E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Michael Dwyer / AP
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney offers a detailed economic plan on his website. Other candidates are more vague.
With the U.S. still suffering from high unemployment and a sluggish economy, economists agree that reviving growth is the No. 1 issue of the 2012 presidential campaign.
But many of them are gun-shy about offering innovative ideas for much-needed solutions.
That's because the divisive partisanship that has thrown sand in the gears of the political process apparently has spread to the dismal science.
"Because of the political atmosphere and the polarization we’ve seen, and the climate of distrust of expertise, economists are leery of coming out and talking about proposal A or B," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University political historian. "There’s a feeling that you can’t have a needed, healthy intellectual debate over what policies we need. And that’s essential right now."
The rancor has prompted some economists to withdraw from the public debate altogether. When contacted to comment for this story, several economists and economic think tanks declined requests for interviews, saying they preferred to avoid the political fray. One Ivy League economics professor begged off citing "crank e-mails" that followed an interview he gave on the GOP candidates' economic proposals. "I do not need that kind of grief," the economist said.
To some extent, the polarization shouldn't come as a surprise, given the extraordinary events that have rocked the global economy over the past few years.
"It's not dissimilar from what happened in the Great Depression or the 1970s and early '80s," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "There's this general sense that the economy is not working according to the script. And therefore you've got a lot of competing and very strongly held views about why that is."
Some economists argue that a few high-profile members of their profession have contributed to the problem by publicly supporting a specific candidate or party. Any economist who does so is "not to be trusted," according to Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff.
"They're basically trying to make their paymaster happy as opposed to trying to tell the public what economic science has to say," he said. "I think it's done great damage to our profession. And the public can't tell who's really an economist and who's not."
To be sure, economists have rarely agreed on anything: If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, the old joke goes, you still wouldn't reach a consensus. Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, thinks this perennial diversity of economic thought allows presidential candidates to pick and choose the theories that support their own political beliefs.
“(They're) introducing sample selection bias when they do literature review," he said. "The economists themselves are still scientists who have looked at things properly. But maybe the guys on the tail of the distribution are the ones that are the most attractive to the politicians.”
All of which has made it hard for voters to gauge the wisdom and utility of any candidate's proposals for getting the U.S. economy back on track and getting Americans back to work.
Comparing and contrasting the potential impact of the GOP candidates' economic policies also has been made more difficult by the wide range in the level of detail in their proposals.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has published a 160-page, 59-point outline of his plan to revive economic growth. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's website offers just a brief summary of his tax-cutting accomplishments and no specific proposals for boosting economic growth.
There is broad consensus, though, on the core economic policies staked out by the Republican and Democratic parties in the presidential election. Much of the divide centers on the role of government. The GOP candidates generally favor lower taxes and lower government spending. Since the Obama administration championed a $787 billion stimulus package in its first year, though, that bright line has become blurred, according to Zelizer.
"Obama has really shifted toward deficit reduction and backed away from all those of arguments about the need for government spending and stimulus," he said. "There are probably a lot of Democrats who like the sound of what he’s said but are very skeptical that, if given four more years, he'll really be able to do any of that or he'll really try to do that."
The debate over growth policies also has focused more on politics, and not economics, because the positions staked out by the Republican candidates are so similar. Virtually all the active candidates advocate cutting personal and corporate taxes, cutting spending and reducing government regulation.
"The striking thing is you don't have a Nelson Rockefeller debating a Barry Goldwater," said Michael Franc, head of government studies for the Heritage Foundation, another conservative think tank. "There's no real broad ideological spectrum within the Republican Party. They're all very similarly situated comfortably to the right of center."
With little daylight between the GOP candidates' economic proposals, there's been less argument among them about whether they would work. Gone are the days of the 1980 campaign when George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan fought about the merits of supply-side economics.
"Bush called it 'voodoo economics' and really challenged the whole premise that you can cut taxes at large rates and have more revenues come in at the end," said Zelizer. "That was a real division over core policy. You just don’t see that right now."
Leave a Comment:
"...gauge the wisdom and utility of any candidate's proposals..." Wisdom from a candidate. Thanks msn for the giggle first thing this morning. You made my day!
"They're basically trying to make their paymaster happy as opposed to trying to tell the public what economic science has to say," he said. "I think it's done great damage to our profession. And the public can't tell who's really an economist and who's not."
Nobody I know trust these news outlets anymore.. I mean their owned by Wealthy Corps who have self interest conflicts and advertisers pressure these guys immensely..
You want honest news, watch Bloomberg, its not perfect but its as close as it gets...
Its a massive understatement to say you can't trust the business outlets like CNBC.. This morning they reported "Americans to spend 33% more on Christmas" and they site almost no real data to show this.
Honestly is their anybody on this blog that is going to spend 33% more? Its just pandering to the Retail sector....
The lack of Economic Solutions offered by any of the Republican Candidates will mark their Political Suicide. These candidates haven't a clue as to how to correct the U.S. Economy.
Its time for Republicans to face the music and realize their Presidential Candidates want the same failed policies that W. Bush and company used and implemented. They want to take the country back to 2006-2009 when home prices plunged, foreclosures skyrocketed, our 401K's plummeted, 15% unemployment and growing, a $13.9 Trillion Dollar Deficit and growing, etc. This is when our Economy was in the worst shape since the Great Depression.
Please tell me what are the Republican Solutions other than the past failed policies of Trickle Down Economics to correct our economy?
If you don't have a job, its your own fault as jobs are plentiful for qualified candidates. Most of the Republicans are still waiting for Congressional Handouts of Food Stamps, more Unemployment Insurance, more subsidized housing, etc. Don't hold your breadth and face the facts, yours and millions of other jobs have been outsourced overseas, never to return to American Soil again. Retrain yourself for a new career and stop posting your political nonsense on this site.
kevin--- you are right. I don't know who is going to spend 33% more (except the Government) this year. I have been very fortunate this year, no gains but no loses either, but I can't afford to spend more because I have no idea what tomorrow will bring these days. Even my wife has been thrifty this year!
