Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: The Kansas Experiment
Source:
New York Times Magazine
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/m ... src=me&WT.nav=MostEmailed&_r=1
Published: Aug 6, 2015
Author: CHRIS SUELLENTROP
Post Date: 2015-08-06 10:33:01 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 6805
Comments: 32
When I think of my uncle Gene, I think of a man who, late into the night at a particularly boisterous family wedding, would flatten his palms against the dance floor, extend his body parallel to the ground and then begin to undulate his legs and torso in a move known as the worm. Or I think of how, even later that same evening, he would agitate for a midnight meal at a diner in west Wichita, Kan., called the Golden Bell. Or of how, in his more abstemious workaday life, he left the family business — a small bank based in Colwich, a town of about 1,000 people in south-central Kansas, where he grew up alongside my father and 11 other siblings — so that he could expand a chain of pizzerias, which grew to include 48 franchises in five states. But when you think of Gene Suellentrop — and you do think of him, even if you don’t know it yet — you just might regard him as a blight on the Republic. He is a partisan political warrior, which is a social type whose popularity probably ranks somewhere just above that of journalists, even for those who share his deeply conservative fiscal politics. And if you’re a liberal, coastal, cosmopolitan sort, at best you probably see him as a deluded if well-intentioned peddler of what the New York Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has called ‘‘right-wing derp, of doctrines that just get repeated (and indeed strengthen their political hold) no matter how wrong they prove.’’ Maybe you think my uncle Gene is an ideologue. Or maybe that’s another word for idealist. Gene is 63 now, and his worm-dancing days are well behind him. He has served in the Kansas Legislature for the past six years, the last four as an ally of Gov. Sam Brownback, who is best known for his crusading social conservatism, including an unwavering opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Yet as governor, Brownback’s fiscal politics may be more remarkable. In keeping with the state motto — ad astra per aspera, or ‘‘to the stars through difficulties’’ — Kansas politics have always been touched with a spirit of the avant-garde and the unorthodox, from popular sovereignty to prohibition and beyond. Today, thanks in large part to Brownback, the state is a petri dish for movement conservatism, a window into how the national Republican Party might govern if the opposition vanished. The 125 legislators of the House of Representatives include 97 Republicans; the Senate has an even greater percentage of Republicans, with only 8 Democrats among the 40 senators. With Brownback as governor, Kansas is in the midst of a self-described economic ‘‘experiment,’’ a project that, whatever you think of its merits, is one of the boldest and most ambitious agendas undertaken by any politician in America. Brownback calls it the ‘‘march to zero,’’ an attempt to wean his state’s government off the revenues of income taxes and to transition to a government that is financed entirely by what he calls consumption taxes — that is, sales taxes and, to a lesser extent, property taxes. This fervor for budget-cutting is hardly unique to Kansas. At the federal level, the opposition party in the White House has kept the Republican majority in Congress from making much headway. But there are 23 states in the Union controlled entirely by Republicans, from statehouse to governor’s mansion — 24, if you count Nebraska’s technically nonpartisan, unicameral legislature — compared with just six (and Washington, D.C.) on the Democratic side. In these Republican states, the combination of the Great Recession with the anti-Obama elections of 2010 and 2014 has allowed legislators to make deeper cuts to the size and scope of government than has been possible in Washington for decades. In 2012, according to a report by the Pew Charitable Trusts, state governments spent $9 billion less than they did the previous year — the first such decline in 50 years. Many of these cuts have fallen on education. In Pennsylvania, for example, Gov. Tom Corbett cut funding for the state’s public universities by 20 percent, a compromise from his original proposal of 50 percent. Last month in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker, backed by Republican majorities in the state House and Senate, cut $250 million from the University of Wisconsin system. As many tax-cutting states have found later on, the party’s deep-seated opposition to tax increases of any kind can make balancing the budget a high-wire act. In Alabama this year, the state’s Republican governor, Robert Bentley, vetoed a bill from the Republican-controlled statehouse that would have removed $200 million from the state’s budget, including 5 percent cuts for Medicaid, prisons and the state’s department of mental health. Instead, he called the Legislature into a special session and asked for more than $300 million in new taxes. The situation in Kansas was just as dire, if not more so. Brownback began the year by