Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Republicans Can’t Let Go Ronald Reagan’s Economy Crushing Failed Policies
Republicans reverting to Reagan’s past for future prosperity.
The human brain has a unique defense mechanism of shutting out bad memories and replacing them with fallacious, but comforting, recollections that is prevalent in children and the mentally disturbed. Republicans have spent the past four years recalling different historical eras fondly and proffering that if only America could return to Puritanical colonial times, revolutionary war America, or the War Between the States sensibilities, then the country would prosper and people would truly be content in a truly exceptional nation. Although the mood of the people is shifting away from the disastrous thirty year experiment in Reagan-conservatives’ anti-government agenda and preference for libertarian corporatism, Republicans are intent on returning to policies that, thirty years later, finally bore fruit and nearly destroyed the nation’s economy.
At the RNC winter meeting in Charlotte last weekend, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal laid out a Republican vision he referred to as an “opportunity to lead our country into a new era of possibility, progress, and prosperity,” and then launched into a Reaganesque speech decrying the oppressive federal government and President Obama as purveyors of “economic contraction, austerity and less from the economy.” It was the usual Republican rhetoric based on fiction, lies, and delusion that included a recurring GOP theme that “We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless,” and that “we are the party that creates more from the economy with a dream of growth, prosperity, and equal opportunity.” Jindal’s speech was heavy on anti-government rhetoric that highlighted progress was dependent on returning to regressive policies the country is finally leaving behind.
Jindal spent no small amount of time laying the nation’s thirty year decline into corporatism and gross income inequality on President Obama, and reasserted the long-held conservative notion that focusing on entitlements for the private sector was key to growing the economy, and not the government. Instead of reiterating and critiquing Jindal’s Republican talking points extolling the virtues of privatization and how best to inject “ever-fresh principles of freedom and apply them to the future,” it is worth pointing out the hypocrisy, blatant lies, and misrepresentation of all Republicans’ in their effort to preserve and reinvigorate Reagan’s conservatism that has been the bane of progress for all Americans except the wealthiest one percent and the corporations that pervert prosperity.
Jindal cited specific areas Republicans must focus their attention to stop Democrats and “the liberals in the national media” who frustrate conservatives by expecting them to abandon their principles, and they indicate above all else, that Jindal is a liar. He also listed some futuristic ideas first expounded in anti-government rhetoric typical of Reagan-era conservatism that can be summarized as government is bad, destructive, and the people’s enemy.
To start Jindal parroted the conservative canard that the President is imposing “enlightened policies of European socialism” that Republicans began spouting before the President was sworn in office in 2009. In fact, at the rate corporations, the stock market, oil companies, and banking sector are posting record profits, one is tempted to claim the government exists for the sole benefit of the wealthy, corporations, and financial sector and not anything remotely recognizable as “enlightened European socialism,” and although Republicans cannot cite one specific example of socialism in government, it is a constant refrain from the GOP and their conservative talking heads and think tanks.
Jindal then shifted his rhetoric to assail the Obama Administration and liberal media’s incessant support for “abortion on demand without apology,” and “abandoning traditional marriage between one man and one woman” as if the federal government is banning heterosexual marriage and allowing women free abortions at any time during their pregnancy. It is blatant hypocrisy to decry government interference in Americans lives when Republicans have been on a tear to put the government between a woman and her reproductive health. Jindal also railed against government wasting money interfering with people’s freedoms, and yet Republicans in Congress have allocated millions of the people’s tax dollars to defend an unconstitutional law defining marriage as dictated in the Christian bible. Apparently for the little hypocrite, government intrusion into people’s lives and wasteful spending is acceptable so long as Republicans, and their theocratically ambitious supporters, deem it is necessary to impose religious edicts on the population.
Republicans have assailed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) as acutely wasteful government spending, and Jindal said the President “embraces government growth” as the key to American success referring to spending taxpayer dollars to grow the economy. In fact, Jindal assailed the stimulus in an op/ed in summer 2009 as “a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus that has not stimulated.” Less than 24 hours before the op/ed was published, Jindal presented a “jumbo-sized check” allotted for job training programs directly from the stimulus, and to make sure he received the credit, he printed his name on the federal government check. It is true that government spending is not the be all, end all, to stimulate the economy, but the stimulus did, without a shadow of a doubt, save the economy and Jindal knows it.