I think the author is correct, but I think it applies to both parties - not just the Republicans.
@josephmichael -
"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has published a 160-page, 59-point outline of his plan to revive economic growth."
"The lack of Economic Solutions offered by any of the Republican Candidates will mark their Political Suicide. These candidates haven't a clue as to how to correct the U.S. Economy."
Did you even read the article? Just bury your head in the sand a little deeper. Don't pay attention to what the debate is about, just keep drinking the kool-aid your liberal overlords keep feeding you. If you don't have anything other than partisan trolling, just keep it to yourself. We all need to come together to find a solution instead of this inane bickering about who's worse, the democrats or republicans. You and your partisan ilk are a cancer in politics. You are why the system is broken.
Conservatives, and no other group, have made this spiral to the bottom inevitable. You can point to the Republican candidates and end the conversation there, but that would be too easy. It's an attitude of anti-intellectual, stupid is OK, and earthy gut instincts are sufficient to run a country.
And don't you dare point to democrats. They support and vote for those with the highest intellectual achievements -- and have for a half-century. Republicans? They were once a proud party. Now? The actors, the college underachievers, the phony populists, the know nothing fools they foist on their ignorant voters is disgusting.
If you're looking for a reason America is in decline? Look no further than the conservative effort to place religious zealots, no-nothing corporate shills, sock puppets and blatant fools into public office. Replace every ignorant Republican with a human being, Republican or Democrat, and the recovery will start tomorrow.
After that? Send Rupert Murdoch's minions (Fox News, Limbaugh, Colter, Palin, Rove, Ailes, Beck, etc) back to their neo-fascist organizations (Heritage Foundation, etc) and give them all workshops on what America stands for. Start with a high school history book. They need the review.
@Bill-Austin
See above comments to Josephmichael. That applies to you too.
Bill,
I respectfully disagree. Voters in both parties elect their radical fringe elements, and the radical fringe types are generally not inclined to listen to opposing viewpoints. If you want an example, just look at the statements by left and right posters on these forums. Most people focus first on the messenger (and their party), and pay scant attention to the actual message. This is a failure on the right and the left.
Also, for all of their ranting about Republicans blocking XYZ changes, keep in mind that for a short period of times the Democrats had the House, Presidency, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (yes, I'm including the 2 independents that caucus with the Democrats). If they truly wanted to do things like ending oil company subsidies or taxing the upper 1% more, they could have done it. The truth is, most of what both parties are doing today is playing politics with the issues to try and get votes for 2012.
I do see differences between the attributes valued by my Republican and Democratic friends, but oftentimes I see value in both attributes. For instance, my Democratic friends generally value academic achievements and intellectual based awards, whereas my Republican friends generally value private sector results. I think either approach in isolation is bad, but using both criteria is very good.
As to whether or not the Democratic ideas are the correct fix for the economy, I think it's a very good issue to debate. However, as with any issue of this complexity, you can never state definitively which approach is going to work and nobody ever gets to implement exactly what they want - so there will always be differences of opinion. It's about like debating which religion is correct (personally, I think they are all wrong, but that's just my opinion).
Hallelujah - Ron: Thank you for not posting more drivel! There are only a handful of posters who write thoughtful comments. The virulence from both sides here is breathtaking.
A message to all: Put down the rancor and partisanship and let's all figure out how to solve the nation's deficit. 15 trillion is a lot of cheese, how do we pay this out? This is what we need to focus on as Americans.
Leave it to the Tea Party to stifle any debate based on any thing that sounds like science....
And leave it it to TP to offer up the clown circus parade ..... lol
Newt,
Attacking a specific group just drives a further wedge in our society and makes open discussion more difficult. Debates need to be about the merits of the ideas - not the messenger. If you have ideas, state them. If you don't like someone else's ideas, state their ideas, why you disagree and what your alternative is. If you do these things, you become part of the solution.
I agree, there is too much heated rhetoric, both on this board and with our politicians from both parties. I used to vote primarily for Republican candidates for all levels of office over forty years, but today's Republican Party is unrecognizable to me, and I strongly disagree with almost everything current Republicans espouse. That is my opinion.
I have my own views (a balanced approach, with spending cuts and enhanced revenue) as to how to guide this (once) great country into the future, and I would hope that my opinion is given its due respect. But someone else might have a view more in line with current Republican dogma, and in his or her mind they are just as right in their opinion as I am with mine. The point is, we are all Americans, and we (along with our elected leaders) should tamp down the heated exchanges between us. We can agree to disagree. We all should keep an open mind, especially during this unusually heated political season.
The Tea Party is a major problem and should be attacked and eradicated. They are a danger because of their ignorance and extremism. They put there own ideologies before the well being of the country and refused to compromise. The combination of different parties, check & balances is what has made this country work and great. It makes the stupid parties compromise and keep them from becoming total dictators (ex Russia before the downfall, etc). Both parties swing back and forward on the stupid meter. However, with the takeover by the TP the Repubs are stuck on stupid.
They don't even pretend any to be interested in what's going (jobs, housing, education, etc) on with 300 million people. The've been hypnotized by the TP and in unision chant "Our goal is to get rid of Obama". When was the last time you heard one of their candidates throw out anything but chants and TP cheers?
Tea Party Chants & Cheers:
Trust me I'm a TPer, Just get rid of Obama and every thing will be fine, yea TP.
9-9-9 yea yea yea, go TP.
I used be for health care but now I'm on the TP team. No health care, let that young man die if he doesn't have any, go TP.
If you don't have a job it's your fault, go TP.
Everything will be alright, cut Taxes, cut taxes, that what we want, the country will be magically cured, right team TP.
If you want to join the TP team you have to disavow science, we don't need no stupid stuff like that. Right team? Go TP.
We luv and are recuiting men who sexually harass women and cheat on their wives. Go TP.
If you want to join our team you must bow down to the great god Norquist. Go team TP.
Serious people, do we want the extremist TP cult to run this country?
I am encouraged to see that along with the drivel and rancor there are a few thoughtful posts on this discussion.