cutting education in the face of the state’s budget crisis, but he also proposed that legislators raise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The new taxes were part of an effort to close a staggering gap for fiscal 2016, estimated at $650 million in January, or more than 10 percent of the state’s $6 billion general fund. More urgent, the state still needed to cut about $300 million from this year’s budget as, month after month, tax revenues continued to arrive well below expectations. In January alone, the state took in $47 million less than anticipated. As Brownback saw it, these new taxes on consumption were necessary so that his priority — the march to zero on income taxes — could proceed. Uncle Gene is not an architect of the march to zero, but he supports it, and he is one of the legislators in the Kansas statehouse who has helped to enact it and to preserve it. He is the vice chairman of the Tax Committee in the Kansas House, and he also sits on the Appropriations Committee. There are more important figures — the speaker of the House, the Senate president, the leaders of the Tax and Appropriations Committees in both houses, for starters — in the statehouse, but Gene is in the next tier. He’s one of the people whose support the governor usually relies on to get something done, according to Tim Shallenburger, Brownback’s legislative liaison and a former speaker of the Kansas House. I called Gene in January, as this year’s legislative session began in Topeka. For a Kansan, and a Suellentrop, Gene is a talker, but if you met him you would probably find him a little bit reserved, although not taciturn. On this call, he sounded worried. ‘‘People are leaving Kansas,’’ he told me. The state has no mountains and no beaches, and thousands of jobs that were lost during the Great Recession, especially in Wichita’s aircraft industry, never returned. The march to zero, which includes an already-passed provision that exempts the owners of 330,000 businesses and farms in Kansas from income tax, was designed, Gene said, to turn Kansas into a different sort of tourist attraction. As he and his fellow conservatives see it, it’s an ‘‘open for business’’ sign, one they hope will draw free enterprise to the state, perhaps akin to the way the national debate over the expansion of slavery once drew young abolitionists from New England to the plains. At the very least, they hope it will prevent young people and existing businesses from moving elsewhere, to places with ski lodges or surf shops. A couple of weeks later, I landed at the airport in Kansas City, Mo., and drove an hour or so west to Topeka, where Gene offered to be a sort of Virgil on my tour. He would introduce me to the principals in the state’s budget negotiations in the hope of highlighting what he called ‘‘a different philosophy’’ of how to make a state’s government revenues match its expenditures. I’ve spent much of my life moving between America’s two political territories — between places like Topeka and places like Washington, Boston and New York — and generally found that neither knows much about the other beyond caricature. For my part, I hoped to be able to reveal Gene and his colleagues as something other than the monolith of monsters and morons that they’re so often taken for in the political conversation, perhaps out of disregard for the moral disagreements that underlie the American political divide. Poster Comment: Interesting (albeit lengthy) article revealing how blind adherence to conservative ideology leads to economic ruin.My uncle Gene is a state legislator in Topeka. This year, he and his fellow Republicans tried to do something pretty drastic with the state budget. And I got to watch the whole thing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green, liberator, A K A Stone (#0)
Well it sounds like his uncle has the above right. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
A simple campaign slogan as ideology. In the late 70s and early 80s the GOP conservatives came up with an idea that sounded like it was based on sound economic facts - that if you lower taxes it will mean the extra money people keep gets invested back into business and we have a boom. That is voodoo economics. This was coupled with the theory that if you have rich people keep more of their money they would invest it and thus also produce a boon to the economy. And if you raise taxed it will hurt the economy. All those theories have been implemented and failed. Clinton raised taxes and the economy was booming in spite of that. Bush, jr lowered taxes and the economy collapsed anyway. There is no correlation. One has zero to do with the other. But it sounds like a perfect campaign slogan and to Joe Blow Sixpack, who has no idea what economics are it makes economic sense like 2+2 = 4. Plus who wants to pay more taxes for stuff? Even though Joe Blow is demanding more stuff at the same time he does not want to pay taxes. Solution, lie to Joe Blow and tell him that by lowering taxes more taxes will be collected from a booming economy and we will pay for what joe blow wants while he pays less taxes. