PDA

View Full Version : spreading the wealth around



Grizz_
10-25-2008, 10:45 AM
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-carter-spread-wealth.html


What were the results of Carter's "wealth-spreading" policies?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SQMzB8WLATI/AAAAAAAANZU/x3kg2Mkzdnw/s400/081025-carter-inflation.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SQMzB8WLATI/AAAAAAAANZU/x3kg2Mkzdnw/s1600-h/081025-carter-inflation.jpg)Inflation rose dramatically, nearly touching 15% by 1980.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SQMzC5cSyiI/AAAAAAAANZs/bwQ6z2R9mO8/s400/081025-carter-unemployment.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SQMzC5cSyiI/AAAAAAAANZs/bwQ6z2R9mO8/s1600-h/081025-carter-unemployment.jpg)Unemployment rose to 11% shortly thereafter. The economy didn't return to health until President Reagan spearheaded lower tax rates.

The history is clear: oppressive tax rates for the "rich" (really, just businesspeople small and large) is disastrous for employment and wounds the economy.


gotta love it, spreading it around, eh?

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-25-2008, 11:10 AM
Grizz, I was around at the time. Inflation did pop up on Carter's watch. Most of it was due to to the bills run up during the Vietnam War. Carter was advised by Paul Volker the only answer was to raise interest rates till the threat was gone. Carter, being plenty smart, knew it would tarnish his presidency but he allowed Volker to do it. Carter didn't win any friends but he did squeeze inflation out of the system.
The first couple of years of Reagen's term were one long recession. His answer was to cut taxes and open the spigot on defense spending. The recession faded because of all the federal money being pumped into the economy (very Keynesian for a hard-right politician wasn't it?) but the bill was a $300 billion deficite. Whether or not that was an acceptible trade-off depends on your political point of view. All Reagen did was to patch up the problem and pay on the installment plan. The voters liked that and elected him a second time.

mdh
10-25-2008, 11:21 AM
Reagan also tried to cut spending, asked for the line item veto to do it, and the demos would have no part of it.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-25-2008, 12:58 PM
Reagan also tried to cut spending, asked for the line item veto to do it, and the demos would have no part of it.

That's a canard. He wanted to cut stuff that wasn't to his personal liking. That would give him power over the entire federal purse. No president is supposed to have that power. The Constitution of the United States says so. "Original intent" and all that!
So he did what he could. He gave the Pentagon assurances that he would feed them to the limit of their desires even tho' we weren't in or even near a war. Debt or no debt the Pentagon got all the boondoggles it wanted. They were still coming to light long after Reagen was gone from office. Things got so bad we even saw people close to Reagen getting sentenced to prison. Do the names Casper Wienburger or John Poindexter ring a bell? And good old Major Olliver North only got away on a technicality. The wrongdoing he admitted to before a congressional committee couldn't be used against him in a court of law.
Google up "Iran-Contra". It will keep you occupied for a long time and improve your knowledge of history.

mdh
10-25-2008, 01:56 PM
That's a canard. He wanted to cut stuff that wasn't to his personal liking. That would give him power over the entire federal purse. No president is supposed to have that power. .

I disagree. If something is deserving of funding, Congress can override a veto and fund it. Some state governors have and use this tool to control their budgets without much trouble. Without it you have to give every congressman a little piece of our pie, compounding the amount of money it costs, to fund a good program. If there ever was a need to amend the constitution, this would be the most beneficial to the cost of government.

I know my history just fine, I was discharged from the Army in 1978, and have been following politics and world events ever since. I'm not saying that I know or remember everything that happened, but I've got a pretty good grasp of history. It's always been of interest to me, though when reading it, you have to take into account the agenda of the writer, especially modern history. Some historians will even try to tell you Jimmy Carter was a good President. And Bill Clinton.

Scott Rosen
10-25-2008, 03:00 PM
Grizz, I was around at the time. Inflation did pop up on Carter's watch. Most of it was due to to the bills run up during the Vietnam War. Carter was advised by Paul Volker the only answer was to raise interest rates till the threat was gone. Carter, being plenty smart, knew it would tarnish his presidency but he allowed Volker to do it. Carter didn't win any friends but he did squeeze inflation out of the system.
The first couple of years of Reagen's term were one long recession. His answer was to cut taxes and open the spigot on defense spending. The recession faded because of all the federal money being pumped into the economy (very Keynesian for a hard-right politician wasn't it?) but the bill was a $300 billion deficite. Whether or not that was an acceptible trade-off depends on your political point of view. All Reagen did was to patch up the problem and pay on the installment plan. The voters liked that and elected him a second time.

