What Reganomics has accomplished.

(Thank you, Lois, for taking the time to explain your remark. I sincerely appreciate it)
Those who "have faith" in untrammelled capitalism and are able exploit it in a capitalistic economy will always be able to garner riches. So they will have enough riches to spread the wealth to the less fortunate or talented as long as laws are in place to require it. If laws are not in place forcing sharing of the wealth a very unbalanced society results because the wealthy are less likely to share their riches with the exploited and downtrodden on their own.
That's a common view, but I'd say it overlooks the fact that the riches of the wealthy cannot fail to find their way back to the economy unless the rich person does something akin to burying money in the ground. Suppose the filthy rich person builds a house. He's providing jobs for construction workers and the makers of the raw materials. He's purchasing furniture and other items, supporting other jobs. But maybe he doesn't spend it all. Maybe he puts it in savings or invests it. In either case, the money goes right back into the economy. Financial institutions loan out the money to business owners and people looking to buy things such as houses. Again, the money supports the economy and jobs. If the investments are profitable then the filthy rich can expect a return. But sometimes investments don't pan out. So all the money did was support temporary jobs.
They will share only enough to keep the lower classes from rising up against them. In a communist society, or even a socialist one, it is much more difficult (though, as we've seen not impossible) for some people, though many fewer than under capitalism, to garner great wealth, usually through corruption of the system.
Right, because the economy often produces relatively little wealth to begin with. But party leaders tend to get special privileges.
But in a communist or socialist system most of the people will receive a portion of the wealth the system creates because it is in the hands of the government. This is the way a comministic or socialist system is supposed to work, though the corruption under communist dictatorships was so great that the system failed. It works much better in countries with enough capitalism to drive the economy and enough socialism to prevent the masses from falling into poverty. The Scandinavian countries are good examples of this. The United States is a good example of too much capitalism and too little socialism, which creates an unbalanced system with a lot of wealth at the top and much poverty and poor infrastructure for the poor and middle classes. It also tends to shrink the middle class so that most of the population struggles to gain a toehold while the wealth stays at the top--and the wealthy work mightily to keep it that way. Of course this is a bare outline of how capitalism and socialism works and there is more to it than this but I hope this gives an idea of what I was talking about when I said that those with faith in untrammelled capitalism guarantee that there always will be enough rich people around who have enough money pay the bills, though unless forced through socialistic laws, they will never pay enough of them or even their fair share.
Thanks again for clarifying. I think you make some good points, though you should also be aware that the Scandinavian countries are tending toward market-based economic reform. They're doing it because they were experiencing the economic weakness that central government control so often produces. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/booming-sweden-s-free-market-solution.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Although actual socialism means the government controls the economy and the resources, I was advocating a mixed economy of capitalism with social programs to keep the majority of the population from sinking into poverty. This requires a government run or guaranteed system that provides education, housing and food assistance and healthcare. Something. Like most Western democracies have now, though I woukd put more money andtalent into tge social programs than the US does. I don't think a government can be considered a good one without that kind of solid infrastructure for the whole population. You wrote: That's a common view, but I'd say it overlooks the fact that the riches of the wealthy cannot fail to find their way back to the economy unless the rich person does something akin to burying money in the ground. lthough that's true, enough money doesn't find its way into the general economy to create a good society without social programs. There are other ways for the wealthy to avoid creating a fair society besides burying their money in the ground. They can invest off shore and avoid taxation and decent wages in their own country (and in the countries they are investing in). They can and do invest in things that will bring them the highest return on their investment even if it undermines the rest of society and destroys the environment. They can and do invest in precious metals that do nothing for any economy. The wealthy can build only so many houses for their own use or run luxury yachts and invest in all the playthings they desire, but the relatively few jobs they create by giving themselves luxuries will never come close to meeting the demands of a decent society. Such a system merely widens the gap between rich and poor and diminishes the middle class. Unless the wealthy pay their fair share society as a whole will suffer, and it's been shown that we can't depend on them to pay their fair share unless they are required to do it through a fair taxation plan that the wealthy can't avoid paying. Lois
