Supply Side Economics and Generational Theft
Sometime over the last few weeks Republicans started to use the phrase "generational theft" to describe the stimulus bill. I found this particularly interesting considering supply-side economics started the idea of massive government debt issuance.
Let's start with Reagan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, he never balanced a budget -- despite the fact he was a "fiscal conservative." As a result, total debt outstanding increased from $1.2 trillion in 1981 to a little under $3 trillion in 1989 (the year of his last budget). Here's a graph of total debt outstanding under Reagan's leadership:
Bush I continued the trend. He was a "fiscally responsible" Republican. He never balanced a budget. And total debt outstanding also continued to increase. It increased from 3.2 trillion to 4.4 trillion at the end of fiscal 1993 (the last Bush I budget). Here's a graph of total debt outstanding under Bush I's leadership:
And then there is Bush II -- another "fiscally responsible" Republican. He never balanced a budget. And according to the Bureau of Public Debt, total debt outstanding increased by $500 billion/year starting in fiscal 2003:
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
So when we hear Republicans talk about generational theft, well, they know of what they speak.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mark down the date - for the first time I'm not enthusiastic about Bondad's piece.
I normally find Bondad bang-on but here he has undermined his reputation with partisanship.
He's saying: "Republicans are wrong to talk about generational theft since they are big generational thieves."
This is absurd - just because they were generational thieves (they were) doesn't mean their arguments about generational theft today aren't valid or worthy of putting on the scales (they are). Just because I'm a cheater it doesn't mean I'm wrong to complain about cheating - makes me a hypocrite, but not wrong.
Now, whether the immorality of pushing MORE debt on our kids outweighs handing them an economy in ruins or allowing all their parents to be unemployed, that's a debate worth having.
The overall effect of the cheating and lieing by the whole Republican Party has destoryed approx $197 TRILLION DOLLARS of equity since 1980 !!!!!!!
This includes interest and payments made to the Fed for moey loaned and the funds awasted for military contracts that produced nothing of value and the money just missing while lacks oversight of the GOP prevailed.
I think it was Jack Kemp who was the first to refer to it as Voodoo economics. I know the first Bush did. Both eventually jumped on the Republican bandwagon and went along. Anyone in a basic accounting course can tell you that it will not work. The myth that the Clinton prosperity was due to the delayed effect of Reganomics is another one that kills me. I still hear that to this day, and in the same breath that claim that the bad economy now is due to the delayed effect of Clintons policies. As we used to say when we would hear that....Just freaking WOW!
Clintons prosperity was really reagan's but after a month this is obama's depression.
ALL CLINTON DID WAS STOP USING THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND TO OFFSET TAX CUTS !!!!!
THAT IS ALL !!!!!!!
Funny, conservatives do not mind the generational theft when it goes to unneccessary foreign wars, like in Iraq. They do not mind rebuiding Iraq's infrastructure, only our own. The time they really moan about generational theft is when this debt is undertaken to bail the economy out after a failure of their deregulatory and tax cut for the wealthy policies. They mind generational theft when we do the spending on entitlements which protect the neediest of our fellow Americans and not on the bailout of huge financial corporations.
The spending related to the invasion of Iraq wasn't expected to be high. The plan was to have the operation wrapped up quickly with minimal expense. It's not like the Bush administration wanted or expected to spend as much as they did on Iraq; they simply had to to maintain stability. This is the big difference between the war spending and the spending Democrats want for their social programs. The Bush administration didn't want to do this spending. The Democrats do.
How about the first round of tax cuts that Bush 43 enacted? The ones that killed the surplus. Did Bush "not want to" do those?
It must be coincidence that so many of the no bid contracts went to Republican campaign contributors. Your arguments are as hollow as the fundamentals of supply side%
It must be coincidence that so many of the no bid contracts went to Republican campaign contributors. Your arguments are as hollow as the fundamentals of supply side economics. Saying the Bush administration didn't want this spending and it was thrust upon them is as disingenuous a statement as I have ever heard. Stretching denial this far is pitiful.
Dugan, you believe anyting you read from a far right publication. I have met few who swallow conservative talking points hook, line, and sinker, as you. An economic adviser to President Bush by the name of Larry lindsey testified to Congress that the war would cost $100 billion and he was fired by Bush. It was the same Bush neocons who said the war would cost little who also doctored the intelligence on the weapons.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Stieglitz wrote a book that the total cost of the Iraq War would be three thrillion when one takes into account replacement of equipment ruined by desert conditions, health care of returning vets, and the services needed by disabled vets over a lifetime, etc. (And please just don't tell me the final cost will not be that much. Argue with Stieglitz..)
