Meghan McCain's a good daughter, sticking up for her Dad and all, BUT it's "Moderate" Keynesian Republicans (like Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and McCain, among others) who f*cked things up.
Indeed Hillary Clinton WAS "more Conservative" than John McCain this past election season.
Worse still, McCain lacked any semblence of energy...he ran a campaign almost designed to lose.
It's ironic that with the "economy not being his strong suit" (admittedly, it isn't BW's either, but he's not planning on running for office) he was slaughtered when the global credit crisis finally hit Wall Street in late September.
Yes, Romney would've been "better on the economy," in FACT, "better overall - younger, smarter, more agile onthe issues (I think that's what we're calling it these days), but Rudy would've been better on National Security issues...McCain's Primary triumph was a virtual miracle. One that assured Barack Obama a victory nearly as easy as the one he posted over Alan Keyes for the Senate seat from Illinois.
I have a lot of friends in the Military and other federal agencies, all good guys, a lot of them pipelined into the American Militia movement....like myself, none of them "active or rostered members," them for their career's sake, and myself due to a pesky reference back to a firm called Executive Outcomes, that once was very much in favor with "the right people," but no more though.
Anyway, many of those guys are more Conservative (law & order Conservatives mostly) or at least more Corporatist than I, and they all claim that "The fastest way to Corporatism for the U.S. is through another Jimmy Carter" - another utopian idealist. They point to how utopianists ALWAYS give way to strongmen. The one they favor most, ironically enough, is the former USSR, where Kerensky and Trotsky (two real, hardcore "for the people" utopianists) gave way to Stalin ("a Rudy with Reagan's personality"). I like the "Dinkins giving way to Rudy" analogy much better, for obvious reasons.
I'd like to have hoped for a better outcome, BUT, I'll admit, between McCain and Obama, I'm glad the REAL Liberal won.
Why go "Liberal-lite" when you can have the real thing?
Now all that matters is RESULTS.
We saw what Reagan did, inheriting the actual WORST U.S. ECONOMY Since the Great Depression and turning that Stagflation around from a record high 22 Misery Index in 1980 to SINGLE DIGITS by 1986, while both creating 20 million new private sector jobs AND increasing tax revenues FROM $619 BILLION in 1980 to OVER $1 TRILLION by 1986, by slashing ALL income tax rates by 25% and the highest rate by HALF!
We've also seen what the Gingrich Congress did, cutting the federal budget for the first time in over a century, slashing the Capital Gains Rate by 1/3 and instituting the enormous savings of welfare reform, delivered the booming economy of the late 1990s!
Carter followed another Keynesian Republican (Nixon) and went even further with bailouts and overspending....and we know what THAT delivered - STAGFLATION.
Obama will be judged on the RESULTS of the policies he signs onto. If they deliver Reagan's results, he'll be golden.
If they deliver Carter's results, he be slimed and effectively neutered by the 2010 midterm Elections.
I think what the Meghan's and the rest of her very spoiled generation NEED is some real hard times....perhaps a late 1970s REDUX. Now THAT just might fix their heads in a more Reagan/Gingrichian direction.
CLARIFICATION: "The EXAMPLE they favor most, ironically enough, is the former USSR, where Kerensky and Trotsky (two real, hardcore "for the people" utopianists) gave way to Stalin ("a Rudy with Reagan's personality") law and order guy. I like the "Dinkins giving way to Rudy" analogy much better, for obvious reasons."
McCain's ship has already set sail and left the port. I have no doubt he'll make an attempt in the primaries, but I am equally assured hell be lucky when a single states' primary (I think even Arizona would be hard in 2012!)
Idiot, what Reagan inherited, and the only thing that saved his big-spending ass, was the tech boom.
Reagan was a dumbass puppet of the rich who got lucky. It is very obvious that his policies had nothing to do with the economic boom.
However, Reagan did sow the seeds of this economic meltdown. He started this mythology of small government (which he never practiced and has no correlation whatsoever to the economy), deregulation, and union busting.
What we are really seeing is the long-term consequences of the stupidity of Trickle-Down Economics.
That why nobody listens to "supply side" bullshit anymore.
Reagan inherited the actual WORST economy since the Great Depression."