While I grit my teeth at some of Bryan's posts, I haven't put him in ignore because he makes strong, well-reasoned arguments (even if there are usually hidden, erroneous premises on which they are based). :lol: Members of a society work to produce value and use it to live. We use money as a means of value exchange. Anything that takes value out of circulation reduces the living conditions of some of the members. As one collects value, one can improve one's living conditions, but to a decreasing degree. Does having two billion dollars improve one's living conditions beyond having one billion? Yes, one can have another few homes built, but wouldn't improving the homes of the destitute give more to the society? If that extra billion were taxed and used to upgrade schools, and allow many more to get higher education without going into crushing debt, wouldn't that help society more than an extra three yachts? I realize that the machinist may not contribute as much value as the CEO of the company, however, I find it hard to justify a few hundred to one ratio of payment to them. This could go on for pages, but I'm trying to be succinct. :) Occam to correct a typo
It's your choice, Occam. He has been here for years. In all that time, have you learned anything from him? If so, what?
Although actual socialism means the government controls the economy and the resources, I was advocating a mixed economy of capitalism with social programs to keep the majority of the population from sinking into poverty.
I don't think we have a disagreement here, aside from the fact that I prefer a system where the culture is geared toward general prosperity rather than the government controlling the effort. I understand the difference between communism and socialism, and I recognize that European socialism is a mixed economy though closer to socialism than the U.S.
This requires a government run or guaranteed system that provides education, housing and food assistance and healthcare. Something. Like most Western democracies have now, though I woukd put more money andtalent into tge social programs than the US does. I don't think a government can be considered a good one without that kind of solid infrastructure for the whole population.
The amount of money the U.S. is now putting into social programs, when projected into the future along with the expected changes in demographics, produces financial ruin. It's going to take some salesmanship to make that sound like a good idea.
You wrote: That's a common view, but I'd say it overlooks the fact that the riches of the wealthy cannot fail to find their way back to the economy unless the rich person does something akin to burying money in the ground. lthough that's true, enough money doesn't find its way into the general economy to create a good society without social programs. There are other ways for the wealthy to avoid creating a fair society besides burying their money in the ground. They can invest off shore and avoid taxation and decent wages in their own country (and in the countries they are investing in).
Here we have the irony that some of the European countries with strong social safety nets invest in United States. Investing offshore typically doesn't avoid taxation. It enables the foreign countries to charge taxes and boosts the economy there.
They can and do invest in things that will bring them the highest return on their investment even if it undermines the rest of society and destroys the environment. They can and do invest in precious metals that do nothing for any economy. The wealthy can build only so many houses for their own use or run luxury yachts and invest in all the playthings they desire, but the relatively few jobs they create by giving themselves luxuries will never come close to meeting the demands of a decent society. Such a system merely widens the gap between rich and poor and diminishes the middle class. Unless the wealthy pay their fair share society as a whole will suffer, and it's been shown that we can't depend on them to pay their fair share unless they are required to do it through a fair taxation plan that the wealthy can't avoid paying.
1) One can pass laws that discourage activities that undermine the rest of society and destroy the environment. But there are tradeoffs galore. Do we want to restrict free speech that harms the rest of society, for example? 2) Investing in precious metals produces economic activity and is sometimes taxed. Increases of the value of precious metals produce a taxable capital gain when the commodity is sold. 3) Purchasing luxuries is simply one of the uses of great wealth, and I pointed out the job creation involved simply to play up the fact that the least useful things rich people can buy with their money still produce jobs. Investing in new ideas and businesses does the most to boost economic growth over the long term. That's where savings and business investments go. 4) Why would it diminish the middle class if somebody at the top gains additional wealth exponentially (except for the trivial relative comparison between the two)? The middle class person holds the same amount of wealth either way. 5) What's a "fair share"? It seems to me that the government should never tax north of the apex of the Laffer curve (wherever that is). Anything above that is purely punitive. 6) It was shown? Where, and by whom? And how did they define "fair share"?

