Supply Side Economics Has Been an Epic Failure

WTF, how does that even apply to the current discussion? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

central planning is central planning. Don't give me this shit about freedom to make money and then make rules telling me how and what I can spend it on! If you are gay and make all the money in the world and thedalilama can't spend it on the homo of hs choosing....I ask you, how free is the lama?

What would you rather have...a big dick and no pussy,or a pile of pussy and no dick? One without the other makes no sense to me

I'm not making any rules, I agree with you. Birth control would definitely be a part of central planning. Maybe I was a bit hasty, but I think the point was about economic central planning as was the case in the old Soviet Union. Taking abortion out of it, what are your thoughts on central planning?

The statistics are typical of crony-capitalist states. And really, TTH, the NYTimes? An authority? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It is America's newspaper of record. However, if you will notice, the ratings were not generated by the NYT, but by Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation, based on data complied by the OECD. To my knowledge, the OECD is pretty much THE resource for this sort of data.

Taking abortion out of it, what are your thoughts on central planning? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The government is suppossed to make the rules that we all think they are fair. That is wtf we struggle with....ARE THESE FAIR RULES. As William Shakey said, That is the question.

If you call that central planning then all forms of government are central planning in one form or other.

I no more care for the state telling me wtf I can do than the Federal Government.

All I am saying is that there is not a huge difference between parties when it comes down to it. The so called conseratives spend just like the so called liberals.

I disagree. It is impossible to make rules based on what we think is fair, because no one can determine what we think is fair. We started with simple principles, such as people should pretty much be left alone unless they are harming someone else.

And except for national defense and the post office, I oppose almost all central planning. That is what the states and individuals are for, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, but nobody cares about the Constitution anymore.

And the NYT is a slanted leftist fish wrap. Newspaper of record? Puh-LEEZ! But that doesn't change the fact that the statistics reflect a crony-capitalist state, not a capitalist state.

And except for national defense and the post office, I oppose almost all central planning. That is what the states and individuals are for, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, but nobody cares about the Constitution anymore.

.. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you want the State Government telling you what to do instead of the Federal Government?

Boy without that Federal Government how would you get a pipeline frome one end of the country to the next or highway?

I disagree. It is impossible to make rules based on what we think is fair, because no one can determine what we think is fair.. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I was mostly talking about taxes....so you think taxes are fair as is? Wait according to wtf you said you do not think they are legal?

WTF, set up a strawman, and knock it down. Good job. You know what I meant. And cross boundary pipelines is one of the few things that actually does fall under the commerce clause.

No. Our tax code defies any definition of fairness, and it is illegal, as well as immoral.

WTF, you can do better than this.

No I can not! LOL

Supply-side economics has generally been interpreted to mean a belief system holding, among other things, that tax cuts generally result in more revenue, or at least limit revenue losses to the extent that the resultant increase in economic growth is a good bargain. As an unfortunate consequence, some politicians have a tendency to disingenuously claim that tax cutting is good policy always and everywhere, no matter the circumstances regarding the current fiscal position.

However, I think a couple of points should be made here:

The facts are as clear as the nose on your face. Not only has this bastard-child of an economic scheme been responsible for the bulk of the U.S. debt over the last three decades, which the vaunted defenders of the faith fail to even acknowledge, it has been responsible for the biggest upward redistribution of wealth in this country since the 1800s – the time of the great land barons. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I am not a "vaunted defender of the faith." But how in the world did you come to the conclusion that anything done under the general rubric of "supply-side economics" has anything at all to do with the widening income inequality we've seen over the last few decades? Multiple rounds of tax-cutting since the early 1980s have lessened the tax burden on the middle class, not increased it. And taxes on the wealthy have been increased, not decreased, starting with the tax reform of 1986. (Here it's important to note that I said wealthy, not just affluent.)

To wit:

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/artic...d=taxes-filing

Note this key excerpt:

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

"Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president's re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas," wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

(End of excerpt.)

Reagan tripled the deficit- inflation rose, but I guess he gets a pass- also at the same period during Reagan's term UE rate went up and it didn't go down until 2nd term Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You might want to become better acquainted with the facts.

