Skip to comments.How Mitt Romney Finally Killed Reaganomics
Posted on 11/13/2012 11:19:28 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Trickle-down economics died last Tuesday. The post-election chatter has been dominated by demographics, Latinos, women, and the culture war. But economics played a strong and even pivotal role in this election too, and Reaganomics came out a huge loser, while the Democrats have started to wrap their arms around a simple, winning alternative: the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. Its middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.
Supply side was rejected. And in its place, voters went for an economic vision that says: dont invest in the wealthy in the hope that theyll decide to spread the wealth around; invest in the middle class, because its demand from a prosperous middle class that ultimately creates more jobs, and because doing that makes for a healthier society all the way around.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Daily Beast??? Come on!!!
George W. Bush killed Reaganomics with his New Tone in Washington and Compassionate Conservatism.
Idiot. The Kennedy Tax Rate Cuts cut the top rate from 90% to 70%. The top rate in 1974 was 70%.
The rest of this thing is a tissue of lies and tendentious adjectives.
Michael Tomasky sounds like an economics moron.
No economist ever espoused anything called “trickle down economics.” The point about taxes is that they affect the incentives people have to invest their wealth. High taxes encourage the wealthy to protect their wealth in havens, or buy tax-free bonds; they discourage the wealthy from investing in productive enterprises that have higher risk but which also create jobs in the process of earning them a return.
Additionally, if you’ve read about “Hauser’s Law”, you’ll note that irrespective of how high tax rates are, government always gets about 20% of GDP. Tax rates don’t affect how much revenue goes to government, but they do affect the size of GDP: lower tax rates correlate to higher GDP; higher tax rates with lower GDP. Therefore, by raising tax rates, government actually gets less revenue because it’s getting 20% of a smaller economic pie.
A few months ago, Thomas Sowell wrote an interesting essay on the myth of “trickle down economics”, which you can access here:
And by eventually becoming a free market guy..../s
Remember, progressives never get the concept of incentives or marginal rates. They view all reductions in tax rates as government’s “giving” people money. And who deserves less to be “given” money than “the rich”?
You got it. The most prosperous economies are those in which people have absolutely nothing. How could there possibly be more demand than that?
the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. Its middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.
Oh yeah, a real winner. That is until the middle class and the poor are sitting equally miserable waiting on their health care. Begging for a treatment that can’t be justified financially
We can watch the waiting room TV with all the altruistic liberals flying off to have have their medical care elsewhere or watch them sipping champagne and talking about all the good they do for the little people.
Not much will change for the rich... although they may bless us with a few sighs of pity. The media can take photos and document our misery, so that they may win some coveted prize or whatever.
Well said. The moron author of the article, by describing Reaganomics as “government investing in the rich” is doing more harm than Romney...
The economic doctrine of Freeshit won.
The economics of Santa Clause doesn`t “win” a strong economy, because like all forms of crony capitalism, it systemically picks winners and losers.
But it wins elections, because Americans like getting free stuff in their hands. They don`t give two sh*ts about the long-term ramifications of high unemployment, low wages and lessened expectations, because... well... they got some free stuff.
Striving for the long-term prosperity rewards through hard work and perseverance is seen as a last-century value ... anachronistic and at 180-degree odds with the gimme-summa-dat mentality of today.
Exactly. Reagaonimics will always win the day because “Santa’s elves” don’t really work for free after all.
It’s a moral inversion, the belief that my failure to break into your house to steal something is a some sort of giveaway to you.
There is a boatload of demand in countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal. They must be the poster child of economic growth.
I like your TAGLINE!
I remember a pie chart in a Planned Parenthood pamphlet, showing the various causes of pregnancy. By far the chief cause was “contraceptive failure.” If that’s the case, the obvious solution is to stop using those damn failing contraceptives!
Government “investment” was initially a euphamism for increased taxes. Oh, the Dems would like to increase tax RATES on the wealthy, to nail the coon skin on the barn for subsequent election campaigns, but they won’t realize any more revenue. We are so far beyond the maximum effective tax rate that an increase in tax rates is only going to further decrease economic activity. That leaves 2 alternatives: Printing Money (Ben Bernake) and increased borrowing to fund the “Grand Canyon” of budget shortfalls. (If we had a budget).