I remember that too. I think you're slightly mischaracterizing what Volker did. He didn't raise interest rates. He lowered the money supply. It stopped inflation dead in its tracks.

Obama consults Volker regularly, and Wall Street knows it. Volker is the most ardent anti-inflationist you'll ever see. That might explain some of the dramatic sell-offs in the stock and commodities markets. The markets expect Obama to win and are discounting possible deflationary moves.

Pugwash
10-25-2008, 03:15 PM
This is too cool.

"Spread the wealth"?

That's funny.

Everyone has been spreading the wealth upwards, for so long in the insane belief that it will trickle down.

Ha,ha :)

Didn't work for me.....

:eek:

Rick-Mi
10-25-2008, 03:56 PM
Do the names Casper Wienburger or John Poindexter ring a bell? And good old Major Olliver North only got away on a technicality. The wrongdoing he admitted to before a congressional committee couldn't be used against him in a court of law.
Google up "Iran-Contra". It will keep you occupied for a long time and improve your knowledge of history.


Don't need to google up an event I'm already familiar with. Not widely known by the ignorant masses, the heart of the issue was congressional democrats preventing support of the Contras who were putting their lives on the line as freedom fighters against communist rule in Nicaragua. Yes, hard as it is to fathom, the democrats supported the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in direct opposition to those fighting for democracy. Which begs the question, why are democrats so frequently on the wrong side of an issue?

"There is nothing new under the sun"


.

johnw
10-25-2008, 04:00 PM
High oil prices also pushed inflation upward during the Carter administration.

As for which party produces better economic results, you might take a look at this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php

McCain seems to think the 'spread the wealth' line is a winner for him, as is calling Obama a socialist. Fox News polling makes it look unlikely he's correct:

"Most Democrats think spreading the wealth is a good idea (66 percent) and most Republicans think it is a bad idea (72 percent). Independents split 47 percent good idea and 41 percent bad."

Think about it. McCain is going around the country saying, in effect, 'my opponent promises two chickens in every pot. I say that's socialism'

What does the voter take away from this? 'Obama promises two chickens in every pot. I like chicken.'

Another tactic that wasn't thought through.

Rick-Mi
10-25-2008, 04:06 PM
Grizz, I was around at the time. Inflation did pop up on Carter's watch. Most of it was due to to the bills run up during the Vietnam War. Carter was advised by Paul Volker the only answer was to raise interest rates till the threat was gone. Carter, being plenty smart, knew it would tarnish his presidency but he allowed Volker to do it.


LOL, LOL, ha ha ha ha ha ha Jimmy Carter "allowed" Paul Volker to raise interest rates? That's a real Coke spitter!

Allow me to clue you in on a fact of life. The Federal Reserve as a private banking organization that exactly as it pleases with the president and congress assuming a genuflexing position.


.

Flying Orca
10-25-2008, 04:07 PM
the heart of the issue was congressional democrats preventing support of the Contras who were (...) fighters against the legally elected and popular government in Nicaragua.

Fixed that for you. :cool:

Rick-Mi
10-25-2008, 04:13 PM
Is it a surprise Flying Orca is also on the side of the communists?

Now all we need is Keith and Norman to chime in to complete a Marxist trifecta.



.

Flying Orca
10-25-2008, 04:16 PM
Rick, during the Nicaraguan debacle, I was on the side of the Nicaraguan people. They had suffered through Somoza's horribly brutal dictatorship and chose to replace his regime with the Sandinistas, who enjoyed broad support not just among the peasants but the working and middle class people of the country as well. Your country had no more business meddling in the sefl-determination of Nicaragua than you would meddling in the self-determination of the people of my country.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-25-2008, 04:21 PM
Which begs the question, why are democrats so frequently on the wrong side of an issue?

"There is nothing new under the sun"


.