Republicans for the most part follow the party line, or Fox news propaganda, i.e. smaller government, less taxes, except when it comes to getting their share. Democrats are ambivalent about the measures taken so far to stimulate the economy. Congress is locked in partisanship and fear of disapproval.
The idea that government should incentivize business to create jobs is ludicrous and stupid. No businessman big or small is going to hire people they don't need to get a tax break. The economy will improve only when there is demand for goods and services. As long as unemployment is high nobody wants to spend money.
The rich don't spend the money they receive from the government, they sock it away in investments. It does nothing to create jobs. The best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to put money into the hands of the people who will spend it, that is the poor and the middle class.
President Obama's jobs bill is intended to do exactly that. By spending money on infrastructure, projects to improve our schools, and other public works it injects money into the right sector to fuel demand. The Republican effort to block this as wasteful spending is dead wrong.
The tax breaks for the wealthy need to be removed. Government can't move forward with projects to rebuild the country if the wealthy are protected from contributing a larger share. Slashing public funds to the bone is not the answer in times when industry is stalled and jobs are scarce. Grover Norquist notwithstanding, more tax revenue is needed to reduce the debt and fund public works. Put money into the hands of people who will spend it.
Cain was right about one thing. Our government is being hampered by too many stupid people, and he'd like to be one of them. In fact, the entire slate of candidates for nomination to the Republican leadership suffers from the same mental myopia. We need intelligent leaders, not puppets and panderers.
JBobbitt - I think calling for the eradication of a political group is a bit extreme :-). I also think you need to try other news sources because your description of the TP does not match the research I've done. For the most part, the TP crowd seems to be about smaller government. This doesn't mean they want to kill sick people or throw grandma in the street - those are just extremist statements by talking heads of other political persuasions. Personally, I like some of their ideas and I dislike others - but I always try and listen to all ideas with an open mind.
Marv Leit - while I agree most Republicans just follow the party line, I think the same can be said for most Democrats. In our country, somewhere around 60 to 70% (forget the exact %) vote party-line. I agree with you on removing tax breaks for the wealthy, but I have a problem with it if we only target one class of people. Let's remove tax breaks for everyone. For businesses, I think it's trickier. It sounds good to say we won't have any special tax deals, but if I'm debating where to put my next factory and my taxes will be 25% in the US or 5% in China, where do you think that factory will go? My guess is they go to China - along with their jobs.
Dead wrong. This is their conduct and comments, on live TV, at Republican debates. You need to look around a little more Ron if you're really missing this stuff.
Percentages are close, however I question the commentary. 60-70% are more than likely Independents and do not vote any part line.
Your rate in China won't be 5% for long. You will own only 49% of your factory, and once we wise up and institute tariffs which I believe we will, your product will be priced so that Americans will no longer find it attractive. So my advice, go for it. Move your factory to China.
Corporations exist for one reason. To protect stockholders from being personally liable for the actions of the corporation. If the investors in your corporation think that 25% is too high a price to pay for that protection then I strongly encourage you to shut down your corporation and form a partnership. You will be taxed at a lower personal rate, but if you mess up, you get sued. That is why corporations pay higher taxes, they are actually buying protection for those who hold stock. Don't believe it, Google yourself down history lane.
Hahahahahahaha reality must really stick in the Liberal Craw. The POTUS borrowed and wasted over $3 Trillion on stimulating his cronies and not once did he get unemployment below 8%. A number he promised we would never see. Even he realizes it was a total failure. Bye-Bye "O".
Mitty -
If such a document exists, where is it and where are the links?
It doesn't exist and you need to stop pretending that any such Economic Plan does exists. Mitty hasn't published one thing, as his opponents would be eating him for lunch.
Wake Up to your own BS Partisan Politics. They're about as useful as your own BS Comments!!!
@Josephmichael
Seriously? That comment came from the article itself. I can't post links, but it's on Mitt's campaign website. mittromney.com
After you get on and read it, then lets have a discussion as why it is, or is not a good plan. But I know that will never happen because you are too set in your partisan political ways to even consider that someone on the other side might have a good idea.
I am not partisan. What I am is Anti-partisan. People who stick to their party because it's their party and think that someone from the other party could never have a good idea because they are in the other party are killing this country. And yes josephmichael, I hold you squarely in that catergory.
I see that you assume because my tag here is Mitty that you assume I support Mitt Romney. Well my last name is Smith, and Mitty was a nickname of mine growing up. Just shows what you get for ass-uming eh?
Mitty -
Your B.S. Posts caught up with you and Struck A Major "Nerve".
You're about as independent as the Man In The Moon. You are so "PARTISAN" it shines in every one of your posts whether you use your old IDs or New - Mitty - ID!!!!
You want Mitt Romney for president so bad you can taste it, thus your new id - Mitty. Relax boy as it'll never happen in yours, his or my lifetime.
I went to mittromney.com's website and neither saw nor read any link to a 160 page Economic Plan. As usual, you're blowing smoke out of .... a...
Admit it - no such document exists, else you'd posts the link.
Such trash talk from a Flipper Romney and Druggie Limbaugh Supporter. Down in the polls to old Newtie are you?????
This is what the majority of Americans have come to expect from your posts and the Party of NO.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've been using the handle Mitty on Newsvine for about a year. I'll admit that my views lean to conservative, but I've also supported Democrats in elections where their views align more closely with mine than the republican candidate. That would be non-partisan by definition. And yes, if the choice comes down to Romney and Obama, my vote is for Romney. And since when is it my fault that you're too obtuse to find something that takes 3 clicks?
http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf
It's 87 pages on a double column PDF, or 160 pages in the intended printed pamphlet form. Now lets see you come back with something more constructive than partisan insults, you Socialist Sycophant.
Mitty - Thanks for the link. Why did it take you almost a full week to posts? I asked for it in my 1st response and you kept calling me names. You may or may not cease with calling me names, as they are truly a waist of energy. I'll do the same in return.
