- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Books in Review
Feeding the Beast
The New American Economy: The Failure of
Reaganomics and a New Way Forward
By Bruce Bartlett
(Palgrave MacMillan, 272 pages, $28)
The title of Bruce Bartlett's book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, is misleading. The first six chapters of the seven-chapter book aren't about the "new" economy, but rather serve as an economic history of the United States from the Great Depression to the current economic crisis. And it really isn't about Reaganomics failing, either. Instead, Bartlett, the disillusioned supply-side economist and former Treasury official during the first Bush administration, acknowledges that Reaganomics was a smashing success, but insists that it outlived its usefulness. While he makes some valid warnings about the looming entitlement crisis, unfortunately Bartlett reaches a warped conclusion that conservatives need to accept the reality of the welfare state, and focus on the best ways to raise taxes to finance it.
Bartlett's advocacy of higher taxes is not the only way in which he breaks from conservative orthodoxy. Unlike conservatives who argue that Franklin D. Roosevelt's reliance on Keynesian economic theory prolonged the Great Depression, Bartlett insists that FDR never really listened to Keynes during the 1930s. As most economists acknowledge, Bartlett writes, the Federal Reserve Board bungled the early days of the economic crisis by allowing the money supply to contract significantly. But once the crisis became severe, the Fed was unable to pump more money into the economy, because even lower interest rates did not motivate the private sector to spend more. Lowering taxes wouldn't have been effective either, Bartlett argues in agreement with Keynes, because people would simply save most of the extra income. Instead, he writes, the only way to stimulate the economy and solve the monetary crisis was for the government to start spending money and running up deficits. But FDR resisted implementing this solution as intended, Bartlett recounts, and it wasn't until World War II that Keynes-ianism was attempted on a large enough scale to work.
Despite being associated with modern liberalism, John Maynard Keynes was actually a conservative economist, according to Bartlett, because he wanted to make sure that economic crises were not used to discredit capitalism and advance socialism. Looking at the long body of Keynes's work convinced Bartlett that Keynes was actually quite concerned about the threat of inflation and only believed in government deficit spending as a necessary evil in the case of a severe deflationary environment. The problem wasn't with Keynes, Bartlett concludes, but that for decades that followed, policymakers repeated measures that were only intended for extraordinary circumstances, applying the lessons of the Great Depression to every economic problem that popped up. Eventually, the result was the massive inflation of the 1970s, which paved the way for the conservative counter-revolution in economics because Keynes-ians had no answers.
Economists Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell led the charge, with Friedman focusing on the importance of monetary stability and Mundell on how to achieve economic growth. Mundell proposed a two-pronged strategy to deal with the stagflation problem of the 1970s. The first part of his approach called for tightening the money supply to combat inflation, and the second en-tailed slashing tax rates to spur growth.
To counter critics who insisted that tax cuts would cause
deficits, supply-siders argued that by spurring growth and thus
increasing the tax base, tax cuts would recoup a portion of lost
revenue. Or,
as economist Arthur Laffer, father of the famous "Laffer Curve,"
described it in an interview with Jude Wanniski that appeared in
a 1975 article in the Public Interest:
[W]hen taxes are zero, revenues are zero. When taxes are 100 percent, there is no production, and revenues are zero. In between these extremes there is one rate that maximizes government revenues.
The basic argument was also empirically corroborated by evidence from the tax cuts initiated by John F. Kennedy. Then-Rep. Jack Kemp studied the Kennedy cuts when he teamed up with Sen. William Roth in 1977 to work on a broad-based tax relief proposal (which would later become the basis for the Reagan tax cuts). Also in 1977, Walter Heller, who was chairman of Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisers, testified before the Joint Economic Committee on the revenue effects of the Kennedy tax cuts, and said, "within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut....Did it pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did."
The supply-side approach of tight monetary policy coupled with large tax cuts formed the foundation of the economic polices that the Reagan administration adopted in the early 1980s, which managed to stamp out inflation at a much lower economic cost than anybody anticipated. Inflation fell from 12.4 percent in 1980 to 4 percent in 1982, while the economy recovered in 1983 and grew at a 4.5 percent clip that year.
