The American Spectator

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 9:30AM

McCain, you need to stop this idiotic nonsense that the stimulus bill did not create jobs. Even Romney, who has an education (unlike you) in economics used the qualifier "NET NEW JOBS" when he made his official statement. One third of the stimulus bill were tax cuts. That means you don't even believe those tax cuts stimulated job growth.

We do know the stimulus created jobs, but it is impossible to know how many. Personally, with my training in economics, I don't believe it was an efficient producer of jobs and certainly didn't pay for itself -- so I wouldn't do it. But please, stop spreading lies about that action.

Then again, the Republican alternative would have done even worse as a job creator because we know, through macroeconomic analysis that tax cuts are not stimulative to the economy either. But the electorate is illiterate when it comes to economics so you idiots can say anything and they will not check the charts and the data to prove the case.

Lawler was right in stating that this is a structural problem. Unemployment would certainly be slightly higher under a Republican administration since at least Democrats are creating government jobs.

Our structural problem is that we have moved from being a manufacturing economy to a service/consuming economy in the past couple of decades. Manufacturing creates more jobs per dollar of GDP than consumption, which produces jobs overseas. In addition, most of our job losses have come from increases in productivity because of increased computerization. That means fewer people to make goods (look at robotics in auto assembly plants) and less middle management as senior managers have more data at their fingertips.

Thus, the solution must be structural, i.e., we must have a longer term industrial policy to increase middle class jobs in our country. Personally, I would promote a policy that gives breaks for creating those jobs, especially in specialty manufacturing. In addition, we should provide better distribution capabilities by grouping small producers to sell our products to other countries. Tax policy would also be important as we should eliminate corporate income taxes in favor of a consumption tax. That would tax foreign company profits that we don't get right now and level the playing field. That would also bring off shore capital back into the states.

The fact that either side won't promote an industrial policy that favors American exceptional-ism is a sham. They won't do this because they are either too dumb (a probability) or they know people won't understand so it doesn't get them re-elected. That's why we need term limits so people will do the right thing rather than pandering.

ggoblue| 3.8.10 @ 11:00AM

term limits???? like the term limits passed under the contract with america? that were overturned by tom foley and the democrats????? them term limits???

we gonna term limit a whole bunch of liberals in only 8 more months.

astonerii| 3.8.10 @ 4:33PM

"McCain, you need to stop this idiotic nonsense that the stimulus bill did not create jobs. Even Romney, who has an education (unlike you) in economics used the qualifier "NET NEW JOBS" when he made his official statement. One third of the stimulus bill were tax cuts. That means you don't even believe those tax cuts stimulated job growth."

Net New Jobs, means this. For every job created, others were destroyed, probably at a rate of 1:2 ratio because of the money stolen from productive private sector and handed to unproductive public sector.

The tax cuts are not structural tax cuts, but one time payments that do not effect employment and only partially increase spending, as many who get the tax cuts put them into savings instead.

"We do know the stimulus created jobs, but it is impossible to know how many. Personally, with my training in economics, I don't believe it was an efficient producer of jobs and certainly didn't pay for itself -- so I wouldn't do it. But please, stop spreading lies about that action."

It is not a lie to state the fact that stealing from Peter to pay Paul does not increase net worth. Thus killing 3.4m jobs with stimulus theft and using that money to fund 1.2M government jobs, mostly at the state level is worse than just simply not "an efficient producer of jobs", it was far far worse than that.

"Then again, the Republican alternative would have done even worse as a job creator because we know, through macroeconomic analysis that tax cuts are not stimulative to the economy either. But the electorate is illiterate when it comes to economics so you idiots can say anything and they will not check the charts and the data to prove the case."

Actually, who cares about 'macroeconomic analysis', because text book economics does not use empirical evidence and also does not use dynamic economic models, but uses static models and theoretical model created evidence. Can we say Global Circulation Models as opposed to actual temperature readings? In every single empirical evidence situation where real structural tax cuts were put into place, as in long term, the economy performed better than projected status quo, and tax receipts increased and actually increased the weight of the burden of taxes onto the top and lowered it on the bottom. Thus real life events prove that macroeconomic theories used for the macroeconomic models are false, come up with a new theory.

"Lawler was right in stating that this is a structural problem. Unemployment would certainly be slightly higher under a Republican administration since at least Democrats are creating government jobs."

