Politics
Obama Goes After Reaganomics: Conservatives Have Tried to Sell ‘Trickle Down Fairy Dust Before’ & ‘It Did Not Work’
- Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:24am by
Benny Johnson
- Print »
- Email »
President Obama vehemently attacked top-down economics at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.
The President took issue with what he stated was Romney’s plan to raise taxes on the middle class and give tax breaks to the rich. He attacked Romney by quoting “independent economists” as saying “‘There is nothing in Governor Romney’s plan that will create jobs right now.’ This would all be in order to give another $250,000 tax cut to people who are making 3 million dollars or more.”
Obama then quipped, “Let me tell ya something, they have tried this before. They have tried to sell us this trickle down fairy dust before and guess what: It did not work. It did not work.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 564 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 390 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 382 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 365 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 319 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 382 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 390 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 319 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 382 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (167)
gbfreak
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:58amHe has nothing to back his statments up. In his FAIRY world, if he says it, it just must be true!!! What an idiot….and that goes for all of the idiot sheep that voted him into office too!!!!
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:14pmReagan’s policies created the best economy this country has ever known,,Obama’s the worst…Tell a big lie Mr Obama,You are a POS.
Report Post »mersey
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:24pmEver notice that Obama always talks to his supporters like they’re 8 year olds? The man knows his base. The Useful Idiots eat up his words like they‘re gospel but the adults in the room know the country is in trouble and if we don’t change now, future generations will pay the price for our ignorance.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:33pmSomeone tell Onutter that even if trickle down didn’t work(but we know it did) it certainly didn’t cost the tax payers 800 billion to create not only more debt but more tax laibilities as well and temporary work.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:36pmThe ignorant Kenyan has no clue how things work. He was too strung out on crack and visiting bath houses to notice whether Regeanomics were working or not.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:53pmSo if “trickle down” doesn’t work then what is the alternative Mr. President? Current economic theory? Would you track it back to any kind of economic (not political…that’s plutocracy) doctrine? No, let me help you. It’s Keynsism. It is what we have had for 70 years. It’s why we are broke. Federal spending has ballooned. Even that sick eugenicist Keynes would be mortified at what exists now. Mr. President, you used Keynsian theory to justify spending over 1T dollars from future generations to “prime the pump”. The result was that the money multiplier was less than one. The economy didn’t jump start and now you have made us poorer by monetizing that debt and crowding out private investment through the creation of numerous asset class bubbles. Leverage (risk) has gone UP since the “bailout”. None of the risk was purged, it became sovereign (see plutocracy) and now that bankers have been made liquid again the asset bubbles are leveraging up again with our grandkid’s money.
Shame on you. You should be in jail along with Bernanke, Corazine, et al.
Report Post »mecanic
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:59pmpiss on barry, i don’t give a CRAP what his sorry a s s thinks or says. ROMNEY/RYAN 2012.
Report Post »Shasta
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:12pmWhen liberals refer to quotes from ‘independent economists’ as saying anything, they are really referring to progressive talking points from the White House and the democratic party. Sure, it’s all lies, but that is what the great Oblamo does best, along with the rest of the progressives. BTW, is there any difference these days between a progressive and a democrat?
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:22pmA spit in the face, a thumb in the eye, a slap of the cheek, and a dance on Reagans grave all in one statement
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:57pmConservative Economics worked for President Calvin Coolidge… but FDR said they did not work, and FDR saved America from the Depression.
Liberals always Lie!
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:19pmWhere are the jobs?YOU have got to be kidding.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:51pmFACT: Bush lowered taxes on the rich when he came into office, promising that this would create jobs and prosperity for all.
Report Post »FACT: In the years that followed, the income of the rich rose sharply, while the income of the middle class dropped, and we were eventually led into the Great Recession.
FACT: Trickle down economics doesn’t work.
smokeysmoke
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:07pmand your policies are obama?
Report Post »Amarilloan
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:59pmIt was once said that George Bush and the english language weren’t the best of friends. I say to you that Barak Obama and the truth are bitter enemies. As long as he continues to get away with his lies, he will continue them. Please, America, a three year-old child would be better for America than Obama.