But Bartlett argues that just as Keynes's followers misapplied his economic theories in the decades following World War II, conservatives have incorrectly concluded from the success of the early 1980s that the solution to any economic problem is more tax cuts. This all culminated in the second Bush administration, which "represented a bastardized version of supply-side economics that had more in common with the caricature of it depicted by its opponents than anything approximating its core principles."
Not only did the Bush tax cuts come during a different set of circumstances, but they also violated several fundamentals of supply-side theory, Bartlett contends. While the original supply-siders believed it was important to cut tax rates, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts involved rebates and tax credits that are much more like government subsidies. And though supply-side theory emphasized that tax cuts had to be permanent to have an economically beneficial impact on individual's incentives, Bush, out of political necessity, agreed to make those cuts temporary. Originally, supply-siders only argued that a portion of the lost revenue was recovered from cutting taxes, but the Bush administration gave the impression that all tax cuts pay for themselves in all cases.
A key lesson Bartlett draws from the Bush years is that the supply-side argument that depriving the federal government of tax revenue would force spending cuts (a theory known as "starving the beast") was wrong. Even though the U.S. has implemented several rounds of tax cuts since 1981, spending has increased dramatically, and it exploded under Bush, who even created the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan.
In the wake of the Bush years, Bartlett notes that the U.S. is facing a long-term deficit of $90 trillion from Medicare and Social Security alone. Since Republicans have proven themselves unable to do anything to rein in the cost of these programs and it's unrealistic to think that they will behave any differently in the future, he argues that it's time for conservatives to give up their stubborn resistance to tax increases. Instead, he urges supply-siders to "design a new tax system better able to raise higher revenues at the least possible cost in terms of economic growth and political freedom." If conservatives don't begin this process now, he writes, then liberals will simply raise taxes anyway, only in ways that will be much more destructive to the economy.
MANY OF BARLETT'S points are valid. The fiscal recklessness of the Bush administration is undeniable, and conservatives will have to come up with better solutions to address the looming entitlement crisis. It's also true that many conservatives have misconstrued supply-side theory. The "Laffer Curve," for instance, posits that there's some optimal tax rate, and if taxes are above that point, they actually stifle economic activity and lead to lower revenue. But when Reagan took office, the top tax rate stood at 70 percent -- given that it's now down to 35 percent, it's harder to make the argument that additional tax cuts will boost revenue. At some point, cutting taxes decreases revenue, even under supply-side theory.
But Bartlett's thinking is also schizophrenic, as he vacillates between admiring supply-side theory and relishing his role as a conservative provocateur. He argues for a Keynesian approach to severe economic crises such as the Great Depression and the current economic predicament (he viewed President Obama's economic stimulus package as necessary). But he is also sympathetic to the supply-side critique that lag times inhibit lawmakers from responding to signals in the economy immediately and delay for years the point at which government spending is actually injected into the economy. He says the sooner the government acts, the better. But in the early stages, how can policy makers determine if a recession is severe enough to warrant a Keynesian response? How do they know that they aren't mis-applying Keynes the way policy makers did in the decades after World War II, and thus setting us up for the same inflationary problems of the 1970s?
Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Richard Baker| 11.6.09 @ 7:20AM
Bartlett is wrong. Never accept a governmental tyranny. If he's lost energy and heart then step aside and let the next rank step forward and fire away. Modern day Americans like him don't seem to have what the Founding Revolutionaries had which was a desire for Freedom from oppressive government. Accept the welfare state, Hell!
Alan Brooks| 11.13.09 @ 9:22PM
I don't pay attention to economists anymore, as, like diet book writers, each economist argues with the other until I know less than I did before the latest argument-- it is like being back in publik skool.
But Obama is no Marxist; I clearly remember from much reading of the comparisons of Marxian with, say, social democratic economics and Fabian socialism, that there are distinction.
You cannot lump it all under a 'Marxist' umbrella.
Just as there is no one school of conservative/rightwing economic theory.
Ryan| 11.6.09 @ 8:27AM
One thing that rarely gets pointed out is a general simplification of the tax code, without regard to the rate. It's probably my favorite thing about the FairTax - but even if not implemented, there are MASSIVE benefits to a re-working of the tax code from the ground up, with simplicity as a guide.
If our accountants and lawyers and lobbyists spent less time worrying over paperwork and loopholes and bribery and such, maybe they could do something productive.