The reason Reagan "gets a pass" on inflation is that he didn't create it. It got badly out of control in the late '70s, and it was actually a Carter choice for Fed chair (Volcker in '79) that finally set the stage for the quashing of inflation. Reagan merely continued to let Volcker do his work -- tightening the money supply and causing a severe recession, but the action was necessary in order to crush inflation, which had more or less abated by 1983.

The reason that the unemployment rate went up (peaking in 1982) was the aforementioned action taken to crush inflation. By the second half of Reagan's first term, the economy began growing rapidly and creating a large number of jobs.

Reagan's failure was that government spending still rose on his watch, although at a very much slower rate than over the last 10 years.

...Not only has this bastard-child of an economic scheme been responsible for the bulk of the U.S. debt over the last three decades... Originally Posted by BigLouie

Completely wrong.

The rapid rise in government spending is what's primarily responsible for the bulk of our large accumulation of debt.

Completely wrong.

The rapid rise in government spending is what's primarily responsible for the bulk of our large accumulation of debt. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That is not completely wrong.

The rise in spending is because some folks(such as Dick Cheney) got from Reagan that debt does not matter.

Why on earth anyone got that, I will never know. (Probably because they will be dead or close to it when it comes the day of reckoning LOL)

As you stated earlier, there are folks that think cutting taxes always result in more revenue. They do not understand just what the Laffer curve states.

It's still Reagan's fault. We had a balanced budget AFTER Reagan, so that leaves us with Bush 43 and Obama. Right now, Obama is trying his best to prove that he can spend faster and more than Bush. I think he's winning.

That is not completely wrong.

The rise in spending is because some folks(such as Dick Cheney) got from Reagan that debt does not matter.

Why on earth anyone got that, I will never know. (Probably because they will be dead or close to it when it comes the day of reckoning LOL)

As you stated earlier, there are folks that think cutting taxes always result in more revenue. They do not understand just what the Laffer curve states. Originally Posted by WTF

Cheney did in fact say Reagan proved that "deficits don't matter." (Although Reagan "proved" no such thing.) The fact that spending increases and tax cuts were sought simultaneously, among other things, prompted then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to resign.

But my point was that "supply-side economics" is not responsible for the "bulk" of the huge debt increases we've incurred. That's plainly true. So stating otherwise is completely wrong. (Unless, of course, one has an unusual interpretation of the phrase "the bulk of.")

Right now, Obama is trying his best to prove that he can spend faster and more than Bush. I think he's winning. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yup.

It took GWB eight years to increase the annual rate of government spending by about a trillion bucks. Since Obama took office, federal spending (annualized) has gone up by about $700 billion. If he isn't going to end up with a worse fiscal record than Bush, he'd better start making some tough, responsible decisions very soon.

So far, he's shown no inclination to do any such thing.

It took GWB eight years to increase the annual rate of government spending by about a trillion bucks. Since Obama took office, federal spending (annualized) has gone up by about $700 billion. If he isn't going to end up with a worse fiscal record than Bush, he'd better start making some tough, responsible decisions very soon.

So far, he's shown no inclination to do any such thing. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I always respect your views on financial matters, CM, but I think you are forgetting one very important factor in your analysis.

What you are overlooking is the quality of expenditures made by the government when you look only at dollar numbers.

It was extremely poor judgment by Bush to spend over a trillion dollars of this country's treasure on an elected, unfunded and idiotic war to dig out WMDs that existed only in his misguided head.

That is spending the nation's treasure as foolishly as you possibly can.

On the other hand, when as a result of the mess made by the previous administration you find that the economy is rapidly going to hell in a hand basket, spending money to ramp up the economy is wise.

Now, I will be the first to admit that the stimulus money was not spent as judiciously as it should have, but when you suddenly find yourself with a badly injured patient then you have to administer messy triage right there on the field of battle where you find him before you lose him altogether.

Fast Gunn, what stimulus projects were "Quality expenditures"?