (http://forum.woodenboat.com/blog)/blog/bruce-bartlett (http://forum.woodenboat.com/blog/bruce-bartlett)
I see that former Senator Alan Simpson, co-chair of the deficit reduction commission, is angry (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/06/alan-simpson-blasts-antitax-critics/) with anti-tax fanatics for saying that he supported tax increases while in the Senate. Without checking his voting record, I think it's reasonable to assume that Simpson, like almost all Republicans in the Senate in the 1980s, probably voted for the many tax increases supported and signed into law by Ronald Reagan, which eventually took back half of the 1981 tax cut (see below).
It may come as a surprise to some people that once upon a time in the not-too-distant past Republicans actually cared enough about budget deficits that they thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down. Today, Republicans believe that deficits are nothing more than something to ignore when they are in power and to bludgeon Democrats with when they are out of power.

What does this say? Seems to me it says that those who hold the positions of modern conservatives, and think President Reagan was a champion of those ideals, simply don’t know what they are talking about.

Canoeyawl
08-03-2010, 11:59 PM
I must have been ahead of my time. I didn't like Reagan's policies back when he was president.

Hell, I didn't like it when he was the governor, and could hardly take him seriously when he ran for president. But you win some and you lose some, he's gone now.

MiddleAgesMan
08-04-2010, 06:17 AM
This day trader gets it: http://seekingalpha.com/article/218018-another-manic-monday-greenspan-finally-agrees-with-me?source=email

Some excellent cartoons are included in the first four pages.

James McMullen
08-04-2010, 07:49 AM
This one's specially for you slippery snakes.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/813-1.gif



In twenty years, voting Republican will seem as bizarre and antiquated as smoking inside restaurants or segregated drinking fountains.

Gerarddm
08-04-2010, 10:26 AM
"government is the problem, not the solution"*

That's another Reaganism that has continually driven me up the wall ever since I heard it. It makes my blood boil. The premise is that the government is some alien entity imposed on We The People to cruelly oppress us, etc.

Goddam poppycock. Of course, the government is you and me, and if there be fault it lies 'not in the stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves'. Or as Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

Asserting that government is the problem is ( to use another favorite conservative pejorative ) inherently anti-american.

Kaa
08-04-2010, 10:28 AM
In twenty years, voting Republican will seem as bizarre and antiquated as smoking inside restaurants or segregated drinking fountains.

Oh, good. So you have it made, the inexorable march of history is on your side, the deal's done. You can kick back and relax. I am sure you'll enjoy your single-party state.

Kaa

Kaa
08-04-2010, 10:30 AM
The premise is that the government is some alien entity imposed on We The People to cruelly oppress us, etc.

Power corrupts.


Of course, the government is you and me

Well, I don't know about you, but the government is certainly not me.


Asserting that government is the problem is ( to use another favorite conservative pejorative ) inherently anti-american.

LOL. So, what do you want to do about the anti-American people who assert this?

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
08-04-2010, 10:32 AM
In twenty years, voting Republican will seem as bizarre and antiquated as smoking inside restaurants or segregated drinking fountains.


Oh, good. So you have it made, the inexorable march of history is on your side, the deal's done. You can kick back and relax. I am sure you'll enjoy your single-party state.

Do not despair. The Federalist party no longer exists but its disappearance did not lead to a single-party state.

John Smith
08-04-2010, 10:32 AM
That's another Reaganism that has continually driven me up the wall ever since I heard it. It makes my blood boil. The premise is that the government is some alien entity imposed on We The People to cruelly oppress us, etc.

Goddam poppycock. Of course, the government is you and me, and if there be fault it lies 'not in the stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves'. Or as Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

Asserting that government is the problem is ( to use another favorite conservative pejorative ) inherently anti-american.

Sort of like "cutting taxes increases revenue". There are a lot of folks who enjoy pointing out some of the failings of government, and it has some. My problem is they act/talk like private industry hasn't had any failures.

We often forget the long list of things we enjoy because of our government; roads and highways, running tap water, parks, police, firemen, mail, libraries, schools, record keeping, courts, and a very long list.

Does anyone reading this really want to eat food that isn't held to some standard?

Tom Montgomery
08-04-2010, 10:35 AM
Well, I don't know about you, but the government is certainly not me.

Well... there's your problem, right there.

Surely you are not one of the contemporary U.S. majority who bitch but do not participate?

So you do not endorse the phrase "We the People?"

John Smith
08-04-2010, 10:39 AM
Power corrupts.



Well, I don't know about you, but the government is certainly not me.



LOL. So, what do you want to do about the anti-American people who assert this?

Kaa

To put all of this in honest terms, most laws are passed as the result of a perceived need.

Frequently the reaction of government is "knee jerk", because the reaction of people is frequently "knee jerk", and the people in government are, just that, people. Sadly, money holds a great deal of influence on the people who are supposed to represent us.

When we see members of one party author legislation, motivated by a desire to help the country, only to vote against their own legislation in order to help their party, we see their loyalty to their party take a higher priority than their loyalty to the nation, and we are in trouble.