I read Romney's plan to attack President Obama. Hidden in there I read some pretty good economic ideas. Each of these "Good Ideas" is in play today or is being held up by the Party of No. You see Mitty, the President can't do anything without a Congress willing to compromise, that's Democrat or Republican. If by some remote chance a Republican is elected president, the Democrats will treat him and his policies, appointments, etc, the same way as president Obama is treated today by the Party of No.
Romney's plan was making sense until I encountered the letter from Meg Whitman. Living here and being a native Californian, we struck down her $500 Million Gubernertorial Campaign (the most expensive campaign in California History). She continues to remind Californians of John McCain, just too old, too partisan, etc. Her letter to Romney is like the "Kiss of Death" in today's politically charged environment.
I'm sure President Obama will implement Romney's ideas after he wins his 2nd term by a Landslide Victory over Newt, Perry or Romney, and the Democrats take Filibuster Proof Control over Congress.
Josephmichael-
Thank you for the consideration. I will do the same. I'm sorry for name calling, I just get a little worked up sometimes. Really, my point is the same as you just stated. It's going to take a very non-partisan approach to get out of the muck we are all in. Any plan to get the economy on the right track again is going to take time. Something I think most Americans just don't have. As much as it does go against some of my personal economic principles, I think the governement is going to need to extend some additional help to Americans out of work while the economy starts to recover.
I like a lot of Romney's ideas about economic recovery and I know he has a good track record of succesfully managing governmental affairs. He did a great job with the 2002 Winter Olympics, and was able to bring universal healthcare to Mass. I don't like his politically convenient views on policy though.
I think my first choice though out of the Republican nominees would be Huntsman. He's really a social liberal, and economic conservative. Just the right blend for me. And he's a guy who really practices what he preaches. He did a great job as Utah Gov. Even left the state with a "rainy day fund" that helped out a lot when the poop hit the fan.
The issue I have with most of the Democrats in Washington is that they don't seam to understand that you can't get something for nothing. You have to understand that any program, or new agency you put in place will come with a price. Without that understanding, and steps to mitigate the cost, you're just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
mitty - I get worked up as well and I'm sorry also. I know deep down we are both level headed very good guys (to a degree - lol). I'll tell you, I would vote for John Huntsman as well, but I'll be amazed if he can garner enough votes and money to get him past Super Tuesday.
I know a lot of people who like Huntsman. I hope he can make it beyond Super Tuesday with the nomination or at least enough Delegates and Money to continue. I'm not really stuck on re-electing Obama. He 's not been the president we all hoped for. However, whomever gets the nod, 2012 promises to be an exciting year and we'll all have some good fun. You Have a Great Day!
So it really was voodoo economics!
At that time, it worked and got us out of a huge mess. But that route can be taken only so far and we've probably exceeded its design limitations.
It only worked because Reagan created an enormous deficit. Which is why, as you correctly state, it can only be taken so far.
Reagan and the Democrats JOINTLY created a large deficit. According to Keynes and Krugman, that's not a big deal. Most Democrats and many Republicans believe in Keynesian economic theory. I don't but that's another story.
If you go by Keynesian theory, you spend big to get out of a recession/depression, borrowing as you must. Then, when the economy recovers, you cut back on spending and borrowing in order to pay off the debt. The first part we(ALL of us) have got down pat, the second part keeps getting lost. After every recession since at least, Reagan, we have never really cut back on spending and borrowing.
okie joe,
That's my problem with Keynesian economics in the real world. I like the theory, but in practice it doesn't properly account for the stickiness of government spending. Also, the theory calls for spending money on projects that boost private enterprise in the long term, and I think the reality is, large parts of stimulus money goes to short-term projects with very little long-term returns.
Clotho
Reagan's deficit was caused by a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS. He made a deal with Tip O'Neal. Taxes would be raised and SPENDING CUT. Well the Taxes were raised but the SPENDING CUTS NEVER CAME,thus the Deficit.
The last thing is getting advice from some lobby paid economist. Let me guess...more immigration, more "infrastructure" spending, more green smart jobs, more open boarders and trade, more banking capitalization, less regulation on the fed and bigger banking systems, and tons of spending on education---through student loans no doubt. Every single one of these so called econmic ideas has destroyed america through the unrelenting growth of government which will lead to bankrupcty. Keynsian economics is foolish. It didnt' work in the 1930's and it doensn't work now. Putting people to work is what works. It means, telling the chinese that if you dont give us fair trade on a level playhng field, we cut your f n shipments and chase all your companies away. Wallmart can figure out what it means to be an american citizen. It means no shipping in of illegals for every stink n farmer who needs his watermelons picked or an egg picked, it means a state banking system to reign in the massive un-american federal reserve and the IMF. It means trade agreement where the US wins not korea or the next lobbying group, it means breaking up big banks so they can't buy the sec, it means opening up schools to train doctors to take care of the baby boom --not funding this program through medicare and limiting the number driving costs through the roof....its a lot of stuff but unfortunately we have a bunch low IQ losers running for office who are in it for their own commercial interest and no one to back the american public up.
Yes, this is all quite accurate. We also have a current administration, that has made it OK to hate people, who are financially successful. The BHO admin, has made class warfare and gov't centralised welfare the center piece of their campaign strategy and remedy for the American people. --- Like giving aspirin to someone, who has cancer and saying "Don't worry this will work."
You are a fool who denies reality. Live in your fantasy world all you want, but keep your idiotic opinions to yourself.
The Repukes have destroyed this economy, and are fighting tooth and nail every effort to fix it in order to tarnish the President. Screw them.
I don't think either party is attempting to destroy the economy or the US. I do think both parties are playing fast and loose with the facts and are making statements they know are effectively lies to try and damage their political opponents or make themselves look better. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue - it's an issue with both parties.
I also think both parties have legitimately different views on cause and effect economic relationships - which means vastly different views on how to fix the economy and make it better for everyone. Also, our primary system tends to elect extremists, since the party base is such a large percentage of the total primary voters.
When you combine the political nature of our politicians with their differing world views, it's easy to see why it's so hard for them to reach agreement on just about everything.