What may be the biggest lie Jindal told was that Democrats work to take more from working Americans, and that President Obama imposed “higher taxes every year to pay for government expansion.” The brazen assertion defies the fact that throughout the President’s first term, and especially in the case of the stimulus, he reduced taxes and presided over the lowest tax rates in 60 years. The first, and only, tax increase in four years came in the waning hours of 2012 when President Obama, after a year-long battle, secured a tax cut for all but the very richest Americans. Jindal’s hypocrisy is stunning because he is attempting to enact tax increases on the poor and middle class in Louisiana to pay for a tax cut for the richest one percent he refers to as “the job creators.”
Jindal railed on education and Democrats insistence on supporting free public education for all after he enacted a voucher system that diverted taxpayer dollars allocated for public schools to private religious schools to indoctrinate children into the Christian religion. In November, a federal judge ruled that Jindal’s religious private schools threatened funding the previous court ordered requiring the district to build new schools and improve existing facilities, and that it interfered with court-ordered procedures for the recruitment and retention of black teachers. It is another case of Jindal’s hypocrisy regarding government funding for the public being a travesty, and yet he has no problem using government funds to unconstitutionally enrich private schools that teach Christianity.
America has suffered for thirty years from the effects of Reagan-era conservatism that culminated in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, and integral to the economy’s crash was lack of government regulation. It is stunning, really, that any Republican decries President Obama’s handling of the economy as detrimental to the private sector when corporations, banks, and the oil industry have posted record profits every quarter. Jindal claimed the Republican Party is the party of “more,” the party that creates “more from the economy and a prosperous future based on economic growth and opportunity,” but since Reagan’s era, it has worked well for the rich and big business, and never translated to prosperity for the people, but that is the point of every Republican policy for thirty years and why they were rejected by voters in November.
Jindal represents the dysfunction of the Republican Party, and on some level, it was comical he waxed philosophically on progress and prosperity for the future based on a failed thirty year-old ideology that government is evil, the enemy of prosperity and the people. However, for Americans still struggling after three decades of Republican assaults on the people under the guise of limited government and greater gifts to the rich, the idea of returning to the same agenda that engendered income inequality that crushed any hope of prosperity for all Americans, going backward is not an option and they expressed their sentiment at the polls in November.
Republicans must believe people are incredibly stupid to fall for their “government is the enemy” canard because they are unable to see the errors inherent in their philosophy, or accept the results of the last election. Perhaps it was a good thing Jindal’s speech was reserved for leaders at the RNC winter meeting, because if he gave that speech to any audience other than dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, he would have been relegated to where his archaic ideas belong; back to the 1980s when a B-movie actor convinced Americans that government was their enemy on the way to a three decade crusade to destroy the economy that President Obama thwarted in one year, and that may be one of the reasons Republicans despise him most.
Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to put the Republican agenda in place in Louisiana, and the end result is an app ...
The era of GOP token politics took another step today when the Congressional Republican leadership announced ...
Tonight we will see a conflict of perspective, as President Obama will lay out a realistic but optimistic vi ...
Gov. Bobby Jindal's voucher schools are teaching Louisiana kids that most slave owners were kind to thei ...
Perhaps the GOP has not been given enough credit. As I watched Bobby Jindal play up his background in his GO ...
Sugapea
Jan. 28th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Rmuse: “Since Reagan’s era, it has worked well for the rich and big business, and never translated to prosperity for the people, but that is the point of every Republican policy for thirty years and why they were rejected by voters in November”.
If only Average Pub Voter’s would come to realize…they’re actually voting absolutely against their own best interests:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil...
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 28th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
The republicans do believe people are stupid.Luckily for us they only account for 47% and falling fast.Still to many but as long as we point out republican economic failures they to shall come around.
On a related note it seems what they have planfor us is not workong out to well across the pond
George Osborne ignores IMF’s warnings on austerity plans
Chancellor advised to moderate austerity programme as Nick Clegg concedes that capital spending was cut too quickly
www.guardian.co.uk/busine...
Corey Mondello
Jan. 28th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Myth: The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline. Fact: From President Reagan onward, the GOP has devastated the U.S. treasury,(www.perrspectives.com/blo...) leaving mounting debt and a river of red ink for our lifetimes and more. The national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, (www.perrspectives.com/blo...) then doubled again under George W. Bush. [Source: www.hcdems.com/facts.php
Rank these presidents on the average amount that federal spending increased per fiscal year during their tenures: a) Ronald Reagan (b) George H.W. Bush (c) Bill Clinton (d) George W. Bush (e) Barack Obama.
