tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post112197879390739085..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Why Can't GWB Express Himself Like This?Hunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122209426878023392005-07-24T08:50:00.000-04:002005-07-24T08:50:00.000-04:00James, that 1980-1994 factoid you keep throwing ou...James, that 1980-1994 factoid you keep throwing out there is just simply wrong. Go check out the treasury tables yourself, locate the inflation rate and compare. You'll have no problem getting it. You were reading agitprop.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122162538678420492005-07-23T19:48:00.000-04:002005-07-23T19:48:00.000-04:00"The quadrupling - yes, that's QUADRUPLING - of th..."The quadrupling - yes, that's QUADRUPLING - of the debt under Reagan, the great pontificator, would seem to indicate that he wasn't so spiffy after all. One of the ten greatest presidents doesn't beggar the entity he's hired to helm."<BR/><BR/>But as you admit, the nation was wealthier afterwards. That is not what most people would call beggaring. In addition, the successful ending of the Soviet threat, which was the reason for a lot of the debt accumulation, allowed a dozen years of much lower defense expenditures and helped lead to the budget surpluses of the '90s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122150737736817622005-07-23T16:32:00.000-04:002005-07-23T16:32:00.000-04:00Hate to digress from this most enjoyable digressio...Hate to digress from this most enjoyable digression, but I ran across this link at Esmay's place:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2005/05/bush_says_the_r.html" REL="nofollow"><B>Bush says the right thing, and Arab media notices</B></A><BR/><BR/>A pity the president's remarks are seldom carried by our own media.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122150465454687862005-07-23T16:27:00.000-04:002005-07-23T16:27:00.000-04:00Oh, come on, Kathy. You make it sound like you wer...Oh, come on, Kathy. You make it sound like you were in Dust Bowl, Arkansas in 1933. Where's Steinbeck when you need him?<BR/><BR/>And Baker, if it's all spreadsheeted out and it worked, how come revenues did not reach 1980 level until 1994?<BR/><BR/>I've also found a very interesting quote from David Stockman: "The cycle of boom and bust had been going on for decades and ...its oscillations had reached the high end of the charts. That was all" Then there's Paul Volcker's slaying of the inflation beast. It would merely seem that there were plenty of other factors involved in the "boom."<BR/><BR/>Of course, following the admittedly effed up '70s, anything would probably seem like a miracle of economic genius. I think the psychological effects involved have just as much to do with people's fanatacism.<BR/><BR/>Now, I understand the point of supply-side is to make the country as an aggregate whole richer. This means private sector, rich mofos get even richer. And frankly, no one, Democrat or Republican has proposed any economic plan that doesn't have a trickle-down aspect to it. Because, yes, supply-side does make the rich richer. As I have indicated above, this policy doesn't really help anyone else. The quadrupling - yes, that's QUADRUPLING - of the debt under Reagan, the great pontificator, would seem to indicate that he wasn't so spiffy after all. One of the ten greatest presidents doesn't beggar the entity he's hired to helm. That's like saying a CEO who drives his company into the dirt deserves to be lauded as an organizational genius.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122134315712031422005-07-23T11:58:00.000-04:002005-07-23T11:58:00.000-04:00Trying to infantalize me is really no way to disag...<I>Trying to infantalize me is really no way to disagree about anything.</I><BR/><BR/>You are the one who brought up the fact that you were an <B>infant</B> at that moment in history when some of us were getting a lesson in the practical ramifications of Cyrus Vance diplomacy and Troikanomics, aka a hobnailed kick in the teeth. I'm not being condescending, I'm giving you a free sample of hard-won experience.Kathy Hutchinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851875819094837357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122123938100073082005-07-23T09:05:00.000-04:002005-07-23T09:05:00.000-04:00James, that web-based research was crap. I've spr...James, that web-based research was crap. I've spreadsheeted the information out myself. I was an econ major in college, so I actually had to study this stuff. I already told you that real federal revenue increased significantly even after adjusting for inflation. That's a fact. Just a fact. Not surmountable. Howard Dean might have the effrontery to B.S. his way against it, but you can't with any intellectual honesty.