This might be the biggest out right lie out there propagated by the Fox crowd. Since when does wanting a level playing field so that everyone has a realistic chance to achieve make it ok to hate? The left is not against success. The left is against success falsely achieved on the backs of others. The left wants those who use money to make money to pay taxes on that money at the same rate everyone else pays on their wages. If this is your primary source of income, then those are your wages and crying otherwise is going to continue to fall on deaf ears. Taxing capital gains as a much lower rate is not right or fair. It simply says "I'm not interested in paying my fair share to live and work in this country, I'm about ME and no one else."
keynsianism did not work? that's weird--strange how no one who makes that claim provides evidence. it is because there is no evidence. it is deception for political purposes. the economy grew faster under fdr than it collapsed under hoover. to wit:
If the two parties have totally different views on what makes the economy work and one party tries their way for thirty years and we end up in a depression, why not try the other side's way for a while (considerably longer than 4 years) to see if it produces better results? We did this once and managed to recover until we forgot how we got there and switched back to the same old policies that produced the first depression. Now here we are again, only we have twice the population we had then and an information system that can instantly provide misinformation to all those who want to believe it.
Please see my post #2.4 above on Keynesianiasm.
Heartlight3,
Which party are you referring to when you say we tried their ideas for 30 years? In order to implement "their ideas", a party would need the Presidency, House and filibuster proof Senate. My political memory goes back a bit over 30 years, and only 1 party has had this type of majority - and that was really only for a few months before Kennedy died.
As to the last (current?) recession, I think the issue is complicated enough that we can all point to a number of potential causes and appropriate fixes. Personally, I split the blame between politicians pushing for home ownership (starting in the early 90's) and financial institutions pushing politicians to relax regulations while increasing their government safety nets. I think politicians and financial institutions worked together and got what they wanted for 10+ years, until the whole thing did the inevitable crash.
Both parties destroyed america. give me one field that isnt filled with crony capitalism with massive government intervention. You can't find it. You have to have a lot of money to greese the wheels. They blather about companies to hire for the private sector! its a pipe dream. There is also a group that want to blame republicans for trillion dollar deficits? Bush left with 300 billion in deficit at most per year. Those days are a dream. the new teleprompter in chief did the exact same thing as bush. More wars that no one likes, more entitlements that are addons to the big hospitals and insurance carriers, more regulation.. bigger government until where only the biggest survive unless they have a massive in. Honestly, I dont personally care if it goes to hell. The american public deserves every once of pain it gets for electing these baffoons. I will survive just fine off the government trough. I know how it works and how to manipulate.
it's a total lie to say or propose cutting taxes creates jobs, considering the Bush tax cuts have been in place since 2002, then why do we still have 8+% unemployment, spiking to almost 10% over the past 3 years? Cutting taxes never has and never will create jobs. The tax cut premise is merely a guise for the richest to keep their money and get richer at everyone else's expense and the GOP is a tool to do that-plain and simple. Fact: corporations have the most cash on hand in the past 50 years....but it's not their duty to make jobs....it's to make money. That's why they are behind exporting jobs overseas and against things like unions in general, education, environment, and public well being and being good citizens. If you disagree with this, then you are either 1) one of the richest or 2) a misguided dupe of the GOP.
As a result of the Bush-Era tax cuts the U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007. But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in our history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Petey....don't know where you got your #s, but unemployment was at 4% in 2000 (after Clinton left office), increasing to 6% from 2001-3, at 5% from 2004-2006, @ 6% for 2007, 8% for 2008 and 9% for 2009. So, where do your 8 MM jobs fit in with this? Again, tax cuts creating jobs is a total lie, because if cuts did create jobs, why does unemployment go up? So, choose, you're either '1' or '2' (you sound more like the latter).
You seem to have forgotten the recession that Clinton left behind for Bush to deal with. GDP growth was negative when Bush Jr. took office. It seems that we had a tech/equity bubble during the Clinton years. It broke in 2000 while Clinton was in the White House triggering the recession. Fortunately we had Bush in office who worked with both the Reps and Dems in Congress to implement policies that kept the recession mild with unemployment peaking about 6.3%. The unemployment rate for both 2006 and 2007 was 4.6%. Of course Pelois and Reid took control of the Congress in January 2007. Their policies helped trigger this last deep recession and the worst recovery from a recession since WWII.
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
Any increase in the economy during the Bush era was fueled by the housing bubble. Bush and a Republican dominated Congress started that in 2002 with the American Dream Downpayment act and continued it with lax regulations and government interference with any local tries to regulate or control it.
When all equity was drained from everyone's house and the bubble burst, the crash happened. All that equity is gone, it ain't coming back fast and Republicans can not repeat that act again. Not that we want to...
Federal tax revenues did increase during that time. Unfortunately, government spending far outweighed any gains. Two wars, one based on nothing but lies, massive tax cuts and government pork by the ton leaves us in our current state.
Maybe the Bush era did add 8 million jobs (mostly in the mortgage and financial areas) but that has been more than compensated for by the 15 million jobs lost when the bill came due at the end of Bush's 2nd term.
One thing we do not need is another Republican "success" like George W. Bush!!
Bush holds the all-time worst record for job creation. His BS tax cuts produced ZERO jobs, only reocrd (700000 a month) JOB LOSSES.
Thanks Bush, you left us a stinking pile of crap to clean up after Clinton left you a SURPLUS.
Petey---again.....'tax cuts do not create jobs' Employment numbers reflect that statement. Your position merely perpetuates the pathetic lie and ridding yourself of that myth would make you less of an embarassment. Peace
The increase in jobs came from the creation of trillions in false wealth via the HOUSING BUBBLE. Not because of the bush tax cuts. People were making BANK off of the inflation of home values via flipping and refi's and anyone with a pulse getting a home loan. The pub's let it all happen for a whole host of reasons and none of them were because they were concerned for the little guy. It was about distraction from two wars. It was about the wealthy bumping up their profits by 200 and 300 percent. It was about creating a nightmare for a democratic administration to inherit.