“Based on wage figures, half of Americans are in or near poverty.
The IRS reports that the highest wage in the bottom half of earners is about $34,000. To be eligible for food assistance, a family can earn up to 130% of the federal poverty line, or about $30,000 for a family of four.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/30/half_of_americans_living_below_or_near_poverty_line_partner/

... aside from the fact that I prefer a system where the culture is geared toward general prosperity rather than the government controlling the effort.
Bryan- The amount of money the U.S. is now putting into social programs, when projected into the future along with the expected changes in demographics, produces financial ruin.
Yes that's because the System you would prefer has failed miserably at providing general prosperity for decades now. Of course you'll counter with the fact that it has been hindered by Government. And can't realize it's potential with so much Government intervention. Except the intervention that is lobbied for of course! Despite the fact that Financial Markets are thriving and rebounded back hard after a collapse! Despite the fact that hundreds of Corps. are sitting on mammoth liquid reserves. Despite the fact that government was basically powerless to prevent millions and millions of jobs from being exported to cheaper labor markets. That's where the jobs went! That's where the economy went! But that's the system you would prefer. A system where the culture is geared toward general prosperity.
... aside from the fact that I prefer a system where the culture is geared toward general prosperity rather than the government controlling the effort.
Bryan- The amount of money the U.S. is now putting into social programs, when projected into the future along with the expected changes in demographics, produces financial ruin.
Yes that's because the System you would prefer has failed miserably at providing general prosperity for decades now. How does that follow? Is it less expensive to succeed at providing general prosperity?
Of course you'll counter with the fact that it has been hindered by Government.
Of course(?).
And can't realize it's potential with so much Government intervention.
Perhaps because, in parallel manner, I am hindered by your non sequitur above. Thanks for another unserious post.
... aside from the fact that I prefer a system where the culture is geared toward general prosperity rather than the government controlling the effort.
Bryan- The amount of money the U.S. is now putting into social programs, when projected into the future along with the expected changes in demographics, produces financial ruin.
Yes that's because the System you would prefer has failed miserably at providing general prosperity for decades now. How does that follow? Is it less expensive to succeed at providing general prosperity?
Of course you'll counter with the fact that it has been hindered by Government.
Of course(?).
And can't realize it's potential with so much Government intervention.
Perhaps because, in parallel manner, I am hindered by your non sequitur above. Thanks for another unserious post. Thanks for taking it unseriously. I didn't want to have to sift through one of your convoluted, misrepresentations anyways. You got my points. That's all that matters. I could care less how you would "thoughtfully reply".

On an individual level, if you are in debt, you should decrease your spending and/or increase your income. Simple and obvious.
In terms of government debt, Reagonomics turns part of this simple equation on its head by asserting that decreasing government income (i.e., lowering taxes) will decrease debt by causing investment that will grow the economy. If this is true, then, it makes just as much sense, or more, to assert that government spending will stimulate and/or grow the economy. I say, “or more”, because money spent on programs such as food supplementation, will immediately go back into the economy. (And yes the growth in SNAPS was very likely one of the factors aiding in recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression. And it had the added benefit of helping some poor people be less hungry.) Lowering taxes will only stimulate economic growth IF it is immediately spent or IF it is invested in something productive.
In Reagan’s years, coming out of a recession, the economy WAS stimulated. He lowered high rates of taxes, significantly. (BTW, there is evidence that lowering taxes has a much less stimulating effect on the economy if taxes paid are not already prohibitively high, as they were when Reagan took office.) But Reagan also increased spending. (What? Tea Partiers take note. Reagan increased spending!) The economy was positively effected, during the Reagan years, but the national debt per capita increased by a far greater percentage than any other President since and including Carter. (What? Tea Partiers take note. Reagan increased the national debt, per capita, by over 188%!) By contrast, Obama’s increase in the national debt per capita, after inheriting and reversing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, will likely come out to be around 120% or less (projecting average annual increases so far during his term out to the full 8 years).
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
So it seems to me that Obamanomics are superior to Reagonomics. BTW, Obama has had to fight every step of the way against a tea partisan Congress whose number one priority seems to be insuring that Obama fails. Reagan, by contrast had the support of many Southern Democrats in Congress.