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The voodoo economics was actually Carter's failed economy. Reagan's supply side recovered the US economy. The weakness you seek is not in Reagan's supply side economics but the failure of Congress (and Reagan as well) to curb the ever bloating federal budget. Reagan was a politician and knew to get the economy going again and his policies through a House controlled by Tip O'Neal and the Dems, he had to compromise on some Dem pet spending programs. There's more to economics than what you are opining on. The Reagan economy created the boom that extended into Clinton's two terms. It was the supply side retooling of industry and technology which led to the good growth of the 80s and 90s. I always here this praise of the Clinton years, yet under his watch the tech market crashed (due to his admin going after MS et. al.) and at the end of his second term the energy industry went bust. But let's go back in time an we will find out that Reagan and GOP conservatives were not the masterminds of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy. It was actually this guy: Kennedy had campaigned on the slogan of “getting America moving again” (which the Nixon campaign staff had privately derided as the peristalsis plan). But, recovery from the 1958 recession had been very sluggish and unemployment remained perilously high—6.8% just after he took office. The Council of Economic Advisers urged him to attack unemployment with New Deal style spending but the president was worried that a large deficit ($7 billion) would be politically untenable in 1964. Unemployment did fall modestly, but it remained stagnant at nearly 6% well into 1963. The fact was that the New Frontier had been preoccupied with foreign affairs for three years and once the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was ratified, JFK realized that it was time to turn to the economy. The 1964 election was barely a year away and likely to be fought against an articulate economic conservative, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. In addition, JFK’s relationship with the business community had been uneasy from the start. His very public 1961 dispute with U.S. Steel president Roger Blough over an increase in steel prices had reinforced the business community’s suspicions of his motives. Kennedy had won the battle but lost the war—the price increase was canceled but U.S. Steel also announced that its new plants would be built abroad. By 1962, Kennedy’s domestic political fortunes seemed bleak. Unemployment remained high and the stock market had failed to recover after losing a quarter of its value. JFK also ignored the advice of key aides and endorsed efforts to enact medical care for workers over 65 under Social Security and risked his personal prestige by addressing a nationally televised “Medicare” rally in New York. By the time of the May 20 gathering, JFK knew the bill would fail in the Senate after defections by key Democrats, leaving him frustrated, furious and depressed. The president finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes. The battle over the tax cut and the deficit continued unabated through 1963. The House Ways and Means Committee voted a tax bill out of committee in August and the grateful president reiterated that lowering taxes was the surest path to full employment and lower deficits. Polls showed that over 60% of Americans favored the tax cuts. But, even with the public support of key business leaders like Henry Ford II and David Rockefeller, the Congressional log jam remained unbroken. JFK became increasingly convinced that domestic issues, the economy and civil rights, rather than foreign policy, would prove to be decisive in his 1964 reelection campaign. I'm a firm believer we will never agree on these matters. That is because you see the government has a right to a citizens' earnings and property. I don't. Taxes for the things we use which only government can efficiently supply (roads, bridges, other infrastructure, etc.) can easily be taxed by what is consumed. Use the road or bridge, pay a toll. Sales tax is a good way to collect these needed services as well. But that is all past. Both parties have a majority of statists who want American citizens (and non citizens) reliant on THEM for their needs. So the page has turned and the leftists have won. Frankly, I grew up in a house where by age 5 (Carter years) both my parents worked and my father at times (to send us to Catholic school) worked a second job at night or on weekends. So I don't know what rich folks spend their money on and why they need so much of it. So I cannot explain that dynamic. However, have witnessed some the greatest generosity from rich people. I've seen them build hospital wings, entire hospitals and pay for poor children to receive life saving surgeries and care. Not saying they all do this but that hardly ever gets mentioned. So if you and I are not for lowering rich folk's taxes, allow them to donate more if they want. As I said, I don't understand being rich because I never grew up that way and am not now. I guess if I had all that money I would probably buy a farm grow some crops, a few hundred head of cattle, a new pick up truck with trailer, and donate the rest to St Jude's Children's Hospital. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
By giving away Government Cheese?