In the case under discussion it might be because they didn't want to get involved in felonies like Weinburger and Poindeckster and North.
Ain't chu' ever heard of "law and order"?

mdh
10-25-2008, 08:15 PM
"Ignorance is bliss", must have been originally directed at democrats. In the early 50's, N. Korea was backed by Russia and China. In the 60's and 70's, N.Vietnam was backed by Russia and China. In the 80's, the Sandinistas were backed by Russia. Recently, we've learned that Al Qeada, Hamas, and Taliban are backed by Iran, who is backed by Russia and China. And then one of them calls the Nicaraguan election "legal". When's the last time you heard a democrat call either of our last two elections "legal"? Sheesh!

Flying Orca
10-25-2008, 08:26 PM
The Sandinistas may have been backed by Russia - they were certainly chummy with Castro - but the fact remains that their overthrow of Somoza was popular with the people of Nicaragua, and their government was endorsed in free and fair elections by the people in 1984. What possible justification could your government have for meddling with the democratically chosen government of a sovereign nation which had nothing to harm the USA?

mdh
10-25-2008, 08:36 PM
Other than the requests by the Freedom Fighters, the realization that the free and fair elections weren't, the Monroe Doctrine, I can think of only a few reasons.

Flying Orca
10-25-2008, 09:42 PM
You say "freedom fighters", the people of Nicaragua said "right-wing death squads". The elections were very widely observed and found to be free and fair. As for the Monroe Doctrine, I think it's hard to paint the situation in Nicaragua as having anything to do with European colonization; the Roosevelt Corollary is perhaps slightly more relevant to the situation. Problem is, a lot of people have rightly identified it as imperialistic in nature.

The American people fought a revolution to take control of their own country. It's a pity you can't seem to leave others to do the same.

LeeG
10-25-2008, 10:03 PM
I know my history just fine, I was discharged from the Army in 1978, and have been following politics and world events ever since. .


and yet you promote totally delusional concepts like the US ramping domestic production from 6mbd to 20mbd on 3% of the worlds reserves by discovering fields bigger than Saudi Arabia.

mdh
10-25-2008, 10:57 PM
I didn't see it as a strict adherence to Monroe, but an extension or adaptation. The Sandinistas in concert with Cuba and Russia conducted free and fair elections. Right. One man's freedom fighter is another man's death squad. One asked for help from the US, one asked for help from Russia, his helps me with understanding the situation.

Lee,
Obviously, your reading comprehension lags behind your retention.

Vince Brennan
10-25-2008, 11:28 PM
Is it a surprise Flying Orca is also on the side of the communists?

Now all we need is Keith and Norman to chime in to complete a Marxist trifecta.



.

Comrades! I feel left out!

pila
10-25-2008, 11:46 PM
Interesting fact would be how many GIs were killed in all the wars since WW2. We didn't belong in Korea (my war) or 'Nam or most other "adventures" except maybe Panama because of the drug trade etc. Irac seems to be "just another war". Defense contractors love it.

Always waving our guns around where they don't belong.

Spreading the wealth around? we do it all over the world, like wheel barrows full in Irac to buy off the opposition.

Chip-skiff
10-26-2008, 12:02 AM
Bush Republicans have been spreading, hell, sloshing the public wealth around– if you make body bags, or cluster bombs, or surveillance gear, or supply fuel to the troops at inflated prices on a no-bid contract, or get huge tax deductions to shift your manufacturing operation to China, or like most corporations routinely cheat on your tax bill— then you're flooded with dollars.

It's sweet to hear the buggers who've been stealing for eight years whining about having their ill-gotten gains spread around.

Take a welfare mother to lunch.

pila
10-26-2008, 12:05 AM
:D:D

mdh
10-26-2008, 12:38 AM
Bush Republicans have been spreading, hell, sloshing the public wealth around– if you make body bags, or cluster bombs, or surveillance gear, or supply fuel to the troops at inflated prices on a no-bid contract, or get huge tax deductions to shift your manufacturing operation to China, or like most corporations routinely cheat on your tax bill— then you're flooded with dollars.

It's sweet to hear the buggers who've been stealing for eight years whining about having their ill-gotten gains spread around.

Take a welfare mother to lunch.

The plan doesn't seem to address any of these issues, except maybe the lunch one.

Chip-skiff
10-26-2008, 12:44 AM
It's an observation, mate. Not a plan.

Pay me Bush graft rates and I'll write you a plan.

Flying Orca
10-26-2008, 12:57 AM
The Sandinistas in concert with Cuba and Russia conducted free and fair elections. Right.