Reagan’s election sickened me when it happened because I saw who was behind it and what they were up to. Sure enough, more than three decades later, the government is all but disabled, while a few gigantic corporations have consolidated their wealth, power and control not just nationally but globally. To boot, we’ve done nothing to address our long-term needs anywhere doing so would have interfered with corporate bottom lines, so we’ve bled trillions upon trillions of dollars effectively subsidizing big oil, big pharma, etc., and damaging our natural environment in the process. Meanwhile, the American people, who could rein this in, are divided, with a substantial segment of them convinced that Reagan’s words were holy writ and the government - which is the only means to have to rein this in - is the problem. It’s as though they don’t even see how their incomes have stagnated while those of a few on top have soared. How or why they insist on overlooking that bagatelle is completely beyond me; it’s front and center every time they look at their own finances. I’d say they are victims of a right wing propaganda machine, except that the real victims are those of us who see what is going on, call the right wing on it but can’t convince our Tea-Party friends and relatives that they’re being manipulated. In a sense, they are victims but in a truer sense they are willing participants in their own economic decline - and ours - and the destruction of individuality, freedom and democratic ideals. And then they tell us that we are the threats to freedom. One way or another, this will come crashing down. If we are to be the first in a long string of great powers to avoid a major decline, several major changes must take place; right now I see no evidence of any of them.

Thanks for taking it unseriously.
Take some credit. You made it very easy. If I perceive a non sequitur then it means I don't see how your argument follows, yet I supposedly get your points, which is the important thing to you.
I didn't want to have to sift through one of your convoluted, misrepresentations anyways. You got my points. That's all that matters. I could care less how you would "thoughtfully reply".
Right, because that's the stuff of which productive conversations are made. ;-) Thanks for another unserious post.
On an individual level, if you are in debt, you should decrease your spending and/or increase your income. Simple and obvious. In terms of government debt, Reagonomics turns part of this simple equation on its head by asserting that decreasing government income (i.e., lowering taxes) will decrease debt by causing investment that will grow the economy. If this is true, then, it makes just as much sense, or more, to assert that government spending will stimulate and/or grow the economy.
The latter is often part of the Keynesian argument, but you're leaving out Reagan's emphasis on cutting government spending (it was emphasized ideologically but was not put fully into effect because of Cold War spending and a less-than-fully-cooperative Congress (including a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives). The Reagan critique of government spending is that it is less effectively directed toward growth than private sector spending, and the key to this concept is the understanding that innovation is the economic spark that drives the economy. Food stamps don't prompt much innovation, unless we count inventing new ways to scam the system.
I say, "or more", because money spent on programs such as food supplementation, will immediately go back into the economy.
And that's explicitly the Keynesian argument, but even Keynes would admit that such spending is effective for short-term stimulus, not long-term stimulus. Just spending gobs of money on food stamps year after year in a effort to constantly stimulate the economy isn't likely to work.
(And yes the growth in SNAPS was very likely one of the factors aiding in recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression.
This recession was comparable to the recession Reagan faced in the early 1980s, with the biggest difference being the rapid recovery then (despite the need to start by using Fed policy to stem inflation) compared to the glacial recovery we're currently experiencing.
And it had the added benefit of helping some poor people be less hungry.) Lowering taxes will only stimulate economic growth IF it is immediately spent or IF it is invested in something productive.
That's assuming that innovation isn't a key aspect of economic growth. It's a bad idea to mix the concept of short-term Keynesian stimulus with what is beneficial for the economy generally. Keynesian policies are intended to smooth the bumps of the business cycle, but they exact a price in growth. You can see that clearly by comparing GDP numbers between the U.S. and Europe over the past 40 years. European socialist countries have generally higher unemployment rates and lower GDP. Surprise, surprise, now that Obama has us emulating the European model more closely we're seeing higher unemployment and lower GDP.
In Reagan's years, coming out of a recession, the economy WAS stimulated. He lowered high rates of taxes, significantly. (BTW, there is evidence that lowering taxes has a much less stimulating effect on the economy if taxes paid are not already prohibitively high, as they were when Reagan took office.) But Reagan also increased spending. (What? Tea Partiers take note. Reagan increased spending!)
Reagan wanted higher spending on defense but wanted cuts to other spending. He faced plenty of opposition in Congress. You're missing a key part of the story, though it's fair to note the overall increased spending in terms of evaluating the effect of Reagan's policies on the economy.
The economy was positively effected, during the Reagan years, but the national debt per capita increased by a far greater percentage than any other President since and including Carter. (What? Tea Partiers take note. Reagan increased the national debt, per capita, by over 188%!) By contrast, Obama's increase in the national debt per capita, after inheriting and reversing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, will likely come out to be around 120% or less (projecting average annual increases so far during his term out to the full 8 years). http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Percent of GDP tells the story more accurately when falling wages are in play. A rise in per capita debt is much harder to deal with when wages fall. Most tellingly, your version of events overlooks the fact that both deficit and debt as a percentage of GDP are outside the levels the EU finds acceptable among its member nations. That was true for the U.S. during WW2. And not since until the Obama presidency.
So it seems to me that Obamanomics are superior to Reagonomics.
We loves our falling wages! :-) http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/08/just-an-idea-maybe-obamas-poll-ratings-on-the-economy-are-falling-because-wages-are-stagnant/
BTW, Obama has had to fight every step of the way against a tea partisan Congress whose number one priority seems to be insuring that Obama fails. Reagan, by contrast had the support of many Southern Democrats in Congress.
No, let's be real. Obama had the rare advantage of a unified government for his first two years, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority for much of that time. He could get anything passed he wanted, and he wanted health care reform. The key opposition to that came from his own party. Yes, Reagan had support from Democrats, and not just Southern Democrats. He had that support because he actively compromised with Democrats. He worked at it. It was under Reagan that Social Security was reformed, for example. That was a bipartisan effort. Reagan worked at bipartisanship. The current president appears to relish the opportunity to publicly disparage his opposition. He exhibits none of Reagan's charm. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/reagan-287054-president-one.html

