Opinion: Reagan the Keynesian

A lot of Liberals have put Bain Capital down, but from what I read, Bain has been good for the country. Yes, many got layed off or fired. But most of those companies were in bad shape and many about to go under. Bain took them over, cut fat, trimed off the parts that was pulling the companies down and revived them to the point they are making money once again, although they might be smaller.

Bill Clinton: Mitt Romney's business record 'sterling'

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/clinton-romneys-business-record-sterling-124980.html


Bill Clinton On Bain: 'This Is Good Work' (VIDEO)
May 31, 2012 ... "I don't think we ought to get into a position where we say this is bad work,"
Clinton .... Bill Clinton Breaks Ranks: Bain Capital's Work 'Good' ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/bill-clinton-bain-capital_ - 442k - Similar pages

 

Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker Slams Obama's Attacks on Bain ...
May 21, 2012 ... Is it good for the country's health? ... Booker lashed out at President Obama's
recent attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, saying, ...
foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/21/newark-nj-mayor-cory-booker-sl - 48k - Similar pages


Bain Capital Saved America
In the 1980s, the resilient U.S. economy saved itself from becoming Europe. Bain was part of the rescue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577169032997242246.html

 

It seems Huffpo deleted the artlce you linked to. LOL

 

Wasn't it Frances new President who decided to break from the European Union's policy and try the Keynesian approach? I guess we'll have to wait and see how that works. It would seem to me, that is what Obama was trying to do. Spend more and now talks about cutting taxes. But doesn't a lot depend on where the money is spent? He wasted a lot of money in trying to save union government jobs instead of infrastructure.

I don't know how you turn infrastructure over to private interprise unless you just give them the money or give them the roads and allow them to make toll roads out of them to pay off upkeep on them, like the turnpikes.

 

While I don't know where the money will come from unless we keep adding more debt. But by the same token, isn't slashing spending like the Republicans want to do, going to cut thousands of jobs?

 

Krugman is totally right about Reagan's economic record. He was the opposite of pro-freemarket. Reagan also loved terrorists, which his admirers seem to forget.

 

Wow!! This is a very astute observation... and incredibly correct.

 

Thousands of useless Government jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place. The Bureaucracy is evil and must have a stake driven through it regardless of the consequences to the bureaucrats themselves. Serves them right for trying to exploit their positions in the bureaucracy which they mostly attained through some kind of cronyism anyway.

Government is the problem and the biggest problem is its sheer size has bankrupted the country and paralyzed the US economy. Our byzantine bureaucracy must be slashed.

 

These arguments are all subjective.
There is no real evidence that the minor playing around with the Tax Code really was significnt.

The FACT is that EVERY administration has taken the same 20% of the GNP in one form or another.

 

Total tax reductions for the Reagan program over the next five years, (1982-87), were estimated at about $750 billion –
...the centerpiece of the argument of the supply-side school.

While fear of mounting deficits led to a tax increase a year later, which led to the resignations of a number of “true believers” in the administration, marginal rates were reduced further in President Reagan’s second term – to a low of 28% in 1988.

A key theoretical argument behind the supply-side revolution was the so-called Laffer Curve:



The idea is that a cut in marginal tax rates can actually lead to a rise in total revenues.


It is interesting to note that in 1980, when rates were high, the top 1% of income taxpayers paid 19.1% of total income taxes,
... but by 1988, when marginal rates had been roughly cut in half, the top one-percent paid 27.5% of the total.

In part because of higher rates,
... but also due to higher incomes, the top 1% today pays about one-third of total individual income taxes.

 

For every government job shut down we can afford to layoff two more with the same money. Once on unemployment they will get approx 1/3rd of the money they used to make and none of their expensive benefits for more savings. it's a win/win situation.

 

Your chart stops at 2008, show us what it is from there to now please.

 

Because we've had more years of sending our wealth and jobs to other countries. Presidents don't control free market economies. Presidents can't fix economies.

 

This post makes me chuckle.

Just a reminder for everyone, this is the same poster who has defended GM bailout to death, yet at the same time complaining about Obama saving other "union" jobs.