Obama won by 9.5 m in ‘08; currently ahead by 3.5 m. He lost 2/3 of his margin governing as he did. Plus, this really was the triumph of his community organizing “skills(?)” turning out 10,000- 0 precincts. Apparently the “white youth vote “ caught on to the corruption of identity politics, can only hope the Asian vote won’t be far behind.
Since the middle class is “where the money is”, so-called middle-out economics is just the government’s way of saying “you’re too stupid to spend & invest your own money wisely.” It also confirms that economic illiteracy is at an all-time high in this country. Thanks is largely due to the public “education” system and our socialist college professors. They’ve convinced 3 generations of Americans that the US federal gov’t owns all money in this country, and that people only succeed by scr3wing their fellow citizens (unless you’re St. Steve Jobs or some other uber-rich capitalist with the ability to construct a cult-like following).
Why do we let the free enterprise system be labelled “capitalism” or “trickle down.”
BECAUSE WE LET THE LEFT DEFINE US.
You can’t kill truth. You can, for a time, suppress it, or hide it, or distort it - but you can’t kill it.
What “middle out”???
Them there “middle” went to China under Clinton.
Tomasky, like all lib-leftists, is an ignoramus and a tremendous liar. Lib economics, based on socialist command-type economics, have always been huge failures. “Trickle down” economics is a lie cooked up the typical lib-leftist suspects like Tomasky. Everybody benefits from lower across the board rate cuts. Everybody loses when taxes are raised.
Yeah that across the board tax cut by Bush in 2003 which fueled the tremendous growth of the economy and resulted in under 5% unemployment was typical leftist economics. (snicker)
1. There is no such thing as “trickle down economics” and these liberal commentators know it.
2. Romney was not preaching Reaganomics. (They know that too.) Reagan was promising large tax cuts across the board. All Romney promised was not to raise taxes.
3. As this propagandist knows, supply side was not rejected. It was not on the ballot.
4. Obama may have prevailed in the vote, but that just means Obamanomics will collapse sooner. The people want growth and all Obama will give them is stagnation. Then they’ll want some pro-growth policies.
5. Romney is a liberal Republican who increased the size of government in Massachusetts. He governed the way that liberals would like to see us governed, so he could not be an effective spokesperson for the limited-government, pro-growth, market-oriented viewpoint.
What this dishonest, partisan propagandist is trying to do is preclude real, pro-growth economic views from even being advanced. It won’t work.
Bush’s tax cuts as implemented were (as we are now seeing) an unmitigated disaster. Unaccompanied by any discipline in spending, they increased debt (futures taxes). With rate cuts and credits they made a vast swath of the lower middle class into effectively non-taxpayers, who are predictably now permanent Democrats rather than swing voters.
Virtually all conservative economists and analysts disagree with you.
The uptick in the economy was from the provisions put in the tax cut by the Republicans in Congress, especially Bill Thomas. Thomas included the capital gains tax cut, something W adamantly opposed. The start of the Iraq war was also a factor (lots of government spending). The rise in the stock market was led by government contractors, and commodities (W's weak dollar helped them, as well as his decision to burn our food in our cars).
And I leave you with W's famous last quote he gave in his exit interview to his buddies at CNN.
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."
W’s tax cuts were temporary in nature, designed to boost consumerism rather than investment. Such policies provide a temporary boost, but are unsustainable. W’s government spending is in the same category.
In short you agree that the Bush tax cuts revived the economy. Thank you. And Bush tried the mini-stimulus (which I didn't think would work) because of the advice of a great many people, including many conservative economists, who told him it would be a disaster if he didn't do it. He didn't cause the financial meltdown (thank you Bill Clinton), and he tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. He did spend too much a lot of it probably to get Dem support for the war of terror.
The long and short of it is (1) no community reinvestment act (2) no Clinton admin forcing banks and lending instituitons to make bad loans (3) no Barney Frank or other Dems to stop reform of Fannie and Freddie (4) no financial crisis. Read Tom Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" to get the lowdown.
What kind of regulations did W cut, which would boost the economy without raising debt?
In short you agree that the Bush tax cuts revived the economy.
Nope. W's government spending and debt buildup temporarily boosted the economy, and led to Obama being president and the troubles we have now.
Notice how Communism never dies and the Left is even applauding the impending Soviet Reunion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.