Blaming falling wages on Obama? Hmmm. Unions used to provide bargaining power that improved wages and conditions for workers. The power decline of Unions began during the 80’s, oddly in sync with the rise of the ideas of Reaganomics. Unions are now effectively neutered.
Obama lacks the skills of compromise that Reagan had? Was Reagan trying to compromise with Congressmen who have absolutely no interest in compromise?
Reagan gets a pass for spending because of the Cold War? But Obama gets no pass because of spending on Wars he did not start and spending on the “War on Terror”?
Decreasing taxes on the rich will lead to innovation? Innovation such as that in the financial industries that lead to the WORST economic crisis since the Great Depression? The wealthiest seem have found ways to effectively have pretty low taxes for some time now. Where is all the innovation that should have lifted our economy?
Of course not everyone who is wealthy is interested in acquiring wealth for its own sake. But clearly many are without regard for whether it will produce anything of value other than more money for them. To such persons, it seems, that innovation is only important if it creates more money for them. It does not seem to be a problem for them that the risks they take are shared by the lower classes.

Blaming falling wages on Obama? Hmmm. Unions used to provide bargaining power that improved wages and conditions for workers. The power decline of Unions began during the 80's, oddly in sync with the rise of the ideas of Reaganomics. Unions are now effectively neutered. Obama lacks the skills of compromise that Reagan had? Was Reagan trying to compromise with Congressmen who have absolutely no interest in compromise? Reagan gets a pass for spending because of the Cold War? But Obama gets no pass because of spending on Wars he did not start and spending on the "War on Terror"? Decreasing taxes on the rich will lead to innovation? Innovation such as that in the financial industries that lead to the WORST economic crisis since the Great Depression? The wealthiest seem have found ways to effectively have pretty low taxes for some time now. Where is all the innovation that should have lifted our economy? Of course not everyone who is wealthy is interested in acquiring wealth for its own sake. But clearly many are without regard for whether it will produce anything of value other than more money for them. To such persons, it seems, that innovation is only important if it creates more money for them. It does not seem to be a problem for them that the risks they take are shared by the lower classes.
You're not going to win against conservatives like Bryan. They truly live in some kind of alternate universe with a worldview that is warped, where words literally have different meanings, AND where they have a constant propaganda machine aimed at rewriting history and even current events in order to push their worldview on others. Luckily reality is liberal, extremely liberal, and the world is moving in the correct direction overall. And one of the funniest, or worst, hypocrisies in their worldview is that they're religious and claim to believe in Jesus, THE most famous liberal socialist of them all!