Margie| 11.6.09 @ 4:00PM
The Left fights hard against a flat tax. The reason- it would be freeing. The Left is all about strangulation and slavery. They confiscate our wealth and tell us they will now hand it to those who they deem worthy. Like dictators they want to keep us down and oppressed. This keeps them in power as the slaves must depend more and more on the dictators. This is the Marxist-in-Chief's sole purpose and he is swiftly accomplishing his destiny in life.
The question is, are we the people strong enough to change the tide at this point? I believe we are if we keep speaking Truth to Power. And voting. Always voting, and backing conservatives everywhere. We're angry enough. Ha! Obama's worked against himself because America has only known FREEDOM and we want to keep it. He has underestimated us.
Liberal Reader| 11.6.09 @ 8:43AM
Just a quibble:
Keynes WAS conservative in the old fashioned sense: he thought radical change almost always bad, and he was NOT a Marxist.
The first person to worry that Keynes was a communist was FDR, but even he was forced to see the logic of Keynes's economics.
Keynes's ideas helped prevent a socialist revolution in this country, which clearly was a threat in the 30s.
Keynes was all for free markets, except for when they don't work; he didn't buy the foolish ideology that they always work if left alone, something that no person living through the world wide collapse of markets in the 30s could believe.
Bydand76| 11.6.09 @ 8:37PM
Ok Liberal Reader.
Read this:
Keynesian exuberance for the powers of stimulating demand or the 'consumer' has been in vogue since the 1930s. It is sheer nonsense which is taught in every school across the globe. Keynesian economics is little more than intellectual pablum used by those in power or by a technocratic and largely illiterate elite to increase their power; enhance government; print money and otherwise destroy normal economic relationships. Keynes' theory, so believed by professors is in practice a disaster.
Keynes was a left wing wall flower and a member of the deranged Bloomsbury group of inter-World War British pacifists. He was an arrogant theorist who truly believed in the magical elixir of large government and in the technocratic dream of controlling billions of personal, business and economic decisions, to programmatically construct a perfect world order. Keynes gave intellect and jargon filled cover and rationale to politicians and demagogues who would cite his book, 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money', to justify state interventionism.
According to this theory which has failed in practice every time it has been tried, governments can stimulate an economy through granting consumers, workers and businesses sums of borrowed money. This is termed a 'stimulus'. This debt or current deficit financing stimulus, is then paid back or retired, when the economy strengthened by consumer spending and business investment, produces a surplus of tax revenues. The stimulus is needed, so argued Keynes, to overcome business cycles, downturns and unexpected events which would decrease jobs, increase unemployment and impact state revenues. By macro and micro-managing economic and production processes, the state, so thought Keynes, would avoid cyclical variations and ensure that the lowest level of unemployment could be maintained. Government power was thus indispensable to full employment and income equality.
There are many problems with such a counter-rational plan to economic management. None of Keynes' core assumptions make sense when they are analysed either separately or together. Business cycles have historically been caused by governments, and they are usually a response to government policies to increase the size of the state through trade barriers, higher taxation, more spending, more regulation and programs of fear and compliance. The Great Depression, the 70s Stagflation and the current financial crisis are all obvious examples of this fact. Government causing economic malaise would appear to mean that government programs are not the solutions required to either get out of an economic downturn, nor to prevent future derailments from taking place.
The main impact of Keynesian economic stimuli is to increase debt; raise future tax rates and distort the normal functionings of economic markets and personal and corporate decision making. Governments choose winners and confirm losers. The winners will include companies which get bailed out, those receiving welfare, unions and others having their jobs protected, those receiving redistributed incomes and those paid off for political support. The losers invariably include firms both domestic and international who want fair and free trade; higher income families; small businesses who are classified under high income categories; future generations who must pay off the debt; and consumers who pay a higher costs for all products and services.
Under Keynesian philosophy, government and technocrats assume the role of God. Given the poverty of God heads throughout history, this is probably not a noble supposition to support.
Brian Reidl from Heritage Institute wrong an excellent article recently on the fallacy that government spending, or what is termed Keynesian deficit spending, run by God-heads, is beneficial (see Reidl
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar.....bcc3f3b8d3). In this article he makes the following important points about demand-side management and the Keynesian fetish for economic control.
“Government cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing income. If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If Congress borrows the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally reducing net exports, leaving GDP unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.