Finally, the spending the Democrats are doing is necessary after Bush brought the economy to its knees through his deregulatory policies, profligate spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Almost every economist argues we need massive public spending to help the economy and people who are suffering now to get out of this mess. I can name several Nobel Prize economists who argue the spending is necessary. (Dugan, can't you take your tired right-wing talking points nonsense elsewhere.)
Dugan, you seem to old to me to so readily believe right-wing talking points at face value that you mimic here all the time.
for the truly wealthy this is opportunity. the real stuff, the capital goods will still largely be there after the dust settles. it is just that it will be owned by fewer people. a constant drift to concentration of wealth. left alone it will just continue. where we had five banks it will be two. etc. this is good times for those who are in the right position.
Paul Krugman speaking of Bush:
"We have a very radical government in the United States right now and it's primarily about domestic policy. Ronald Reagan had tax cuts that weren't funded, but there is a theory - supply-side economics - under which they made sense. You could say that's a silly theory, but there was at least a theory. George Bush is simply saying that two minus one equals four.
A combination of dishonesty and irresponsibility runs through all his economic proposals. The level of cooking the books that goes on in each of the major policy proposals, I think, has got no precedent in US history.
These economic policies are Robin Hood in reverse. You have a set of tax cuts which are completely unfunded - there's no explanation of how we can afford these tax cuts. ..... But these are all intended to be permanent tax cuts, and yet we have a large structural deficit in the United States, so these are tax cuts that enlarge a structural deficit.
Something has to give eventually..... whether it is through increases in other taxes or cuts in social security programmes which is where the money is - the tax cut plus spending cut package ends up leaving a large majority of the population worse off and a small minority of the population a lot better off. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-krugman-bushs-economic-policies-are-robin-hood-in-reverse-732557.html
I recall Lee Iococca told us back in the early 80's that Reaganomics was "picking our grandchildren's pockets." That was generational theft. Indeed the republicans know of what they speak when they use that term.
We need to pool all movie and TV money and evenly distribute it across all members of SAG. Fair and equal for all.
We must do the same for sports. It is not fair that some make more than others.
Maybe it would be better to simply pay all the above at a flat rate equal to the average American income, then it would be fair to all Americans.
Well, Mel Gibson, Ron Silver, John Voight and Kevin Costner sure seem overpaid to me.
They are pretty pathetic. It's like they think the entire country doesn't know they got us into this mess with their economic policy and were silent on fiscal responsibility when it came to the trillions for the illegal war. They have nothing and they know it. Maybe they believe if they keep repeating it somehow people will forget how full of it they are.
Generational theft huh?
Fact: The Republican Platform's main pillar is fiscal responsibility, while Democrats are always being accused of wasteful spending.
Fact: Reagan ran up a huge deficit.
Fact: H Bush continued that deficit.
Fact: Bill Clinton balanced the budget and left office with over 250 billion dollars in SURPLUS.
Fact: Dubya lost the surplus and ran up a trillion dollar deficit.
Now tell me again......Who's fiscally conservative??
Certainly Clinton is the fiscal conservative. But note that Clinton got the surpluses because Republicans forced him to curtail even more spending than he wanted, plus the massive increase in the stock market generated huge amounts of tax revenue from the capital gains tax. When George W Bush became President, he barely got a nickel from that cap gains tax because the market tanked for the first two years he was President. Also note that the Federal Debt increased every single year Clinton was President, despite running on-budget surpluses for a few years.
"note that the Federal Debt increased every single year Clinton was President,"
Remember the year before Clinton became President Bush I had the record yearly deficit. Those deficits declined every year of Clinton's administration. Figures don't lie but liars are always figuring.
The debt may have increased, but Clinton could have used the surplus to pay off the debt to an extent or shore up social security. Instead, he gave the surpluses to President Bush who then gave them to the wealthiest one percent in the form of tax cuts. So Clinton's is only responsible for not putting the surplus to some productive use before letting them be squandered by Bush.
Dugan, I have seen you make this argument before. Does it occur to you that Clinton could have paid off much of the debt with the surplus? Gore ran on putting the money in a "lock box" to shore up the social security program. Bush ran on tax cuts. Unfortunately, Bush doctored the election to win. Your responses just do not show much critical thinking.
You forgot the total of $9.6 Trillion Dollars that is missing for the Pentagon Budget since 2001
Cramer interviewed Nichols from Devon Corporation tonight on CNBC's" Mad Money". Nichols was very proud to announce that Devon corporation had thousands of wells both oil and gas that they drilled last year but were just sitting on until the prices go back up.
Nichols is leaving the oil and gas in the ground for now.
His priority is the stock price of Devon and a high price for his oil and gas.
Does it not occur to this puke face that holding on to oil and gas to make the price go up hurts the American consumer? This is how twisted these guys are and why we have to end the oil and gas industry and replace it with renewable energy now!