The Bush Tax Cuts also did more to create this enormous deficit than any other single factor.
Good initial post - TAX CUTS DO NOT CREATE JOBS. DEREGULATION DOES NOT PROMOTE INVESTMENT.
That's why economists are keeping their mouths shut. A handful of them created this lie that sold a lot of airtime for conservative talkers, but it is a lie. Peter up above looks from trough to peak to come up with this 8 million number, but that is hardly good science, and it ignores population growth. Clinton inherited a bad economy, look at his job growth ( see http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/jul/25/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/ ) Meanwhile, the job of economists have gone from a truthful study of facts, to the twisting of facts to fool people.
But most of all - economists flatly ignore the singe greatest change in the US economy since 1980. We had a flat society, 1940 to 1980. The middle class was king. Our GINI coefficient was small. Families were low debt, single-earners, with safe pensions. Our national debt fell from 120% GDP post-WW2 to about 35% in 1980. Since 1980, not only has our debt shot up, the middle class cut off at the knees, everyone's retirement in doubt, two income earners barely making ends meet, college crazy expensive, etc., but the wealth of the top 1% has exploded throught the atmosphere! This is the single most important economic trend of the last 30 years, and if you want an economist to discuss it, you have to look to the camps of OWS for an unemployed one.
Has anyone read Romney's supposed "plan?" If you scan it, it is mainly an anti-Obama diatribe, peppered with the same tired and failed policies of trying to raise revenues by lowering taxes and cutting all regulations. Let the states take care of themselves, and for the people who live in states that don't do that well, well, they can move, can't they? His plan is no plan at all. It is filled with the same tired talking points that have always failed in the past. He uses phrases like "The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation," or "a Romney administration will permit drilling wherever it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns." Well, duh. No specifics of how he is going to do anything. It's the same old Mitt...spewing out the GOP talking points to the red meat cons and bashing Obama with innuendos, half truths and sometimes outright lies. That he can do this consistently in a document that large is astonishing.
ScientistX,
Reducing bureaucracy (i.e.; deregulation) makes it easier and cheaper to do business - which in turn leads to economic growth, jobs, and further investment. If you don't believe it, try starting a business and see how difficult the process is. I know, because I started a company with some friends a few years ago. In the end we had to pay several thousand to attorneys just to figure out all of the legal issues (and it would have been more, but we had friends that gave us free tax and accounting help).
Peter (#5.3), name some of these "Their policies helped trigger this last deep recession and the worst recovery from a recession since WWII". It's BS because the Democrats did almost nothing after they got bare majorities in the houses of congress.
The housing bubble was building and ready to burst before the Democrats got those majorities. The housing bubble was where any of that increased revenue was based.
For health reasons, I have had to severely dial back watching the news. It has become so anguishing, frustrating, to watch day in and day out 24-7 the complete ineptitude and stupidity of these self-serving buffoons in Washington. They care nothing about the welfare of the country and it's citizens....it's all about playing it safe and not pissing off their constituents. Our government is broken, skewed, impotent, and mis-directed.
Maddening. Meanwhile the national debt ticker keeps running up at the speed of light, nothing gets accomplished. Talk about feeling helpless. If and when there is a concerted effort to organize a massive rally in Washington...not Dem or Rep sponsored...just concerned citizens who have had it up to their eyeballs with these lying crooks in D.C.....I'm in even if I have to hitch hike there (aka; 1971 May Day Demonstrations)...only this time it is for the very survival of this nation.
I'm afraid to say what I think , because I might get "crank emails". Maybe I should become a politician.
LOL!!! Why not, you can't do any worse than the current bunch in D.C., probably do a BETTER job;)
MSNBC is one of the most polarizing news, with it's clear agenda, Soros orientation, gotcha moments, it creates a fury where none is present. I find MSNBC and NPR both repugnant due to their very obvious news slant, but Fox is the same way to the right. CNN is somewhere in the middle. Why aren't you guys simply reporting, rather than slanting news?
If you find it so repugnant, why read/watch it? I'm sure you know how to use your remote.
Thor, NPR pretty much just gives the facts. Just bare facts tend to favor the progressive stance in general. NPR is not slanted.
With the unending campaigning, the bloviating of pundits,.... it's like being water boarded or hypnotized into a trance. It just goes on and on until you want to puke. Nothing gets done, everyone has an opinion like an a##hole, polls/debates/blame games/promises never meant to be kept. It is mind-numbing. Maybe it's all being done on purpose to dullen the senses of the masses into complacency...or just wear everyone down to a point of No Mas.
Agreed.
You don't have to be smart to be a politician. You don't have to be smart to be an economist. They shouldn't be surprised that they get crank e-mails.
I'm afraid that's too much to ask for these days. Our country is certainly not "healthy" ... that's obvious by the extremism that drives politics. As to "intelligent"?
Once again this right wing author is off base. The problem lies in the fact that the GOP/Tea Party does not see compromise as an option. Their only focus is to defeat President Obama in 2012. The conservatives without consciences refuse to listen to their constituents and only listen to the far right wing of individuals with self-interest. The President has proposed solutions that were introduced and passed by Republican and Democratic Presidents in the past. The disparity between the wealthy and middle class is just too great and needs to be addressed. Also, the GOP/Tea Party wants to take us back in time and minimize the rights and monies of the 99ers. Even ex-Republicans are saying that this is the case. Also, mainstream media authors help to further this divide by writing lies and distortions. The Democrats want to create jobs and deal with the deficit as evidenced by the bills they have introduced in Congress while the GOP/Tea Party wants to dismantle organizations that have help people and have passed bills in the House that increase unemployment and DO NOT create jobs. Their real issue is not the deficit or decreasing the size of the Federal Government but it is about implementing libertarian ideology so their corporate benefactors increase their revenue and decrease the earning power of the workers by destroying unions. It is about creating totalitarian governments in the states like the one that Scott Walker is trying to create in Wisconsin. This country was founded on the principals of democracy for all, not a select few. It is only when the GOP/Tea Party Congressional members work with the Democrats in Congress that our economy will really improve. That is the right thing and mature thing to do.
