http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1

It’s not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.

and that folks is all you really need to know about the GOP in the fall. I guess if you repeat the old lie often enough, people begin to believe it.

What is the saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?



Cat

Supply side economics cannot fail.  It can only BE failed. 

These people are nuts like the Maoists, only on the other side!
::)

Oh, but as at least one board member has stated, Krugman is a Keynesian economist, so he must be wrong.  Six years ago Krugman published The Great Unraveling, a collection of his essays going back to 1997.  Its remarkable how accurate his prediction were.

Oh, but as at least one board member has stated, Krugman is a Keynesian economist, so he must be wrong.  Six years ago Krugman published The Great Unraveling, a collection of his essays going back to 1997.  Its remarkable how accurate his prediction were.


Drives me nuts.  Krugman reminds me of a referee at a pro-wrestling patch.  He makes his motions, but the dirty deals keep going and going and going!  It's not Krugman's fault.  He was up there with the late Tim Russert and Bill O'Reilly.  He was like, hey, don't call me names.  I'm just telling you what I see as a noted Princeton economist.  A big reason the petrochemical industries founded those right-wing think-tanks was mainstream economists, such as Krugman, did not take Reganomics seriously.  That's where the liberals had too much faith in government.  It was inconceivable to the Keynesian that any government would set up such a scheme if it wanted to survive another thirty years. 

But this is how empires die:  Enormous debts and draining the treasury for over-extended foreign entanglements. 

Back in the Victorian era when the sun never set on the British Empire, the average working class male from Liverpool had a life expectancy of 20 years.  When empires get decadent, folks start to get restless on the homefront.  Crushing personal debts, rampant poverty, indolence, communicable diseases, psychiatric conditions, malnutrition, all these things rise at home when a country becomes an empire. 

You know I was thinking about this for 2 straight Saturdays after I come home from work:

George H.W Bush called "Reaganomics" "Voodoo Economics in the 1980 Republican Presidential Primary. Bush(H.W.) was the moderate republican and Ronald Reagan was the conservative Republican candidate in that primary. Then Reagan names Bush(H.W.) his vice presidential nominee on the ticket to take on Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale in the 1980 presidential election. Flash Foward to George H.W. Bush's win in the 1988 presidential election against Michael Dukakis and Bush(H.W.) is doing "Reaganomics" when he takes over for Reagan in January 1989. I don;t get it after Bush(H.W.) called Reaganomics "Voo-Doo Economics" 8 years earlier!

You know I was thinking about this for 2 straight Saturdays after I come home from work:

George H.W Bush called "Reaganomics" "Voodoo Economics in the 1980 Republican Presidential Primary. Bush(H.W.) was the moderate republican and Ronald Reagan was the conservative Republican candidate in that primary. Then Reagan names Bush(H.W.) his vice presidential nominee on the ticket to take on Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale in the 1980 presidential election. Flash Foward to George H.W. Bush's win in the 1988 presidential election against Michael Dukakis and Bush(H.W.) is doing "Reaganomics" when he takes over for Reagan in January 1989. I don;t get it after Bush(H.W.) called Reaganomics "Voo-Doo Economics" 8 years earlier!



It's called POLITICS!!!!




Cat

It's called POLITICS!!!!



Thank you, Cat.  Very succinct!

Daddy Bush called supply side economics "voodoo" when he was Reagan's opponent in the primary of 1980.  He wasn't against supply side, he just wanted to win.  The Bush family was itching to get HW in the White House since 1968.  So they settled for VP in 1980.  If John Hinckley had hit his mark on March 30, 1981, HW would have been president starting in 1981, not 1989.
::)

* Scion of the Hinckley Texas oil family who donated generously to Daddy Bush's campaign and were friends with the Bushes.