Report Post »stlinfidel
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 4:16pmall the Nobama voters should report to the getto and then look for the poorest person they can find and apply for a job. trickle up in action.
Report Post »ScratInTheHat
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 8:07pmIf anyone knows anything about fairy dust it is Obama. I mean that in every way you can twist it!
Report Post »Conservativebiker.com
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:56amWe had job losses, loss of wealth, 18% unemployment and a recession under Reagan…wait, we didn’t.
We had job losses, loss of wealth, 18% unemployment and a recession under Bush 1…wait, we didn’t.
We had job losses, loss of wealth, 18% unemployment and a recession under Clinton…wait, we didn’t.
We had job losses, loss of wealth, 18% unemployment and a recession under GW Bush…wait, we didn’t until the wheels came of due to the ONE policy HE had warned us about, the one the DEMS loved and tried to get us to re-implement even during the meltdown (barney frank). The mortgage crisis and forcing banks to make loans to under qualified people and create false prosperity in housing. Duh.
So to review, the policies Barry doesn’t like had 38 years of growth and prosperity, four presidents who dealt with various economic situations (GW rescued it three time in his presidency). I gotta say, those don’t sound much like “failed policies”., except the housing one Clinton brought into law.
Now, to put it into perspective, 38 years of financial growth, wealth and Job generation wiped out by one bad set of laws socialist engineered redistribution of risk (housing) compounded by 3 years of a failed stimulus of 1 TRILLION Barry used to payback his buddies and then an economy placed on hold with the cost of Obamacare to businesses. Now….which policy isn’t working?
Report Post »Conservativebiker.com
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:01pm27 years. My bad. Fat fingers on calculator
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:07pmYO OBAMA, you jackass: The only reason we are in this financial mess is because of YOU, PIGLOSI, REID, FRANK, DODD and your reckless spending to pay back your donors, SOros, the Unions…
Report Post »All of Congress was spending too much and not doing their job…but when DEMS got into office and you had both house and senate is when you drove USA off the financial cliff…now you’re trying to
enslave all of us for what??? Your opinion on how things should run…R U KIDDING??? BTW tell the old drunk Biden to shut up! He should be impeached along with you for dividing the country and telling bold-faced lies (every time he opens his mouth). SHAME ON YOU BOTH!!!!
Sosorryforyou
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:59pmPatty Henry – I sure hope you never call yourself a Christian again, because with your filthy mouth and hateful rantings, you sure don’t emulate Jesus. I have been reading your posts for a couple years now and by far, you are the most hateful and angry Blazer. Give up the CAPS and the hate and try to debate calmly and intelligently with your fellow Americans.
Report Post »rosegrower
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:55amIt didn’t work – except when it did. For nearly 20 years it worked, and Bill Clinton was an obvious beneficiary of Reaganomics. Reaganomics doesn’t work for people who expect handouts, but it’s rocket fuel for anyone who takes initiative and grabs the opportunities it presents.
Report Post »Wango
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:36pmRight! Deficits don’t matter. Debt doesn’t matter.
Report Post »mecanic
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:05pm@wango…it should be wanker…idiot.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:24pmThis is my favorite comedy site.
Report Post »Some poster seems to be under the notion FDR wasn’t a liberal.
3 decades of trickle down and voo doo economic got us where we are today.
Conservatives are only deficit hawks when there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Look what Widdle Georgie W did with Clinton’s surplus, 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded medication
program.
It’s all a BORROW BORROW BORROW hayride for you Republicans.
These are the facts.
Now you kiddies can start with the name calling – it’s all ya got.
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:46pmSo it’s not the last 8 years that put us in this hole, it’s the last 30 years! Yeah! Cuz, 30 is bigger than 8.
Your tactics are shifting. I wonder why. Since this is a fairly recent claim, it leads me to believe that you both are privy to the cutting edge of progressive talking points. You’d have to well up to date with a Soros funded media source.
My question is who specifically do you work for? MediaMatters? The HuffPo? Maybe WashPo. Daily Kos?
