During his time in office, he fought bitterly with Democrats over the budget. He criticized the excessive spending of social programs, sought to cut them, and was vilified by the left for his views. He compared the federal government to his business and said there was no way he would run his own affairs that way. His business, taken over from his father, was built by a family of rugged individualists who had tireless work ethics. So, White House spending was cut drastically with all the frills of fancy meals and desserts being eliminated. He even went as far as turning off the air conditioner so it was raging hot during the summer. All of this, to cut ridiculous levels of government spending.
Right after him, another man came into office. He spent money like it was going out of style-tripling the deficit and bringing it to heights not seen since WWII. The government grew as never before during his tenure. He gave amnesty to illegal aliens. Before he was president, he was a governor who signed a bill into law allowing public unions. He himself was the head of union for many years. Worst of all, he negotiated with Iran and sent them weapons.
In looking at each of these men, the first would fit well within the Tea Party today and the second would surely be labeled a progressive, right?
Nope.
The first man was Jimmy Carter and the second man was Ronald Reagan.
Somehow (and I'm really not certain as to how this happened) an incredible work of fiction has grown around both of these men. I suppose it's typical when you look at how history is changed into myths over the years. But the Reagan myth truly sickens me. The guy was not a Tea Partier. Heck, he wasn't even a conservative by today's standards. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind that if he was in office, he'd be doing the same things that Barack Obama is doing and none of the mouth foamers on the right would care. Why? Because they love and believe the fiction.
The right's view on Reagan reminds me of my friend Chuck and Neal Patrick Harris. Chuck loves the show How I Met Your Mother, He REALLY loves Harris' character of Barney Stinson-the somewhat sleazy, Playboy-esque friend in the group. Barney is set up as being every man's dream...a confirmed bachelor....wanton sex with hot babes....loads of money working for a heartless corporation. Chuck loves all of this and secretly dreams he could escape his life in suburbia just to be Barney for one day.
So, imagine his surprise when he found out that Harris was gay in real life. He couldn't believe it. He was devastated. Then an interesting thing happened. He started to ignore the real life Harris and lose himself in the fiction. He simply couldn't give up on the character of Stinson and the adulation he showered on him. Barney was his hero and it didn't matter what was real. The fiction was what he wanted and 6 years into the run of the show, he doesn't care that Harris is gay. Reality to him is Barney.
It's the same fucking thing with Reagan.
As Saul Alinsky so accurately predicted right before he died, Ronald Reagan came riding in on his horse and saved the frightened old white people of the middle class from all the scary change. Except that he didn't, really. He made it worse for them with his tax cuts and trickle down economics. Wealthy people became wealthier and the middle class and the poor could go fuck themselves. It didn't matter that they were miserable and still doesn't today. They want to believe the fiction of Reagan.And, boy oh boy, do they hate Carter.
Honestly, this is true with the right on most issues. They blame the left for all their problems but it's really the folks they support that are sticking it to them with the left actually making their lives better. But that doesn't matter. Like Reagan, only the fiction matters.
37 comments:
You don't even have to go back as far as Reagan. Most Republicans had no problem with Bush drastically driving up the deficit with wars in two countries, creating new unfunded entitlement programs (Medicare Part D), creating a nationwide education program that meddles with local control and promotes mediocrity, creating a huge new federal bureaucracy with the extremely creepy name of "Homeland Security," and unbridled intrusion into our phone records.
This is nothing new, and it's not limited to Republicans. It's just another example of confirmation bias. When people you disagree with do something you consider bad, you think it proves that they're evil. When people you agree with do the same thing, you shrug it off.
For example, the Monica Lewinsky affair "proved" to Republicans that Clinton was a total scumbag, while the revelation that Newt Gingrich was having yet another affair with a young woman "proved" to Democrats that Gingrich was a total scumbag. Now, to tell the truth, these two things aren't the same. Clinton stayed married to his wife, while Gingrich divorced his (second) wife, and in what some consider the ultimate act of hypocrisy, converted to Catholicism.
The thing that has changed fundamentally since Reagan's time is the Republican attitude towards compromise. In the Reagan era Republicans mostly wanted government to function cheaply and well. Now they just don't give a damn. They want to trash everything and bring the whole thing down, with the vague hope that "freedom" from government interference will somehow make everything wonderful.