<BR/><BR/>As for your tossed off comment about all that red ink, we both know there are two sides of the equation. There's what you take in AND what you spend. There's the answer to your red ink. And yes, part of that was due to heavy defense spending that still came nowhere close to Kennedy levels as a percentage of total federal budget. The fact that Reagan spent a lot has no bearing on whether the tax cut worked. It worked. More revenue, stronger economy. Not susceptible of contradiction. Accept it and be free.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122100092723195022005-07-23T02:28:00.000-04:002005-07-23T02:28:00.000-04:00Thought better of it.Do you always have to be so c...Thought better of it.<BR/><BR/>Do you always have to be so condescending, Kathy? Trying to infantalize me is really no way to disagree about anything. It just makes you look insecure.<BR/><BR/>Being rude is fine. I'm rude all the time. I don't mean nothin' by it.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122099718758752942005-07-23T02:21:00.000-04:002005-07-23T02:21:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122099573243677142005-07-23T02:19:00.000-04:002005-07-23T02:19:00.000-04:00A major in telecommunications and a minor in econ?...A major in telecommunications and a minor in econ? We had a name for people like you in college: Funny.<BR/><BR/>Hey, I can sympathize. With a B.S. in International Relations and another in Psychology and being able to speak French and Spanish, the best job I could find was as the supervisor of an emergency children's shelter for $10/hr and no bennies.<BR/><BR/>Have I anywhere indicated a preference for communism? I think not. Capitalism is basically natural selection adapted for human civilization, and that's fine. I just think that we can rise above the dog-eat-dog nature of it, and therefore there should be some government regulation and social safety nets. Capitalism has a lot going for it. It's a good system. But being the best we have doesn't mean it <I>is</I> the best. Anything can be better.<BR/><BR/>Like you. You'll see the light sometime, and realize that the party that wants to write discrimination into the Constitution is evil.<BR/><BR/>See, I see most people who "see the light" and go Repub as following the P.J. O'Rourke path, as he once said at a speech I saw. "I was a liberal once. And then I started making money."<BR/><BR/>Of course, there's a reason why there's a maxim that states "Money is the root of all evil."<BR/><BR/>Just like God is the leading killer of man. :)James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122096156831743892005-07-23T01:22:00.000-04:002005-07-23T01:22:00.000-04:00How could I remember Carter? I was 1 when Reagan w...<I>How could I remember Carter? I was 1 when Reagan was elected.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, now we're getting some perspective here. So you were born in 1979. That's the year I graduated from Indiana University and went out into the job market. A dean's list Telecommunications major with a minor in econ; I could speak French, Italian, and German. The best job I could find, supervising the recording of books for the blind, paid $2.75 an hour. I couldn't go home on my mother's birthday that year because there was no gasoline south of the Ohio River that week. I gladly would have paid whatever it was I paid this afternoon, but I didn't have that choice. THERE WAS NO GASOLINE. It was like living in effing East Berlin, that last year of Carter. Or Argentina, maybe. Not that I could have afforded to buy a house, but mortgage rates were close to 20 percent.<BR/><BR/>And then the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan, and in response we sucked our thumbs and boycotted the Moscow Olympics.<BR/><BR/>I didn't vote for Reagan the first time. I was like a battered wife who can't break away from the man who's killing her. I was in grad school by that time and like Pauline Kael, no one I knew voted for Reagan. so how could he have been elected? Lester Thurow from MIT came and gave a talk to us the next spring, explaining how East Germany had now eclipsed Great Britain's economy and had proved the superiority of command economies. <B>And we believed it!</B><BR/><BR/>Although I think I had turned the corner by the time I was 26. But, you know, I was always a little precocious.Kathy Hutchinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851875819094837357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122094631627982562005-07-23T00:57:00.000-04:002005-07-23T00:57:00.000-04:00Eh, no offense taken. Not like I can't be an a-hol...Eh, no offense taken. Not like I can't be an a-hole myself. :)James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122089509846850042005-07-22T23:31:00.000-04:002005-07-22T23:31:00.000-04:00How could I remember Carter? I was 1 when Reagan w...<I>How could I remember Carter? I was 1 when Reagan was elected.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly.<BR/><BR/>Those who think things can't get any worse have no imagination, and are a bit light on their history, too.