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 5:44pmVERCE wrote: “This is my favorite comedy site.
Some poster seems to be under the notion FDR wasn’t a liberal.
3 decades of trickle down and voo doo economic got us where we are today.
Conservatives are only deficit hawks when there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Look what Widdle Georgie W did with Clinton’s surplus, 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded medication
program.
It’s all a BORROW BORROW BORROW hayride for you Republicans.
These are the facts.
Now you kiddies can start with the name calling – it’s all ya got.”
I agree with your characterization of many here on the Right, though I find them to be merely the opposite side of the same coin. “Reaganomics” was nothing more than the same old Keynesian economics, where government spent excessive amounts of money. There has been no “surplus”, Republican or Democrat, for many decades. The Parties care less about fiscal responsibility, only fiscal targeting: how do we hold the purse strings so that we can dole out the money to our constituents.
Report Post »KeystoneState
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:54amOk Barry, uh, I’ll take 1984 (when Reagan was running for his second term) over 2012 any day of the week!
Report Post »TerryJ2
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:38pmI second that Motion!
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:29pmReagan TRIPLED the deficit – that was the start
Report Post »ertdfg
Posted on August 16, 2012 at 10:43amRight, Reagan ran deficits of 100 BILLION dollars… terrible.
But clearly it justifies running a deficit of 1,500 BILLION DOLLARS… which is ok because he did it first.
What? 1,500 < 100 … I think. Man I never know how I passed math but the liberals are telling me Reagan was worse so it must be true.
Before Dems took over Congress in 2006 we averaged 300 billion dollar deficits… so I think 1,500 < 300 too.
is 300 < 100 or 100 < 300 in your mathematical structure you've created where Democrats are sober serious cost cutters who run lower deficits?
Report Post »Landon410
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:54amyou guys, Obama wants to try a NEW way of going forward “shared prosperity” you know its new in that.. wait, what? its not new?
Report Post »Oh so I’m sure it worked in Russia, huh? what? it didnt? the entire system collapsed on itself?
So I’m sure the Chinese got it right, what are you talking about? They are printing more money then us? limit freedom of how many kids to have, freedom of religion and pay their employees nothing? Murder people who dont agree with them? and they market is collapsing?
Well Great Ceasar’s Ghost Batman! what are we doing?
flipper1073
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:51am@ VERCE
Report Post »“Reaganomics” Gave US the Longest Sustained Economic Growth
in Modern History.
The Rich People are not the ones on Unemployment.They Own the Business’s
They have a Job. it‘s the poor that have no Job’s
Because the Business’s are afraid to hire an expand because of Obama an
His Policies.
Reaganomics 101
Verceofreason
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:31pmIt was ALL Done on credit.
Report Post »Reagan TRIPLED the deficit,
REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 72% of the national debt.
Anothe rreality check for you rubes,
bccrane
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 4:54pm@VERCE: I have seen this argument 72% of the debt came under Repulican Presidents, though that may be true what you are forgetting is during this time the House which does the spending was controlled by Democrats and Reagan had a Democrat House and Senate to deal with. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember Reagan having the spending bill hauled out in front of the cameras and stating that he needed the line item veto to cut the waste out of the budget otherwise he would veto the whole thing. That‘s when the Democrats started claiming that the gov’t would shut down causing people all kinds of hardships and the media went out to find all the sob stories they could find (most of them were gov‘t workers who would’ve just received a paid vacation), Reagan relented and signed the bill, hence the debt is actually the Democrat’s to own. Under Reagan revenue poured into the gov’t but the Democrats spent it faster using baseline budgeting using the inflation scale from Carter.
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 5:56pmBCCRANE, the debt is a direct result of government, both Republican and Democratic officials. They each take their turn swiping the national credit card for their own benefit.