But we had that kind of society in the 1890s and the 1920s, and it sucked for everyone but the extremely wealthy, whose greed eventually brought everything crashing down, much like Bush's financial crisis in 2007-2008.
Why don't either one of you type up a long post about the brilliance of Obama's Libya effort? Why do you save your long posts for talking about your political enemies?
Biden just said he's going to impeach the President for violating the war powers act or something like that. I just caught the end of it on the tv.
When conservatism reigns, people are left alone to either succeed or fail on their own in freedom. If you don't like the fail part, then you don't understand the value of failure. Ray Kroc was nothing more than a mediocre paper cup salesman until he discovered and bought the restaurant from the McDonald brothers. Walt Disney failed over and over to find the right people to financially back his ideas for most of his life. Edison tried a thousand different ways to create a lightbulb before he found the right design. The common denominator to success in this country has always been freedom and a rule of law that protects individual freedom.
When leftist ideology reigns, there is no point in striving or failing. If you succeed, the fruits of your labor will be taken from you and given to those who don't care to strive for anything beyond playing the lottery and watching American Idol and believing that anybody who has wealth must have gotten it by nefarious means. This is what produces countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. Equality is celebrated and encouraged until everyone but those at the top of government have become equally miserable.
http://thecompostfiles.blogspot.com/2011/03/silence-is-consent.html
He made it worse for them with his tax cuts and trickle down economics.
Yeah tax cuts are just a living hell to everyone. If you aren't paying enough, give up something that you currently spend money on and send in more than is asked of you. Oh, wait - that isn't what you want - you want to take more of OTHER PEOPLE's money to spend on things that you think the govt should do.
The prosperity of the mid 80s through the 90s - all a facade I suppose. You remind me of the theme to All in the Family - all nostalgic for an era that wasn't half as great as you think it was.
More bad news for the "we don't have a deficit problem" crowd.
Generally, I agree with the sentiment of your link, juris, but you are missing my point. I'm not saying the deficit isn't a problem. It is a concern. The larger problem is the fantasy being created by the right that "we're broke" or "We are going to end up like Greece."
A worse problem for you is the fact that you linked an article signed by several people who should be in fucking prison right now. Glenn Hubbard is one of them. So are Martin Feldstein and Laura Tyson. In fact, nearly the entire list of authors reads as a Rogue's Gallery. You'll see what I'm talking about if you ever get around to watching "Inside Job."
And Mankiw who you've repeatedly linked to and/or quoted yourself. Is he suddenly a Rogue - when what he says doesn't suit you?
You see that is a shit-for-brains response - attacking the people . The real question is why do I ever expect better from you?
Mark, what is the difference between a 'concern' and a 'problem'? In your opinion of course. Don't link me somewhere, or quote somebody.
In your opinion, what is the fact/figure/data point that will be the difference between concern and problem?
Note that I am not disagreeing with you. I'd just like to explore this topic a bit further.
I have linked and quoted Mankiw in the past in reference to very specific points we were discussing. Does that mean that I have to agree with him on everything? Or that, given the evidence presented in "Inside Job," that he is excused from accountability? The fact is, juris, that he, along some of the other authors that signed this editorial, were part of the massive fraud that went on for years. While I agree with their ideas in the piece, I don't want any of them near any sort of economic policy making. You guys are always so amped up about running America like it's a business. Why on earth would you want to hire an incompetent CEO who was committed fraud?
The other thing about Mankiw is that his Microeconomics text reads like a fairy tale. I actually have been working on a post about it which will probably pop up next week.
Anon, a problem is the fact that less people control more wealth in this country with the middle class stagnating if not vanishing. A concern would be our deficit spending and debt spending....both currently lower than during WWII and post WWII. Since you don't want me to link somewhere, I guess you'll have to look for the data to support my problem I have listed and my concern I have listed...although I have linked this data several times anyway.
The long term implications of my first point could be devastating to our economy and our socio-political system. The shift towards plutocracy was been very quiet and disturbing. The middle class drives the engine of our economy, not the wealthy. The top percent's demand for goods is very elastic. But middle class demand for goods is often very inelastic. I don't see any sort of shift away from this...especially given the 30 million or so people that want to make sure that wealthy people receive charity....so that's why I say it's a problem.
