Stumbled across this opinion piece. It really calls out the difference in philosophy between liberal and conservative economic ideas. (Not using party titles as I don't think they really apply anymore.)

"The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components."
"The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives"
"The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy."
"Third was the control of government spending."
"The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy"

"We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually."

What's missing is comments from the liberals who still think the Stimulus plan is a good plan. It's like neo-Communists who in the face of all evidence and history, still insist it's a good idea. It just hasn't been done the right way, by the right people.


http://online.wsj.com/artic...431484726570949.html

Thread ignored just like this lesson in history is ignored.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Thread ignored just like this lesson in history is ignored.

Not everyone is ignoring it, I just had nothing to add.

so, if the methods were known - why did we end up where we are now?

because they really do not know. just like global warming. some people will not just except that it might just be cycles. and no matter what is done - the same things happen. how about a look at fuel costs of the time. because then, as now - there was a fuel price spike. it seems the cost of oil has more impact than any tax rate. but, I fully understand not wanting to admit that our economy is at the mercy of outsiders.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, if the methods were known - why did we end up where we are now? but, I fully understand not wanting to admit that our economy is at the mercy of outsiders.

I could live with the degree being at the mercy of outsiders presents.

What is tougher for me is being at the mercy of the insiders.


Goodness. As a country, we have been living SO FAR above our means, it is unbelievable.

MUCH of that is due to the government spending and spending and spending.

Look. We have had a MASSIVE increase in the number of years people are living in the U.S. now. We have a huge population bulge advancing into that age group. During that time period, we have had incredible medical advances BUT they are EXPENSIVE.

The government needed to step in and say, no, you can't go on medicare at age 65. We can't afford that. You will have to pay expensive premiums until you are 70 (or older). That means you will have WAY less disposable income. You can't live at that lifestyle level. You need to save, and then you must spend it on your health insurance. Or, do without expensive treatments. Or take care of yourself.

The government tried to save some of that money off my back by nationalizing me and making it illegal for me to charge anything other than what they would pay. What free country does that? I'm a utility company, I guess. Fixed rates.

And yet, people in the U.S. live so unhealthy lifestyles but the consequences falls onto an age that the government assumed care for.

Well, make medicare not kick in until 70 or 72. Look at the savings. But people would have to downgrade their lifestyle.


So now in 2009 the bubble finally bursts. Are you hearing about people talking about reducing their lifestyle? I'm not. I'm hearing: hey, government (Obama), FIX this. What they mean is let me continue to live with a negative savings rate and spend everything, and then take care of me when I am old and have nothing. Go get the money from the people that actually DID live within their means, and actually have something left over.


We ended up where we are now not primarily because of the cost of oil. It was the cost of NOT BEING ABLE TO SAY NO.

well, I dont disagree with the lifestyle issues one bit.
but, I am trying to see how they corrolate.
because as far as I know - money doesnt "disappear". yes, spend spend spend is not a good way to go, but that money doesnt just vanish, do it? there is someone on the other end receiving that money, isnt there?
they only time that I can see "money disappears" is when it leaves the USA

so - is money disappearing, or is it being hoarded?

It's being wasted. Expanding gov't programs with no return, and that do not generate wealth.
I'm not going to debate the merits on this but as an example:
"Midnight basketball" programs cost money. There's the buildings, staff, equipment, maint of said equip and building, all of this cost money. But the return rate is not equal to what is going in. Yes the employees (if they don't overstaff with volunteers) pay some taxes (they usually dont make much) and buy some stuff but it's not equal to the cost of their employment and all other associated costs.

As I said, i'm not going to debate the sociatial value kids off the street and out of jail. Just an example of the immediate cost. the ROI may not ever equal out..

yes - but it still exists. someone has it.
yes, I understand what is being said - but - again - is money disppearing or is it being hoarded?
"wasteing" money is just not spending wisely - as you said - little or no, or even negative RIO - but the money still exists. just this person has it instead of that person.

yes, the value of that same money has somewhat changed being home values are so down, and, that is a single largest investment - that would imply money is in fact worth more now. but, most feel the exact opposite.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes - but it still exists. someone has it.

Ultimately, the money is going overseas in the form of exports purchased here.

And the VALUE of money is also largely being held overseas as other countries buy our bonds so that the government can spend money like drunken sailors.

So we borrow a bunch of money from people overseas (and to be sure, there are domestic bond holders as well). We spend it, much of which winds up overseas.

And therefore we live way above our means as we get farther in debt and enrichen other countries.