Report Post »OneTermPresident
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:49amNothing new, same old, same old… he won’t talk about his miserable failed record. He also won‘t talk about what his own plans are because they’d scare the sh it out of anyone with a clue.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:19pmWith the 25 billion dollar loss for GM,,being his greatest success lying is his only chance at re election.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:49amThe really sad thing is that Barry never woke up from his bong stupors of the 1980′s. He is still whining about trickle down, he still thinks we need to sign nuclear treaties with the Soviet Union (though its Russia now), and he still thinks his left wing socialist policies work. Really sad. Barry is about as big an intellect, as Gore is a great orator.
Not so much.
Report Post »Just in time
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:47amWhy does he think stealing is ok?
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:00pmHe was raised in Chicago.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:45amIf you took all the money from all the rich…and gave it all to the poor……..the rich would have it all back in 6 months……or less….” because poverty is not a financial condition, it’s a LIFESTYLE MINDSET……no money is the symptom, not the illness…that’s why more money is never the answer to ignorance…”…education and good parenting and a strong work ethic are the answer……and those things are what liberals are destroying…….with their policies…
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:05pmIf you spent your last two dollars on a lottery ticket and didn‘t win who’s fault is it you can’t afford a can of soup for your kids ?
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:43amObama = Trickle down tyranny
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:43amHey, remember back in the mid 80‘s through the late 90’s when the economy sucked worse than now?
Me neither.
Report Post »thetruthlives
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:41amwhat a loser!!!
Report Post »markgl
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:40amNonsense. It works everytime you get a paycheck.
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:08pmUnfortunatly barry gets his check first.
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:28pmYeah, when YOU get a paycheck. but that’s not what were talking about here – this is the old hocus pocus of wanting you to believe that the road to prosperity is making the already wealthy, wealthier. I don’t why you all are so willing to believe that everything Obama says is a lie but are willing to swallow whole the propaganda from your puppet masters.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:38ammore of the divisive garbage from the leader of the free world. this guy with the finest education in america cannot figure out basic economics. sad I guess the education system really does fail kids these days.
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:11pmGot to remember he was stoned throughout his education and has sealed his records to hide it.
Report Post »billmaherscombover
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:37am“Trickle down economics” must be the latest O focus group tested phrase to be resurrected and repeated endlessly. One of my liberal friends was spouting this crap over the weekend and it took a good hour to get him to admit that it is just a lib phrase, not an economic theory.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:46am“not an economic theory”
call it Supply Side Economics then. that‘s a theory that’s been around for a long long time. it’s the same thing.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:53am10 bucks if you can tell me what “Supply Side” is actually referring to.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:07pmseriously ROTH? it’s not that complicated. i don’t need your $10, but i’ll play along.
anything that reduces barriers to investment, be it taxes or regulation, would be part of supply side economics. is it ok if i keep it that simple, or do i need to expand. fyi, i’m not getting this from Google, i was a Finance major in college (with a minor in Econ) and I worked as a Financial Advisor for a decade.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:22pmSorry, not just you…that was a sort of statement to all. I think we all talk about what that is and we don’t talk about drivers of demand and supply and the assumed shape of the supply curve in each theory. Depending on the point of equilibrium point at the slope subsequent fiscal policy could or could not be massively inflationary.
Didn’t mean to call you out specifically. Just that we all talk about being supply siders but then sort of look the other way on monetary side of things that dramatically impact the equilibrium equation.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:31pm@ROTH Supply side economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics Go get an education.send the 10 bucks to charity
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:45pmLOL, thanks McDave. I have some issues with Wiki’s interpretation however. That is a very “supply side for dummies” approach and too political rather than analytical. But, thanks for the chuckle.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:57pmSend the 10 bucks to charity,,you asked for the definition..I not obligated to convince you of its merits
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:08pmMcDave,
deal. you pick it. (i still want veto authority in case you pick something stupid, ha)
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:40pmhere is a very good one http://www.motherteresacharities.org/
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:42pm@McDave,
It seemed a little too political for my taste, but that’s just me. So, I hope you don’t mind I did $10 bucks to WoldVision.
http://www.worldvision.org/
I already have an account and a child there, so it was easy and secure to send an extra 10 this month.
We square?
Report Post »acidovorax
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 6:08pmPHILY wrote: “anything that reduces barriers to investment, be it taxes or regulation, would be part of supply side economics.”