Debt and deficit spending is a concern because it's going to be corrected. Likely, we will see a combination of policy changes and increased revenue from a recovering economy which will aid in this correction. We've been down this path before with spending and we've turned out just fine. Remember, debt doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have to look at ALL then numbers (as I demonstrated the other day) in order to get an accurate picture.
Thanks for the reply. One question after a quick read. (More to follow hopefully)
How do you see the debt/deficit "going to be corrected"?
Sorry, premature posting.
What policy changes do you see coming down the road that will aid in the correction?
Interesting that you consider allowing people to keep their own money as charity.
Surprising no. Interesting yes
You guys are always so amped up about running America like it's a business.
Really? I'd love to have you quote me to that effect. And I mean me not one of the voices ("you guys") in your head. Yep, just another day in M's world - putting words into other peoples mouths (and then getting mad when we don't defend the position he created for us). I can give you plenty of reasons why you can't run the govt like a business.
The other thing about Mankiw is that his Microeconomics text reads like a fairy tale.
Oh dear god - not an exposition on economics. Dude, you just look so fucking foolish when you do that.
Anon, a problem is the fact that less people control more wealth in this country with the middle class stagnating if not vanishing.
According to the [limited] evidence I have presented here, this is not true. The top 10% control the same amount of wealth now as in the early 50s-60s (your mythical Golden Age of Good Capitalism). You have not presented an iota of evidence (hint: something other than rhetoric) to the contrary.
How do you see the debt/deficit "going to be corrected"?
What policy changes do you see coming down the road that will aid in the correction?
Well, the short answer is that the debt commission's recommendations need to be enacted. All of them. More specifically, we need to raise the age of Social Security, change how it works (so Warren Buffet doesn't collect), cut the massive waste going on in the Defense Department, and rewrite the tax code so people in the upper bracket actually pay 35 percent of their income as opposed to the cap gains cheat. The Bush tax cuts need to go for the upper bracket in two years. I'd also suggest cutting corporate tax rates as that is one area where the Laffer curve proved to be credible.
Those are the actions to take. Some of the problem will be corrected when we get out of this slump. As soon as people start working again, revenue will go up. Much of this, too, is perception. If we are perceived as strong, it won't matter much as to what sort of deficit and debt we have.
The other thing is innovation. We should be the leader in renewable energy. That could really turn things around for us. China, with its horrible human rights record, should not be the leader but they will as long as we are being dragged by the dead weight of people who hate losing/can't admit when they are wrong (re:climate change).
Interesting that you consider allowing people to keep their own money as charity.
Yeah, I'm pretty fucking tired of the pathology, GD. You guys scream about the Constitution but apparently haven't read it. Article 1, Section 8.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that the people I'm talking about used our money as poker chips and committed fraud. Then they used our money again when we bailed them out. So, it's not really the "fruits of their labor" is it? Enough with the fantasies.
you just look so fucking foolish when you do that.
If your definition of foolish is saying things you don't like and blowing gaping holes in economic "theory" then I guess I am foolish. You'll see what I mean when I put up the post but for now, I'd suggest that you not listen to people who sit on the board of Goldman Sachs AND teach economics in college.
I'd suggest that you not listen to people who sit on the board of Goldman Sachs AND teach economics in college.
Even when you find him worthy of reference? Funny M, really fucking funny.
I suppose you think I should listen to someone who didn't even grasp Econ 101 for a critique of theory that people way fucking smarter than you or I agree on. Riiiiiiight.
Maybe you could try providing some evidence about the concentration of wealth, or quote me about how govt should be run.
Article 1, Section 8
Awesome Mark! How about actually making a statement relevant to that which I referenced? That reference being you consider allowing people to keep their own money is charity. No one (especially me) is denying the constitutional authority to levy taxes. I just don't have the pathological defect that makes me believe I am entitled to someone's money like you do, so much so that you would actually consider letting them keep more of their money is some sort of charity.
Then they used our money again when we bailed them out
Hey, you give the drug addled pan-handler $20, don't complain to me that he buys some heroin with your cash. But I guess that's what happens when you consider something too big to fail....