You have a great web site...15 minutes since I "posted" a comment. Still does not show up. Perhaps it has to do with political correctness??
probably some kind of problem with your computer settings. mine post up here just fine, politically correct or not.
Romney only made money for himself and his partners while he worked in the private sector. Made money dismantling companies. I suppose he wants to finish selling off what's left of America when he becomes POTUS.
The truth of economic solutions is hidden beneath our inability to answer whether we are a people joined as a nation for the betterment of all or a land mass full of individuals competing for resources.
When we acted as a nation we were able to accomplish whatever tasks needed attention. Now, as a land mass, we cannot even repair our bridges.
We are not broke, we are dysfunctional.
And this is the primary difference between liberals and conservatives.
Ok here's what the hells wrong with this country. We have no one but obama to blame. The entrenched opinions that it was solely bush or solely Obama to blame for our ills is why you got the congress deadlocked.
Obama promised a new way in his 8 campaign. And we got it. From catcalls in Joint session addresses. To Obama calling out the supremes in the same setting. To our never ending horse race campaign coverage. To caring about who somebody groped compared to what they can do for the nation. Hell Clinton should have ended that sexual faldoloral but nooooooooooo. We have to have racehorse scandal 24 7 never ending worthless debates that focus on flavors of the week rather than honest discussion. Then handwringing commentaries like this one. Which will just elect the next idiot who will continue the impass.
It's time for Americans to get off their own ass. Take the reigns in their personal life and say screw the gov. I'm getting my own. I'll tell you truly. If we'd use our imagination and innovation and stopped waiting for the chattering classes of media and gov to get it for us we'd be better off.
Men who grope women should not even run for office. Good luck with your go-it-alone idea.
Good point, James R: going it alone is only for those with drive and initiative. :)
Yea Jim...A one man army, building roads and fighting fires and keeping the ports functioning and the rivers contained and the crooks corraled......
I see your point...one man can do it all!
We have tried trickle-down voodoo Reagonomics for thirthy years and it has been a complete and utter disaster. During this thirty years the deficit has increased from $800 billion to $15 trillion. Twenty five percent of American families have fallen out of the middle class. We cut the top tax rates for the wealthy almost in half since the 1970's and trickle down economics has not worked. In fact it has helped make those at the very top much more wealthy and done virtually nothing to increase the income and wealth of the middle class.The top one percent now own about 43% of all the private financial wealth in the the U.S. Before voodoo they owned about 25%. The income of the top one percent increased 275% between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom 20% had an 18% increase in income. According to the CIA Factbook more than ninety(90) nations in the world have a more equitable distribution of income than the U.S. We have beat the old Republican drum of trickle-down voodoo economics long enough, it doesn't work and it never has worked, except for the very wealthy.
Here is the actual data from the IRS on the average tax rates and other data being paid by people in different income groups on all their adjusted gross income, including capital gains and qualified dividends. It seems that it is the middle class and below who have seen the biggest tax cuts.
AGI GROUP: ..........Bottom 50%...25%-50%...10%-25%...5%-10%...Top 5%...Top 1%
1988 Avg Tax Rate.......5.06%.......9.60%.........11.82%.....14.07%....21.14%.....24.04%
2008 Avg Tax Rate.......2.59%.......6.75%..........9.29%......12.44%....20.70%.....23.27%
Peter - I wish we had a better forum to discuss things, you seem intelligent. But you are looking at trees instead of the forests. The big picture is that from 1945 to 1980, when we had things like 70% to 90% top tax brackets, we had great prosperity, our national debt fell from 120% GDP to 35% GDP, CEOs earned 30 to 40 times their employees, households were single income with 15 year mortgages, 30% of private jobs were unionized, people had pensions to look forward to, public colleges were nearly free, social mobility was excellent, and all this while doing things like paying for the cold war and landing a man on the moon.
The big picture is that the right turn we took in 1981 set us on a course to harming the vast majority of citizens, while greatly, almost unimaginatively, rewarding the handful at the top. We borrowed so much that our nation debt swelled from 35% back to 100%, but the benefit of that borrowing went only to the top 1%. The middle class saw wealth stagnate, nearly all families have to be two-wage earners to make ends meet, pensions are forgotten and retirement is feared, social mobility is worse than in any other western nation, unions are all but wiped out, and we as a nation can't build a railroad from SF to LA. Everything for the last 30 years has been about weakening labor, taking from the middle class, and enriching the few at the top. Yes, our CEOs earn 300 times their worker's salary, the Koch brother's wealth goes up $10 million each day of the year, the top 400 are worth $1.3 trillion, but what good does that do the nation?
Peter, and how about the change in the percent of income share over that time?
ScientistX
What you say about the Tax Rates is true about the top Tax Rates. But I beg to differ that they were the cause of our Economic Prosperity at from 1945 to 1980.
First point. We,the US,had the ONLY intact Industrial Base in the World after WWII.
Second point. There were a lot more LOOP HOLES in the Tax Code in those years then now. So NOBODY PAID 90% TAXES nor even 70% TAXES. Think about it. Would you work so the Gov't could take 90% of your wages???
Third Point. The World finally caught up with us starting in the 60's. By the time the 80's came around the Rebuilt Industrial Base of the World had passed us by because they rebuilt using MODERN Technology while we were hampered,to some extent,by Unions fighting those NEW Technologies because they cost Union Jobs. I use the Steel Industry and the 1959 Steel Strike to illustrate that.
Now What happened in 1981 in your opinion caused the harming of the vast majority of citizens? The Democrat controlled Congress,Both Houses,from 1955 to 1979 and 1987-1993. They controlled the House from 1949 to 1993.
As to CEO pay. Why aren't you made at Oprah,or Tyler Perry or George Lucas? They made HUNDREDS of MILLIONS last year. How about Football players or Baseball Players? They make Millions playing a GAME! Where is your outrage at that??