Which makes Obama a Supply Sider. Remember the “tax credits for small businesses”? Or government investments in sustainable energy?
The reality is that “Supply Side economics” is nothing more than government policy, not a coherent theory regarding an economy. Both parties manipulate tax rates, tax incentives and hand out subsidies to their constituents to further their own political interests.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 9:35pmWell done
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:37amYeah Barack, cuz some thug who wears his pants around his knees is gonna give my kid a great job…….and we all know wealth trickles up, you know from people on foodstamps who wake up at noon……drink some malt liquor……those are the real job creators…”.we are so blessed to have the smartest moron in the world as our leader………
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:14pmHe misses the fact drug dealers pay 0 taxes.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:36amThe economy grew at 4.5% in 1983, with a few quarters of growth north of 8%. We’re at 1.5% now. Who‘s plan didn’t work Barry, you pathetic liar?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:44amGONZO – there’s certainly merit to what Reagan did. the top marginal tax rate in 1980 was nearly 80%. the drastic cut that Reagan made certainly invigorated the economy, and wealthy investors had a lot more cash to invest. no such drastic move is available today with top rates at 35%, which are as low as they’ve ever been. any additional cuts would be marginal at best and wouldn’t inspire job creators to invest more. maybe if tax rates were cut to 10% it would make a difference, but at what cost?
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:53amExactly correct and totally representative.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:57am@Philly,
Why do Keynsians focus so intensely upon taxation? The real issue is the crowding out of private investment. When government spends 1/3 of the GDP (almost there) it has huge problems. It is a shame that nobody on the right can articulate the fallacy of Keynsian theory. Because while we haven’t had “trickle down” in 100 years we’ve had Keynsism for at least 70. Somebody should tell the Kenyan that the Keynsian money multiplier for the 1T plus of stimulus was LESS THAN ONE!! If anyone is peddling unicorn farts around here its the plutocrat and chief.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:01pmWhy did Barry support extending the Bush tax cuts the last four years Philly? Are you saying he’s intentionally trying to hurt our economy? The man you love with all your heart was arguing in favor of extending tax cuts up until a few months ago. If tax cuts are bad, why do you support him?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:04pmROTH – good post, and you’re clearly learned about these things. we’d likely have a rousing debate if we ever met in person. however:
“The real issue is the crowding out of private investment.”
could you explain what you mean by that?
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:30pmHey Philly, I’m enjoying it too.
When I say crowding out, ordinarily government spending…deficit spending…has a positive impact on interest rates. The more we spend on credit the higher the interest rates go up reducing investment spending. People are less willing to deploy capital at those opportunity costs.
But we don’t really have a free market any longer. The Fed has removed the free market on interest rates. They have suppressed them and as a result are simply monetizing the debt and inflating the asset class balloons. In this case equities and to some extent commodities. They’ve still crowed out investment spending but now rather than dollars sitting in interest bearing accounts they sit in asset class bubbles.
That’s just my read on things though. And yeah, we‘d probably get through a few pints before we gave up on changing each other’s mind.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:49pmROTH – interesting take. hasn’t the Fed always managed interest rates depending on the state of the economy? there’s still a free market on interest rates, but they’ve remained low all around. a strong sign of a true recovery would be a steeper yield curve, but that’s not happening. that could also signal inflation, but that’s not happening either. not sure what all that means.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:06pm@philly,
Fair points…both. I would say that I haven’t seen an example where the Fed interest rate policy has been so disconnected to what a floating rate might look like. If I look at Libor-gate, I can’t help but wonder if similar criminal manipulation and lying is taking place. So, I will concede the point but argue that I think this point in time is a departure from prior policy stances.
As for inflation, I trust the BLS about as far as I can throw them. They have used the real estate market unscrupulously from what I can tell. That’s part one. They use something called owner occupied rent in the CPI calculations to reflect real estate impact on CPI. Theory is that if you had to pay yourself rent on the house you own under current market conditions what would it be? This is an esoteric, theoretical coefficient that masks what really people are facing. Real rent is going up due to demand and nobody’ mortgage payments are going down to reflect theoretical rent. Secondly, the GDP deflator I think is full of inconsistencies. This not only impacts perception of CPI but inflates GDP falsely.
