Reagan Economists: Tax Bill a Disaster

[_Kevin Graham]

Every once in a while FOX News makes the colossal mistake of allowing an educated person speak on their shows. The result is you get a panel of FOX News idiots going into panic mode trying to shut him up because it undermines their deceptive agenda.

Here is David Stockman mopping the floors with them and their BS notion that Trump's stock market is based off of actual earnings.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You're going to use a Reagan economist to bitch about national debt, taxes, and fiscal responsibility? Phew.

- Doc

[Guest]

[_Kevin Graham]

You're the same idiot who recently said tax cuts can have no effect on deficits. So you don't get to speak on economic matters and expect to be taken serious. Like, ever.

[_Res Ipsa]

When it comes to cultural clarity, I think the tax bill is crystal clear. The culture it represents is: the ultra rich set the rules so that they get richer and screw everyone else. This is a feature, not a bug.

[_Gunnar]

When it comes to cultural clarity, I think the tax bill is crystal clear. The culture it represents is: the ultra rich set the rules so that they get richer and screw everyone else. This is a feature, not a bug.

It is a mystery to me why this is not glaringly obvious to so many of those being screwed. It is certainly obvious to the ultra rich who are doing the screwing.

[_Res Ipsa]

Ryan confirms the cultural clarity of the tax bill. After passing a tax cut bill that benefits the rich and spikes the deficit, the next item on the agenda is cutting Medicaid and Medicare. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ac0abe3f65

[_EAllusion]

There is a broad consensus among economists that running deficits and maintaining some level of national debt is sound macroeconomics. I don't dispute this and you're way out on a limb if you do, but I still think the federal budget should be balanced or run a surplus in all but crisis years.

I think this because I believe that accepting deficits leads to profligate spending by Congress and naturally encourages far too high of deficits. The only effective way to combat this is to create rules and norms around balanced budgets. You accept sub-optimal economic strategy to avoid a much worse alternative. While there aren't many liberals who think a large national debt is awesome, there are plenty of liberals who dismiss it as a policy concern when deficits become too large because they don't want that concern to get in the way of their spending preferences.

[_Res Ipsa]

There is a broad consensus among economists that running deficits and maintaining some level of national debt is sound macroeconomics. I don't dispute this and you're way out on a limb if you do, but I still think the federal budget should be balanced or run a surplus in all but crisis years.

I think this because I believe that accepting deficits leads to profligate spending by Congress and naturally encourages far too high of deficits. The only effective way to combat this is to create rules and norms around balanced budgets. You accept sub-optimal economic strategy to avoid a much worse alternative. While there aren't many liberals who think a large national debt is awesome, there are plenty of liberals who dismiss it as a policy concern when deficits become too large because they don't want that concern to get in the way of their spending preferences.

I agree, with one additional thought. Here in Washington, we tried to do the responsible thing and run a surplus in boom years to put away as a rainy day fund for the inevitable recession. Conservatives then said "hey that's the taxpayer's money in that rainy day fund" and the fund was raided. When the bad times came, well, states can't run a deficit. Fiscally, our state government is still struggling from the '08 meltdown. I think there are incentives on both sides to run the federal government at some level of deficit -- liberals because they prioritize spending and conservatives because they prioritize cutting taxes. Both sides give lip service to balancing the budget, but neither party gets serious when the rubber hits the road.

[_Kevin Graham]

I agree, with one additional thought. Here in Washington, we tried to do the responsible thing and run a surplus in boom years to put away as a rainy day fund for the inevitable recession. Conservatives then said "hey that's the taxpayer's money in that rainy day fund" and the fund was raided. When the bad times came, well, states can't run a deficit. Fiscally, our state government is still struggling from the '08 meltdown. I think there are incentives on both sides to run the federal government at some level of deficit -- liberals because they prioritize spending and conservatives because they prioritize cutting taxes. Both sides give lip service to balancing the budget, but neither party gets serious when the rubber hits the road.

I can't think of a Democrat President in my lifetime who was just hell bent on deficit spending "just because" it helped suit his Liberal agenda. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and now Trump all proposed increased military spending because Republicans just don't know what to do with themselves if they're not instigating wars of some kind. With Reagan it was bombing Beirut and overthrowing leaders in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. With Bush I I give him a pass since Kuwait wasn't really anything he asked for. With Bush II, he's to blame for invading Iraq under false pretenses. And now Trump seems hell bent on antagonizing Syria, Iran, N.Korea, everyone except Russia it seems. The Republican axis of evil also insisted on slashing taxes for the wealthiest segment of America, much of which would be rotated back in the form of campaign contributions.

Obama's ultimate sin on spending was basic Keynesian protocol in times of national financial crisis. He provides payroll tax cuts which expired, and then proposed a few hundred billion in actual spending to help stimulate a dwindling economy. He also invested in the resurrection of the US Auto industry, which apparently worked since all the money has been paid back with interest. Same goes for the bank bailouts. Bill Clinton oversaw the first surplus in decades.... I just don't see much of a comparison here between Republicans and Democrats.