P.
Ok.. I'll try to explain a little bit. and I'll assume you're not being obtuse or stirring the pot for the hell of it.

A. There are "X" number of treasury notes in circulation. True. (but, Obama and Co are in the process of adding a trillion more)
B They have a constant value. False.

US citizens only own US dollars. False (with the markets the way they are, and with the Houses and Admin fiscal policies many are investing in either foreign currencies, precious metals, very low risk investments such as bonds) IE selling their quickly devaluing US dollars for something that will retain value. As this progresses the market for US dollars goes even lower.

Or scenario 2.. why bother with the stimulus program, social security, etc.. why not just give every US citizen 1.5 million dollars?
The dollar would be worth nothing (IE Obama, Reid, Pelosi printing a trillion more dollars) Inflation would be through the roof.. Really look at the 70's Or Japan of the 90s huge social spending (no result/growth spending just gov't spending) you're adding money but the money you're adding is worth less

Scenario 2 is pretty much what is happening right now. They're adding money borrowed on credit or taken from those who produce, to essentially make and produce nothing but paychecks or short term projects. (yes there is some stuff in there that will add value but not enough to off set the spending on hiking trails and other feel good or "green" projects)

So short term.. I think I and other "smart" ppl ok for now.. I've proven my worth and value to my company and continue to do so. With my money I'm dumping the max into my 401k and other investments (buy low sell high) I'm not buying a new car, just bought a house this past spring and am investing in it. But then I and people like me don't invest or think about whats going to happen in the next 1-2 yrs we think about 5+ years down the road.


BTW I'll throw in a free piece of advice.. If you can buy a house now at a low fixed rate (Nothing more than 6%) do so. Don't over buy, but property tends to maintain value over the LONG term.
Another freebie.. There will be another "housing/economic crash" in about 8-16 months so if you cant get in now, just wait about a year and you'll see depressed housing values again. The housing market should settle in about 24 months. Value of said houses should rise but really depends on what happens in the 2010 elections. If we elect enough fiscal conservatives there should be a bounce in both the stock and housing markets.. If the ppl haven't suffered enough with "Hope and Change" we'll probably have to wait until 2012 and pray like hell the R's or possibly a new Conservative party can throw up a strong candidate.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: The government tried to save some of that money off my back by nationalizing me and making it illegal for me to charge anything other than what they would pay. What free country does that? I'm a utility company, I guess. Fixed rates.

We will get another Reagen soon. Lets just hope it wont be to late.

Jimmy Carter was a liberal ideological wet dream. He filled his cabinet with insulated intellectuals that had no buisness in government - any government. That the US didn't destroy itself due to his absent minded governance is a testimony to its resolve and that a man like Ronald Reagan could get elected - a Berry Goldwater radical if there ever was one - was simply a result of good timing. A senile washed up actor could have defeated Carter and did.

The Carter era liberalism gave us disillusionment, high crime and a constipated bureaucracy at every federal level. The problem wasn't that Carter created a large government; rather he created a non functioning government. Ronald Reagan fixed that - he removed many of the obstacles to governance by removing regulation and by the time he left office the national debt he crusaded again was higher than ever and the market was riding a bubble created by speculation and unregulated banking (sound familiar?) - his legacy was handed to George H. W. Bush who, despite his best efforts, could not undo what Reagan had done - resulting in yet another Carteresq recession that gave us Bill Clinton. (Who decreased the deficit, normalized trade relations, decreased the federal government and did all those things Ronny said he would do, but did it while maintaining government oversight. Had he cut that Reagan relic Greenspan out, we might have had a slower economy, but not a tech bubble...)

Comparing Bush to Carter is unfair (the Bush administration was wildly more successful at implementing policy, was resolved and disciplined and had zero amphibious rabbit attacks) and, in any regard, comparing Obama to Reagan is premature. I hope the comparison between Obama and Reagan proves to be equally erroneous.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, if the methods were known - why did we end up where we are now? ....

I think that the answer to this is that Liberals obfuscated the wildly successful results. How often did we hear people in the media, including such notables as comedians and talk show hosts, ridicule Reaganomics and say over and over again, "It doesn't work." Enough so that the average coastal voter continued to vote for the Ted Kennedys, Chuck Rangels and the like. Then they get Bill Clinton in, who started this whole mess, then, despite Bush's attempts to correct things, he gets rebuffed by the now Democratic legislature. In fact, quoted in the NY Times article is our own Barney Frank:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'

It was only a matter of time before the whole thing imploded, and now we have the greatest socialist spending program in history to look forward to.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I dont disagree with the lifestyle issues one bit. but, I am trying to see how they corrolate. because as far as I know - money doesnt "disappear". yes, spend spend spend is not a good way to go, but that money doesnt just vanish, do it? there is someone on the other end receiving that money, isnt there? they only time that I can see "money disappears" is when it leaves the USA so - is money disappearing, or is it being hoarded?