Not necessarily. The GOP would not be pushing long term or permanent increases in taxes, deficit spending for wasteful pork that is worse than inefficient, permanent new entitlements that will cost businesses money, permanent regulations and taxes on fossil fuel use, threatening to allow unions to strong arm their way into every business through card check, thus causing most of the structural problem with the economy. These are the things that are making this economy to remain in neutral to even moving towards reverse. Also note that the GOP would not have killed off production of the F-22 nor killed the NASA program, nor destroyed 220 years of protection of private contracts by strong arming out first in line creditors to GM and Chrysler causing companies to rethink how solid any contracts they make today will be in the future, let alone the outright nationalization of GM and Chrysler. The GOP also would not be sticking the tax payers with unlimited liability through Fanny Mae and Freddi Mac. There are hundreds of more smaller items that can be added to this list of things that the GOP would have done that would have been structurally better for the economy than the Democrats are currently doing or have already done.

"Our structural problem is that we have moved from being a manufacturing economy to a service/consuming economy in the past couple of decades. Manufacturing creates more jobs per dollar of GDP than consumption, which produces jobs overseas. In addition, most of our job losses have come from increases in productivity because of increased computerization. That means fewer people to make goods (look at robotics in auto assembly plants) and less middle management as senior managers have more data at their fingertips."

Are you saying that productivity is bad? Lets look at a few places where we could improve on the picture and show how the Democrats are part and parcel of the problem with the lack of increase in the production sphere of the economy. Oil, we have lots of it, who prevents Americans from getting it? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Coal, who works tirelessly, session after session to prevent coal from being extracted from the ground? Again Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Nuclear Power? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Nickel mines? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Copper mines? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Forestry? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Leather tanning? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Building oil refinery plants? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Aluminum and other metals foundries? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Ship Yards? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Auto Plants? Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. Any kind of actual production facility at all in this country? The people actively working to prevent is always Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. So, again, do you really think that Republicans would keep the economy from expanding just as much as the Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends? Who promotes industry busting unions? Democrats.

"Thus, the solution must be structural, i.e., we must have a longer term industrial policy to increase middle class jobs in our country. Personally, I would promote a policy that gives breaks for creating those jobs, especially in specialty manufacturing. In addition, we should provide better distribution capabilities by grouping small producers to sell our products to other countries. Tax policy would also be important as we should eliminate corporate income taxes in favor of a consumption tax. That would tax foreign company profits that we don't get right now and level the playing field. That would also bring off shore capital back into the states."

Yup, nothing more than a bunch of redistribution Marxist theology talking points there. Along with that consumption tax, what should every American get in advance to keep the poor from being overly burdened each year to pay for that tax? $5000, $10,000 or $100,000? It does not matter, because the result is the same. The people who are given all the benefits of a huge monstrous government will pay exactly nothing for it and on top of that will be given bonus money to boot.

What should happen is regulation should be cut back significantly. All public unions should be banned, no public entity should be allowed to collude with public representatives to increase both entities bottom line at the expense of the private citizens of the country. The ecoterrorists should be put into place and told to shut the hell up or be put behind bars stamping license plates. The government should get rid of the corporate, investment and death taxes completely and get rid of every last single tax break and refundable tax credit on the books for income taxes. People should pay taxes on every single penny of earnings, even if they only make $200, it means they will understand why we cannot just hand out money to every little beggar in the country. The government should fast track the licensing of hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear power plants and oil refineries.

"The fact that either side won't promote an industrial policy that favors American exceptional-ism is a sham. They won't do this because they are either too dumb (a probability) or they know people won't understand so it doesn't get them re-elected. That's why we need term limits so people will do the right thing rather than pandering."

Wrong again. The reason that Republicans do not promote this is because every last bit of media is on the side of the Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends. They persuade Americans not to want a strong industrial policy, and even Republicans are nothing more than representatives of their constituents. So, until Americans get out from under neath the thrall of the media, Democrats and their ecoterrorist friends, we will never have a strong industrial policy that allows Americans to be exceptional.

Or you can just say that the Democrats are just hunky dory like a wingnut progressive liberal retard, in which case, you should at least be honest about yourself and proclaim yourself as such.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 5:01PM

Believe me, I have tried to refute Bob point by point with common sense and facts but it makes no difference because he is an Ivy League educated fool just like our pathetic president. This is a man who refuses to acknowledge the success of Reagan's tax cuts in reviving a stagnant economy under the Keynesian policies of the 70's. In fact, he uses the liberal hack line that tax cuts causes deficits even if FEDERAL REVENUES INCREASE LIKE THEY DID UNDER BOTH REAGAN AND BUSH AFTER TAX CUTS. And he still tries to pass himself off as a fiscal conservative but he doesn't fool anyone.

