Where the "deficits do not matter" mentality came. RR

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Damn... that question was directed at WTF, not you. WTF is our resident expert on how to measure and correct the scourge of income inequality throughout the world. He is a determined class warrior. I assumed he must have studied the problem thoroughly and applied his usual deep thinking to it, but I could be wrong.

Sorry to send you off on a tangent looking up answers to questions our resident expert could have explained to everyone off the top of his head!

The thread wasn't about income inequality...it was about the time frame of when debt and deficits seemed to quit mattering. It seems as if Reagan's budget director thinks it was around Ronnie time and the GDP to debt numbers sure seem to back that up.

Let me remind you of the orginal post.

Originally Posted by WTF

Eventually one of you Reagan lovers will figure out the truth!

https://flaglerlive.com/8577/david-s...h-trickledown/

Keep in mind: Hayek is speaking his disillusion with the GOP’s misapplication of his theories in 1985. To this day he remains a favored mask of budget-wreckers pretending to be fiscally conservative while pushing for more tax cuts

I would argue that description fits you to a tee.

[WTF]

“This debt explosion,” Stockman writes, “has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

The thread wasn't about income inequality....

You're the OP. You're the one who brought up income inequality and blamed it on Reagan, his tax cuts, and (most bizarrely) even his handling of the striking air traffic controllers back in 1981! Tiny and I both called you out for this nonsense.

Originally Posted by WTF

What you get is not surprising....a growing income inequality. I argue that is not a good thing. We could further look at how CEO compensation expanded after he beat back the striking traffic controllers.

Please elaborate, o sage one...

Exactly how did Reagan's deft handling of those selfless public servants who put the safety of the travelling public at risk in direct defiance of their signed and executed FAA employment contracts give a green light to CEOs across the nation to tear up their existing compensation agreements and demand more generous ones from their respective Boards of Directors?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're the OP. You're the one who brought up income inequality and blamed it on Reagan, his tax cuts, and (most bizarrely) even his handling of the striking air traffic controllers back in 1981! Tiny and I both called you out for this nonsense.



Please elaborate, o sage one...

That was in response to some dumbass(I forget who) that brought up some stupid analogy of 10 people eating one of Ronnie's shit for brains sandwiches!

I let that silly sob get me off track.

Won't happen again....now do you have anything useful to add concerning the subject matter?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

....now do you have anything useful to add concerning the subject matter?

Yes, I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the subject matter you brought up in post #49 where you said:

"We could further look at how CEO compensation expanded after he (Reagan) beat back the striking traffic controllers."

Alrighty then, let's "further look at" that statement.

Please explain to us, o wise one... what does A have to do with B?

Exactly how did Reagan's deft handling of those selfless public servants who in 1981 put the safety of the travelling public at risk in direct defiance of their signed and executed FAA employment contracts give a green light to CEOs across the nation to tear up their existing compensation agreements and demand more generous ones from their respective Boards of Directors?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the subject matter you brought up in post #49 where you said:

"We could further look at how CEO compensation expanded after he (Reagan) beat back the striking traffic controllers."

Alrighty then, let's "further look at" that statement.

Please explain to us, o wise one... what does A have to do with B?

Exactly how did Reagan's deft handling of those selfless public servants who in 1981 put the safety of the travelling public at risk in direct defiance of their signed and executed FAA employment contracts give a green light to CEOs across the nation to tear up their existing compensation agreements and demand more generous ones from their respective Boards of Directors?

As I explained earlier...I let some numbnut get me off the subject at hand.

My comments were in response to that poster who wasn't following eccie protocol....which is to try and stay on point.

My apologies for following that fool...

Now do you have anything to add concerning how Ronnie hoodwinked a cesspool of economic guru's who now overlook debt and deficits to the tune of Trumps almost 9 trillion in 4 years!

Four years....9 trillion added to our debt! Nary a peep...well except for a couple of cheerleaders predicting 3% plus GDP growth

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

As I explained earlier...I let some numbnut get me off the subject at hand.

My comments were in response to that poster who wasn't following eccie protocol....which is to try and stay on point.

My apologies for following that fool...

Hmmm... so your post #49, which I've now cited twice, was in response to a "numbnut" and a "fool" who wouldn't "stay on point"?

Better go back and read it again. You quoted from - and were responding to - Texas Contrarian's comments in the immediately preceding post #48.

Are you calling TC a "numbnut" and a "fool"?

Awww... that's not very nice!