Answer: George W. Bush increased federal spending 11.1 percent a year, (a) Reagan 8.6 percent a year, (b) George H.W. Bush 5.8 percent a year, (e) Obama 4.25 percent a year, (c) Clinton 4 percent a year.
Rank these presidents on the amount that the outstanding national debt was increased during their terms in office: (a) Jimmy Carter (b) Ronald Reagan (c) George H. W. Bush (d) Bill Clinton (e) George W. Bush?
Answer: Outstanding national debt was increased by (a) George W. Bush $6.1 trillion in eight years, (b) Reagan $1.9 trillion in eight years, (c) George H. W. Bush $1.6 trillion in four years.
Which post-World War II president raised more taxes than any other? (a) Dwight Eisenhower (b) Lyndon Johnson (c) Ronald Reagan (d) George H. W. Bush (e) Bill Clinton (f) Barack Obama.?
Answer: Ronald Reagan raised more taxes than any other president
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
Able2Know.org: “States Receiving Most and Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes”
“In general, liberal states pay more taxes and receive less welfare while conservative states pay less taxes and receive more welfare. Of the 25 more liberal states, 16 of them are paying more in taxes than they get back. Of the 25 more conservative states, only 2 can say that. 23 of the 25 more conservative states are having
tz
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 9:27 am
Government of, by, and for the people is just naturally the adversary of the people, right?
Thirty years this of an oxymoronic propaganda hoax, foisted upon this nation had come to fruition indeed.
I hope at long last this ideology has jumped the shark.
The only people who are interested in less government are big-time moneyed criminal interests and corporations and many in the 1%, but I repeat myself.
Peter Barnett
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 11:06 am
Supply side fellas. Reagan had one of the lowest employment rates of all time. The Reagan recession was caused by Carter’s treasury bubble which was inflated beyond belief. When it collapsed, Reagan instituted supply side which fixed the crisis. :)
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 11:10 am
He fixed it alright.Stagnated wages,disappearing middle class the rich got richer.Mission Accomplished.Like I said you republicans only believe in the myth
img9.imageshack.us/img9/1...
Peter Barnett
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Man it seems everybody is a moderator on these things. But ummm…link please?
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 6:48 pm
I am going to be kind and please dont ignore it this time
connerforus.com/david_sto...
cjonline.com/blog-post/bi...
www.usnews.com/opinion/bl...
www.usnews.com/opinion/bl...
I can do this all day but remember google is your friend
You know better You do better
Peter Barnett
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 9:51 am
Seems to me you didn’t read your own information. Typical. He never said it didn’t work. He said he “worked” the numbers some yes, but he never said it was a sham. He said he had to rename it for the sake of popularity, calling it supply-side because trickle-down was unfavorable. And I love how he quotes the Ryan budget as “not going to work” because it is just so apparent that the Obama budget is doing amazing! I mean, it is so amazing not a single Senator voted for it. You’re a joke clinging onto a tiny factoid that has been taken out of context. Look at the results for yourself. From 10.1% to 5.7% or so. It works.
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 10:19 am
It DOES NOT WORK!!!You can call it whatever you want trickle down supply side tax cuts for the rich will produce unicorns.The simple fact is IT DOES NOT WORK.You can say Stockman didnt use the word sham and that validates your position but riddle me this if you change the numbers to sell a product what would you call it.
And why did the gop 86 this study showing it does not work
GOP hides nonpartisan report debunking ‘trickle-down economics’
www.examiner.com/article/...
See I live in a fact based reality you live in a land of fiction.You want to believe because if you have any doubt your whole world view shatters like humpty dumpty
Peter Barnett
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 10:50 am
You apparently don’t live in it. Take a look at this report on Forbes. It gives ACTUAL facts about Reaganomics. Obama’s economic plan has failed. He lied about cutting the debt in half, and his budget got shot down by every single Senator, and you have the gall to call Reagan’s plan bad. He ACTUALLY had one. It did work. Obama’s isn’t.
www.forbes.com/sites/pete...
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 11:26 am
Peter Ferrara,
Is President Obama Really A Socialist? Let’s Analyze Obamanomics Really?Any economic writer that would write that is really unbiased.Remember “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair.