astonerii| 3.8.10 @ 5:09PM

But it must be done every chance you get. Or his junk science theological rumblings will infect perfectly good people. I do not write up much here, but when I see something as far off as this, it has to be refuted with common sense uneducated reality based truths :)

It does not take an education to know that paying someone less for something earns you less of that item. In this case, taxing something is the same as putting a limit on its production. Same goes for regulating something. The more regulations, the less you will get. I keep thinking of starting a business, but never get past the part where I am looking at a pile of 400 or more sheets of paper that tell me how my new business would have to be run. By the time I go through it, I figure out that there is no way I would make it past a second year in business. You have to hire lawyers to figure out your tax liabilities, lawyers to figure out your public liabilities, lawyers to figure out what regulations apply to you and how to overcome the damaging effect those regulations would have on cost and thus profit.

Then you also have to figure, that production capability has to go through the ecoterrorists and it just gets even worse. Lawsuits can take up years to be overcome, and by that time you have lost almost all your investors and any hope of actually building anything.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 8:29PM

I'm still curious as to how tripling my debt under Reagan, then more than quadrupling it using the same tax policies under GHW, made us better off? It took a true Fiscal conservative, Bill Clinton, to slow the bleeding.

Smitty| 3.10.10 @ 6:29PM

Bill Clinton a fiscal conservative? Nice try, moron, but that was a fiscally conservative republican congress that saved Willie's butt!

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 5:07PM

It was a brilliant rebuttal to Boob though I have to say. Notice how he will ignore your posts because he knows you will destroy his lame arguments and find some other target to heap his derision on.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 7:38PM

astonerii,
Welcome to our conversations here. Please forgive "Bob".
Bob has had several sucessful careers with several different careers (heh). He voted for Obama and plans on doing so again. 'Nuff said.
He is our "comedy relief" player now, except we may have a new one in "Daisy".
(I was being nice. Bob has a new reality every single day, heh).

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 6:08PM

Your post is full of anecdotal fairy tales and is not consistent with the data. Let me just take a few points:

"Net New Jobs, means this. For every job created, others were destroyed, probably at a rate of 1:2 ratio because of the money stolen from productive private sector and handed to unproductive public sector."

You have absolutely no data to support this contention. It is a wives tale to say that money to the private sector increases jobs. Jobs are created because companies create new products or services. These are longer term in nature and thus cover a number of economic cycles. You don't create products for the short term. You make investments basis ROI calculations over the life of the capital equipment purchased. Tax incentives only have a very minor impact on business growth, if at all. Perhaps you can show me the data here.

"Thus killing 3.4m jobs with stimulus theft and using that money to fund 1.2M government jobs, mostly at the state level is worse than just simply not "an efficient producer of jobs", it was far far worse than that."

This is a crock, and you obviously know little about economics. The jobs were lost because of the deep recession, not stimulus spending. In fact, almost one-half of those losses were incurred BEFORE the stimulus was enacted. How could this happen if the losses were due to the stimulus. You must have failed your logic class.

"In every single empirical evidence situation where real structural tax cuts were put into place, as in long term, the economy performed better than projected status quo, and tax receipts increased and actually increased the weight of the burden of taxes onto the top and lowered it on the bottom."

Again, this doesn't agree with the data. Look at the data from the Heritage Foundation and you will see this just isn't true. In fact, all they can say is that the longer term benefits of lower taxes are positive -- but they can't point out any better performance under Reagan than with Carter or Clinton. Rhetoric without facts is the definition of stupidity.

I don't have time to rebut the other dumb remarks you've said without proof, but I will say that I think the Democrats are worse for this country than Republicans. Until you ideologues start using the truth and analysis to come to conclusions, you will ruin this country almost as much as Democrats.

victor| 3.8.10 @ 10:28PM

Bubele:
"Again, this doesn't agree with the data. Look at the data from the Heritage Foundation and you will see this just isn't true. In fact, all they can say is that the longer term benefits of lower taxes are positive -- but they can't point out any better performance under Reagan than with Carter or Clinton. Rhetoric without facts is the definition of stupidity."

You must get your facts from Heritage.com:
http://www.heritage.com/

I see you were visiting with the cat in the hat, eh?