What happened to WTF the fastidious Hall Monitor who keeps lecturing everyone on the need to remain civil and polite in this forum?

Are you trying to get pointed?

If not, then I respectfully suggest (again) that you should revisit my directly relevant and on-topic follow-up question and explain to everyone:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Exactly how did Reagan's deft handling of those "selfless" public servants who in 1981 put the safety of the travelling public at risk in direct defiance of their signed and executed FAA employment contracts give a green light to CEOs across the nation to tear up their existing compensation agreements and demand more generous ones from their respective Boards of Directors?

[WTF]

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hmmm... so your post #49, which I've now cited twice, was in response to a "numbnut" and a "fool" who wouldn't "stay on point"?

Better go back and read it again. You quoted from - and were responding to - Texas Contrarian's comments in the immediately preceding post #48.

Are you calling TC a "numbnut" and a "fool"?

Awww... that's not very nice!

What happened to WTF the fastidious Hall Monitor who keeps lecturing everyone on the need to remain civil and polite in this forum?

Are you trying to get pointed?

If not, then I respectfully suggest (again) that you should revisit my directly relevant and on-topic follow-up question and explain to everyone:

Quoting the 49th post in this thread that admittedly was not on topic is not staying on topic.

It is actually baiting.

I've told you twice or maybe three times now what the topic is.

I hadn't went back and looked at this thread....is this the thread where 10 gay guys are eating lunch or was it one gay guy posting about 10 folks eating lunch. My apologies to TC if i confused him with that silly wanna be economic guru who posted that nonsense!

Now try and stay on topic...my apologies for not doing so earlier.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Quoting the 49th post in this thread that admittedly was not on topic is not staying on topic...

I've told you twice or maybe three times now what the topic is.

Why don't you hit the rtm button so the mods can issue points to the goof who didn't stay on topic in post #49?

Oh wait - that was YOU, wasn't it? Did you self-report an infraction?

Here's what the guideline says:

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread.

Look, this is really simple - you're the thread starter here. You can bring up any topic(s) you wish to. What you can't do, unless you want to look like a stubborn unreasonable fool, is steer your own thread in a certain direction, then refuse to respond to OTHER posters with the lame & cowardly excuse that THEY are off-topic, when all they did was ask you a follow-up question.

I can't believe I even have to explain this to you.

What's next? Are you going to link Ronnie Reagan's tax cuts to global warming, and then scream "you're off topic!" if anyone objects to such a nutty assertion?

[biomed1]

Feel Free to debate the subject of the Original Topic, but do not slip from the Original Topic and begin

• Insulting,
• Attacking,
• Slamming,
• Or Bashing the other Member(s).

• #1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
• #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why don't you hit the rtm button so the mods can issue points to the goof who didn't stay on topic in post #49?

Oh wait - that was YOU, wasn't it? Did you self-report an infraction?

Here's what the guideline says:

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread.

Look, this is really simple - you're the thread starter here. You can bring up any topic(s) you wish to. What you can't do, unless you want to look like a stubborn unreasonable fool, is steer your own thread in a certain direction, then refuse to respond to OTHER posters with the lame & cowardly excuse that THEY are off-topic, when all they did was ask you a follow-up question.

I can't believe I even have to explain this to you.

What's next? Are you going to link Ronnie Reagan's tax cuts to global warming, and then scream "you're off topic!" if anyone objects to such a nutty assertion?

I've linked him to the inception of this silly as fuck notion that debt and deficits do not matter. It has spurred a group of folks (economic gurus??) who make excuses for a President that rang up nearly 9 trillion dollars of debt in a 4 year period! ( When economic guru's were predicting 3% plus GDP)

Are you asking me if Reagan's embrace of Saudi oil was partially responsible for global warming and the subsequent fried brains of Reagan acolytes, Yes maybe we can make that argument but not in this thread.

Now that we've diagnosed the problem with these economic guru's
...Do you want to dispute Stockman assertion of just when Republicans stopped being concerned with debt and deficits?

Which was the topic of this thread.

I'd be happy to discuss income inequality in another thread if you'd like to start one. Now please stfu with this talk and get back on the orginal subject matter which you have currently avoided.

There that should satisfy us both. You can either comment on the topic of this thread and/or start another thread on income inequality. Hopefully, you're capable of both.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

I've linked him to the inception of this silly as fuck notion that debt and deficits do not matter. It has spurred a group of folks (economic gurus??) who make excuses for a President that rang up nearly 9 trillion dollars of debt in a 4 year period! ( When economic guru's were predicting 3% plus GDP)

Are you asking me if Reagan's embrace of Saudi oil was partially responsible for global warming and the subsequent fried brains of Reagan acolytes, Yes maybe we can make that argument but not in this thread.

