Reaganomics and the Jobs Crisis

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 13, 2010 7:22 PM GMT
    Voodoo Economics
    Huffington Post
    August 13, 2010

    The US is stuck in an economic quagmire featuring near ten percent unemployment. As politicians argue about the solution -- massive tax cuts or increases in Federal spending -- what's missing is a succinct analysis of the problem. Why has America lost 8 million jobs?

    The roots of the jobs crisis stretch back to the Ronald Reagan presidency when conservative economic ideology began to dominate American political discourse. At the forefront of this philosophy were three malignant notions: helping the rich get richer will inevitably help everyone else,"a rising tide lifts all boats;" markets are inherently self correcting and therefore there's no need for government regulation; and the US does not need an economic strategy because that's a natural consequence of the free market.

    What followed was a thirty-year period where America's working families were abandoned in favor of the rich. Inequality rose as middle class income and wealth declined. As corporate power increased, unions were systematically undermined. As CEO salaries soared, fewer families earned living wages.

    Conservative ideology produced a warped and brittle US economy, where more than two-thirds of our GDP was housing related: building, buying, and furnishing new homes or borrowing against existing homes in order to maintain a decent standard of living. When the credit bubble burst, the debt-based consumption model failed, taking down first the housing sector and then the entire economy, resulting in catastrophic job losses.

    First, consumers have to be willing to spend money. Regardless of the conservative ideology, the US economy depends upon steady consumption by working Americans. The Reagan Republican theory incorrectly assumes that rich folks buying yachts and vacation homes catalyzes the consumer economy.

    Nonetheless, wealthy Americans have as much income as they have ever had but their purchases of Ferraris or diamonds has not been sufficient to boost the economy. Average Americans aren't consuming because they either don't have the money or are saving it because they are fearful.

    Second, businesses have to be willing to hire. At the moment, many businesses -- outside of construction and commercial real estate -- have the funds available to hire but they either aren't hiring or are filling what should be full-time permanent positions with part-time temporary workers.

    Third, the new jobs have to be decent jobs paying a living wage. Unfortunately, the Associated Press reported that of the 630,000 jobs created in 2010, 81 percent are low-paying service-sector positions. That's the sad backdrop to terrible unemployment data.

    Since the Reagan presidency the number of decent jobs has steadily eroded. When a worker retires from a GM assembly line, and a job that pays good wages, he isn't replaced by his son or daughter; they go to work at McDonalds.

    There was an under-acknowledged "structural adjustment" that meant the US consumer economy could not function unless average Americans went deeply in debt: borrowed up to the limit on their credit cards or used up their home equity.

    America has economic cancer and radical surgery is required. First, there has to be a massive redistribution of income by increasing taxes on both the wealthy and financial institutions (particularly those that were at the heart of 2008's economic meltdown).

    Second, there has to be a second stimulus package that not only supports America's teachers and public safety workers but also strengthens the US infrastructure, in general. It's not logical to propose that American businesses provide better jobs without also ensuring that our schools produce workers who can meet employers' needs.

    Third, the Federal government has to be involved in economic policy. The last thirty years has demonstrated that it's insane to assume the free market will do this. What we've learned is that the market follows the path of least resistance and dictates economic policy solely based on greed. Creating wealth for a handful of CEOs isn't consistent with the national interest. What are needed now are economic policies that produce decent jobs for average Americans.

    The Federal government has to intervene and create the jobs that the greedy, shortsighted private sector hasn't provided.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 9:55 PM GMT
    Alternate translation:
    This forum would be much more interesting if people would just post links that one can safely ignore when replying, because nobody would have noticed you haven't read the article before replying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 10:03 PM GMT
    And the penchant for closure with insult/belittling shows again.

    Don't you know by now that there will be new translations of the Iliad and Odyssey every 20 years, because people's ideas change?icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
    Repeat after me:

    SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO START A WAR YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.

    Very good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 12:32 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidRepeat after me:

    SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO START A WAR YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.

    Very good.


    SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO START A WAR YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 3:36 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim saidRepeat after me:

    SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO START A WAR YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.

    Very good.


    Now.... repeat after me:

    LOWER TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES GROW THE ECONOMY

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE A NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OR ENTITLEMENT YOU CAN'T EXPECT TO BORROW MONEY FROM CHINA FOREVER TO PAY FOR IT.

    Very good.


    To the first one, then why during the lowest tax rates since the depression didn't all the rich folks and businesses make the economy fabulous? Why since the recession started hasn't the business and wealthy who, again, enjoy the lowest tax rates in 70 years not create a slew of jobs and stimulate the hell out of the economy?

    History proves that your theory is hogwash.

    As for #2, it's your Republican friends who put two wars and Medicare part D on the Chinese credit card.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 4:20 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim saidRepeat after me:

    SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO START A WAR YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.

    Very good.


    Now.... repeat after me:

    LOWER TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES GROW THE ECONOMY

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE A NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OR ENTITLEMENT YOU CAN'T EXPECT TO BORROW MONEY FROM CHINA FOREVER TO PAY FOR IT.

    Very good.


    Oh, and...