To me we are in a real bi-flationary rut. The way I explain it is that what you have is worth less and what you want costs more. I think it just might get worse too with energy and healthcare prices set to shoot the moon.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 1:18pm“The way I explain it is that what you have is worth less and what you want costs more. I think it just might get worse too with energy and healthcare prices set to shoot the moon.”
boy, ain’t that the truth. also, as we know, the CPI excludes food and energy, which are felt disproportionately by the non-wealthy, and those prices are rising much faster than inflation. that could really hurt main street, if it isn’t already doing so.
LIBOR and the Fed are two totally different things. there is no need for the Fed to cooperate to fix rates, they set their rate as they see fit. we can argue that they’ve kept rates too low for too long, and that’s a fair assessment. what’s the alternative – raise rates and stifle growth? our monetary policy has all but guaranteed a long recession, a la Japan. the only way to break the rut is for something unusual to occur that stimulates growth – like the tech boom of the 90′s. if that happens the Fed can start to raise rates to a more normal level. if not, we’re doomed to either a) stay stuck in the mud or b) watch things get worse. i’m not sure any President or Congress can fix that problem by themselves. all we can do is try to maximize the current structure and try to get blood out of a stone (the stone being the top 1%). maybe we can tread water until a true boom arises, maybe not.
Report Post »Sosorryforyou
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 4:15pmPhilly and Roth – Finally, two people who obviously don’t agree politically but are willing to have an honest and intelligent debate – something which is lacking on this site. Maybe we can all learn from these two, and stop with the insults, smears, lies and hate-filled comments.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:36ammost people here don’t even know what kinds of tax cuts are on the table – eliminating cap gains taxes, cutting the top marginal rate from 35% to 25%, and nixing the Estate Tax, for openers. these things don’t help ordinary people, like most who comment here, but they help the wealthy enormously.
the theory goes something like this – cut taxes like crazy for wealthy job creators and watch the magic happen. these same wealthy job creators are currently sitting on $2 trillion in cash. where’s the magic? if they get another trillion will they start to invest it? somehow i doubt it.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:47amLooks like you doubt a lot of things. The Reagan years were a bonanza compared to our current situation.
Silversmith
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:47amThey are not going to make a move until Obama is gone. He has business scared to make a move. Ask around, that‘s exactly what’s happening. They‘re not hoarding money because they’re greedy, it‘s because they’re scared. Greedy capitalists want to grow their businesses, that’s how they make more money.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:54amGONZO – if they’re scared it has more to do with Europe. i think they‘ll spend in ’13 no matter who wins, and the stock market is projecting exactly that. if you’re right, what exactly are they so scared about? it’s a good time to own a business in America today – corporate profits are at an all time high (vs. GDP) and wages are at an all time low (vs. GDP). that’s why stocks are doing so well now.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:12pmObama’s anti business regulation, Obamacare, tax increases, energy prices…..shall I continue?
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:21pmWrong it has everything to do with Obama until he is gone no one is going to invest therefore the need for all the subsidies and even then they go belly up.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:36pmPhilly, read the Jamie Dimon story. It illustrates the point I was trying to make to you.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:42pm@Philly,
I’d argue that the equity market are soma. If you look at the volume there, it is a fraction of what it usually is. Money is all on the sidelines. The money that IS there is conjured. When the Fed set out to monetize the debt, they had to put that money somewhere. It all ended up on bank balance sheets. I can tell you from my last banking gig that we were over 50% on the investment portfolio in cash/equity/and financial instruments. Per my earlier post, we’ve simply moved one asset class bubble (real estate) and created a new one (equities and bonds). The fact that we have banned short selling has removed a good deal of risk and provided even greater incentive to blow up that balloon. Regarding corporate performance, 90% of that is not coming from top line growth. It is coming from productivity gains and cost reduction. When you look at the shrinkage of the shadow banking component, inventory data, consumer sentiment and the aggregate demand in the BRIC’s the is ample information that a recession looms.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:54pmROTH – you’re spot on in a lot of what you say, but that doesn’t mean that you are right about what is going to happen. bull markets often climb a wall of worry, and low volume can indicate that the public hasn’t caught on yet. that can be a good thing for the market. based on valuations there is no argument that stocks as an asset class are currently in a bubble. bonds perhaps. gold likely. top line growth won’t occur in a meaningful way until unemployment improves, so there we agree. the trend is for increased hiring in the private sector, and once the public sector is done with it’s purge we might truly start to see a healthier job market, and a return to 5+% top line growth. we’ll see.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:44pm@Philly,
You know what they say, put two economists in a room and they’ll come out with three opinions. Guess time will tell. Thanks for the convo, it was a nice give and take.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 3:15pmROTH – same here. see you around.