Now that we've diagnosed the problem with these economic guru's
...Do you want to dispute Stockman assertion of just when Republicans stopped being concerned with debt and deficits?

Which was the topic of this thread.

I'd be happy to discuss income inequality in another thread if you'd like to start one. Now please stfu with this talk and get back on the orginal subject matter which you have currently avoided.

There that should satisfy us both. You can either comment on the topic of this thread and/or start another thread on income inequality. Hopefully, you're capable of both.

I've got a couple more things to add, other than what's already been said in this thread. Please note in the graphs I'm linking to that recessions are identified by shaded areas.

Reagan and Congress lowered taxes in 1981. I was looking at this graph, of federal receipts as a % of GDP:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Note the U.S. was in a recession, around 1981/1982/1983, when federal receipts declined. You'd expect that. Businesses that weren't making money weren't paying income tax. Neither were workers who were laid off. So how much of the decline in receipts was from the recession and how much was from the 1981 tax cuts?

And isn't that what you're supposed to do? Cut taxes when there's a recession? I'm no economist but I thought that was classical Keynesian theory. Then you raise them when times are good. Somebody, maybe you, said Congress and Reagan did that in 1986. I'm not sure that's true, as I note the 1986 tax act lowered the income tax rate to a flat 28% and also lowered the corporate rate from 50% to 35%. But given the elimination of loopholes in the same bill, maybe that's true. By the way, the two sponsors of the 1986 bill were Bill Bradley in the Senate and Dick Gephardt in the House, both Democrats.

And here's another graph, federal debt held by the public as a % of GDP:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S

The national debt as a % of GDP went up during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, when Democrats controlled the House, as a result of two recessions and two wars (the Cold War and the Kuwait War), which we won. Then it went down during years of uninterrupted prosperity during the Clinton administration. When Clinton left office, the federal debt held by the public was only 32%. That's the way things are supposed to work.

I wish we were allowed to go off topic in threads. They're more interesting that way, and you don't have a ton of threads being created on slightly different topics. In this thread you tried to hang (a) inequality, (b) excessive CEO pay, and (c) the increase in national debt because of COVID and by implication because of wars and recessions, on Reagan and his tax policy. You're way overreaching. It's reasonable for Lusty Lad to reply.

He may be partisan and caustic at times. But you should bear with him, you might learn something. like I have. I'd be damn happy if Paul Krugman decided to start posting here. And even though he's partisan and caustic at times, I'd treat him with respect.

I've gotten into disagreements with Lusty Lad on the trade deficit, protectionism, government debt, and the probability that COVID was engineered in a laboratory. He may not have necessarily changed my view on all the economic topics, but he's certainly moderated my thinking and made me more knowledgeable. It's worth listening to what he has to say. Except about COVID.

I'll note that you've moderated my thinking as well on a couple of topics, for example how federal spending is better controlled when the parties controlling the House and the Presidency are different.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

And here's another graph, federal debt held by the public as a % of GDP:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S

The national debt as a % of GDP went up during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, when Democrats controlled the House, as a result of two recessions and two wars (the Cold War and the Kuwait War), which we won. Then it went down during years of uninterrupted prosperity during the Clinton administration. When Clinton left office, the federal debt held by the public was only 32%. That's the way things are supposed to work.

.

Let us just concentrate on this^ and I will get back to the nonsense of " You really should listen to pompous assholes because you might learn something..." later.


Bush Sr increased taxes which got him thrown out of office and Clinton reaped his sacrifice!

You really need to brush up on your history in relation to these graphs.

Clinton enjoyed the perfect storm. Low oil prices, a booming internet , Bush's tax increase and the huge Baby Boomer class entering peek salary earnings which was about the skew the tax revenue from this stream because of Ronnie's 1986 tax adjustment.

Remember I argue there should not be combined.

So Ronnie's has most of you thinking his tax cuts did not cause huge deficits and that the subsequent tax in creases did not close the gap!

After the Bush Jr tax cut it starts back on the Ronnie's trajectory, spikes under the Bush/Obama giveaways, then back to Ronnie's trajectory in Obama's later years and Trumps beginning years, spike again under Trumps giveaways and looks to be coming down under Biden.

You graph only highlights exactly wtf I've been saying for decades....this deficits don't matter....started under Reagan!

[WTF]

.