A staggering 22 Misery Index (the inflation & unemployment rates added together)....it's been single digits for the past 16 straight years. 2008's MI was 9.6 (a 7.4% annual unemployment rate + a 2.2% annual inflation rate).
The prime lending rate in 1981 was an incredible 23.5% (it was 3% when Obama took office, 3.25% today).
Reagan's Supply Side policies reversed the inevitable implosion of Keynesianism immediately.
The prime rate dropped precipitously during Reagan's tenure and the Misery Index dropped EVERY year until it reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986, where it stayed throughout the rest of his tenure.
Over 20 MILLION private sector jobs were created when Reagan slashed tax rates, including the Corporate rate and cut the top income tax rate in half (FROM 70% TO 30%) and cut ALL other tax rates by a whopping 25%.
BECAUSE of those tax rates, income tax revenues skyrocketed FROM $619 BILLION in 1980 to over $1 TRILLION by 1987!
George Bush Sr. like Richard M Nixon (one of the most devout Keynesians ever) and Herbert Hoover (the first Keynesian in the WH and the very first "Progressive" President in U.S. history) moved BACK toward Keynesian policies and even cooperated with Ted Kennedy on one of the largest tax hikes up to that time.
As a result, the Bush Sr., was only the second post-WW II U.S. President to preside over four straight years of double digit Misery Indexes, even though his four-year average (10.2) was far lower than Jimmy Carter's abysmal 16.6 four-year average.
G W Bush was pretty much as Keynesian as his father was, except that he learned that tax cuts DO increase tax revenues and his two tax cuts (dropping the Capital Gains rate by 5% and that across-the-board income tax rate cut) had tax revenues skyrocketing in their wake.
After that, Bush Jr. was even MORE Keynesian than either Nixon and his father. He pushed for and signed onto Sarbannes-Oxley, one of the most far-reaching and expensive pieces of financial regulation EVER, he pushed for and signed onto the twin economic albatross' the NCLB Act AND the prescription drug boondoggle.
In his final two years he cooperated gleefully with Pelosi-Reid on bailouts, NON-stimulating "stimulus packages", etc.
G W Bush spend MORE (even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did on reckless social spending, in FACT, G W Bush was as Keynesian as either Nixon or Hoover.
Just as in 1976, when a naive Liberal Democrat (Carter) inherited a flawed and failing economy from a very Keynesian Republican (Nixon), we have another naive Liberal Democrat (Obama) inheriting a flawed and very sick economy from yet another Keynesian Republican (G W Bush).
I WISH it were different and I really DO wish there was some period that offered evidence that Keynesian policies can work.
There just isn't.
Just as OUR best modern-day economy came about when the Gingrich Congress forced CUTS in the federal budget (for the first time in over 100 years), slashed the Capital Gains RATE by 1/3 and institutionalized welfare reform (saving State and local governments BILLIONS), our worst economy came after a decade and a half of uninterupted Keynesian policiy (LBJ thru Carter)...and our worst economic CRISIS since the Silver Panic of 1893 has come when a Keynesian government (G W Bush-Pelosi-Reid) pushed to free bankers from the restraints of traditional lending criteria, in effect allowing banks and mortgage brokers to "print all the wealth (credit is a from of wealth) they wanted.
What happened between 2006 and 2008 was no different (perhaps even more disastrous) than if the U.S. government allowed banks to print currency that the U.S. government promised to back, in order to "alleviate poverty" (in the current case it was to "INCREASE low-income homeownership")...THAT is the root of the current crisis - government insipidly micromanaging private industry (in this case banks and mortgage brokers).
JMK, you are retarded. Reagan had not a fucking thing to do with the Tech Boom which created a tremendous economy in America until greedy assholes (your beloved corporate executives) gave it away to China and India in return for short-term obscene profits.
If you were honest, you would post the data showing that THE HIGHEST TAXATION was actually during the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history, after the Great Depression.
Sure, you would say those two things were unrelated. You would cite the booming economy as succeeding IN SPITE of high taxation.
Comments
God bless her Barry.
Meghan McCain's a good daughter, sticking up for her Dad and all, BUT it's "Moderate" Keynesian Republicans (like Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and McCain, among others) who f*cked things up.
Indeed Hillary Clinton WAS "more Conservative" than John McCain this past election season.