Well, I think it goes farther than that. Why is it that corporations are allowed to have control over our energy supplies and manipulate them for power and profit?
It seems to me that a few things – particularly those concerned with national security and the proper running of the economy in general – should fall under control of local, state, or the federal government. Hence, municipalities should provide all services related to water, trash, sewer, electricity, etc., just like they do for police, courts, firefighting and other "socialized" services.
Also, oil, coal, etc. are our national treasures. Don't they belong to everyone? Do we really need an Exxon middleman making huge profits through manipulation? We could pump our oil ourselves, refine it ourselves and distribute it ourselves.
Before you start typing a response, that "government sucks at everything" deflection assumes that the only kind of government we know how to have is a crummy one. If we paid proper salaries and wages and ran our agencies efficiently and with incentives for employee performance, we could have the best of both worlds: preservation of national treasure and wealth along with proper pricing for said commodities. Corporations have shown themselves to be entirely unconcerned with the side effects of their singular focus on profits. Little old ladies dying in California because Enron was causing blackouts to extort higher rates? No problem. It's sad, actually, that we allow it to continue.
This is what companies and CEOs are supposed to do. This is capitalism based on supply and demand. Right now there is low demand and a glut for oil and natural gas on the market, so companies need to curtail production to bring supply back in line with demand. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Uh... so you think American companies should put the American consumer first and start selling all their goods at half price?
An oil company doesn't exist to give people cheap oil. What a weird (mis-)understanding of capitalism.
I quite agree we need to transition to renewable energy - but don't expect makers of solar panels and wind turbines to sell their gear at cost so as not to "hurt the American consumer" by trying to make a profit.
"generational theft" is now a GOP "sloganese". They sure ignored any reference to it when they went to war, when they were in charge of the budget, when they had a Republican in the executive branch. It is on "generational theft" that Republicans are the most hypocritical. They should have kept their mouths shut on this one, because the evidence against them is a gold mine.
Supply side economics is based on the trickle-down theory: most of the money goes to the wealthy minority and it trickles down to the poorer vast majority. The problem is, it doesn't work. There's an old saying: It's better to be p-ssed off than p-ssed on. The majority of Americans have been p-ssed on for 30 years. It's about time people got p-ssed off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg
Pretty much says it all.
When the McCain's of the world talk about generational theft:
They mean all the money they've stolen for THEIR kids to keep them in private schools (while defunding public schools to insure their children never actually have to Compete for anything) may be less than zillions.
This is one place in government we have bi-partisan agreement.
Spend money to keep us in office so we can travel to nice places on the citizen's dime and when we eventually leave the government we can make millions consulting to people who are dependent on the government .
Neither party has a corner on that approach (Abramoff, Daschle)
The only thing to do is to stop asking the government to do everything for us.
"The only thing to do is to stop asking the government to do everything for us."
A notion which led to the vast privatization of the functions previously assigned to the US government, which led to widespread corruption by contractors exploiting no-bid contracts and basically doing a worse, more wasteful job than government ever did....
Ahem...you were saying?
Dont' forget and always remember that Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, cut the size of the federal government, created an economic atmosphere that brought more money into the national treasury with the creation of 22 million good paying jobs which went along way in bringing us an age of prosperity unseen in our history, similar to the "Golden Age" in ancient Greece under Pericles. Voodoo economics, "trickle down" and the Laffer Curve were the fantasies that danced around in Reagan's head that created the misery we have to deal with currently.
Raising the top tax rate had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of those 22 million jobs from 1993 to 2000.
Nor did it bring about the devastation predicted by Republicans. The economy does well when all do will. I think equitable, fair tax policies do help the economy and many economists agree. Given your ideological bent on things, you may disagree.
This says it all about the Reagan years -- and the lingering schizophrenia that still lurks in the brains of most Republicans.
"Fiscal policy in the Reagan administration exhibited all the signs of schizophrenia that characterized most of its policies. An expansionary fiscal policy, led by the militarization of the economy, was not the aim of the administration when it drafted its plan. The increases in national defense spending was supposed to be offset by reductions in the civilian sphere. Congress did not go along with the complete dismantling of the New Deal and the welfare state. Its resistance was bound to lead to trouble, for the administration did not have a mandate to eliminate all the social programs enacted in the past 50 years. Reagan's victory led the conservatives to labor under the miscomprehension that the public was voting for a complete change in philosophy; what the public voted for was hope--hope that somehow there were easy answers to the economic woes that were besetting the nation. Reagan promised them that, and the voters responded."
Source: _The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations_ by Anthony S. Campagna (1994).
Hopefully under President Obama we can dismantle the Republican "dream machine" -- because that is what the voters voted for.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