If your definition of foolish is saying things you don't like and blowing gaping holes in economic "theory" then I guess I am foolish.
Ohh, I missed that one the first read through.
Gaping holes like your economic masterpiece...I mean... link about cookie stealing? Or your continuing refusal to answer one simple question describing your basic fundamental understanding of economic theory?
You guys scream about the Constitution but apparently haven't read it. Article 1, Section 8.
Ooooh, I missed that on the first read.
Apparently M is unaware that Section 9 followed Section 8 and defined what Congress was NOT allowed to do. Specifically (until the 16th Amdt changed it), Congress was not allowed to levy a tax directly on peoples incomes. And nowhere in Section 8 is Congress empowered to provide welfare for individuals - poor or well-to-do. Yet you don't care about that, do you?
And for all the ranting on the Bush tax cuts - the top rate would go from 35 to 39. Big whoop. As for capital gains - they are taxed differently because there is an economic assumption that doing so encourages innovation (you know - that stuff you are so keen on). You could certainly suggest removing real estate gains from capital gains treatment - although that will also impact people in the middle class cashing in on appreciation of their homes.
Oh, and something else I missed from earlier...
I'd also suggest cutting corporate tax rates as that is one area where the Laffer curve proved to be credible.
That would help GE a lot, wouldn't it?
>Some of the problem will be corrected when we get out of this slump. As soon as people start working again, revenue will go up.
And when revenue goes up, the politicians will spend all of that too, like they always do.
How does 'general welfare' [emphasis on general] mean taking from one to give to another? Wouldn't that be better worded as 'specific' welfare?
Mark, thank you for responding. Rather than nitpick your list of policy changes, allow me to ask another question.
Do you see your list of changes as 'doable' in the current political climate?
Well, you might be right, last, but I think there has been some OCD about spending that needs to change. Governments spend money. That's what they do. That doesn't mean it's evil. The word 'spending' has been hijacked along with 'liberal' and 'progressive.' I'm not certain we can have a rational discussion about spending in this country.
Anon, the general welfare clause has been debated quite a bit over the years. It means different things to different people. For me, it does not mean "taking from one and giving to another." Part of general welfare means having basic infrastructure. It also means caring for our citizens...whether it's protecting them terrorists or a virus.
I'm not sure we have a choice on the policies I've pointed out. They may not be doable in the current political climate but action has to be taken. One of my chief complaints about the left is that they lack balls. They just need to start doing this stuff and if they piss people off on either side, too bad. If you've noticed, President Obama pisses people off on the left and right all the time. He's doing it right now with Libya. It happened with health care as well. That's why I think he is a good president.
The word 'spending' has been hijacked along with 'liberal' and 'progressive.' I'm not certain we can have a rational discussion about spending in this country.
Probably not since you can't articulate any point where govt is too large or intrusive. Or when you try to play stupid word games - pretending that words don't mean what everyone understands them to mean. I like how when you finally recognize how unsupportable your position is you shift or flat out disengage. I guess if you can't win you'll just quit.
Let's forget your last five sentences, and focus on the previous two.
What action do you want taken, in order to make your choices made 'doable'?
Well, in many ways that's what this blog is about, anon. An exploration for answers. It's also a way for me to vent but that's another issue.
As far as action taken, the first thing that has to happen is the people of this country need to stop letting the mass media socialize their children as well as themselves. Simply put, we need to stop allowing corporations to dictate the functions of our culture. I would agree that they need to be a part of it but not the whole thing as they nearly are now. So what happens when family, school community and peer groups socialize people in a healthier way?
You get civic minded educated people who want to actively participate in society. That translates into higher voter turnout in elections which would be the next action item. We need to get rid of apathy and do it in a way that doesn't start from fear, hate and anger. Again, this comes from better socialization. I doubt we will reach 100 percent voter turnout but wouldn't 80 be nice? That would certainly change the political landscape and make my choices listed above doable. But it's more than just that.
If we have more people involved in the political process, we have more people that inspired and motivated. How inspired and motivated they might be could vary but I think that the more educated they are, the more they understand the problems we face and how we are going to have to make tougher choices. Essentially, it all comes back to education. If people understood how to manage the complexities in life more effectively, dedicated time to issues, and had patience, we'd make these choices doable. How do you lead people here? Education. But this goes back to socialization with more parents needing to be involved in their child's life. Really, it's all cyclical.