Perhaps so. e.g., There is, now, a Jesuit Priest, who has become Pope, who is, at least, guiding the Catholic Church back to a more Jesus-like perspective on social issues.

Blaming falling wages on Obama? Hmmm. Unions used to provide bargaining power that improved wages and conditions for workers. The power decline of Unions began during the 80's, oddly in sync with the rise of the ideas of Reaganomics. Unions are now effectively neutered. Obama lacks the skills of compromise that Reagan had? Was Reagan trying to compromise with Congressmen who have absolutely no interest in compromise? Reagan gets a pass for spending because of the Cold War? But Obama gets no pass because of spending on Wars he did not start and spending on the "War on Terror"? Decreasing taxes on the rich will lead to innovation? Innovation such as that in the financial industries that lead to the WORST economic crisis since the Great Depression? The wealthiest seem have found ways to effectively have pretty low taxes for some time now. Where is all the innovation that should have lifted our economy? Of course not everyone who is wealthy is interested in acquiring wealth for its own sake. But clearly many are without regard for whether it will produce anything of value other than more money for them. To such persons, it seems, that innovation is only important if it creates more money for them. It does not seem to be a problem for them that the risks they take are shared by the lower classes.
You're not going to win against conservatives like Bryan. They truly live in some kind of alternate universe with a worldview that is warped, where words literally have different meanings, AND where they have a constant propaganda machine aimed at rewriting history and even current events in order to push their worldview on others. Luckily reality is liberal, extremely liberal, and the world is moving in the correct direction overall. And one of the funniest, or worst, hypocrisies in their worldview is that they're religious and claim to believe in Jesus, THE most famous liberal socialist of them all! Yes, and Bryan isn't your run-of-the-mill conservative. I put him on ignore years ago because he justifies all manner of absurdities, to the point that the central organizing feature of his philosophy is that he's always right. That applies to quite a few of today's "conservatives," who have been trained, after all, that believing things on faith (if you believe it, then it's true) is a virtue; but Bryan does it with such thick-headedness that I'm surprised to see anyone here taking him seriously, even to the point of trying to have a discussion with him. I'd like to think that people grow over time but while I haven't exchanged a word with him in roughly six years, he doesn't appear to have changed one bit in that time, either in style or in content, such as it is.

Umm this conversation seems to be turning into a insulting contest rather than an intellectual exchange.
With all due respect to everyone, please seriously study economics before having a conversation…
We can start with the works of Prof. Jeffery Sachs.
At the end of the day, we all want a world with no poverty so let us all study (and not appeal to anecdotal evidence or the news) to find a solution.
There were a few interesting articles cited, but the news is not generally a scholarly source.
I found this website of Prof. Jeffery Sachs a few days ago. Its a good place for us to start our conversation. http://jeffsachs.org/

Abdul, The 1st article by Sachs is encouraging as it indicates a strong trend on the global scale, in decreasing severe economic inequalities. The theme of this article, I think, is represented by this quote from the article:
" …anti-market sentiment is no friend of poverty reduction. But neither is free-market fundamentalism. Economic growth and poverty reduction can’t be achieved by free markets alone. Disease control, public education, the promotion of new science and technology, and protection of the natural environment are public functions that must align with private market forces."
That statement, IMO, is in line with the thinking of most US progressives. It is not in line with the dogma of right wing market fundamentalists in the US, who seem to believe that Government is pretty much useless or an impediment to our society’s progress and well-being (except for wars and national “defense”). And taxes for any other purposes, seems to be an anathema to them.

