This WSJ writer is wrong to connect the current Keynesian "meddling" with what he seems to call the non-existent macro economy with Obama. It can actually be more connected to Bush (who appointed Bernanke to the Fed.)
As a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on February 20, 2004, Bernanke gave a speech in which he postulated that we are in a new era called the Great Moderation, where modern macroeconomic policy has decreased the volatility of the business cycle to the point that it should no longer be a central issue in economics.
Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built.
Ah, so you do subscribe to the radical worldview. Eiither that or you are just looking for something to counter the view found here even though you don't believe it yourself. This article is disingenuous in spades. Congress appropriates money for governmental activities. We all know the struggles Dutch had trying to keep Tip O'Neill et al from spending like mad even though tax rates had been lowered. It's not as if it was Dutch's idea to raid the SS fund for general-fund purposes.
These radicals are so wedded to their cartoonish "Reagan-and-conservatives-in-general-just-want-to-help-the-rich-at-everyone-else's-expense" meme that their utter ignorance of the vast amount of documentation - Dutch's handwritten notes for the radio commentaries he did in the late 70s, or his speeches going back to the early 60s - showing that he thought deeply about what makes for human prosperity and why freedom is of central importance in life.
Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
According to Reagan, he could cut tax rates by 30 percent and collect more revenue than before the tax cut. In fact, President Reagan promised that if Congress would just enact his proposal, the federal budget would be balanced by 1984 and he would simultaneously reduce both unemployment and inflation.
Congress did enact the President's economic program, including the tax-cut proposal, which had been reduced (at the request of Budget Director David Stockman) from a 30 percent cut to a 25 percent cut in personal income tax rates over a three-year period. However, the country soon learned that the promised simultaneous reduction in inflation and unemployment was not to be. Inflation did come down, as the economy plunged into the worst recession in half a century. The civilian unemployment rate climbed to 10.7 percent in December 1982, the highest since the Great Depression of the l930s. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, and the annual civilian unemployment rate remained above 9.5 percent for both 1982 and 1983.
In addition to all the other malpractice during the Reagan-Bush years, it was during this period that the fraudulent use of Social Security surplus revenue for general government funding began. The 1983 Social Security payroll tax increase, which will be described in detail in Chapter Three, began generating surplus Social Security revenue during Reagan’s second term.
The planned surpluses, that were supposed to be saved and invested in order to fund the retirement of the baby boomers, started out small but escalated rapidly. Although only about $84.5 billion of Social Security surplus came in during the Reagan presidency, during the four years of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, there was an additional $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue. Every penny of the surplus from both the Reagan and Bush administrations was spent on non-Social Security programs.
You're merely quoting from the article, which I've already refuted. Congress did the spending. Also, would you care to state what happened when the economy pulled out of the recession in 1983?
Yes, I am merely quoting from the article. Here is another quote.
Bush said, “My budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone.” However, Bush spent every dime of the Social Security surplus that came in during his eight years as president. He said he would pay down $2 trillion of the national debt. Instead, he added more than $5 trillion to the debt. Americans always want to give a new president the benefit of any doubt, and they assume that the president is honorable and will take actions that are in the best interest of the country and the American people. They had no way of knowing that President Bush was lying to them. Economists and some members of Congress, including at least a few Republicans, were warning that enactment of the Bush tax cut would lead to a new round of huge budget deficits and resume the skyrocketing of the national debt. However, why should the public take the word of these people over that of their president?...
I repeat, W was hardly a beacon of free-market conservatism.
That said, his tax cuts had nothing to do with the increasing deficit. In fact, they increased revenues flowing into the government.
Now, are you willing to say that the current regime is not only different in degree but in kind from what has come before? And that we must drastically change course or face disaster?
I don't know about you, but I only know what I can read, and opinions are all over the map, but it sounds like the Pubs are as responsible for pissing away our payroll taxes as the Dems and it was done to the detriment of the working person and the benefit of the so-called "rich" who you insist I envy. The big difference between me and you appears to be that I care and am not going to accept the watering down or cessation of the program and, well, since it never fit your ideology, inside you are cheering this demise on. You seem to cheer a lot about demise here.
This WSJ writer is wrong to connect the current Keynesian "meddling" with what he seems to call the non-existent macro economy with Obama. It can actually be more connected to Bush (who appointed Bernanke to the Fed.)