Worse still, McCain lacked any semblence of energy...he ran a campaign almost designed to lose.
It's ironic that with the "economy not being his strong suit" (admittedly, it isn't BW's either, but he's not planning on running for office) he was slaughtered when the global credit crisis finally hit Wall Street in late September.
Yes, Romney would've been "better on the economy," in FACT, "better overall - younger, smarter, more agile onthe issues (I think that's what we're calling it these days), but Rudy would've been better on National Security issues...McCain's Primary triumph was a virtual miracle. One that assured Barack Obama a victory nearly as easy as the one he posted over Alan Keyes for the Senate seat from Illinois.
I have a lot of friends in the Military and other federal agencies, all good guys, a lot of them pipelined into the American Militia movement....like myself, none of them "active or rostered members," them for their career's sake, and myself due to a pesky reference back to a firm called Executive Outcomes, that once was very much in favor with "the right people," but no more though.
Anyway, many of those guys are more Conservative (law & order Conservatives mostly) or at least more Corporatist than I, and they all claim that "The fastest way to Corporatism for the U.S. is through another Jimmy Carter" - another utopian idealist. They point to how utopianists ALWAYS give way to strongmen. The one they favor most, ironically enough, is the former USSR, where Kerensky and Trotsky (two real, hardcore "for the people" utopianists) gave way to Stalin ("a Rudy with Reagan's personality"). I like the "Dinkins giving way to Rudy" analogy much better, for obvious reasons.
I'd like to have hoped for a better outcome, BUT, I'll admit, between McCain and Obama, I'm glad the REAL Liberal won.
Why go "Liberal-lite" when you can have the real thing?
Now all that matters is RESULTS.
We saw what Reagan did, inheriting the actual WORST U.S. ECONOMY Since the Great Depression and turning that Stagflation around from a record high 22 Misery Index in 1980 to SINGLE DIGITS by 1986, while both creating 20 million new private sector jobs AND increasing tax revenues FROM $619 BILLION in 1980 to OVER $1 TRILLION by 1986, by slashing ALL income tax rates by 25% and the highest rate by HALF!
We've also seen what the Gingrich Congress did, cutting the federal budget for the first time in over a century, slashing the Capital Gains Rate by 1/3 and instituting the enormous savings of welfare reform, delivered the booming economy of the late 1990s!
Carter followed another Keynesian Republican (Nixon) and went even further with bailouts and overspending....and we know what THAT delivered - STAGFLATION.
Obama will be judged on the RESULTS of the policies he signs onto. If they deliver Reagan's results, he'll be golden.
If they deliver Carter's results, he be slimed and effectively neutered by the 2010 midterm Elections.
I think what the Meghan's and the rest of her very spoiled generation NEED is some real hard times....perhaps a late 1970s REDUX. Now THAT just might fix their heads in a more Reagan/Gingrichian direction.
Posted by: JMK | March 9, 2009 12:07 PM
CLARIFICATION: "The EXAMPLE they favor most, ironically enough, is the former USSR, where Kerensky and Trotsky (two real, hardcore "for the people" utopianists) gave way to Stalin ("a Rudy with Reagan's personality") law and order guy. I like the "Dinkins giving way to Rudy" analogy much better, for obvious reasons."
Posted by: JMK | March 9, 2009 12:12 PM
McCain's ship has already set sail and left the port. I have no doubt he'll make an attempt in the primaries, but I am equally assured hell be lucky when a single states' primary (I think even Arizona would be hard in 2012!)
Posted by: Comrade Tovya | March 9, 2009 08:06 PM
Idiot, what Reagan inherited, and the only thing that saved his big-spending ass, was the tech boom.
Reagan was a dumbass puppet of the rich who got lucky. It is very obvious that his policies had nothing to do with the economic boom.
However, Reagan did sow the seeds of this economic meltdown. He started this mythology of small government (which he never practiced and has no correlation whatsoever to the economy), deregulation, and union busting.
What we are really seeing is the long-term consequences of the stupidity of Trickle-Down Economics.
That why nobody listens to "supply side" bullshit anymore.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 12, 2009 04:28 PM
Reagan inherited the actual WORST economy since the Great Depression."