<BR/><BR/>Don't mean to insult you with the above, James---it was just too aphoristic to pass up the opportunity. If I can get just one in, I'll live forever. ;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122089376719069132005-07-22T23:29:00.000-04:002005-07-22T23:29:00.000-04:00(I know, I know, I said I was gone but then my fia...(I know, I know, I said I was gone but then my fiancee started running a fever and went to sleep.)<BR/><BR/>Let's put the whole "Reaganomics Redux" thing into perspective, shall we?<BR/><BR/>Minimum wage: lowest inflation-adjusted value since before the Great Depression.<BR/><BR/>Corporate taxes as percentage of tax revenue: one of the lowest margins since the 50s.<BR/><BR/>Tax revenue as share of GDP: Ditto.<BR/><BR/>Hourly wages: Down.<BR/><BR/>Disparity between rich and poor: Highest since feudalism and skyrocketing.<BR/><BR/>Homelessness: Up.<BR/><BR/>Availability and quality of healthcare: Down.<BR/><BR/>Savings, both national and household: Nil.<BR/><BR/>Currency: Tanking.<BR/><BR/>Size of debt 1980: Under one trillion dollars.<BR/><BR/>Size of debt 1992: Over $4 trillion<BR/><BR/>Size of debt 2000: approximately $5.6 trillion.<BR/><BR/>Size of debt today: over $7.8 trillion<BR/><BR/>Conclusion: Reagonomics - good on paper, not so much in real life.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122085764710408662005-07-22T22:29:00.000-04:002005-07-22T22:29:00.000-04:00Oh, and Kieth:"Because it was in our national inte...Oh, and Kieth:<BR/><BR/>"Because it was in our national interest to do so."<BR/><BR/>How so?<BR/><BR/>"Saddam harbored, trained and supported terrorists."<BR/><BR/>Proof? Certainly none mentioned in the pre-March 2003 run-up. Well, except for the oft-debunked Osama-Saddam connection. Which we now know was demonstrably false.<BR/><BR/>"Saddam was desirous of having sanctions lifted so he could resume research and development of WMD."<BR/><BR/>Ah, here's the money quote from you. I do believe the chief rationale for invasion was that he HAD done so. I seem to recall poor Colin Powell giving some big presentation in front of the U.N.? Pretty sure I didn't dream that. How many WMDs and WMD sites have we found? None? Something like that. Hmm. Sounds like somebody maybe was fibbing.<BR/><BR/>"Saddam terrorized his own citizens, including filling up mass graves with those he disagreed with."<BR/><BR/>Indisputably true. Again, for a President-elect who criticized intervention in Kosovo and Somalia (Anyone else remember his "you need a timetable" speech from the run up to the 2000 election? I do.), this holds little water, especially since he A) didn't use it as a rationale in front of Congress until after their were no WMDs found and B) hasn't done crap about Uzbekistan, Sudan, Kazakhstan, etc...<BR/><BR/>"Saddam fired on our jets in the no-fly zones on a regular basis."<BR/><BR/>For years. Who usually criticized Clinton for bombing stuff in Iraq after one of those acts of aggression? I do believe it was the Republicans! Dogs wagging their tails or some such nonsense, I do believe the phrase was.<BR/><BR/>As we can see, our President and his Party can't seem to separate Up from Down (or Forward from Backward, rather).James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122084922582436432005-07-22T22:15:00.000-04:002005-07-22T22:15:00.000-04:00As far as I can tell from doing some web-based res...As far as I can tell from doing some web-based research, it wasn't until 1994 that tax revenue reached the 1980 level, and that was after the tax restructurings and gradual increases (from the Reagan tax cut) from 1986 to 1994.<BR/><BR/>I submit, Hunter, that once again we see that supply side economics is good on paper, not so good in real life.<BR/><BR/>David Stockman went so far as to admit that he "cooked" the books on his "Rosy Scenario."<BR/><BR/>Of course I'm sure you or one of the economists here will bust out with "price stability!" at which point I will counter with Mundell's own, "Fiscal discipline is a learned behavior" and my own, "Getting a conservative to learn a new trick is like trying to pound nails with your forehead instead of a hammer."<BR/><BR/>If all this just sparks a "flat tax" discussion, I'm going to go ram my head into a wall for a while. A thought which I am sure will make some of you smile.<BR/><BR/>Have a nice weekend.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122083668899955412005-07-22T21:54:00.000-04:002005-07-22T21:54:00.000-04:00How could I remember Carter? I was 1 when Reagan w...How could I remember Carter? I was 1 when Reagan was elected.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122083635047792792005-07-22T21:53:00.000-04:002005-07-22T21:53:00.000-04:00Or, let's put it a slightly less irreverent way. W...Or, let's put it a slightly less irreverent way. When a household doesn't save money and instead spends spends spends, then borrows money to cover the expenditures and then can't pay back on the principal, it goes bankrupt.<BR/><BR/>When a nation does that, its currency devalues. How strong's the dollar now?