This does not mean that government spending has no economic impact at all. Government spending often alters the consumption of total demand, such as increasing consumption at the expense of investment.”
When stimulus packages are created the money has to come from someone via taxes, or be printed. Both are net negatives to the economy. Economic growth only results from producing more goods and services (not from redistributing existing income), and that requires productivity growth and growth in the labor supply as productivity not only increases wealth but also wages and wage opportunities.
Historically of course government spending has reduced productivity and long-term economic growth due to some obvious reasons. As government spends more it raises taxes which reduces profits, productivity and wage and job creation. As government incurs more debt through stimulus and demand side packages it reduces the incentive to produce and displaces money by removing the more productive private sector from the economic equation and replacing it with a far less effective state dollar, taxed or printed on government printing press. The inefficiency of government policy in health, housing, education, and general industry are obvious creating huge costs which must be borne by ordinary taxpayers – ineffective solutions at a higher price one can say.
And as Reidl sources and proves:
“Mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth:
1.Public Finance Review reported that "higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product."
2.The Quarterly Journal of Economics reported that "the ratio of real government consumption expenditure to real GDP had a negative association with growth and investment," and "growth is inversely related to the share of government consumption in GDP, but insignificantly related to the share of public investment."
3.A Journal of Macroeconomics study discovered that "the coefficient of the additive terms of the government-size variable indicates that a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%."
4.Public Choice reported that "a one percent increase in government spending as a percent of GDP (from, say, 30 to 31%) would raise the unemployment rate by approximately .36 of one percent (from, say, 8 to 8.36 percent)."
It is obvious that Keynesian economics and demand management are tools for fools. Wealth, a better society, a cleaner world, a higher level of development is not coerced by government. It only occurs when free people operating in free markets are allowed to interact and determine the price and supply of various goods and services.
Government involvement ensures the opposite and is a theory mired in cultish theological absurdity.
By C. Read
Robert Rosencrans| 11.6.09 @ 10:00AM
Roosevelt's idiotic policies led to a decade of non-farm unemployment of over 20%. After the Supreme Court threw out most of his programs, the situation began to reverse itself.
Liberal Reader| 11.6.09 @ 2:58PM
World-renowned and universally recognized historian Rushmore Limbaugh makes this argument quite often, and it gets bandied about on the internet.
However, you won't find anyone else who knows what they're talking about claiming that Roosevelt's policies were the cause of the depression.
But don't take my word for it.
Look at the election results in 1936!
Either the American people were duped then, and your revisionist history has something to it, or maybe you and the very small minority who hold this opinion may not have all your facts straight.
Bydand76| 11.6.09 @ 8:18PM
Liberal Reader, again (suprise) you are wrong!
Pretty much every hisotrian agree's that FDR policies extended the "Great Depression"!
Which, if you had taken the time to read Mr Rosencrans post, is what he said.
I suggest it is you who need to get your facts straight but I fear that you will simply revert to name calling and spouting non-sensical invectives in a feable attempt to produce a coherant argument.
Roosevelt and his economic advisers had cause and effect reversed. They did not recognize that prices had fallen because of the Depression. They believed that the Depression prevailed BECAUSE prices had fallen!
Now while an argument can be made that FRD did or did NOT directly cause the Depression. I think that there is no doubt what-so-ever that his failed policies extended it greatly.
No doubt this will produce a enraged response from you but the plain simple fact of the matter is.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
To turn your own words on you Lib Reader "you and the very small minority who hold this opinion may not have all your facts straight."
I suggest you look in to the subject matter BEFORE you respond.
Nick| 11.6.09 @ 8:23PM
Woah! This is weird, huh?
Bydand76| 11.6.09 @ 9:01PM
Very strange indeed!
Nick| 11.6.09 @ 8:20PM
Marxist Reader,
Wrong, yet again.
Amity Shales in her book "The Forgotten Man" and economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian in a 2004 UCLA study say FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression.
victor| 11.6.09 @ 8:34PM
Simple Reader gets it wrong, of course, once again, by misquoting people and not citing any facts.
Here are some facts:
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
Notice that From 1932 to 1934 wasn't that much of a drop, about 10%.
Then it went down to 16.9%, about a 30% drop, but notice, it went back up to 19% in 1938, proving that FDR's policies weren't working.
