Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (510704)	9/6/2009 10:37:36 AM
From: bentway	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579140

The whole premise for "supply-side" economics has been discredited... They first got the religion during the Reagan years. They accepted as blindly as they accept their religious belief, that if you give money and tax breaks to the wealthy, it will "trickle down" to the less fortunate like manna from Heaven. Reagan tried it and it went awry very quickly. He was forced, with the assistance of Majority Leader Bob Dole, to increase FICA taxes. They did it under the pretense of "saving" the Social Security System, but the real purpose was to get revenues for an ever-increasing deficit. It was Keynesian economics gone wild! It worked to some degree, at least in creating some jobs, but the downside were humongous deficits that continued even after increasing the FICA taxes on average working people. They also insisted that those people getting unemployment checks would start to pay income taxes on their checks. That piece of crap legislation is still with us today, as is the increase in FICA taxes. Then when Daddy Bush came along, the deficits continued to balloon. Many of the proponents of trickle-down scratched their heads in disbelief. Why wasn't it working like it was supposed to? Finally, after saying, "read my lips, no new taxes", Daddy Bush saw the writing on the wall. The deficits had to be brought under control. He agreed to a small tax increase, just to show the markets he was serious. And actually, as we now know, the economy was starting to move upward slightly during the last few months of the Daddy Bush Presidency. And we all know how well the economy performed during the Clinton years. He raised taxes on the top 1 1/2% of income earners and the markets could see that he was serious about bringing the deficits and spending under control. In fact, the Clinton/Gore years led to decreases in government spending. Then along came Jones. Otherwise known as Dubya, down in Texas. He insisted on re-implementing the Reagan "supply-side" policies. Cut taxes as much as you can and stifle all government growth for programs that people use, or as Grover Norquist opined, get it small enough to drown in a bathtub. And now we see what happened. Even though they say it was the mildest recession in memory, it has driven us into stratospheric deficits. They say it was because of the war and 9/11 but the numbers just don't add up. They have turned a plus $5 trillion surplus into a minus $5 trillion deficit! Supply-side has been totally discredited even though many of the true believers are slow to admit the idiocy of such nonsense. Mostly because this has been the premise they have hung their entire political fortunes upon, and there are no more arguments with which to defend it. They cling to the last thread of the fabric, hoping against hope that somehow they will be proven correct. Hopefully, they won't hold their breath...then again...

To: i-node who wrote (510704)	9/6/2009 12:01:29 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579140

"You have such a confused view of economics that you are beyond help. Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?" Sure. I've also heard of "voodoo economics". Your point? Look, I realize some of the economically ignorant didn't really understand what Paul Volcker did. And you certainly have displayed an appalling lack of understanding of economics. So...