Econ 2009

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... and that's exactly, precisely what many conservatives have actively worked toward

That's a gross twisting of reality. Conservatives have been for cutting tax rates in the belief it spurs the economy. Please quote your source showing that conservatives have been wishing for a massive recession to cut government revenues.

in the late 1970s many conservatives ... decided to give up fiscal responsibility in order to get more political power.

I agree, we are *so* much better off with the fiscally responsible Democrats in charge

Think: which party's members are more likely to own Treasury bonds, from which a portion of their personal income comes? ....
Lower taxes plus more government-guaranteed income, for the wealthy ...

More twisted logic. I don't know of anyone holding bonds that is happy with current interest rates. Not to mention the huge increase in the money supply that virtually guarantees an inflationary future that will savage the value of the bonds over time.



I think this may go down as one of your weakest posts ever. Sure, conservatives bear the bulk of the blame for the current economic conditions, but to argue that this recession was part of their grand plan and they are tickled pink with this outcome is just ludicrous.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Prime95

That's a gross twisting of reality. Conservatives have been for cutting tax rates in the belief it spurs the economy. Please quote your source showing that conservatives have been wishing for a massive recession to cut government revenues.

I presume he is referring to the conservatives who have openly stated "I want Obama to fail". One could read many things into that. This would be one of them.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by rogue

..."I want Obama to fail".

A silly Republican position, yes. Does that qualify as "actively worked toward [today's mess] for nearly three decades", no.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by rogue

I presume he is referring to the conservatives who have openly stated "I want Obama to fail".

No, I am referring to the conservatives who've been openly advocating a certain fiscal-political strategy since before the 1980 election, that became known as "Starving the beast".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2][3] to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.

The tax cuts of former US President George W. Bush's administration, still in place, are an example. He said in 2001 "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been." [4]


. . .


History

Prior to being elected as the President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."[5] It appears the earliest use of the term "starving the beast" to refer to the political-fiscal strategy was in a Wall Street Journal article in 1985 where the reporter quoted an unnamed Reagan staffer. [6] Reagan Office of Management and Budget chief David Stockman's 1986 book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed discusses the implementation of that budget policy in insider detail.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Prime95

A silly Republican position, yes. Does that qualify as "actively worked toward [today's mess] for nearly three decades", no.

Lessee ... 2009 minus 1980 = 29. Nearly three decades.

rogue's reference was mistaken. Mine was not.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Prime95

That's a gross twisting of reality.

Sorry, George, but it's documented history.

Maybe my wording has been inexact, but my main point is true, whether you've been aware of it or not.

Conservatives have been for cutting tax rates in the belief it spurs the economy.

... and other, not-always-acknowledged-in-public motives which don't sound-bite so good politically.

Please quote your source showing that conservatives have been wishing for a massive recession to cut government revenues.

I can see how you honestly interpreted a previous post that way ("wishing for a massive recession"), but that's not what I meant. I guess I was assuming that everyone would recall what I've written in the past on this topic -- what the conservative think tanks came up with after the 1976 election. My bad.

What I meant was that the group of conservatives to which I referred have been working toward making the federal government cut social spending, not in a straightforward way by having Congress openly decide to do exactly that, but in what I consider a sneaky way of doing what they could to destroy fiscal responsibility (cut taxes, but spend mightily on military adventures and other good conservative causes) to the point where government would be forced to cut social spending (bad liberal spending).

It's not a recession specifically they've been working toward AFAIK (though it's mighty convenient, and maybe the easiest way), it's fiscal crisis in general that forces massive cuts in government social spending.

I agree, we are *so* much better off with the fiscally responsible Democrats in charge

Yes, we've noticed your lack of passion about about the GOP's running up $7 trillion in national debt since 1980.

I think this may go down as one of your weakest posts ever.

_That_ may go down as one of your most ill-informed attempted ripostes ever.

You haven't been paying attention like I have, George. I've been mentioning this stuff for years in this forum, but apparently haven't drawn the dots close enough together for you.

Sure, conservatives bear the bulk of the blame for the current economic conditions, but to argue that this recession

not "this recession", but a fiscal crisis of some kind with the particular effect that it forces enormous cuts in government social spending. This recession is only one of the ways it could have come about.

was part of their grand plan and they are tickled pink with this outcome is just ludicrous.

Your ignorance of a certain part of the last thirty years' US conservative history isn't ridiculous (because it's so common that it's tragic), but you really have no standing to be throwing epithets like "ludicrous" at me until you educate yourself about the issues and history I've been referring to for several years in this forum.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

No, I am referring to the conservatives who've been openly advocating a certain fiscal-political strategy since before the 1980 election, that became known as "Starving the beast".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Only problem is that the morons forgot that the beast has a CC with unlimited credit, which both parties have been using like crazy because they knew the bills would most likely not come while they're in power. Current administration is no exception.

EDIT: pretty obvious that cheesehead has never earned enough money to pay taxes.

[cheesehead]

Here's a history of "Starve the Beast". Goes back farther than I thought.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t...1_bartlett.pdf

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I meant was that the group of conservatives to which I referred have been working toward making the federal government cut social spending, not in a straightforward way by having Congress openly decide to do exactly that, but in what I consider a sneaky way of doing what they could to destroy fiscal responsibility

I've never denied that. It is common knowledge and so obvious that I don't know why you harp on it so. It was a part of every Republican presidential campaign since at least 1980 -- not exactly a big, dark secret. Just another failed government idea / program -- Washington is full of them.

The Democrats are currently doing something equally insidious. Rather than explicitly impose onerous taxes on the evil wealthy, they've embarked on a strategy of fiscal irresponsibility on a scale that dwarfs GWB's and his predecessors. When the debt comes due, the U.S. will be left with little choice but to inflate its way out of it -- a nasty tax on wealth.

it's fiscal crisis in general that forces massive cuts in government social spending.

Oops, conservatives miscalculated there! Instead fiscal crisis is now the rallying cry for increasing social spending. Anyone for investing another $2B in infrastructure clunkers?

Yes, we've noticed your lack of passion about about the GOP's running up $7 trillion in national debt since 1980.

Which the Democrats are on a path to surpass in a mere *4* years.

I've been mentioning this stuff for years in this forum

Yes, you have. Please stop. It is repetitive. And boring. And redundant. And thank you for admitting it was "your bad" for implying conservatives goal was this severe recession and, in fact, are now gleefully profiting from it.


P.S. Before you "cry foul" with "I never said I support clunkers or current deficits or whatever", please be aware that 98% of your bashing is reserved for conservatives, which certainly leads to the strong impression that you've got little to no complaints with liberals. Yes, I know, you're a moderate.

[garo]

Trying to raise the tone of discussion a bit here :
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tru...eph-e-stiglitz

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by garo

Trying to raise the tone of discussion a bit here :
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tru...eph-e-stiglitz

Calling neo-keynesian idiots 'true American heroes' does not raise the tone of the discussion. I remember spending a week with one of his papers on salvaging banks through interest-rate regulation and not being impressed how reality was abstracted.

Criticism here:

http://mises.org/story/2301