Reagan lowered taxes and the economy tanked. No money came in. He raised taxed and the economy recovered and he borrowed a lot of money besides. I can live real well on credit cards that don't get paid off and are never cancelled if my minimum payment is lowered each time. There is no - none - zip - correlation between taxation and economic booms or bust. And supply side economics have never worked.
I am authorizing today the immediate release of 30 million pounds from the CCC inventory. The cheese will be delivered to the States that request it and will be distributed free to the needy by nonprofit organizations. The 1981 farm bill I signed today will slow the rise in price support levels, but even under this bill, surpluses will continue to pile up. A total of more than 560 million pounds of cheese has already been consigned to warehouses, so more distributions may be necessary as we continue our drive to root out waste in government and make the best possible use of our nation's resources. Ronald Reagan December 22, 1981 The government was hoarding food and Reagan released it. Sounds like he made good use of Carter wasting money. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Oh really? U.S. GDP growth in the early 1980s. The short recession at the start of the decade, followed by a brief period of growth and the deeper recession in 81– 82, have led to this period being characterized as a W-shaped recession. Red line is average GDP growth from 1947-2009 Notice above the sharp rise in US Real GDP growth rate in the mid 80s. He raised taxed and the economy recovered Indeed, he did raise corporate taxes but did not increase income taxes. But once again you only scratch the surface with liberal talking points; and not to mention a splash of revisionism. Here's a good analysis of what Team Reagan faced going into 1981. The author also details the differing challenges presented to Obama: When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse. All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks. President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy: 1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. 2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. 3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value. 4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%. These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months. During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989. The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession. Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade. In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote: “ We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years. What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs. Remainder of the article Here The numbers in the piece above don't lie. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Actually, the Commodity Credit Corporation was established in 1933 by FDR to "stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices." In a totally free & unregulated market, agricultural production is literally a natural "feast or famine" cycle. The CCC helps stabilize this cycle for both farmers & consumers. You can read about it here: Analyzing the Causes of the Great Depression for Dummies
The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect. Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines. http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/rand-pauls-supply-side-distortion/
Reagan did not advocate an unregulated market. He addressed an OVER regulated market. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
My recollection is Reagan claimed he had a deal with the Dems: one dollar in new taxes in exchange for three dollars in reduction of government spending. The Dems goth their raise in taxes then reneged of the spending cuts. But, since then, I have been told there never was a deal. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
By giving away Government Cheese? You prefer to just let it spoil and not feed anybody,after the Dims made dairy farmers richer by putting them on what amounts to welfare by paying some to not make cheese and paying others more to keep making more than could be sold? Farmers are one of the wealthiest welfare blocks in this country. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
What's the name of your home planet? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Furthermore, that drop came despite the fact that the recession of 1981-82 (when unemployment hit what is still a record 10.8 percent) was ravaging the economy during all of the previous fiscal year, and a recovery commenced two months after the start of FY 1983. (Fiscal years start Oct. 1 of the preceding calendar year.) Normally, recoveries bring increases in revenues, not declines. http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/rand-pauls-supply-side-distortion/ The 'fact check' seems to be stuck on 1983. Let's look at the facts compared to your pal Obolo: Sorry, Obama Fans: Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth Excerpt of link above: How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years. Job growth comparison: Comparing the labor force participation: "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
I'm down to earth, petey... Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, although bills passed in 1982 and 1984 later partially reversed those tax cuts. And he increased Deficit Spending to fund military Star Wars... As a result, debt as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 40.9% in 1988... and Spook Daddy Bush continued the deficit spending until debt reached 48.3% of GDP in 1992. It actually peaked at 49.5% of GDP during the Bent One's 1st term, but eventually fell to 34.5% of GDP by the end of his presidency due to a combination of tax increases and cuts to military spending.