What got the rate down to 14.6% in 1940 and 4.7% in 1942, nearly full employment, was the Second World War and not anything that FDR did.
No one claimed FDR's policies caused the Depression, but it was his continuation of Hoover's Big Government Meddling Policies that caused the Depression to last longer than it should have.
BTW Reagan's tax reduction policies of 1982 caused the GDP to have five straight quarters of growth averaging 8.4%.
You, of all people, need to get YOUR facts straight.
Not out of the bottle, not out of the DNC talking point book, but out the pages of History and bls. gov, irs.gov and bea.gov.
victor| 11.6.09 @ 8:36PM
Holy No parking spaces Batman!
Late again!
truepatriot| 11.7.09 @ 2:47PM
What happened to Conservatism in America?
Conservatism has a long and justifiably proud tradition in this country, and is as American as apple pie. However, it has dramatically changed over recent decades with the emergence of the more secular rightism of Barry Goldwater and especially the New Right activism under the leadership of folks like (the late) Paul Weyrich and Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and others. That is, it has dramatically devolved to a dogma driven ideological movement and relentless cultural warfare. Recall that the aforementioned Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation and also the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. In fact, the Weyrich coined the phrase “moral majority”. As one of the foremost conservative leaders of our time, his influence on conservative policy and practices cannot be overstated. What should concern free-spirited Americans of all stripes are the avocations made by him and others of the New Right persuasion, perhaps best exemplified in his publication “Integration of Theory and Practice” wherein he states:
From Paul Weyrich's training manual -
1.Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, repetition, energy and dedication.
2.It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”
3.Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.
4.The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.
Sound familiar??
Over the course of the Fall campaign and since his inauguration, our President has been subjected to all manner of vulgar, belligerent, hateful speech from the Conservative Hate Machine. Here are some documented examples uttered by Republican officials and supporters .... that have appeared both in the media and on numerous right-wing journalistic forums and at rallies.
He's a “Muslim” .. he's an “Islamic Fascist” .. he's, he's an “Arab” .. he's the “Messiah” .. he's the “Savior” .. he's “Barack the magic negro” .. he's a “member of Hamas” ... he “hates America” .. he's “Godless” .. he's “that one” .. he's a “Socialist” .. he's a “Racist” .. he's the “Anti-Christ” .. he's a “Communist” .. he's “Evil” .. he's a “Nazi” .. he's a “Gangsta Rapper” .. he's a “Traitor” .. he wants to “euthanize the elderly” .. he's a “fascist dictator” .. he's a “Jihadist” .. he's “gonna take away our guns” .. “Kill him, Kill him” .. “Off with his head” .. he's an “Illegal Alien” .. he “forged his birth certificate” .. he's “Adolf Hitler” .. he's a “Terrorist”.. he “should be buried with Kennedy”.
Does this look like the kind of speech one would expect from true American patriots .. or does this sound more like mob speech? Wouldn't a true American say “he's our “President”? The late Paul Weyrich would be proud of this ad hominem belligerence. Abraham Lincoln would be deeply ashamed.
But the current mainstream GOP doesn't stop with offensive hate speech. Indeed, here's the latest stroke of morality and American spirit coming from these protectors of American values .. on display at the Capital during the GOP's Thursday, November 5 mob rally against health insurance reform -- a large banner containing a terrible Holocaust image showing a pile of dead, naked, emaciated bodies that reads National Socialist Health Care, Dachau Germany, 1945.
Dachau Germany, 1945?
True Conservatives are inherently skeptical .. cautious .. even loath to take leaps of “faith”. Historically, they greatly value empiricism and are resolutely guided by it in policy formulations. .. and they are pragmatic. Sadly, this empiric discipline has been replaced by dogma, hubristic confabulation and a descent into hysteria. And, in the face of the catastrophic failure of “supply-side” economics .. driven by a party that controlled the Presidency, Congress, or Both for the last 14 years .. the GOP has mired themselves and this country in a miasma of failed policies. Blinded by ideology .. they are unable to come to terms with what they've done and are desperate, in the Weyrich tradition, to destroy anything that runs counter to their failed beliefs.
