The Deification of Reagan

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Nixon eliminated Bretton Woods in an effort to pay for the Vietnam war and to fund the Great Society. Now who do we have to thank for both of those?

Since, the Keynesians have been running amuck. As a rule, the Republicans want to lower taxes while the Democrats want to spend ourselves rich...although it's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Stockman is correct in criticising the Republicans, which appears to me to be the point of his article.

Chas

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

[BlueStreak]

So you can't pay off your pile of maxed out credit cards by taking a lower paying job and cutting your income?

That's crazy talk, Finn. Where is your mind? Thought bubble--(Must be a communist...)

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

That's because everyone wants a tax cut, Finn. Just another way of buying votes is all it is. Reagan knew it, but his fans are a little slow to catch on.

Dave

[Brother_Karl]

Originally Posted by Charles

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

The egg came first.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm not sure that Reagan's actions with regard to taxation/government were consistent with his rhetoric. He raised taxes numerous times and didn't cut government spending. The Hannity/Palins of the world would have you think otherwise. Plus he introduced the notion of fees instead of taxes for a variety of things (e.g., national park admission).

I think Reagan's biggest legacy is supply-side (aka Voodoo) economics. Somehow he has convinced the GOP faithful that cutting taxes is the answer to all ills and that increased deficits/spending don't matter (or that they can be reduced by more tax cutting). We're in the pickle we're in for exactly this reason.

With regard to the notion that his military buildup helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, it's partially true, but only if you accept the fact that he did the same thing to us (only on a delayed basis).

I think that's a gross oversimplification/mis-characterization of the Reagan's actions in the political landscape of the time. But there has been an on-going effort to re-write this part of our history, so the comments shouldn't surprise.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess what bothers me is the GOP's religious devotion to Reaganomics. Any Republican who voices anything but absolute fealty to it is short for this world (until they retire and somehow magically get common sense (e.g., Alan Simpson))

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

In theory, reducing taxes and leaving more money in the hands of consumers and business to spend and invest will grow the economy and create a larger tax base, and therefore expand the public coffers...a smaller slice of a much larger pie. The basics of Reaganomics.

And a small part of the overall economic equation.

Actually, Reaganomics and Keynesian economics have become meaningless terms. Where the problem lies is with the fact that we can no longer raise taxes enough to pay for the spending which we can no longer afford.

Unless we cut spending, there is no way to balance the budget, no matter how high we raise taxes. Other than inflation, which is what we are in the process of doing, and have been doing, for a long time.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I think that's a gross oversimplification/mis-characterization of the Reagan's actions in the political landscape of the time.

I wanted to make sure you understood it.

BTW, David Stockman has been saying much the same thing for 30 years.

In 1985, he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt. He had tried to make this point within the Reagan adminstration for 4 years.

Even before that, Bush the Elder criticized Reaganomics as Voodoo Economics. Sorry, no revisionism here - just reminding you of the stuff that those who worship at the altar of Reagan have chosen to gloss over. What's that called? Oh, yeh. Revisionism.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

I understand that Greenspan was an advocate of a strong dollar...until he became chairman of the Fed Reserve.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think the disconnect of Reaganomics with reality is the misconception that somehow reducing the funds available to the politicians will somehow cause them to reduce spending, and we can see how well that is working out.

In theory, reducing taxes and leaving more money in the hands of consumers and business to spend and invest will grow the economy and create a larger tax base, and therefore expand the public coffers...a smaller slice of a much larger pie. The basics of Reaganomics.

And a small part of the overall economic equation.

Actually, Reaganomics and Keynesian economics have become meaningless terms. Where the problem lies is with the fact that we can no longer raise taxes enough to pay for the spending which we can no longer afford.

Unless we cut spending, there is no way to balance the budget, no matter how high we raise taxes. Other than inflation, which is what we are in the process of doing, and have been doing, for a long time.

Chas

Chas, I agree with almost everything you say here. Only lost me at the end. I do think we could pay for the programs we demand. We just chose not to. But for the most part, I'm totally with you. I'm curious, though, where you would look to cut- if you could just make the call an not have to worry about being elected.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep. "Starving the beast" only made him bigger and stronger.

I think it pissed him off.