Now, I don't care where the ideas are politically as long as they work in reality. If someone can demonstrate to me, for example, that leaving the market alone will not result in criminal behavior, then let's leave the market alone. Thus far, the evidence does not show this. See, it's not about me being partisan. I'm for what works. Lower corporate taxes mean higher revenue. This is a fact and I don't care that my overall ideology about government doesn't fit with this. I'm not a true believer. Of course, that's what people paint me as because that's what THEY are.
Finally, I must emphasize that these are just ideas. They may not work in reality either. Inspiring/motivating people is a tough thing to do. It's what I spend my days doing (even though I am on spring break this week). No doubt there will still be apathy in any culture but the sheer amount of it now is what I believe is preventing us from ultimately making those choices doable. We have to start there and let the rest of the dominoes hopefully fall into place. It might not work out perfectly but it's the best place to start imho.
As much as I hate to deconstruct and analyze piece by piece, I submit to you:
Voting % of the population is certainly lower than it was in 1960, but not insensibly different. Voter participation seems to have peaked in the 19th century at around 75%.
So if we agree that the mythical 'long ago' was a time of more civic-mindedness, it doesn't seem to translate to voter turnout.
In my opinion [FWIW] voter apathy has a direct correlation to the perceived effect of an individual's vote. If true, then government transparency is not only desirable, but it may allow the voter to see the real effects of the ballot box.
Unfortunately, the opacity of government -contrary to many an elected candidate's promises- seems to be the new normal.
I submit to you and your readers, that most people could handle the complexities of life if they were just allowed to do so. At some point, your mother 'cut the apron strings' and allowed you to 'sink or swim'. Unless we are all still breast-fed, adversity was overcome starting at an early age.
Conservative vs. Liberal seems to disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should be allowed to experience before 'the system' provides for that individual.
I must fall on the Conservative side of that balance, because I think the amount of personal adversity experienced should be greater before a person is allowed to stop trying harder.
But I digress. Do you see your ideas as doable in the current political climate?
Maybe the ideas aren't doable in the current political climate because of the fact that people think that the government is creating an environment where they don't try harder. I disagree with the perception that we live in a nanny state. There are a lot of people out there that are really hurting and the government is not helping them.
If the government doesn't carry out my ideas, who will? If I could see some sort of evidence that individuals and/or corporations could handle the level of complexity and infrastructure with any decent amount of success then I might be more inclined to agree with you. Of course, this doesn't mean that I think the federal government is perfect. Far from it. But they are the best we have given the nature of how people operate.
If I had to answer your question with a strict yes or no, I would say no. But it's not because of the current political climate. It's because of the very reasons listed in your digressions (which are always welcome b to the w). People do feel entitled in our culture but that has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with how our culture functions now which I detailed in my piece called the Michael Jordan Generation. Far too many people, regardless of their political stripe, believe that they are going to be a superstar. The corporate owned media has led them to believe this. Our citizens lap it up and spend tons of money on silly things like shoes and vitamin drinks so they can "be like Mike."
I would assume we then agree on our entitled society. We just have different culprits for why this is the case. As a functionalist (combined with some interactionist tendencies), I see a country that defines success as material gain and is motivated by extrinsic reward. This has gotten much worse over the last 30 years. Ironically, Jimmy Carter saw this and talked about it in his infamous malaise speech in 1979. We didn't really listen, did we?
Thus far, the evidence does not show this.
Thank god I didn't have a mouthful of wine when I read that, as it would've spewed all over my monitor.
Juris, as long as you refuse to review "Inside Job," comments like this are just plain ignorant.
Yes, yes, a movie - that is your evidence. Sorry, but that is very weak tea. You should be able to point to a helluva lot more than a single fucking movie.
You are virtually always as short on evidence as you are long on rhetoric. You still haven't posted a tidbit on the concentration of wealth - I have, and it doesn't show it to be any more concentrated today than in your Golden Age (with 91% tax rate). Beg, borrow or buy a goddam clue.