I would love to eliminate parties altogether, but I have no idea how. I've voiced an idea or two on how to get to a multi party friendly system, which I'd support, but I don't think more parties will make the system better. In fact, more parties will, IMO, make the need for money even greater, and we'd find ourselves simply voting for the lesser of a greater number of evils.

Kaa
08-04-2010, 10:53 AM
Well... there's your problem, right there.

Surely you are not one of the contemporary U.S. majority who bitch but do not participate?

So you do not endorse the phrase "We the People?"

What do you mean, "endorse the phrase"? It sounds nice, but my point is about myself, not about the people (or the People).

But no, I do not think the government represents me, much less *is* me. Yes, it's my problem right here. Unfortunately I don't think anything can be done about it as my values, thinking, and preferences are minority values, thinking, and preferences and so the chances of an elected government agreeing with me are quite low :-)

I do not think that voting automatically makes the government "your" government. Especially when the choices available are... not all that adequate.

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
08-04-2010, 10:55 AM
I did not use the word "vote." I quite deliberately used the word "participate."

I think your view is shocking for an American. It leads me to believe you, as well as those who share your viewpoint, are part of the problem.

Kaa
08-04-2010, 11:02 AM
I did not use the word "vote." I quite deliberately used the word "participate."

I have many more problems with the Federal government than I have with my local government. How do you suggest I participate and what the likely effectiveness will be?


I think your view is shocking for an American. It leads me to believe you, as well as those who share your viewpoint, are part of the problem.

So you're shocked, positively shocked? :D Well, the same question to you as to Gerarddm -- what do you want to do about people like me?

Kaa

John Smith
08-04-2010, 11:04 AM
What do you mean, "endorse the phrase"? It sounds nice, but my point is about myself, not about the people (or the People).

But no, I do not think the government represents me, much less *is* me. Yes, it's my problem right here. Unfortunately I don't think anything can be done about it as my values, thinking, and preferences are minority values, thinking, and preferences and so the chances of an elected government agreeing with me are quite low :-)

I do not think that voting automatically makes the government "your" government. Especially when the choices available are... not all that adequate.

Kaa

Our representatives are not supposed to govern in accordance with the will of the people. If that were the case, we'd just do everything by referendum. They are "supposed" to vote on our behalf, based upon having more data than we do.

If they vote as you wish, contrary to the polls, they are "heroes". If they go with the polls, against your wishes, "they're putting their fingers in the wind". Kind of a lose/lose.

They are supposed to uphold the constituion. I'm not sure they've all read it.

Tom Montgomery
08-04-2010, 11:05 AM
I have many more problems with the Federal government than I have with my local government. How do you suggest I participate and what the likely effectiveness will be?

I'm not inclined to give you a civics lesson. Citizenship in a Representative Democracy carries certain implied responsibilities. But no one can force another to behave responsibly.


So you're shocked, positively shocked? :D Well, the same question to you as to Gerarddm -- what do you want to do about people like me?

Ignore them.

John Smith
08-04-2010, 11:07 AM
I have many more problems with the Federal government than I have with my local government. How do you suggest I participate and what the likely effectiveness will be?



So you're shocked, positively shocked? :D Well, the same question to you as to Gerarddm -- what do you want to do about people like me?

Kaa

Actually, it's your right to not participate or vote. I've always thought that voting gives you the right to complain.

I agree that it's impossible to get our government to represent my beliefs: taxing churches, legalizing drugs/gambling/prostitution, etc.

Kaa
08-04-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm not inclined to give you a civics lesson.

Heh.


Ignore them.

Oh, good -- the ignore button is right over there -- go for it!

But don't forget to wonder why the participation in politics is low and trending lower. It goes nicely with lecturing others about virtue, civics, and the responsibility of a citizen...

Kaa

Kaa
08-04-2010, 11:18 AM
AI've always thought that voting gives you the right to complain.

I always thought the reverse. If you vote, you accept the system and participate in it -- which means you have NO right to complain since you've accepted and participated. On the other hand, if you reject the system and inadequate and don't participate, you right to complain is untarnished.

Kaa

James McMullen
08-04-2010, 02:56 PM
-- what do you want to do about people like me?


Take away their guns and send them to re-education camps! Do it! Do it now!

Kaa
08-04-2010, 02:58 PM
Take away their guns and send them to re-education camps! Do it! Do it now!

:D *runs away from the black helicopters*

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
08-04-2010, 04:50 PM
...don't forget to wonder why the participation in politics is low and trending lower. It goes nicely with lecturing others about virtue, civics, and the responsibility of a citizen...

I do not wonder why participation in politics is low and trending lower. Over the last thirty years the extremes on both ends of the political spectrum have turned off the majority of U.S. citizens in the middle. They have opted out. That is why Washington politics has become so polarized: the only people participating are those highly motivated people and organizations on the two extremes.

I cannot fathom how cynicism such as yours can provide a solution to that problem.