Heritage.org, indeed has all of the facts:
http://www.heritage.org/

According to data that I found, after Ronaldus Magnus cut tax rates, we suffered through 5 straight quarters of 8% growth in GDP from 1st qtr of 1983 through 1st qtr of 1984.
No on comes close.
According to analysis of the FACTS, Bubele, out of six terms: Carter, Reagan (2), Bush, Clinton (2)
Reagan comes out on top at avg
3.76% for Ron II,
3.67% for Bill II,
3.41% for Carter,
3.30% for Bill I,
2.92% for Ron I,
1.90% for Bush.
Reagan would have been much higher if Carter did not leave Ron with such a raging recession.
Interest Rates in jan 1981 was 20.00%
Inflation was 11.83%
Reagan cut the rates down to 10.5% in Jan 1985
and inflation down to 3.53% in Jan of 1985.
and down to 1.10% in Dec of 1986.

"tax receipts increased and actually increased the weight of the burden of taxes onto the top and lowered it on the bottom."

Reagan increased the revenues by 100%:
550 Billion to 950Billion Dollars.
The revenue from the top earners increased from 15% to 30% when the top rates were reduced
from 70% down to 29%.
Proof once again that capitalism works every time it is tried.
"Rhetoric without facts is the definition of stupidity."
And the Definition of Bob and the rest of the liberal termites that are infesting these boards.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 10:34PM

Just to simplify, how does revenue "increase" when you quadrupled your debt?

when you plunge deeper in debt, it's because, in reality, your revenue didn't increase in relation to your expenditures. Now we're still paying the interest on this massive debt, over $300 billion every year. How is this better?

victor| 3.8.10 @ 11:47PM

Jon B:
"Blah... Blah... Blah...".

Typical liberal dweeb answer.
Continually confusing the debt with the deficit.
Two different things.
If the rate of spending was held down as the revenues increased we would have balanced the budget in ten years.
Economic illiterates are in charge of the purse strings as they were in the 80's.
Spending is out of control.
Reagan did his part and his job by stimulating the economy.
You liberal twerps don't or won't understand that spending needs to be controlled.
Stop spending and you can pay off your debt.
You dems are going to learn the hard way. As you will soon find out here in New Jersey.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 10:03AM

Uh, Bob.....
I think Mr. McCain said and referenced exactly what you said.

Nevertheless, too damned much of the porkulous bill was and is being spent on State and local gubmints...and unemployment.

My dearest lifelong friend (who happens to be my cousin) is one of the top three or four macro-economists in the country. He has been a "dollar a year man" for seven Presidents now, but declined O's invitation.
I do apreciate your last paragraph, but would enjoy "enforcing" term limits with my vote rather than a "rule".
You used a very good term with "industrial policy". I will plagarize it henceforward. I have utilized the word "business climate...long term" but your term is more accurate.
We sit and look at a key part of "industrial policy" every single day..."drill and build nukes...here....or not".
In a mere seven years, ('74 through '80), my buddies in the international oil business worked themselves out of a job, quadrupling proven reserves, and extracting oil and gas at an unbelievable drop in costs of production.

We could do it domestically if the communists, (pardon the shorthand), didn't want to curtail our ability to vote with our feet. (wheels).

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 2:04PM

From a purely economics viewpoint, we only have 3% of the world's petroleum reserves. At the current price levels, drilling in the U.S. is just not that profitable and will not solve the problem. We do have significant coal and natural gas reserves, however, and we should spend research monies making the coal process cleaner and finding a way to utilize natural gas more. I'm a firm believer (as is Obama), in building more nuclear plants. Storing/reprocessing nuclear waste is relatively a non-issue after all of these years.

astonerii| 3.8.10 @ 4:46PM

"From a purely economics viewpoint, we only have 3% of the world's petroleum reserves. "

Um, the liberal talking point genius strikes again. 3%? Add in the oil shale which has been proven now to be economically recoverable to the tune of 2T barrels of oil at a cost of $60/barrel and we are actually way above that 3%. We have almost the entire coast line of the coast that has not even been explored with modern technology for 3 decades or more, which could quadruple that 3% in just a few years. We have nearly unlimited amounts of coal, which would be turned into diesel fuel for less than the cost of oil through use of nuclear power plants. What exactly is the % of US lands that are off limits 100% to oil exploration due to Federal National parks which are a favorite Democrat and ecoterrorist method of preventing humans from excelling? It is a pretty high number I can bet.

As for coal process cleaner, what exactly are you talking about? Almost 100% of contaminants are removed from coal exhaust. The only thing hitting the air is water vapor and CO2. Obama is not for Nuclear power, if he was, he would have kept Yucca Mountain active. Who exactly is we for spending money on research? Are you part of the industrial complex that is going to spend that money, or are you asking me to help fund at the gun point of the federal government some special item that you prefer and I may not?