What disappears is the ability and means to manufacture products that the world market will buy and provide long term reliable employment for people.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: It's being wasted. Expanding gov't programs with no return, and that do not generate wealth. I'm not going to debate the merits on this but as an example: "Midnight basketball" programs cost money. There's the buildings, staff, equipment, maint of said equip and building, all of this cost money. But the return rate is not equal to what is going in. Yes the employees (if they don't overstaff with volunteers) pay some taxes (they usually dont make much) and buy some stuff but it's not equal to the cost of their employment and all other associated costs. As I said, i'm not going to debate the sociatial value kids off the street and out of jail. Just an example of the immediate cost. the ROI may not ever equal out..

Studies have shown that it reduces crime, saving money that would otherwise have to be spent on police, courts, prisons, insurance payments to victims of theft, hospital bills, etc.
Programs like this also help to reduce the dropout rate, which saves money down the road on welfare, subsidised housing,police, etc.
It MAY even help reduce the rate of teen pregnancies, saving money that would be spent........
Some of you may get the idea.
Kinda like the annual termite treatment for your house, the benefiets aren't immediately aparent, but they are real nonetheless..

Do your own homework, I ain't your daddy.

edited for clarity
------------------

Mean People Suck

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 02-16-2009).]

"Studies have shown. . ."

Yet you cite none of these so-called studies, Neptune. Provide the links. Were these studies funded by the people getting the money? Wouldn't surprise me.

Your comment is hearsay, Neptune, and is not admissable.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Studies have shown .....

Links ?

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: ..... saving money that would otherwise have to be spent on police, courts, prisons, insurance payments to victims of theft, hospital bills, etc.

Cost benefits analysis ? How much money saved ?

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Programs like this also help to reduce the dropout rate, which saves money down the road on welfare, subsidised housing,police, etc.

Facts figures ?
I am ok with midnight basketball and other programs like it but, they are no substitute for the lack of parenting which makes these things needed.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: "The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components." "The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives" "The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy." "Third was the control of government spending." "The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy" "We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. http://online.wsj.com/artic...431484726570949.html

So why now is Obama's administrations plan doing a complete mirror opposite from what Reagan did?

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Stumbled across this opinion piece. It really calls out the difference in philosophy between liberal and conservative economic ideas. (Not using party titles as I don't think they really apply anymore.) "The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components." "The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives" "The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy." "Third was the control of government spending." "The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy" "We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually." What's missing is comments from the liberals who still think the Stimulus plan is a good plan. It's like neo-Communists who in the face of all evidence and history, still insist it's a good idea. It just hasn't been done the right way, by the right people. http://online.wsj.com/artic...431484726570949.html

well, lets go thru this again, now that it has been discussed
tax reductions to provide incentives. well, we got that. all kinds of tax reductions for things to provide incentives for things. OK, they did that.
deregulation. well, that been going on non-stop since Reagan - so - done already
control g'ment spending. well, I really dont see that as accurate - since this has been out of control for a long long time - and - how's about someone post up how much the g'ment spent on a year-2-year basis, and see
and, #4 - lol - the answer was actually the exact opposite - wasn't it?

maybe poeple should find out how/why things REALLY happen. about as clueless as the people who think they know why global warming happens. because things happen in cycles.

just look at how foolishly some of y'all make up excuses & theories. The balance between predator & prey must be maintained. it will shift back 'n forth - just dont let it tip.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: We will get another Reagen soon. Lets just hope it wont be to late.

No, we won't. I'm not normally a pessimist, but I'm fairly certain life in the United States that was a country with a can do spirit and a belief in self-reliance is over, and it won't come back.

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: No, we won't. I'm not normally a pessimist, but I'm fairly certain life in the United States that was a country with a can do spirit and a belief in self-reliance is over, and it won't come back.

Sadly, I'm in agrement with you. We've allowed our selves to be pulled down.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 02-16-2009).]

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: No, we won't. I'm not normally a pessimist, but I'm fairly certain life in the United States that was a country with a can do spirit and a belief in self-reliance is over, and it won't come back.

lol - yes....common cry......
to many people suffering from CDS
Cant Do Sh!t

but, kinda makes me laugh. we go and make life easy, and, then get upset by people who live the easy life.....