    1280447873lifedumb.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 14, 2010 6:29 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    TigerTim saidRepeat after me:

    SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO START A WAR YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.

    Very good.


    Now.... repeat after me:

    LOWER TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES GROW THE ECONOMY

    and

    IF YOU'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE A NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OR ENTITLEMENT YOU CAN'T EXPECT TO BORROW MONEY FROM CHINA FOREVER TO PAY FOR IT.

    Very good.


    To the first one, then why during the lowest tax rates since the depression didn't all the rich folks and businesses make the economy fabulous? Why since the recession started hasn't the business and wealthy who, again, enjoy the lowest tax rates in 70 years not create a slew of jobs and stimulate the hell out of the economy?

    History proves that your theory is hogwash.

    As for #2, it's your Republican friends who put two wars and Medicare part D on the Chinese credit card.





    I was just about to respond to "Mr. Republican," when I read your excellent post.
    Thanks !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 3:41 PM GMT
    the word "entitlement" is designed to inflame the conservative base: it reeks of whiny, lazy scroungers. It´s amazing how language can be used to make good intentions sound bad (making healthcare available to all), and bad things sound good (eg patriot act and its curtailment of freedoms)
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidVoodoo Economics
    Huffington Post

    First, there has to be a massive redistribution of income by increasing taxes


    what a clever advertorial from Billionaire Union Leagues and Gov't Officials who need to boost their salaries and pensions from more private taxes..

    "it's for our services"icon_lol.gif

    $26 million to a Public Employee is apparently not enough.. moooaaarr cake!
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1048968


    well played icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 4:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    To the first one, then why during the lowest tax rates since the depression didn't all the rich folks and businesses make the economy fabulous? Why since the recession started hasn't the business and wealthy who, again, enjoy the lowest tax rates in 70 years not create a slew of jobs and stimulate the hell out of the economy?

    History proves that your theory is hogwash.

    The fact that tax rates are "low" (your view) throughout this continuing recession has nothing to do with the cause of the recession itself. If anything, a rise in tax rates will prolong the recession (depression).


    Christian73 said
    As for #2, it's your Republican friends who put two wars and Medicare part D on the Chinese credit card.

    And... those big spending Republicans (McCain for example) should be voted out of office along with their big spending Democrat pals....


    Don't you realize that you're proving my point? Just because taxes are "high", in your view but historically untrue, but the post-War period shows that when taxes on the upper income levels are high the economy does much better.
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 5:09 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Just because taxes are "high", in your view but historically untrue, but the post-War period shows that when taxes on the upper income levels are high the economy does much better.


    err, how can we even take you seriously on anything regarding economic debate, let alone TAXES when...

    you kept bragging about being in the 2nd highest tax bracket and making $130k HHI between you and your spouse?

    huhhhh?
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 5:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Don't you realize that you're proving my point? Just because taxes are "high", in your view but historically untrue, but the post-War period shows that when taxes on the upper income levels are high the economy does much better.

    Let's try it this way...

    Imagine if taxes were lower on everybody. That means more money being spent by private citizens on private sector goods and services.

    Isn't that what we want?


    he's a fundraiser so he's tax-exempt, so of course he has an agenda.

    ..if taxes go up for private workers, he gets a comparative advantage in working capital (ie salary) icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 5:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Don't you realize that you're proving my point? Just because taxes are "high", in your view but historically untrue, but the post-War period shows that when taxes on the upper income levels are high the economy does much better.

    Let's try it this way...

    Imagine if taxes were lower on everybody. That means more money being spent by private citizens on private sector goods and services.

    Isn't that what we want?


    Yes, but taxes have been lowered on 95% of Americans and those tax rates will continue. That I'm in total agreement with. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire not only won't effect the majority of American or even small business (perhaps 2-5% of the total, according to most estimates), it will only effect that top 2-5% who do not spent the vast majority of their income or wealth. Cutting taxes on essentially idle assets doesn't spur investment it just leaves more money to sit idle.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 5:25 PM GMT
    solak said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Don't you realize that you're proving my point? Just because taxes are "high", in your view but historically untrue, but the post-War period shows that when taxes on the upper income levels are high the economy does much better.

    Let's try it this way...

    Imagine if taxes were lower on everybody. That means more money being spent by private citizens on private sector goods and services.

    Isn't that what we want?


    he's a fundraiser so he's tax-exempt, so of course he has an agenda.

    ..if taxes go up for private workers, he gets a comparative advantage in working capital (ie salary) icon_cool.gif


    LOL. You are two dumb to live. Not to mention that you - like your other "personas" - are a broken record offering nothing to the discussion but the one slip-up that anyone on the left here has made.

    Do you really think that as a fundraiser my income is tax-exempt? And YOU want to discuss economics and taxes??? You probably also think that government workers are tax exempt. LOL

    I may have mistaken my tax rate in a chart, but YOU do not even understand the basics of our tax system or the economy. Individual fundraisers are not tax-exempt, the organizations for which we work are. I have no "competitive advantage" over anyone who makes the same salary I do. Unlike you, whoever you may be (and I increasingly think you're all just one guy who lives in his mother's basement and parrots Rush Limbaugh), I am willing to pay my share for not only what the government provides for me, but also what it provides for my fellow citizens.