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 6:14PM

Again, you are pulling this out of one of your lower orafices. Here is a chart of oil reserves by country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....l-reserves

Haven't you ever taken math? Oil shale is mostly from Canada, not the U.S. And you are also saying the the use of coal is clean?

http://www.time.com/time/healt.....99,00.html

Again, please show us the scientific data that supports your contention that coal is clean. I happen to agree with you on Yucca Mountain. Do you want to make something of it?

victor| 3.9.10 @ 12:53AM

Bubele:
"Oil shale is mostly from Canada, not the U.S."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/3...../index.htm

Exactly what is that stuff in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming then, eh?
How about the Bakken oil fields in the Dakotas?

Two Trillion Barrels is 300 years of oil for the US.
I guess to people such as yourselves, it's just chopped liver, eh?

SoCon| 3.10.10 @ 6:34PM

Bob, you misspelled 'orifices'--suprised me, too, you should know a lot about lower 'orifices'.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 12:13PM

I recall that Carter handed Reagan relatively stable unemployment at 7.5% that stayed near that until October 1981. And the unemployment peaked under Reagan in December 1982 at 10.8% 23 months after he took office. Unemployment did not return to Carter era levels until June of 1984, almost the end of Reagan's first term.

And this recession is much worse than the one Reagan had to deal with.

victor| 3.9.10 @ 12:43AM

Jon B(aloney):
"And this recession is much worse than the one Reagan had to deal with."

Carter's Recession was much worse.
Ask someone who lived through it. Such as your father, perhaps?
PS you also forgot about the gas lines under Jimmy, eh?

Interest Rates in jan 1981 was 20.00%
Inflation was 11.83%
Reagan cut the rates down to 10.5% in Jan 1985
and inflation down to 3.53% in Jan of 1985.
and down to 1.10% in Dec of 1986.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:18AM

Paul Volcker set the high interest rates on purpose. He must've been an OK guy since Ronald kept him around until 1987 when he retired. I lived through the 1979 recession, and in fact worked at a gas station when gas went up 30 cents, from 65 cents to 95 cents a gallon, in one month. Carter set forth the Nation's first energy policy: He opened up all offshore drilling sites near Alaska, and 95% of the potential inland sites saving ANWR as that's something Ike requested to be saved from drilling as well. Carter set cafe standards, and made it illegal for US oil companies to shut down refineries or sell US oil over seas. Republicans gutted most of these provisions mostly during the 90's. US oil companies immediately set out to create a spike in prices by buying out smaller refineries, shutting them down, and slowing production in their own. This is what caused the gas price hike in 1999.

Carter was dealt a set of bad circumstances with stagflation and OPEC, whereas Republicans have more often created the conditions to allow it to happen again. You seem like you must be a pretty dishonest person to deliberately omit the base facts surrounding what happened.

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 6:48PM

Jon, you failed to mention (the failed president) Carters's 20% interst rates (try buying a house with those rates!) and outrageous 15% inflation. Additionally, miles long gas lines and Carter generated 'malaise' round out the moron's achievements.

Reagan's tight money policy policies broke the back of Carter's 'stagflation' and led to 30 years of robust American economic growth. Carter left our country in steep decline--Reagan saved it.

Liberal policies destroy.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:20AM

Reagan quadrupled the National debt. He created the borrowed economy, and set up the conditions for excessive spending and debts that plagues us today.

DumpTheOnce| 3.8.10 @ 12:25PM

Hogwash.....Reagan, like many presidents, had to deal with more "stuff" that our effeminate prince Barry. Boo-hoo Barry says, it's "so hard". Boo-hoo. Reagan not only had rising unemployment but attrocious inflation, prime interest rate, wimpy foreign policy, a weakening of national defense, hmm, sounds familiar, no? Barry James Earl Carter Soetoro Obama. Welcome back, Carter!

Most presidents, repub or dem, were handed more serious problems than "The One (termer)".

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 2:09PM

Can you chew gum and walk at the same time? By any macroeconomic definition, what Obama faces is far worse than Reagan. Reagan still lived at the time we were a manufacturing economy rather than a consumption economy. You probably don't know what that means, right? Reagan increased the debt levels in this country more than ALL of the previous Presidents combined. He didn't have EXPENSIVE wars to fight either -- at least not compared to what we spend now on drones and technology.