No, wrong. The Sandinistas booted out Somoza's ass, with Russian and Cuban help, because he was a brutal dictator who had suppressed the democratic process and was widely condemned by human rights groups. They rebuilt the country (it had been devastated by an earthquake) with Russian and Cuban help.

Their government was popular, but they were reluctant to hold elections (ostensibly, IIRC, due to the state of emergency after the earthquake), finally doing so in 1984. I'm not aware of the Russians or Cubans helping with the elections, which were monitored by over 400 observers from the UN and Western Europe, and were reported to be "not perfect (...) but fair." See, for example, the BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538379.stm).


One man's freedom fighter is another man's death squad. One asked for help from the US, one asked for help from Russia, his helps me with understanding the situation.

Yeah, the Contras asked the USA for help. Congress decided not to overtly meddle in Nicaraguan politics by helping them; Poindexter, North et al broke the law attempting to help them anyway.

Do you see the difference, though? Brutal dictator who declared opposition parties illegal, versus a popular government with a mandate from their own people? Why do you think it's wrong to overthrow the first, but you should try to overthrow the second? Isn't that counter to the principles on which the USA was founded?

PeterSibley
10-26-2008, 02:32 AM
The USA's founding principles are an inconvenient truth ...best forgotten .

Keith Wilson
10-26-2008, 11:09 AM
The fundamental argument in the first post is completely bogus. Carter did not raise income tax rates. The top marginal tax rate under Reagan was mostly much higher than it is now. The inflation in the '70s had a lot of causes, (energy prices, mostly) but high taxes were certainly NOT one of them.

Here's a chart showing the top mariginal tax rate inthe US, and the percentage of income going to the top 0.1% of the population:

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/income_top_0_1_marginal_tax.gif

mdh
10-26-2008, 11:36 AM
Once again, it depends on if you look at the whole picture or just a small part of it. Just as Obama wants to do, Carter was responsible for the Windfall Profits Tax on American oil companies. This had the effect of increasing energy prices, that hurt the lower income folks most. IIRC there was something of an increase in SS tax also. The only democrat likely to ever go down in history for lowering income taxes will be Kennedy.

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

paladin
10-26-2008, 01:15 PM
The Carter administration was near incompetent in many respects...they, more than anyone else, destroyed the large overseas market for U.S. technical assistance and products....

Keith Wilson
10-26-2008, 02:42 PM
Oh, I'm not defending Carter; his intentions may have been good, but his execution was pretty awful. I couldn't even manage to hold my nose and vote for him in 1980. However, Grizz's argument (such as it is), that the inflation of the late '70s was caused by "wealth spreading policies" (increases in income tax, or more progressive taxation) is bogus.

And as far as I know, Obama has proposed nothing like the Windfall Profits Tax, but it's irrelevant anyway; the way things are going there aren't any windfall profits. Oil is now somehing like $65/bbl and going down. OPEC is cutting production to try and hold the price up. I suppose it's the only good news about the economic mess.

stevebaby
10-26-2008, 07:29 PM
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-carter-spread-wealth.html



gotta love it, spreading it around, eh?Hmmm...who was in charge in 1973?
Not much difference really.

WX
10-27-2008, 01:06 AM
If you really want to read something disturbing on economics read this.
www. 129.3.20.41/eps/mac/papers/0203/0203005.pdf

johnw
10-27-2008, 01:30 AM
The fundamental argument in the first post is completely bogus. Carter did not raise income tax rates. The top marginal tax rate under Reagan was mostly much higher than it is now. The inflation in the '70s had a lot of causes, (energy prices, mostly) but high taxes were certainly NOT one of them.

Here's a chart showing the top mariginal tax rate inthe US, and the percentage of income going to the top 0.1% of the population:

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/income_top_0_1_marginal_tax.gif

This chart fascinates me, because of the way the income distribution is linked to the highest marginal tax rate. I'm guessing when the rate is high, people at the top take more perks and less income, getting the same status with lower tax liability. A corporate jet instead of a personal jet, etc.

High C
10-27-2008, 11:08 AM
Here's a pretty good look into Obama's views on "spreading the wealth around".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

High C
10-27-2008, 11:19 AM
That soundbite deserves a thread of its own.

Done

Tylerdurden
10-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Here's my graph and it makes more sense than anything Ling Ling will come up with on this subject. It shows who really is at fault too.:D

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c350/mudhutwarrior/swiss-1.gif