I don't think this is what John Adams had in mind for the American colonies. True pragmatic, working, deliberative Conservatism evolved well into the 20th century .. as exemplified in recent times by the Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans (now derisively called RINOs .. Republicans In Name Only). In its place, the current Grand Old Party's conservatism has devolved to a sad, twisted, ideologically driven parody of its former self .. a parody that came to devastating fruition under Ronald Reagan and G.W Bush. Sadly for all of us, this pestilence of failure will be with us for years to come.
victor| 11.7.09 @ 8:34PM
Blah, Blah Blah!
Care to cite your sources?
http://www.theocracywatch.org/.....manual.htm
I can.
Typical Left wing Boilerplate!
Interesting that it cannot be found anywhere, but liberal sites.
Someone dropped it on Free Republic, and they saw it for the libertarian trash that it sounds like.
Nick| 11.8.09 @ 12:04AM
Victor,
Thanks for exposing this marxist/alinskyite troll.
Paul Weyrich was a great man.
Margie| 11.8.09 @ 2:15PM
Hey~ if it sounds like poppycock, reads like poppycock, guess what?
~LOL. One thing I'm thankful for is that God gave me the ability to recognize bilge by about the second sentence.
"Our God is not a God of confusion."
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 1:13AM
Whatever!
This is nothing more than typical liberal socialist pap!
I think truepatriot is really Lib Reader because it sounds exactly like him!
In any case "truepatriot/lib reader" is nothing more than a propoganda whore and this post is simply one more example of how completely simple-minded and blind the moronic liberal truly is! Anpother fine product of the American public school system.
I will respond to this putrid garbage no more.
"Get thee gone, Cur! or Taste the metal of my blade on thy own tongue!"
Pro Libertate!
victor| 11.6.09 @ 8:39PM
Simple Reader:
"World-renowned and universally recognized historian Rushmore Limbaugh"
Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
And yes, he should be on Mount Rushmore.
Bud| 11.8.09 @ 7:48PM
Over the years I've come to regret the presence of Teddy Roosevelt's image on Mount Rushmore. Mr. Limbaugh has far more in common with the other three folks depicted there than Statist Teddy.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.6.09 @ 11:08AM
Mr. Klein................BRILLIANT COLUMN!
(Except one thing)...The Sleeping Giant is Now Awake, And Angry!
I don't mean mildly miffed, but rather bone deep mad! I used that word on purpose. You have a microphone, (and use it splendidly). Most people out here do not have a "vent" except the smoke coming out of their ears.
Sir
It is my firm belief that all of the old political landscape is going to be washed away...next November...one way or another.
I actually see the pendulum swinging too far and frankly it frightens me.
Try to look into the future a little more Mr. Klein.
What shape might our country be in a year from now?
How many terrorist attacks? (Fort Hoods?)
What kind of unemployment rate?
These are our GOOD kids out there who cannot find a meaningful job, for crying out loud!
These are our good troops being shackled, while being thrown into a meat grinder without reinforcements!
We are in "Christmas present" look into "Christmas future" wake up, and take an alka selzer, and hope the nightmare goes away.
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 4:35PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Feeding the Beast [spectator.org] on links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 11.6.09 @ 8:35PM
This is from part of my post in a thread yesterday:
This is from the Socialist Security cite:
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."
Ida May Fuller was the first recipient of monthly S.S. checks when she retired in 1940. She lived to be 100.
She almost got paid back in full with her first check. She got 926 times more than what she paid in. That's a 92,600% return on "investment." Not bad, huh?
If you have collected Socialist Security checks for more than a few years, odds are you already got back what you paid into it. Now you are just on welfare.
William Tucker| 11.6.09 @ 9:27PM
Dear Nick,
I think the phenomenon you're describing with Ida May Fuller is what is called a "Ponzi scheme."
Nick| 11.6.09 @ 11:05PM
Mr. Tucker,
Too bad that name couldn't have been tied to Socialist Security from the beginning, huh?
Richard Baker| 11.7.09 @ 5:55PM
Bydand76:
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR's Treasury Secretary, say something about the failure of the Administration's efforts to end the Depression?
victor| 11.7.09 @ 8:36PM
Morgenthau, testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee in May of 1939, the FDR ally did not sugarcoat it: "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."
Bydand76| 11.8.09 @ 10:42AM
AYE!
Yet again another failure of the Keynesian model.
Nice quote victor
Richard Baker| 11.8.09 @ 9:49AM
victor:
Thanks for the quotation. Point made.