By the way, by 1983 Reagan's approval rating dropped to 35% -- far lower than Obama's. The truth is that when the economy returns, and it will (and not due to government), Obama will look much better.

astonerii| 3.8.10 @ 4:53PM

Macroeconomics is a pretty lame science you know. It pretty much has not accomplished a single thing in its entire history has it? Yet you keep bringing it up as if it has some magical ability to prove something. Sounds very much like another scientific fraud that is happening today in our climate. Reagan had post 15% inflation, 20% interest rates, I remember, because I kept asking my grandmother why my savings was not getting the 18% that another kid in schools was, and it was because mine was invested in long term before the inflation hit with Carter.

Reagan had the most expensive war to fund, or are you old to remember the cold war we inherited from a democratic president of many years past who refused to face down the Soviets before they got Nuclear weapons? Funny how Reagan won that war, that many presidents thought would be with us until the end of times and many people like you thought we were destined to lose; or secretly wished we would?

Obama may look better by 2012, but he will never again look good. Reagan recovered because his policies made a positive difference. Obama will not because every single one of his policies makes a negative difference.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:28PM

Reagan hid the Soviet Union's economic reports from Congress from 1981 on, so he could pretend that we needed a military buildup. The winds of change causing Perestroika came from within and had very little to do with Reagan, although he was a vociferous cheerleader for change.

Reagan's greatest real time contribution came when he bribed the USSR with $425 billion US taxpayer $'s so they'd start Perestroika under his term effectively hiring himself as the lead actor in a play on the world stage. Talk about careless wealth redistribution, and arrogance.

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 6:50PM

Jon, you really have to get off that crack--you're totally whacked out.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:22AM

I apologize: Reagan gave Russia $425 million, not $425 billion. I have no idea how I warped that figure in my mind. It's not even logical. But yes, Ronald gave Russia $425 million to start Perestroika a year or two earlier than they were going to anyway.

Bob| 3.8.10 @ 6:17PM

"Macroeconomics is a pretty lame science you know."

You must also believe the earth is flat and that men rode dinosaurs. Right? Once you adjust any of the data for inflation, any argument that Reaganomics was great goes away. Or do you also consider inflation to be junk science? Here's an article by one of Reagan's chief economists.

http://www.econlib.org/library.....omics.html

Did you actually go to school or did you just learn from your mommy????

victor| 3.9.10 @ 12:59AM

No, Bubele, I was there, and it was far worse than this.
Your just getting senile if you think the the Paradise that was Jimmy Carter's America was a walk in the park.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 12:56PM

Rising unemployment did not start until 9 months into Reagan's first term.

The "atrocious inflation" was deliberately set by the Fed, Paul Volcker, who Reagan thought so highly of he retained him until he resigned in 1987.

Wimpy foreign policy? Carter sent in a team of commandos who failed because of weather, that was wimpy? Or did you mean wimpy when Reagan GAVE the Ayatollah Stinger Missiles in the arms for hostages deal (Source: Lawrence Walsh in his book "Firewall: the Iran/Contra controversy and cover-up."

Or did you mean "wimpy" when Reagan GAVE Russia $425 BILLION over 2 years so they'd start perestroika a year or 2 earlier than they were going to anyway?

Or did you mean wimpy when Reagan ordered the 243 Marines who were murdered quartered inland against the Army's wishes, and for diplomatic reasons?

Or do you mean wimpy when Reagan sent over a team of US nuclear scientists to China, China started arming the dictators in Central America, and also developed the Neutron bomb, and Hydrogen bomb shortly afterwards?

I'm curious, what's your definition of wimpy?

victor| 3.9.10 @ 1:06AM

Carter failed because those helicopters were not equipped to fly in sandstorms. They were missing filters that should have been installed.
PS would you have deposed the Shah and brought the Ayotollah back from exile?
Jimmy and Z-Big did. And so would you.

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 6:56PM

Wimpy is 15% inflation, 20% interest rates, Carter's 'Malaise', communist takeovers of numerous countries around the world and an impotent attempt to rescue the hostages after years of imprisonment in Iran.

Carter was an Epic Failure as a president and is a treasonous bastard as an ex-president.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 5:22PM

Lots of lies thrown out by Jon B, much like anytime Obama speaks. Any honest person knows that it was Volker who defeated the evil of inflation that spiraled out of control under Carter. Here is a chart if you can read it moron.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
Inflation was reduced from 13.5% in 1980 to just 3.2% in 1983 under Reagan and Volker you fool. It is true that unemployment did rise in the first couple years under Reagan in order to defeat the idiotic economic policies that lead to stagflation under Carter but quickly rebounded under pro market policies of reducing taxes and government regulations. Might have had something to do with the fact Reagan won 49 states in 1984.