ReplyDeleteAs a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on February 20, 2004, Bernanke gave a speech in which he postulated that we are in a new era called the Great Moderation, where modern macroeconomic policy has decreased the volatility of the business cycle to the point that it should no longer be a central issue in economics.
W was no free-market purist, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built.
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/how-ronald-reagan-and-alan-greenspan-pulled-off-the-greatest-fraud-ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/
Ah, so you do subscribe to the radical worldview. Eiither that or you are just looking for something to counter the view found here even though you don't believe it yourself.
ReplyDeleteThis article is disingenuous in spades. Congress appropriates money for governmental activities. We all know the struggles Dutch had trying to keep Tip O'Neill et al from spending like mad even though tax rates had been lowered. It's not as if it was Dutch's idea to raid the SS fund for general-fund purposes.
the thing that makes radicals look so pathetic is their utter refusal to take a look at what has actually motivated the champions of freedom.
ReplyDeleteThese radicals are so wedded to their cartoonish "Reagan-and-conservatives-in-general-just-want-to-help-the-rich-at-everyone-else's-expense" meme that their utter ignorance of the vast amount of documentation - Dutch's handwritten notes for the radio commentaries he did in the late 70s, or his speeches going back to the early 60s - showing that he thought deeply about what makes for human prosperity and why freedom is of central importance in life.
ReplyDelete. . . is inevitably on full display.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
ReplyDeleteAccording to Reagan, he could cut tax rates by 30 percent and collect more revenue than before the tax cut. In fact, President Reagan promised that if Congress would just enact his proposal, the federal budget would be balanced by 1984 and he would simultaneously reduce both unemployment and inflation.
ReplyDeleteCongress did enact the President's economic program, including the tax-cut proposal, which had been reduced (at the request of Budget Director David Stockman) from a 30 percent cut to a 25 percent cut in personal income tax rates over a three-year period. However, the country soon learned that the promised simultaneous reduction in inflation and unemployment was not to be. Inflation did come down, as the economy plunged into the worst recession in half a century. The civilian unemployment rate climbed to 10.7 percent in December 1982, the highest since the Great Depression of the l930s. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, and the annual civilian unemployment rate remained above 9.5 percent for both 1982 and 1983.
From: http://www.thebiglie.net/
In addition to all the other malpractice during the Reagan-Bush years, it was during this period that the fraudulent use of Social Security surplus revenue for general government funding began. The 1983 Social Security payroll tax increase, which will be described in detail in Chapter Three, began generating surplus Social Security revenue during Reagan’s second term.
ReplyDeleteThe planned surpluses, that were supposed to be saved and invested in order to fund the retirement of the baby boomers, started out small but escalated rapidly. Although only about $84.5 billion of Social Security surplus came in during the Reagan presidency, during the four years of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, there was an additional $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue. Every penny of the surplus from both the Reagan and Bush administrations was spent on non-Social Security programs.
You're merely quoting from the article, which I've already refuted. Congress did the spending.
ReplyDeleteAlso, would you care to state what happened when the economy pulled out of the recession in 1983?
Yes, I am merely quoting from the article. Here is another quote.
ReplyDeleteBush said, “My budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone.” However, Bush spent every dime of the Social Security surplus that came in during his eight years as president. He said he would pay down $2 trillion of the national debt. Instead, he added more than $5 trillion to the debt.
Americans always want to give a new president the benefit of any doubt, and they assume that the president is honorable and will take actions that are in the best interest of the country and the American people. They had no way of knowing that President Bush was lying to them. Economists and some members of Congress, including at least a few Republicans, were warning that enactment of the Bush tax cut would lead to a new round of huge budget deficits and resume the skyrocketing of the national debt. However, why should the public take the word of these people over that of their president?...
I repeat, W was hardly a beacon of free-market conservatism.
ReplyDeleteThat said, his tax cuts had nothing to do with the increasing deficit. In fact, they increased revenues flowing into the government.
Now, are you willing to say that the current regime is not only different in degree but in kind from what has come before? And that we must drastically change course or face disaster?
I don't know about you, but I only know what I can read, and opinions are all over the map, but it sounds like the Pubs are as responsible for pissing away our payroll taxes as the Dems and it was done to the detriment of the working person and the benefit of the so-called "rich" who you insist I envy. The big difference between me and you appears to be that I care and am not going to accept the watering down or cessation of the program and, well, since it never fit your ideology, inside you are cheering this demise on. You seem to cheer a lot about demise here.
ReplyDelete