Well, you haven't seen it so how can you judge it? I made a specific comment about the markets, not concentrated wealth. The film shows what happens when the government allows the markets to work on their own. The result was disastrous. All of the evidence is in the film and it ain't weak, brother.
As far as concentrated wealth goes, it's simple economics to use three simple tools to look at inequality: poverty measurement, the Gini coefficient, and the comparison of the wealth of the rich to the rest of us. Let's take a look, shall we?
According to the 2009 Census Bureau Poverty Threshold, 43 million Americans (1 of 7) are living in poverty. In 1970, it was 25 million.
The CB also tells us that the US Gini has risen to 46.8 in 2009. It was 39.4 in 1970. Of course, your much loathed government programs offset this so it goes down to 38. Yet this 38 isn't really spectacular when you consider our wealth compared to other countries.
Recall the 2007 study that I put up which calculated that 18.9 percent of US income was going to the top one percent. That's up from 8.3 percent in 1970. The last time we were around there was right before the crash in 1929. We can also look at the other figure I put up recently that shows that 400 people in this country own more wealth than the bottom 60 percent.
Take all of these together and the picture of inequality is quite clear. So, I guess I'm wondering why you want to persist in denying this inequality. If it's just because you like to be contrary to me, I think that's pretty sad, dude. But then again so is climate change denying, racism denying, and denying that corporations have power over people and can force them to do things....all because Mark is never allowed to be correct about anything.
Well, you haven't seen it so how can you judge it?
Because of the medium M. The medium. There is no serious intellectual work done in that medium - it is fundamentally entertainment.
The film shows what happens when the government allows the markets to work on their own.
As you pointed out with the qualified investor bit - this was not a "totally unregulated market". Nor do you grasp the crucial part the housing bubble played (and how that bubble was encouraged). The govt did not have to bail all the assholes out - it could've let them eat their losses. I don't think anyone can make a serious argument that that would've been much worse than what we have.
According to the 2009 Census Bureau Poverty Threshold, 43 million Americans (1 of 7) are living in poverty. In 1970, it was 25 million.
In other words, about the same percentage of the total population. Gee, what a thought, the poor are always the lowest income group. Truly profound.
The Gini tells you nothing useful and I'm sure given your mathematical illiteracy that you really don't understand it - you just got it from some other liberal/progressive.
I haven't disputed that higher incomes have gotten higher. The question I continue to ask is what evidence do you have that that has come at the expense of lower income earners. If the whole pie gets bigger and I get a bigger slice than I previously had - even if it isn't as big as someone else, so what. Your whole premise is that this is bad - but you never say why. I can only assume that it is because you are so insecure about your social status that any indication it is receding sends you into a tizzy.
None of that supports the contention you have raised that there is a greater concentration of wealth. And you have made that argument.
Sorry, your Jordan Generation arguments seem ineffectual to me. Even giving your ideas extreme latitude for the young, only a severely challenged 30 year old still believes he will go pro.
It seems that our debate will end as this piece fades off the page. But I think we disagree on a fundamental point:
"If the government doesn't carry out my ideas, who will?"
The only answer is YOU will. I don't believe it is the responsibility of government to implement your ideas.
Not just because I disagree with your ideas, I don't expect the government to carry out MY ideas either.
My only action that the government is responsible for, is accurately counting my vote. Even that is sometimes more than they can handle, but it's the best way so far.
There is no serious intellectual work done in that medium
Wow. I think I'm going to have to let the monumental ignorance of that comment to soak in for awhile.
I will agree with you somewhat about the Gini. What it does not show is the social barriers that are in place that prevent people from moving up. So, you are right but it further disproves your point...sadly...
If you think that nothing I've said supports a greater concentration of wealth, then I find it amusing that you think I'm mathematically illiterate. Honestly, there's not much more I can say. I've given you the numbers. You don't like them.
Anon, I'm going to turn one (or maybe more) of your comments into a post soon. We can certainly continue there and I hope we will. I've enjoyed our discussion a great deal.
So, you are right but it further disproves your point...sadly...
And this accuses me of "monumental ignorance"?
I only wish this thread was not about to drop off into the memory hole. That is just mind-blowing stupidity and hubris - all rolled into one.
what happens when the government allows the markets to work on their own. The result was disastrous
We ain't had one of those in a very long time.
Post a Comment