Actually, everything you said was bullshit so take your lying liberal talking points to the Daily Kos you loser.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:29PM

Volcker was hired by Carter, and raised interest rates at first. I guess you missed both of those bits, eh?`

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 5:47PM

You clearly have no grasp of economics, must have majored in the liberal arts if you went to college. Raising interest rates will bring down the level of inflation, that is economics 101. Carter's economic policies (and all liberals) of high taxes and regulations would have kept the economy weak whatever Volker would have done with interest rates and monetary supply. All I need to say to you fool is 49 in 84.

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 6:57PM

lol. REAGAN LANDSLIDE!!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:23AM

In no small part because Reagan outbid Carter in promising more weapons to the Ayatollah, and delivering, for the hostages.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 5:42PM

Let me add that Reagan had more to do with the economic recovery than Volker due to his pro-market policies which Volker was never really on board for. Reagan just gave the political cover for Volker to choke off inflation. Here is an excellent article called The Paul Volker Myth.
http://www.realclearmarkets.co....._myth.html

Paul Volker did endorse Obama after all though I think he regrets it now and he realizes just how irresponsible this Marxist is.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:46PM

I'll argue that although some of Reagan's policies helped, others hurt. He raised taxes that affect low and middle income Americans far more, and those are the people who actually spend when they have more money since they actually need things. I'll also argue that when you triple my debt, as Reagan did, a do not put policies in place to pay it off, that you hurt me more than you helped me.

It was borrow and spend economics. the only trus fiscal conservative we've had since 1980 is Bill Clinton, whether you like that or not.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 5:51PM

Who was running Congress and setting the budget from 1994-2000 under Bill Clinton Jon B? Bill Clinton being a fiscal conservative is a joke, Newt just made it impossible for him to raise taxes further and spend more. You remember 1994? If you have forgotten, 2010 will make you remember when the arrogant Demorats get their asses handed to them.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 5:57PM

Republicans spent $30 billion more per year than what Clinton asked for. Republican spending on the programs the "Contract on America" proposed to cut actually increased by 13%.

“The single most crucial element in creating the surplus was Clinton’s stimulus package of 1993”~ Alan Greenspan-R.

Clinton reversed some of Reagan's wealth redistribution to the top, and was rewarded with budget surpluses. Wanna go any further?

victor| 3.9.10 @ 1:23AM

“The single most crucial element in creating the surplus was Clinton’s stimulus package of 1993”~ Alan Greenspan-R. "

Greenspan is a libertarian. Get your facts straight.

The surpluses did not happen until the 1st qtr of '98. That was the result of three things:
The Welfare Reform Act, which added millions of taxpayers to the rolls, Republicans who held spending down and the reduction of the Capital Gains Tax, which not only brought in countless Billions, but was also responsible for 25% of the Stock Market Growth.

Wanna check your "facts"?

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:26AM

A Republican majority increased the budgets Clinton asked for every single year. The Contract on America was never enacted, in fact Republican spending on the programs the 'Contract' was supposed to cut actually increased by 13%.

You lied.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 6:07PM

Please tell me more Jon B about how much more fiscally responsible Democrats are and how great the stimulus has worked. Before you rail about how much Bush added to the deficit, how about the fact that Obama's first two years will add just as much to the debt as George Bush's 8 years? And btw, where did you come up with your lie about $425 billion being given to the Soviet's by Reagan? Absolutely absurd. Got better things to do then to waste my time talking any more sense into you loser.

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:27AM

I apologize for giving the $425 billion figure that Reagan gave Russia. It was actually $425 million.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 6:13PM

How old are you?
Do you actually follow politics beyond talking points?
Republicans still hold the pork record, $29 billion in 2006, which dropped by 45% the first year Democrats held a majority.

90% of of the spending in Fiscal year 2009 outside of mandatory came from Bush programs and Bush mistakes. The stimulus package, tax cuts for low and middle income Americans, and refunding state programs Bush cut, would've happened no matter who was President.

And last why are you unaware of the fact that Reagan gave Russia $250 billion in 1987 and another $175 Billion in 1988, widely reported in the National media when it happened? Rather than look it up, you resort to lying by saying I;'m lying. Since you're an unashamed liar who blames me for your own failures, I will have to carefully consider whether or not I wish to engage in any further conversation with you

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 10:01PM

Like Ken said, you are full of crap. Tell me where you found that Reagan gave$425 billion to the Soviets over 2 years because that is beyond absurd. That amount is probably more than the GDP for the failed socialist state that was the Soviet Union and Reagan certainly was not going to prop them up as his goal was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Your claim is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard on this site and we get a fair number of really stupid leftist trolls. No moron, the "stimulus" would not have happened who ever was in office. Get lost loser

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 10:38PM

Where I "found" it? It was in the National news when it happened. On TV, and ion print media: Reagan GAVE Russia $250 billion the first year, and another $175 billion the second. I haven;t lied about a single thing, but I've noticed teh dull thuggery both of you practice as an MO when you lose a debate.