The Dems goth their raise in taxes then reneged of the spending cuts. But, since then, I have been told there never was a deal. If you look at one of my links in a previous post it addresses the spending increases with regards to GDP. The pie got larger and in comparison to the spending was not significant. Compared to now where the pie is getting smaller and spending either stays the same or increases. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
That's an apples to oranges comparison...
That's an apples to oranges comparison... Reagan benefited from a struggling domestic manufacturing sector... the one that George Dumbass Bush did everything in his power to help downsize and outsource to Mexico & China... so the Obama recovery is greatly restricted to the dumbed-down service sector, thanks largely to a dumbed down GOP Congress. So what has Obolo done to reinvigorate the domestic manufacturaing sector? Not even in his vocabulary. Instead Emperor Obolo has seen fit to encourage industry, through his mandated health care program, to offer fewer hours in which a person can work. Face it, you like the President's socialist programs and they don't work. How long will you et. al. and the emperor keep blaming Bush for the present failures? Reagan blamed Carter during the presidential campaign and then when he took office, he took ownership of the problems. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
You're wasting your time and breath...
In other words,Reagan did a good thing,and Congress is to blame for reversing it. And he increased Deficit Spending to fund military Star Wars... He had to,thanks to that peanut brained communist asshat from Georgia,Jim-mah Cawtur did his damnedest to destroy the US Military. He even had senior NCO's qualifying for food stamps before he left office. Reagan had the sane policy of challenging the Russians,compared to the Carter and Cyrus Vance policy of surrendering. Carter was an absolute nightmare. Probably the most incompetent fool to ever sit in the WH,even when you include Obomber. Spook Daddy Bush A Dim wearing a R label,and one of our most corrupt presidents. Only matched in that category by Bill Clinton,the "son I never had" according to Babs Bush. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Give it a rest. Everybody with 2 IQ points to rub together knows that the Bush Crime Family and the Clintons were in business together to sell every asset America had and to compromise our military in order to push the globalist goals of their paymasters. That evil bastard Poppy got the Chinese ball rolling by having his uncle create the Chinese-American Chamber of Commerce in China,and they brokered all the deals Clinton made to sell classified military technology to the Chinese,as well as well as US manufacturing. Practically the first thing Boy Jorge did after being sworn in was to shut down all the investigations of corruption by the Clintons because he knew it would lead back to his own family. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I KNOW! I KNOW! ASK ME! ASK ME! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Come Pete you don't need permission:) "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
I was an E-7 with 3 kids and I qualified for Food Stamps, never did take them though. Was also eligible for WIC the only thing we got from WIC was the cheese, the kids loved the taste of it and it was easy to keep them happy by making grilled cheese sandwiches... When Reagan came into office IIRC I got a pay raise to the tune of 18-20%... I KNOW! I KNOW! ASK ME! ASK ME! "Not a phucking thing" wouldn't happen to be your answer would it??? ============================================================ I KNOW! I KNOW! ASK ME! ASK ME! Come Pete you don't need permission:) He's imported metric tons of third world parasites that will vote Dim,and this will keep the Dim politicians employed and buying stuff that would otherwise be living in cardboard boxes and selling BJ's for a Micky D burger. He is also providing tons of AA jobs for minorities that have AA degrees in Social Work because all these new parasites need somebody to hand them the forms to fill out. It has been semi-reliably reported that some of these social workers can actually read and write. Maybe not English,but that's just a technality. All these new immigrants are going to need free cell phones,that puts people back to work. They also need new large flat screen teebees,computers for porn and scams,cars to haul bombs,part-mints so they have a place to crash and build bombs,new clothes,etc,etc,etc. All that stuff has to be manufactured,so that is creating jobs for Americans. We all know these new immigrants damn sure ain't going to work those jobs because all their stuff is free and they don't have to work for it. And this ain't even mentioning all the new cops,baliffs,lawyers,judges,and prison guards that have to be hired. Or the prisons that need to be built and maintained. Mo jobs. Or the emergency rooms that need to be manned 24/or the new maternity wards that will be needed since these parasites breed like rabbits in heat at home,and here they even have somebody else buying all the food and clothing for the kids. See? Obomber really is creating new jobs! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Oh,no! See my reply before this one. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
And just how is that supposed to be any different than George W Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney?