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Goodness. As a country, we have been living SO FAR above our means, it is unbelievable. MUCH of that is due to the government spending and spending and spending. Look. We have had a MASSIVE increase in the number of years people are living in the U.S. now. We have a huge population bulge advancing into that age group. During that time period, we have had incredible medical advances BUT they are EXPENSIVE. The government needed to step in and say, no, you can't go on medicare at age 65. We can't afford that. You will have to pay expensive premiums until you are 70 (or older). That means you will have WAY less disposable income. You can't live at that lifestyle level. You need to save, and then you must spend it on your health insurance. Or, do without expensive treatments. Or take care of yourself. The government tried to save some of that money off my back by nationalizing me and making it illegal for me to charge anything other than what they would pay. What free country does that? I'm a utility company, I guess. Fixed rates. And yet, people in the U.S. live so unhealthy lifestyles but the consequences falls onto an age that the government assumed care for. Well, make medicare not kick in until 70 or 72. Look at the savings. But people would have to downgrade their lifestyle. So now in 2009 the bubble finally bursts. Are you hearing about people talking about reducing their lifestyle? I'm not. I'm hearing: hey, government (Obama), FIX this. What they mean is let me continue to live with a negative savings rate and spend everything, and then take care of me when I am old and have nothing. Go get the money from the people that actually DID live within their means, and actually have something left over. .

I agree, people can blame the government all they want. The people did this, the way the gov is at fault is for not limiting its citizens and businesses, and I would not want that. It does however seem the nature of people is to abuse every privelidge given. Take some blame American people, and learn to live at your means.

As far as healthcare I agree as well, it won't get better either as I see more 70 year olds eating at McDonalds thiking they are saving money, I would think they then need more heart meds / surgeries because of eating junk.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: So why now is Obama's administrations plan doing a complete mirror opposite from what Reagan did?

Maybe because the majority of American voters felt that after all these years of Reganomics, and deregulation, added to the last eight years of Bush/Cheney/Delays policy of government for sale to the highest bidder, things haven't worked out so well?

And I'm probably not the only one who remembers that the Clinton administrations hands were tied by a vindictive republican congress.
Just as the Carter administrations were.
They couldn't do much without some cooperation from the legislative branch.
They got none.

Its been a republican show at least mostly since Regan took office in 1981 and totally after Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house in 1995.
If we're in trouble, if the economy is in the toilet, if the rest of the world wonders why or how we could squander the wealth and superiority we, the USA, once had, THATS where the majority of the blame lies.

Thats why its time to try a different tack. (not tact, for the grammatically challenged)
Reganomics should be buried with the rest of the "seemed like a good idea at the time, but it just didn't work in real life" failures of the past.

I respect Ronald Regan for his intelligence, his curiosity, and for the fact that he sincerely believed that he was doing what was right and good for the USA.
And sometimes he WAS right.
But he was wrong, seriously wrong, sometimes too.
We all make mistakes.
Some people learn from them, some blow smoke and make excuses about their failures.

------------------

Mean People Suck

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 02-17-2009).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Do your own homework, I ain't your daddy.

OK, I did.

The results are conclusive, you're a blabbering fool. Hey, facts don't lie.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: OK, I did. The results are conclusive, you're a blabbering fool. Hey, facts don't lie.

But you do, Toddster.
Regularly.
And you're right, facts don't lie.

quote originally posted by the self proclaimed Morgan Hill CA genius: No one will listen to your message if you are yelling it at them and calling them names in the process 3/5/07 6/16/08 YOUR ANUS!.....Gawd....Stup...Mother.... Clearly you have no children; or at least we can all only hope you don't. PINHEAD 7/10/07, regarding President GW Bush: I'm not aware of him ever lying about something. Can you point to an example? 5/3/2007 You DO realize that the GOP will keep the Presidency in 2008.. 8/31/08 OBAMA CAN'T WIN! HE WON'T WIN! AND AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE TO NOMINATE LEFT WING LUNATICS YOU WILL CONTINUE TO BE BARRED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!

Just a few excerpts from a long history of posts from the far right fringe.
Now that right there is some serious blabbering.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 02-16-2009).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Maybe because the majority of American voters felt that after all these years of Reganomics, and deregulation, added to the last eight years of Bush/Cheney/Delays policy of government for sale to the highest bidder, things haven't worked out so well?

Are you arguing that what Reagan's administration did didn't work? That it did not work so much that we need to now do the opposite? What pulled us out of the last economic decline?