Lets look at the record of the socialist kenyan, Stock Market up 68% under Obama www.allgov.com/news/top-s... Thats exactly what Marx would have done
Thom Hartmann debates Peter Ferrara – Correcting Peter Ferrara’s fallacies on jobs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T...
Your man really aquitted himself lol
Lets look at his bona fides
His senior law school thesis evolved into the debut hardcover publication by the libertarian Cato Institute in 1980, Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction.[2] From 1981 to 1983, Ferrara served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan and was an Associate Deputy Attorney General from 1991 to 1993.[3] Between those positions, Ferrara became a Heritage Foundation analyst specializing in Social Security issues.[8] He also became an insurance consultant[9] and provided expertise in Social Security to media.[10][11] In 1987, Ferrara joined the faculty of the George Mason University School of Law and directed its legal writing programs until 1991.[12] As late as 2003, Ferrara has taught there.[13]
In the early 2000s (decade), he founded the Virginia chapter of Club for Growth and directed the International Center for Law and Economics.[14]
Ferrara took money from erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients. (Ferrara did not disclose which pieces he was paid to write, but Business Week noted that he wrote favorable articles in the Washington Times about the Northern Marianas Islands and the Choctaw Indian tribe, both Abramoff clients.) Ferrara argued those writings were entirely consistent with his independently held views, remained unrepentant, and intended to pursue the practice in the future: “I do that all the time. I’ve done that in the past, and I’ll do it in the future.”[15]
Ferrara was a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation. In April 2011, Ferrara became senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at The Heartland Institute. Concurrently, he serves as general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and policy director of the Carleson Center for Public Policy.[5]
Jack Abramoff?Ronald Reagun?The Heartland Institute?
A grifter who can say you are one of his marks.
Sandra
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
Amazing that R’thugs are still beating that dead horse which has been proven a complete fiasco and an epic failure which decimated the middle class. The rich got richer, the middle class and working poor got poorer and are now paying higher taxes while the rich and corporations pay little to nothing.
Their own economists, the honest ones at least are now calling it a bust saying it does not work.
Even more scary is that there are Americans, R’thug supporters are still buying into that trickle down nonsense. They refuse to accept the facts and figures.
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 11:29 am
LOL thats hilarious! Supply side has never worked. And reagan started the decline of employment and treasury income. Reagan was the beginning of decline for America with his dropping taxes then having to raise them 11 times
Look for the reagan years unemployment.
www.forecast-chart.com/ch...
Peter Barnett
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Maybe you didn’t look at your own chart, but like I said. The bubble burst getting unemployment up to 10.1%, and then it decreased to 5.7% by the time he left. Rich people own the businesses, ergo rich people create the jobs. Cut taxes to the rich and they can expand their businesses.
I would however propose a slight change. I personally would suggest offering business owners tax cuts. If they accept, they HAVE to expand their business (adding more jobs). If they don’t, they have to return the money with interest added on. Hereby, you could even slightly cut taxes on the middle-class, because the cheaters would make up for it. Also, by doing this, you create more jobs meaning more people pay taxes meaning everyone can pay a lower rate. :)
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Did you not see my post.David Stockman RONALD REAGAN budget director himself said his holiness policies were a sham ,bogus,flim flam,fairy dust,pie in the sky BULLSHIT
Peter Barnett
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 9:54 am
And for the record…
www.forbes.com/sites/pete...
From Forbes. A reliable site.
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 10:17 am
And lets see how reagan did it.By huge spending. No, supply side doesnt work. And dropping taxes doesnt work. 2% of the 1% are job creators. The point you miss is taxes on the rich dont create jobs, but wealth in the middle class does. No company creates jobs without demand. You scurry at the feet of people who used to pay 70% tax and were very successful.
www.taxpolicycenter.org/t...
Peter Barnett
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 10:53 am
How exactly does wealth in the middle class create jobs? If Joey gets an extra $1000 back from taxes, how does that create jobs? Maybe if everyone in America took their thousand and spent it on actual products made in America. But it just doesn’t happen anymore. The fact is that you cut taxes on the rich corporations so they can expand their businesses, thereby creating more jobs.
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 11:33 am
You seem to have a very limited understanding of how an economy runs.