A staggering 22 Misery Index (the inflation & unemployment rates added together)....it's been single digits for the past 16 straight years. 2008's MI was 9.6 (a 7.4% annual unemployment rate + a 2.2% annual inflation rate).
The prime lending rate in 1981 was an incredible 23.5% (it was 3% when Obama took office, 3.25% today).
Reagan's Supply Side policies reversed the inevitable implosion of Keynesianism immediately.
The prime rate dropped precipitously during Reagan's tenure and the Misery Index dropped EVERY year until it reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986, where it stayed throughout the rest of his tenure.
SEE: http://www.miseryindex.us/
Over 20 MILLION private sector jobs were created when Reagan slashed tax rates, including the Corporate rate and cut the top income tax rate in half (FROM 70% TO 30%) and cut ALL other tax rates by a whopping 25%.
BECAUSE of those tax rates, income tax revenues skyrocketed FROM $619 BILLION in 1980 to over $1 TRILLION by 1987!
George Bush Sr. like Richard M Nixon (one of the most devout Keynesians ever) and Herbert Hoover (the first Keynesian in the WH and the very first "Progressive" President in U.S. history) moved BACK toward Keynesian policies and even cooperated with Ted Kennedy on one of the largest tax hikes up to that time.
As a result, the Bush Sr., was only the second post-WW II U.S. President to preside over four straight years of double digit Misery Indexes, even though his four-year average (10.2) was far lower than Jimmy Carter's abysmal 16.6 four-year average.
G W Bush was pretty much as Keynesian as his father was, except that he learned that tax cuts DO increase tax revenues and his two tax cuts (dropping the Capital Gains rate by 5% and that across-the-board income tax rate cut) had tax revenues skyrocketing in their wake.
After that, Bush Jr. was even MORE Keynesian than either Nixon and his father. He pushed for and signed onto Sarbannes-Oxley, one of the most far-reaching and expensive pieces of financial regulation EVER, he pushed for and signed onto the twin economic albatross' the NCLB Act AND the prescription drug boondoggle.
In his final two years he cooperated gleefully with Pelosi-Reid on bailouts, NON-stimulating "stimulus packages", etc.
G W Bush spend MORE (even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did on reckless social spending, in FACT, G W Bush was as Keynesian as either Nixon or Hoover.
Just as in 1976, when a naive Liberal Democrat (Carter) inherited a flawed and failing economy from a very Keynesian Republican (Nixon), we have another naive Liberal Democrat (Obama) inheriting a flawed and very sick economy from yet another Keynesian Republican (G W Bush).
I WISH it were different and I really DO wish there was some period that offered evidence that Keynesian policies can work.
There just isn't.
Just as OUR best modern-day economy came about when the Gingrich Congress forced CUTS in the federal budget (for the first time in over 100 years), slashed the Capital Gains RATE by 1/3 and institutionalized welfare reform (saving State and local governments BILLIONS), our worst economy came after a decade and a half of uninterupted Keynesian policiy (LBJ thru Carter)...and our worst economic CRISIS since the Silver Panic of 1893 has come when a Keynesian government (G W Bush-Pelosi-Reid) pushed to free bankers from the restraints of traditional lending criteria, in effect allowing banks and mortgage brokers to "print all the wealth (credit is a from of wealth) they wanted.
What happened between 2006 and 2008 was no different (perhaps even more disastrous) than if the U.S. government allowed banks to print currency that the U.S. government promised to back, in order to "alleviate poverty" (in the current case it was to "INCREASE low-income homeownership")...THAT is the root of the current crisis - government insipidly micromanaging private industry (in this case banks and mortgage brokers).
Posted by: JMK | March 13, 2009 10:11 AM
CORRECTION: "cut the top income tax rate in half (FROM 70% TO 35%"
Posted by: JMK | March 13, 2009 11:48 AM
JMK, you are retarded. Reagan had not a fucking thing to do with the Tech Boom which created a tremendous economy in America until greedy assholes (your beloved corporate executives) gave it away to China and India in return for short-term obscene profits.
If you were honest, you would post the data showing that THE HIGHEST TAXATION was actually during the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history, after the Great Depression.
Sure, you would say those two things were unrelated. You would cite the booming economy as succeeding IN SPITE of high taxation.
Hypocrite. Moron. JMK.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 25, 2009 02:25 PM