And just how is that supposed to be any different than George W Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney? None,other than the fact that Obomber is actually more honest about being a whore for sale than the people you mentioned. A pox on both of their houses. If you think you or anybody else can bullshit me about how wonderful the GOP is for the manufacturing sector, you're barking up the wrong tree. If you seriously think that *I* am a fan of the GOP of today,you are either on drugs or need to be on drugs. I hate them worse than I do the DNC because the GOP are the people that stab conservative Americans in the back while smiling in our faces and pretending to be like us. Give me a devil I can recognize anytime rather than one that looks like my brother. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Maybe... But one thing your charts fail to measure, is what I would call the 'screwed worker bee' index, which would measure the suffering by families who lost a wage earner during the Obama years. Having lived thru both recessions, my *impression* is that we as a nation, did a better job of making sure the needs of working families were met during this last recession. I do believe that it is probable, that the reduction of dire-straits or need, due to extended unemployment benefits, etc. for working families did decrease the potential GDP increase of the post-recession bounce, but that the stress of this last economic downturn was lessened considerably for many by the Obama policies taken. While a recession is tough for investors, it can be devastating for many working families. I think it is better to smooth out the boom and bust cycle for those least able to ride out the bust... My two cents.
The two largest industries in America that no one talks about, drug running, and arms sales. America is number one in the world at both. Bush/Clinton were and still do, have a big hand in it.
And bidnez bees boomin! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
including an unwavering opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
Interesting (albeit lengthy) article revealing how blind adherence to conservative ideology leads to economic ruin.
#3. To: Pericles, tomder55, GarySpFc, TooConservative, A K A Stone, Stoner, sneakypete (#2)
In the late 70s and early 80s the GOP conservatives came up with an idea that sounded like it was based on sound economic facts - that if you lower taxes it will mean the extra money people keep gets invested back into business and we have a boom. That is voodoo economics.
#4. To: redleghunter (#3)
Reagan was a politician and knew to get the economy going again
The Dairy Price Support program in this country has resulted in the stockpiling of millions upon millions of pounds of cheese by the Commodity Credit Corporation,. At a time when American families are under increasing financial pressure, their government cannot sit by and watch millions of pounds of food turn to waste.
I am authorizing today the immediate release of 30 million pounds from the CCC inventory. The cheese will be delivered to the States that request it and will be distributed free to the needy by nonprofit organizations.
The 1981 farm bill I signed today will slow the rise in price support levels, but even under this bill, surpluses will continue to pile up. A total of more than 560 million pounds of cheese has already been consigned to warehouses, so more distributions may be necessary as we continue our drive to root out waste in government and make the best possible use of our nation's resources.
Ronald Reagan
December 22, 1981
#5. To: redleghunter, tomder55, GarySpFc, TooConservative, A K A Stone, Stoner, sneakypete (#3)
There's more to economics than what you are opining on. The Reagan economy created the boom that extended into Clinton's two terms. It was the supply side retooling of industry and technology which led to the good growth of the 80s and 90s.
#6. To: Willie Green (#4)
The Dairy Price Support program in this country has resulted in the stockpiling of millions upon millions of pounds of cheese by the Commodity Credit Corporation,. At a time when American families are under increasing financial pressure, their government cannot sit by and watch millions of pounds of food turn to waste.