I stop by PF for a laugh and I'm not disappointed.

This site has the best comedian on the internet.

 

Wait - I'm confused. Don't liberals bash Reagan for creating debt? Now, when it's convenient, we have a bunch of liberals lauding Reagan and what he did and supposedly what he stood for?

Seriously.

 

I'll bash Reagan for continuing to spend excessively after the economy had recovered and was strong. That's the time for austerity and he dropped the ball.

But I don't bash him for deficit spending during an economic slump.

 

Please.

You and I both know that this is first time you've ever said anything near what you just claimed - and there are further problems with the claim:

1) Many spending programs aren't like a spigot. You cannot simply 'shut it off' the minute the economy turns around.

2) Can you point out to me any examples of leftists applauding Reagan's spending? It's one of the major whipping posts relied upon by the left!

3) Where is your criticism of Democrats for doing this sort of spending? Pointing out a post from a leftist to that effect would go a long way towards building your credibility on the claim.

Liberals are amusing. After over 2 decades of attempting to paint Reagan as the demon's demon of Conservatives, now they've been trying to claim that he's just like them.

Priceless.

 

Originally Posted by Marine1 View Post
Green jobs might have worked out if China hadn't under cut them every chance they got. Trouble with Obama, after bailing out the banks and auto companies, instead of pouring billions into infrastructure where permanent jobs would have developed, he was more interested in saving government union jobs. Once that money was gone those government union went too. Listen to him now. He wants more money for those same union jobs

That's because so many other jobs depend on the auto companies. They say for every auto employee they hire, it creates 6-8 jobs outside of the auto factories. Things like parts makers, steel makers, truck drivers that deliver these vehicles, people who finance and sell them. The list goes on and on. You don't get that job creation saving police, fire, teachers and garbage men. Put it in those jobs I mentioned and infrastructure, those people pay taxes and those taxes can help keep teachers, police and fire. Obama is always going for the union vote and not doing what is best for the country. I can't understand why this is sooooo hard to understand.

 

Reagan spent a lot to first catchh up and pass the Soviets in weaponry. The Soviets were trying desperately to get ahead of us. Reagan assured them he would never allow them to do it.

Reagan also knew if he kept up the pressure on the Soviets, he could hurt them badly. He knew they were having trouble holding the satellite countries together. Oil was their biggest money maker. He was determined to try and bankrupt the Soviets and bring that country down.
He did that by increasing weapons production and making a deal with Saudi Arabia to drop the price of oil to less than $15.00 a barrel. The price was so low, the Soviets didn't want to sell at that price. That low oil price also helped get this country out of the depression it was in. Reagan was a very smart man.

 

Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP also are not 20 percent each year.

 

Dude, seriously, I don't think you believe half of the (*)(*)(*)(*) you just post. Nice drawing the line on the sand to fit your stupid argument. Bailout for auto industry is okay but bailout for other government job is NOT okay. Comedy (*)(*)(*)(*)ing gold. Bottom line, it's not the government job to pick winner and loser. Is that concept to hard for you severely brainwashed progressive to understand?

 

First of all, don't confuse my personal opinion with a claim to speak for all "leftists". Why do I need to show you what anyone else said in order to express my own opinion? Second, we haven't had a Democrat who spent excessive money during a good economy since Reagan was in office. Bill Clinton cut spending and balanced the budget when the economy was good, and the economy hasn't been good since Obama has been in office.

 

In the arms race, we spent loads more money than was necessary to make the Soviets implode. To be fair, everyone kind of thought the USSR was stronger than it really was.

Reagan wasn't all that smart. Probably the least intellectual president we've had in the last 100 years, but he was better at being president than many smarter men. I guess it goes to show that great intellect isn't the most important quality for a president to have.

 

Reagan would have one of the best staff of advisors in modern Presidential history. George Bush's staff would be quite good as well.

 

True. Reagan had 2 very important things. 1st, a great staff and 2nd a clear vision for his time in office. These things don't require intellect, in fact, intellect can often get in the way of these things.