  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 5:29 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    I may have mistaken my tax rate in a chart, but YOU do not even understand the basics of our tax system or the economy. Individual fundraisers are not tax-exempt, the organizations for which we work are.


    mistake? icon_lol.gif

    incapable of the simple concept of comprehending your own tax bracket and bragging about it, nonetheless?

    more like gross negligence and reveling in one's ignorance.

    may i suggest a move to politics? you'd be great. icon_cool.gif
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 5:31 PM GMT
    Christian73 said

    LOL. You are two dumb to live.


    oh sweet irony. icon_lol.gif

    G-d must be joking with me today and sent you as a blessing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 5:59 PM GMT
    solak said
    Christian73 said
    I may have mistaken my tax rate in a chart, but YOU do not even understand the basics of our tax system or the economy. Individual fundraisers are not tax-exempt, the organizations for which we work are.


    mistake? icon_lol.gif

    incapable of the simple concept of comprehending your own tax bracket and bragging about it, nonetheless?

    more like gross negligence and reveling in one's ignorance.

    may i suggest a move to politics? you'd be great. icon_cool.gif


    Again, an error in reading the tax charts (I'm not an accountant) is far less egregious than your complete and utter misunderstanding of what is a nonprofit and the related tax laws.

    I bet you were walking around thinking I didn't pay any taxes. LOL.

    Of course, since you live in your mother's basement and invent new profile names and businesses to push your Rovian talking points and make it seem like there are a lot of gay men who agree with them, I don't know why I bother...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 6:00 PM GMT
    solak said
    Christian73 said

    LOL. You are two dumb to live.


    oh sweet irony. icon_lol.gif

    G-d must be joking with me today and sent you as a blessing.


    The scene at solak's house:

    "Hey Ma! This uppity New York liberal made a typo in his response. Ha! Ha! Stoopid liberal. Can you get me some more Shasta while I watch Glenn Beck. He's dreamy."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 6:09 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire not only won't effect the majority of American or even small business (perhaps 2-5% of the total, according to most estimates)

    It will affect most small business.... because most small businesses are S-corps.


    Christian73 said it will only effect that top 2-5% who do not spent the vast majority of their income or wealth. Cutting taxes on essentially idle assets doesn't spur investment it just leaves more money to sit idle.

    Those assets aren't idle. They are invested in, among other things, stocks and bonds, which is putting that money to work in the economy.

    The bottom line is that if that additional money goes to the government, it will not provide any benefit to the economy at all. It will, however, provide more benefit to government workers, an expansion of welfare and of course to the pals of whoever is currently in power.


    Oh dear... Wrong again.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/

    Seems like the vast majority of those S-corp folks will be keeping their taxes right where they are...

    And the rest of your screed is just a frittata of well-worn Republicans talking points most of which are demonstrably false.

  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 6:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said uppity New York liberal


    i'm pretty certain your average "uppity NY liberal" has a sense of which tax bracket they're in, the most basic tax concept to understand..

    you, on the other hand, give that particular group shame by even trying to associate yourself as one of them.

    [insert mom's basement jokes] icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 8:33 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Oh dear... Wrong again.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/

    Seems like the vast majority of those S-corp folks will be keeping their taxes right where they are...

    And the rest of your screed is just a frittata of well-worn Republicans talking points most of which are demonstrably false.


    Most small businesses are S-corps.

    Sole props are people working independently.

    If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, there will be an economic penalty as a result.

    How you continue to argue that the Democrats know what to do to "manage" the economy in spite of the dismal results they have "achieved" so far is beyond me....


    Given your consistent need to post misinformation and outright lies, you'll have to forgive me if I believe Politofact and the CBO over you right-wing talking points. In fact, I recall Janeane Garafolo talking about how being an S Corp gave her and other actors unfair tax advantages over working people and how she thought they should end that discrepancy. But I suppose you can't understand someone deciding that paying their fair share of taxes is the moral and patriotic thing to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 8:52 PM GMT
    Christian... why did yo post 6 times in a row after each other... are you talking to yourself? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Aug 14, 2010 8:55 PM GMT
    "the NSA pointed out that the tax was never the subject of hearings or public review. It was made public just a few short weeks ago, and it has been attached to legislation that already passed"

    "While it has been described as a 'loophole closer' and a 'payroll tax,' it is neither. It is a new tax on small employers that will overturn more than 50 years of established tax policy."

    http://www.webcpa.com/news/Accounting-Groups-Protest-S-Corp-Tax-Hike-54655-1.html

    bye, bye mom and pop shops. icon_cool.gif

    bye, bye small gay owned businesses. icon_cool.gif

    just what the largest firms wanted.. kill off competition from mid-size and small business...


    NA-AS508A_WALLP_NS_20080915192816.gif


    coincidence? wonder how much the payout was icon_cool.gif


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2010 9:39 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidChristian... why did yo post 6 times in a row after each other... are you talking to yourself? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Nope. Looks like Solak deleted his posts. Maybe his mother didn't approve of what he wrote.