Report Post »Tigress1
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:36amObamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty
Report Post »GJPinks
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:53amMore like the sewer is backed up and all the faucets are on.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:54amSad but true.
Report Post »bsnrn98
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:35amCapitalism is America. If odummer likes socialism, I will help pay the price of a ticket for odummer and moochelle to Europe where he can sell his socialistic views to them. They have already found out that his “spread the wealth” nonsense doesn’t work. Bye Bye
Report Post »ricckky
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:32amIs this guy really that stupid–and he is running our country??? Actually, all he has done is fund raise for 31/2 years. A man that never read the health care bill/ with his name on it and a man that lies when telling the truth would benefit him. Please–are people really as ignorant as he is? I hope not–or our country is in real trouble come Nov.!!!!!!!
Report Post »muffythetuffy
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:32amWHEN IT COMES TO FAIRIES OBAMA WROTE THE BOOK
1. Homosexuals openly welcome in the US Armed Forces
2. Obama’s new homosexual marriage policy
3. Obama’s observation of important homosexual events
4. First openly homosexual and practicing homosexual US Army General.
The World may soon see Obama’s first homosexual US Army Infantry Division and Navy fleet.
Yes, Obama knows all about Fairy Dust.
Report Post »contkmi
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:30amHe must really believe people are that stupid.
Oh, yeah, they actually are. They voted for him and continue to support him.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:37amWas he in Indonesia during the REAGAN years ??? Maybe it isn’t his fault .. he didn’t LIVE IT like the rest of us … remember the CARTER (Obama) years? He just keep on LYING!
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:28amThe facts are on the table.
Report Post »We have had 30 years to see ‘trickle down’ is utter nonsense.
Now youse can all start the name-calling – it’s all ya got.
Apple Bite
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:34amAnd we have four full years to see an absolute degrading of a great nation, that introduced an economic system, that helped Japan and Germany get back on their feet after WWII and even the Chinese managed to pervert to their own needs.
Get your damn head out of your ass!
Report Post »contkmi
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:35amNot very bright are you? And you must not be a student of history or economics. Otherwise, you wouldn’t make such mind-numbingly idiotic statements.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:37amWell said and yes the majority of responses will be non-factual and BS ideological sound bites. The two factors that are dragging the US economy is the reduction in real wages that began under Reagan, when outsourcing of jobs began in earnest and, the concentration of wealth which slows down the velocity of which money flows through the economy. And what is also true is that the wealthy do not create jobs, DEMAND does and the lion share of demand comes from the middle class. So a tax increase on the middle class will weaken demand and economic growth. And that will result in less things for the wealthy to invest in. As the wealthy, similar to pension plans and mutual funds (both aggregate investment vehicles) invest in companies seeking to meet the demand for products and services. Less demand, less opportunity to invest in the jobs DEMAND is creating.
Report Post »Clive
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:37amAgreed, i hate obama, but the trickle down theory was what bush tried, our economy tanked. The market tanked, unemployment soared. it doesn’t work. The idea that the wealthy will create jobs with a tax cut, is stupid.
Likewise, giving people with a ton of money, a $250,000 tax cut, is retarded.