#7. To: Pericles, tomder55, liberator, CZ82, sneakypete, cranky, stoner, A K A Stone, GarySpFc, out damned spot, TooConservative (#5)
Reagan lowered taxes and the economy tanked. No money came in.
#8. To: redleghunter (#6)
Sounds like he made good use of Carter wasting money.
#9. To: redleghunter (#7)
Another dubious claim by Paul is that “more revenue came in” after Reagan cut taxes. As we’ve often noted, when politicians say “more” or “less,” it’s always a good idea to ask, “compared with what?”
#10. To: Willie Green, tomder55, liberator, CZ82 (#8)
In a totally free & unregulated market, agricultural production is literally a natural "feast or famine" cycle.
#11. To: redleghunter (#7)
Reagan lowered taxes and the economy tanked. No money came in.
#12. To: Willie Green (#4)
Reagan was a politician and knew to get the economy going again
#13. To: Pericles (#5)
Reagan lowered taxes and the economy tanked. No money came in. He raised taxed and the economy recovered and he borrowed a lot of money besides.
#14. To: Pericles, tomder55, liberator, CZ82 (#9)
Another dubious claim by Paul is that “more revenue came in” after Reagan cut taxes. As we’ve often noted, when politicians say “more” or “less,” it’s always a good idea to ask, “compared with what?” The plain fact is, revenue fell by $17 billion, or 2.8 percent, during fiscal year 1983, which was the first full fiscal year during which the 50 percent top federal income tax rate was in effect.
#15. To: sneakypete (#13)
#16. To: cranky (#11)
My recollection is Reagan claimed he had a deal with the Dems: one dollar in new taxes in exchange for three dollars in reduction of government spending.
#17. To: redleghunter (#14)
Reagan benefited from a struggling domestic manufacturing sector... the one that George Dumbass Bush did everything in his power to help downsize and outsource to Mexico & China... so the Obama recovery is greatly restricted to the dumbed-down service sector, thanks largely to a dumbed down GOP Congress.
#18. To: Willie Green, tomder55, liberator, CZ82 (#17)
#19. To: redleghunter (#18)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#20. To: Willie Green (#15)
Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, although bills passed in 1982 and 1984 later partially reversed those tax cuts.
#21. To: Willie Green (#17)
the one that George Dumbass Bush did everything in his power to help downsize and outsource to Mexico & China... so the Obama recovery is greatly restricted to the dumbed-down service sector, thanks largely to a dumbed down GOP Congress.
#22. To: redleghunter, Willie Green, tomder55, liberator, CZ82 (#18)
So what has Obolo done to reinvigorate the domestic manufacturaing sector?
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
I KNOW! I KNOW! ASK ME! ASK ME!
#24. To: sneakypete (#20)
He even had senior NCO's qualifying for food stamps before he left office.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
So what has Obolo done to reinvigorate the domestic manufacturing sector?
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#26. To: redleghunter, Willie Green, tomder55, liberator, CZ82 (#23)
(Edited)
So what has Obolo done to reinvigorate the domestic manufacturaing sector?
#27. To: CZ82 (#25)
"Not a phucking thing" wouldn't happen to be your answer would it???
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
He's imported metric tons of third world parasites that will vote Dim,and this will keep the Dim politicians
You forget who you're talking to, petey... I thumbed my nose at GHW Bush & the GOP when Ross Perot warned us about NAFTA's Giant Sucking Sound back in 1992... If you think you or anybody else can bullshit me about how wonderful the GOP is for the manufacturing sector, you're barking up the wrong tree.
#29. To: Willie Green (#28)
He's imported metric tons of third world parasites that will vote Dim,and this will keep the Dim politicians
#30. To: redleghunter (#14)
>>Sorry, Obama Fans: Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth
#31. To: sneakypete (#21)
#32. To: jeremiad (#31)
The two largest industries in America that no one talks about, drug running, and arms sales.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]