Now with Unions. Could it be that Unions have declined because the membership got tired of paying dues with no real benefit? If the Unions worked for their membership wouldn't they be stronger just because people would WANT to join instead of FORCED to join???
Ok I'm done. Sorry for such a long post.
Why aren't we mad at Oprah et al? Well, how about because they aren't increasing their pay by sending the jobs of hard working Americans overseas to increase their bonuses? How about they don't make the decisions about companies that put their customers out of work? (long term bad strategy you know, killing the jobs of the main people you want to buy your products)
BTW, it's beyond stupid what sports stars make, while the fans are having a hard time paying for tickets to a game.
Peter, let me help you out a little.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf
Share of Pretax income
Lowest Quintile 1979 - 5.8% 2006 - 3.9%
Second Quintile 1979 - 11.1% 2006 - 8.4%
Third Quintile 1979 - 15.8% 2006 - 13.2%
Forth Quintile 1979 - 22.0% 2006 - 19.5%
Top Quintile 1979 - 45.5% 2006 - 55.7%
Top 1% 1979 - 9.3% 2006 - 18.8%
So you think the top 1% worked so much harder than all of the rest of us working stiffs that they earned that much more of the available income? I don't think so, but they did use their income to change the rules and move things in the money flow so that more of it came to them. This will be the end of America if it is not stopped.
I wish they had more recent information on their site, I'd bet lunch that it looks even worse now.
As far as I can tell economics is nothing more than business history. It certainly is not a science. If it was there would be no speculation about cause and effect. The two parties argue and then find whatever "expert" they need to back up what they believe in already. Financial deregulation in mortgage industry and wall street caused this mess along with democrats believing that the poor should be able to own their own home.
Well, you are correct.. democrats do believe that even relatively poor people should have a shot at owning a home.. But I do believe I could post links to at least a dozen speeches by former president Bush, that basically supported the same theme...
K1200RS
Go ahead and post links to "at least a dozen speeches".
Here ya go, Slodon.
When the landslide of 2012 takes place and Washington is cleansed of the filthy Democrats, then we can start to see some progress.
Watch the jobs numbers shoot up right after Obama makes his long-awaited cocession speech.
Looks like you have not been following the news. The Republicans talked jobs, jobs, jobs but have not put forth any bills or supported any bills since their big win.
No Barry,
I attended the Tea party rallys, and the main themes were smaller government and cut the spending. If jobs resulted from a more responsible fiscal policy, great.
I for one totally support Newt or any other GOP hack looking for the job.....they're Obama's guarantee to get re-elected!!!!! Mwwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Barry
There are about 20 JOBS BILLS sitting on Harry Reid's desk. Obama has seen fit to enact 4 of so of them with his Dilling in the Artic and the Gulf just announced last week or so. He also seems to support the 1 or 2 that deal with EPA Regulations by stopping some of the Newest EPA Regs effecting Power Plants.
Looks like Harry was left out to dry. Now if this Bills are so BAD why wont Harry put them in Committee or to a Vote so they can be shot down?? Could it be that Reid is afraid they will pass? After all they passed the House with Democrat support.
So now who is the PARTY OF NO???
maybe for the Republican goon squad but not the 99%.
I will gladly buy a shirt made in America as long as the quality and price match that of a shirt made in India. Otherwise, forget it.
I'll pay a little higher price for something made in America because I know that it's supporting our economy rather than that of another country.
thats funny most things are made in china unless you really get into the labels. The only thing that beats the chinese gulog worker is pure automation because your dealing with practically slave labor.
the choice between dem or repub is like a choice between moose turd pie with a scoop of ice cream or moose turd pie with out ice cream . nowhere is nafta or globalism mentioned yet every man on the street knows his job was outsourced to some 3rd world country because of "free trade" being forced upon us by those really controlling things and now it is considered "a given" as if all these "economists" just can't seem to figure out what's wrong. haaaahahaha !!!
It's unfortunate that the economists remain silent. The result is that false science is prevailing. The far right of America was brought up to follow beliefs rather than facts, so they see nothing wrong with ideologies that are false - they won't question them. When those policies prevail, as they did during the Bush administration and continue to some extent now, we all lose.
If political parties have come to divide the nation and silence the voices of reason and knowledge, then we must, as a people, cast off the rules that give us those parties and instead seek a new and better form of government. It is time for us to throw away the two party system. It is an anachronism in this age of instant communications. Don't let the ideals taught in high school civics class deter you from asking for a better form of government.
I find it fascinating people blame the far right when 2 of 3 houses of the govenment are held by democrats and the only thing slowing down the complete destruction of the us through spending practices is gridlock and the republicans. If the voice of obama is continue to bail out banks through a reckless and corrupt federal reserve, 685 billion annual defense expendtiures, mandated health insurance which will put so many small business out of business your head will spin and an energy policy with no rational thought, than your mental thought process is warped. Have you looked around at all the houses for sale? Don't you think someone should actually figure out that banks fraudently took this from homeowners through the artificial sale of dirivities. I mean really, is there even one congressmen committee to do whats right for these americans.
Politicians are too interested in their own accumulation of wealth, self aggrandizement and power/influence to be interested in the overall welfare of the citizenry; ergo, they continue enacting bills and statutes that benefit themselves and their contributors while ignoring the needs of the middle class.
Perhaps not all; there are those who are simply inept opportunists.
"Economists" as they call them, are the ones who advocate more spending to solve problems --- and now that they've seen 15 trillion get pumped into Banks in a heartbeat, and it hasn't solved the banking/mortgage issue, a Keynesian Economist should hide and pack the tail between legs.
It's the Austrian Economists that are out there, and lower in number, advocating less government waste and spending, equating to less taxes, and less "bailing out" the BAD companies, propping up the BAD management and BAD investments. Propping up the BAD is exactly what continues the failure --- and the propping up occurred under Republicans AND democrats heavily since Clinton (the real housing bubble seeds were sewn).
It is ludicrous to blame one party or the other, instead of not blaming both.
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” -Mayer Rothschild