They are already paying the lowest rate of tax in history, and paying far less than you and I pay. If they got rich off our system, it won’t kill them to pay a couple more percentage points to help their country, when their country is in need.
The fact that mitt paid 12% tax, is sort of disgusting. And be real, that was the tax return he’s letting us see. I’m sure his other returns are more like 6%.
That being said, eff obama, peace. clive.
Report Post »bannedfromCNN
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:40amYour boy, Soetoro, either doesn’t have a clue, or is deliberately ruining our country. Take your pick.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:45amNo name calling.
You are completely misguided and WRONG. What we have had for 30 years is Democratic social policy meddling in the economy and industry, crippling our ability to do business and manufacture anything. Democratic social welfare bribery of an ignorant liberal poor electorate who gets more and more handouts that we as a nation cannot afford. Democratic indexed spending for said handouts, that ballooned into trillions of dollars of debt. And Democratic Baby-boomers who have not taken charge for their own social security nightmare, which was caused when DEMOCRATS dissolved the trust fund back in the late 1980′s turning it into a budgetary line item.
So what we have had for 30 yearsis incompetent and deceitful politics and policies by DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS. And the real utter nonsense is anything that is spewed from the mouths of liberal idiots like yourself.
Sorry for the name calling.
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:51amThe biggest lesson History teaches is that morons never learn from history. the result of ALL your progressive utopias of history is mass poverty and genocide.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:51amWe have never had “trickle down theory” in the 20th century. If you want to talk about “trickle down” then let’s call it what it is. It is Austrian neo-classical supply side theory. It has NEVER been in effect in the US. NEVER!!!!
You can’t have federal expenditures growing at 10x revenues. You can’t have massive entitlements. You can’t have massive regulation. It is predicated on free markets, rational consumers and sound monetary policy. You can’t have a fed printing freely and manipulating interest rates outside of the free market and have government picking winners and losers and reallocating capital from private citizens to public coffers then to different citizens and expect to have rational consumer dollar voting.
The ONLY lever that has been pulled from time to time is taxation policy. But, even there no matter the playing with it revenue in the post WWII era continues to remain about 18% of GDP.
We have never had “trickle down”. Since 1913 we’ve had crony capitalism, centrally managed, thievery writ large. Obama is a moron and wouldn’t know an economic model if it bit him and frankly neither would the two of you.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 11:52amClive, why don’t dim trolls like you leave?
Romney’s 12% amounts to millions in taxes. You also ignore the fact that he gave at least another 12% to charity. How about we get the dead beat pay nothing masses to start chipping in something, ANYTHING, for the all the crap they get.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:15pm@ Rothbardian
“Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I’m gonna be watching you.”
-Prof. Terguson (Sam Kinison) in “Back to School.”
Report Post »ertdfg
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 12:43pmOk Clive, so 12% is wrong… so you’ll raise the 35% rate to 40% so the people paying 35% will pay 40%… which won’t affect anyone paying 15% as that’s a different rate.
And it was 15, not 12… after his legal deductions and charitable donations. LTCG rates… long-term capital gains.
I take this every year now for my investments, at 15% I think I’d be a fool not to; and you get those taxes from me every year.
But bump those up to 30-40% as well; why not right?
And I’ll hold my account until I retire 20 years from now giving you nothing. I don’t NEED to cash out until then. I’m not living off my savings; I’m adding to them; and I can avoid paying a dime in taxes on them for 20-30 years.
And then I’ll cash out at 30-40K/year when I’m retired with no job… so I still won’t pay the 40% you’re demanding. But feel free to pretend that this won’t happen.
Yep, you’ll just get more than twice as much from me and not nothing… because rich people are really bad at math and managing money… which is why they have so much of it.
How $0 for 20 years is better than 15%/year for 20 years I’m not sure… but if you want the market to stagnate and for me to sit on my money for decades without moving it, I can certainly do that. Just let me know by changing the tax rates and I’ll avoid paying taxes on my investments at all until someone else comes along.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on August 14, 2012 at 2:26pmDemocratic administration always have to clean up Republican messes.
Report Post »