<BR/><BR/>That's what I thought.<BR/><BR/>For example: Oil prices are absurd, having risen from around $20 a barrell in 2003 to bouncing around $60 in two years. Diminishing supplies and increased demand do not account for the whole increase. Since oil's value is pegged to the dollar, it directly reflects the devaluing of the dollar.<BR/><BR/>When did this start? Two words, starting with "tax" and ending with "cut."<BR/><BR/>Another example: the jobless recovery. Tax cuts are great for corporations' bottom lines and the top 1%'s earnings, but not so good for the average joe who can't find a goddamn job so he can be a consumer. Tax revenue as a proportion of GDP is at some of its lowest levels ever, and corporate/top tier earner's contributions at the lowest level since before Eisenhower's day.<BR/><BR/>And last I checked, we were still in the red as far as spending versus revenue. What's the latest projection? Something like $336 billion for 2006? Up from $0 in 2000? Explain to me how we have increased revenues thanks to Reaganomics again?James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122083128499596242005-07-22T21:45:00.000-04:002005-07-22T21:45:00.000-04:00I understand where you're coming from, James. You...I understand where you're coming from, James. You obviously don't remember the Carter Administration.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122082744405056282005-07-22T21:39:00.000-04:002005-07-22T21:39:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, I must have missed all that what with a...I'm sorry, I must have missed all that what with all the red ink all over the federal budget in the 80s and today.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122082010399410632005-07-22T21:26:00.000-04:002005-07-22T21:26:00.000-04:00This notion that Reaganomics didn't work is possib...This notion that Reaganomics didn't work is possibly my greatest complaint with the left. The man cut marginal tax rates by a huge percentage and government revenues increased dramatically even AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION. The same thing is occurring post the Bush tax cut, though it was much less interesting. The same thing happened post the Kennedy tax cut. How DIFFICULT IS IT TO COMPREHEND YOU COULD HAVE A SMALLER TAX AND COLLECT MORE MONEY DUE TO GREATER ECONOMIC GROWTH? I don't see why it should be so difficult. I don't understand this blind spot of absolute, dripping stupidity, but it is there and we shall probably never stop hearing it until either the music of heaven or the silence of the grave stops our ears.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122078925916064982005-07-22T20:35:00.000-04:002005-07-22T20:35:00.000-04:00And he openly rewarded Palestinian suicide bombers...And he openly rewarded Palestinian suicide bombers.<BR/><BR/>But we don't mention our ally and friend Israel in any public discussion of global policy. It's just not done.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://philosodude.blogspot.com/2005/04/usama-saddam-connection.html" REL="nofollow">Here are a few other reasons.</A>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122071248883451252005-07-22T18:27:00.001-04:002005-07-22T18:27:00.001-04:00Sacred cows must be destroyed! Moo, Reagan. Moo.Sacred cows must be destroyed! Moo, Reagan. Moo.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122071223746580042005-07-22T18:27:00.000-04:002005-07-22T18:27:00.000-04:00And of course it was sophmoric, I blatantly plagia...And of course it was sophmoric, I blatantly plagiarized both Warren Ellis and Robin Williams. I can't exactly win in debate with idealogues such as yourselves, so I resort to irreverence. It's a time-honored tactic.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122071119428766122005-07-22T18:25:00.000-04:002005-07-22T18:25:00.000-04:00I simply disagree. I grew up during the Reagan pre...I simply disagree. I grew up during the Reagan presidency, have been looking back upon, and find little to redeem it.<BR/><BR/>He outspent the Soviet Union. BFD. He championed supply-side economics. I have yet to see proof that it works. He was capable of immense amounts of rhetoric, but that rhetoric was put to the lie by scandals like Iran-Contra.<BR/><BR/>I know that the Right holds him in high regard. For the life of me, I don't understand why.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1122069342576881242005-07-22T17:55:00.000-04:002005-07-22T17:55:00.000-04:00James, your view of Reagan is ridiculous and sopho...James, your view of Reagan is ridiculous and sophomoric. He was a major figure in the American presidency and will be remembered as one of the key 5-10 chief executives ever. I can't say with Bush. His standing will depend greatly on whether pressure in the Middle East results in democratization and a reduction in worldwide terrorism originating from Muslim extremism.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.com