Abdul, I assume that you are Muslim? I wonder whether the Quranic prohibition against money being made by charging interests on loans, may be a good one, as it requires an Islamic financial institution to basically form an investment partnership with those who borrow or invest in order to make money.

Blaming falling wages on Obama? Hmmm.
Obamanomics is better than Reaganomics even if wages are stagnant under the former because ... I dunno, because Republicans are to blame for whatever economic indicators might suggest Obamanomic isn't working so well? Noted right-winger Paul Krugman]: "I think it’s important to realize how badly policy failed and continues to fail. Right now, Washington seems divided between Republicans who denounce any kind of government action — who insist that all the policies and programs that mitigated the crisis actually made it worse — and Obama loyalists who insist that they did a great job because the world didn’t totally melt down."
Unions used to provide bargaining power that improved wages and conditions for workers. The power decline of Unions began during the 80's, oddly in sync with the rise of the ideas of Reaganomics. Unions are now effectively neutered.
Obviously Reagan's fault]. Heh.
Obama lacks the skills of compromise that Reagan had? Was Reagan trying to compromise with Congressmen who have absolutely no interest in compromise?
Obama hasn't attempted compromise from the beginning. When he first met with Republicans after his election, his initial conciliatory gesture was to declare "I won]." That'll probably have to be it for supporting URLs. I have to be mindful of the site's aggressive spam filter.
Reagan gets a pass for spending because of the Cold War? But Obama gets no pass because of spending on Wars he did not start and spending on the "War on Terror"?
I think perhaps you misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't give a pass to Reagan for Cold War spending. I'm pointing out in the context of the policies he advocated it was one of the few budgetary increases he favored. So when you blame higher spending on Reagan you have to take the actions of the Democrat-controlled Congress into account. If Reagan got what he wanted then spending would have increased less than it did but it would have tilted toward defense spending. Likewise, it's appropriate to consider Obama's amazing deficit reduction in the context of a stingy Republican-controlled Congress.
Decreasing taxes on the rich will lead to innovation? Innovation such as that in the financial industries that lead to the WORST economic crisis since the Great Depression?
Are you seriously trotting out the argument that the financial crisis cancels out any technological innovation that occurs as a result of tax cuts? Is that a cheesy diversion or what?
The wealthiest seem have found ways to effectively have pretty low taxes for some time now. Where is all the innovation that should have lifted our economy?
It's largely suppressed by uncertainty. The government has reformed financial markets (the administration is still writing the reams of regulations associated with Dodd-Frank), the health care market (more regs, along with the administrations uneven application of the law it helped pass), and has increased taxes while indicating a strong desire to increase taxes more.
Of course not everyone who is wealthy is interested in acquiring wealth for its own sake. But clearly many are without regard for whether it will produce anything of value other than more money for them. To such persons, it seems, that innovation is only important if it creates more money for them. It does not seem to be a problem for them that the risks they take are shared by the lower classes.
Even if a person only innovates to create money for themselves, the natural action of the market tends to reward innovation that people want. So suppose some selfish person figures out a way to cure colon cancer more effectively. Do they deserve the same reward for their innovation that the unselfish innovator deserves?
Yes, and Bryan isn't your run-of-the-mill conservative. I put him on ignore years ago because he justifies all manner of absurdities, to the point that the central organizing feature of his philosophy is that he's always right. That applies to quite a few of today's "conservatives," who have been trained, after all, that believing things on faith (if you believe it, then it's true) is a virtue; but Bryan does it with such thick-headedness that I'm surprised to see anyone here taking him seriously, even to the point of trying to have a discussion with him. I'd like to think that people grow over time but while I haven't exchanged a word with him in roughly six years, he doesn't appear to have changed one bit in that time, either in style or in content, such as it is.
Paul LaClair wouldn't be quite so off-topic if he had provided one example in this thread where I justify an absurdity. It's not really anything other than an irrelevant personal attack, is it?