I "find" it completely UNBELIEVABLE that you have no idea about it.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 11:16PM

U got a source to back that up moron or just your stupid memory? Jackass

victor| 3.9.10 @ 1:26AM

Jon B(aloney) doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good revision.

Any good debater always has numerous sources.
He has none.

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 7:03PM

Your proof of your many idiotic statements is the "National News when it happened"? You mean the news featured in the 'Nation' or perhaps the Daily Comrade?

You're kidding, right? You're certifiable--even for a liberal. What a nitwit. LOL!

Your rubber room is missing you, libtard.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 10:40PM

Apparently you and Ken have married yourselves to talking points and lies, and therefore the truth offends you, hence the personal attacks. A normal person would be curious w/o the added BS, but not you two clowns.

Todd| 3.8.10 @ 11:21PM

You must be one of those idiots that does not know the difference between a million and a billion. I have an MBA in accounting, what is your education Jon B?

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:28AM

Reagan gave Russia $425 MILLION, not $425 billion. My mistake, and I apologize for that.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 7:57PM

Jon B
Let me be very clear here. YOU ARE A BALD FACED LIAR!
You are a scumbag liar, and I will jump your butt every time you lie from now on.

I shall not refute your lies. EVERYTHING you write are lies. EVERYTHING YOU WRITE .

Jon B = LIAR.

You are not stupid like some others here. You are a paid-for liar.

FOLKS, congratulations!
The communists, (pardon the shorthand), have despaired of the doofuses they have sent here to spray lies.
They have now brought in the varsity team of liars.
Each and every one of us should be proud. Every hour they try to spread lies here, they are not pedophiling our children.

Jon B, c'mon back.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 8:05PM

I was hoping for spirited debate, instead I get the WWF version of sports: thuggish grunts of those to lazy to do their own research. I haven't, and will not lie about anything.

You seem like you need my attention for some reason Ken, May I ask why?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 8:20PM

Well Jon B,
I will tell you in clearer words than above. You are not worthy of debate.
You are new here. Welcome.

We truly need a better grade of lies than the communists, (pardon the shorthand), have been giving us these last months.

(Uh, they couldn't sell the bullshit you are trying to sell. heh)
I am truly looking forward to "grunting" at you. My worst grunts are smarter than your best lies.
Unfortunately, I run a national company and do not have the time to debate your lies point by point.

Please, consider changing pen names. You have blown this one with stupid lies. Perhaps try semi-intelligent lies with at least a little truth in them.
Heh.
I will be watching for your new pen name.
Bye now.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 8:31PM

Ken, I really cannot help a child such as yourself.

Maybe you should go outside and beat up your dog, someone on your intellectual level?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.8.10 @ 9:00PM

Hi Jon.
I do not have a dog, so I shall beat up on liars and communists, (pardon the shorthand), like you.

This blog will go into electron land shortly. I hope to see you tomorrow so I can debunk your lies further.
...heh...or at least laugh at your lies.
Good night, light weight.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 9:52PM

Why not eliminate the Middle man and beat yourself up? Because that's all you're actually doing.

I guess that's too conservative for you, like me.

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 7:04PM

Moron.

Nick| 3.9.10 @ 11:37AM

Jon B,

"And last why are you unaware of the fact that Reagan gave Russia $250 billion in 1987 and another $175 Billion in 1988, widely reported in the National media when it happened?"

Hate to pile-on, but your memory stinks. It didn't happen.

President Reagan's proposed budget for 1987 was $994 billion, and congress spent $1.004 trillion. You are falsely claiming that 1/4 of it went to the Soviet Union.

The budget for 1988 was $1.02 trillion, and congress spent $1.06 trillion. You falsely claim that $175 billion of that went to the Soviet Union.

I was 20 at the time, and I think I would remember that.

Are you just getting old, or did you smoke too much dope back then?

Missy| 3.10.10 @ 7:05PM

Bad dope at that!

Jon B| 3.12.10 @ 9:30AM

Reagan gave Russia $425 million, not $425 billion, My mistake. It was widely reported in the National news when it happened. I'll find a source for it eventually, but it is true. I wonder why you have no idea about it though? It was widely reported at the time on National TV.