No company creates a product without demand. And without demand there are no jobs. Where does the demand come from? It comes from the middle class who has, or used to have, the purchasing power in this country.
The distribution of wealth in this country used to be 20% at the top, around 60% in the middle class and 20% in the lower wealth classes. Today, approximately 80% of this country’s wealth is in the top. Those people are not numbered enough to be considered a 60% purchasing power group.
Therefore no one is going to create jobs if no one is buying the product. This should be the most blatantly clear thing out of our entire economy. Our economy does not rest on 2% of the 1%. It rests on the middle class and the amount of things that they purchase.
You should have known that.
Right now corporations are setting on trillions and trillions of dollars. Why are they doing that and why are they not expanding? Because the middle class is not buying in the manner that they used to. Corporations have the capital to expand. But they will not expand without purchasers.
Peter Barnett
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 1:27 pm
In the words of Steve Jobs (who happened to create the world’s most valued company, so I think his words stand to measure), “how do people know what they want to buy if they don’t know what it is?” People won’t spend money on products they don’t know exist. By cutting taxes to the wealthy, they hereby can expand their workforce, CREATING more jobs which in turn puts more money in the pockets of civilians and turns into demand. It’s a very simple idea. The problem with giving it straight to the middle-class is that they control where that money goes, and most of it is overseas. I’m sure you saw today that GDP actually went down. The first time since the recession ended. Because we aren’t creating the products anymore. Why? Because businesses aren’t selling anymore because people buy overseas. We can’t fix where people buy from, but we can fix where they are employed from, and that starts with business. :) Econ 101. I am going to stop now because obviously you aren’t changing your mind. Just feel free to repost as soon as Obama gets one person to sign his budget. :) oh wait! He didn’t send one in on time again for the fourth time! Sigh….
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
The middle class send their money over seas? That’s true to a certain extent, but only because American companies are making the products overseas. Many of the companies that you want taxes dropped on are the companies that make their products overseas.
You just go ahead and give all the tax breaks to the 2% of the 1%. See how they set on their money and see how it grows in their pocket. They are paying extremely low taxes right now and nothing is happening. The very economy with the tax base that is being paid proves every word of yours wrong
You are right, I am not changing my mind as you have been proven wrong. Take care
PS: Apple products make very specific products. That is not indicative of the economy as a whole. Apple products. For the most part made overseas especially in China where workers are so abused they commit suicide by jumping off the roof of the building they work in. Fuck Steve Jobs
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 30th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
You are like that last Japaneses soldier left on a island.No matter what the evidence, is the war is not over.Reagan is king he could do no wrong,America reached its zenith blah,blah blah.
Tax cuts for the rich do not benefit the middle class.I grant you could find some examples like when taxes was raised on yachts ,the builders lost their jobs but that does not effect 99.9999999999% of the middle class.When America had its greatest growth in the middle class during the 50′s the tax rate was 90%.
So keep posting because I give you credit for one thing you are not lazy in your beliefs but just because you believe it that does not make it true.
tomshefchik
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Reagan was your typical Repiglickan’ fraud. He did not care about the deficit. He blew up the debt, same as every other Repiglickin’ POTUS, in order to create the impression of prosperity. Same with Bush, they put it all on the credit card to mask the abject failures of their policies.
If you are a Repiglickin’ you are either a fraud or a sucker. EVERYTHING they believe was proved wrong for all the world to see by the Bush decade. But they are like children who are incapable of learning from their own mistakes, much less the broader lessons of history.
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
I wish all reagan ball washers would read what his own budget director,the man wgo sold you the gospel of supply side economics David Stockman had to say.Take it away Davey
David Stockman on Supply Side and Trickle Down
From The Rise of Supply-Side Economics
… as early as August 1981, Stockman began having gnawing doubts about his budget. Computer simulations failed to project the tremendous growth he had predicted, and later he would admit to cooking the numbers (!) before selling the budget to Congress. That December, the Atlantic Monthly published an article in which Stockman made several damaging and embarrassing confessions about the entire supply-side philosophy. He admitted that the 1981 tax cut “was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate” for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich had long ago been coined “trickle down economics” – and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’” Stockman told the interviewer. “So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”7
See the complete article
connerforus.com/RISE%20OF...
inez
Jan. 29th, 2013 at 9:38 pm
The interest rate on my IRA at my local bank was 10%. Was that inflation?