Reaganomics is dead

"Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class. I don’t think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top." -- Hillary Clinton, Presidential Debate, Sept. 26, 2016

This simple statement of fact was lost in all the drama of the debates. What she's saying is that supply-side economics doesn't work and that America needs to get back to a standard Keynesian demand-driven economy. This is the only sure way to get the middle-class back into reach of the American dream. Trickle-down stalls all the money at the top, it never trickles down.

We do not need a President Trump, who will continue the log-jam of money at the top, for himself and his 1%-er pals. We certainly do not need less regulation. This is what caused the crisis in 2008.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class. I don’t think top-down works in America. I think building ...[text shortened]... 1%-er pals. We certainly do not need less regulation. This is what caused the crisis in 2008.

You are completely wrong. This country should strive to make things conducive for all including businesses and the wealthy. That means not overtaxing people and businesses and creating favorable conditions so that those who have a fiduciary duty to provide for their shareholders do not need to leave this country to conduct business. While regulations are a necessary evil, they should be designed to not stifle commerce or business and the marketplace should be allowed flourish which will create jobs and revenue. We need to encourage financial transactions not chill them out via regulation.
The government has shown over and over and over again that cannot or does not desire to be efficient. It continually goes over budget on virtually ever project. It tries to do too much and crowds out the free market. It should cut its role and perhaps strive to be more efficient and less intrusive. If Trump were smart, he'd hammer home how government continually expands and continues to run in the red and that another career politician will merely expand the tentacles of government.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class. I don’t think top-down works in America. I think building ...[text shortened]... 1%-er pals. We certainly do not need less regulation. This is what caused the crisis in 2008.

A lot of really smart people no how to rig a system, it isn't that slashing taxes didn't work
as much as spending more than you take in is harmful.

Reaganomics died in 1982, but there are awfully many necrophiliacs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Reaganomics died in 1982, but there are awfully many necrophiliacs.

And among them are the ones who repealed Glass-Steagall as well as Lewis F. Powell Jr., who wrote the Powell memo in 1971, which created massive ripples throughout government and led to and perpetuated and magnified Reaganomics, more recently through the decision in the Citizens United case. The reason for it all is to minimize the middle-class and to keep the money at the top.

We're still paying for Reagan's attempted take-down of the government.

Originally posted by quackquack
You are completely wrong. This country should strive to make things conducive for all including businesses and the wealthy. That means not overtaxing people and businesses and creating favorable conditions so that those who have a fiduciary duty to provide for their shareholders do not need to leave this country to conduct business. While regulations ...[text shortened]... un in the red and that another career politician will merely expand the tentacles of government.

No. Supply-side does not work. Keeping the money at the top stalls that money. The economy works best when there is a free flow of money, as in classic Keynesian economics, which made America successful through much of the 20th century, at least until Reagan acted to keep the money supply at the top. This economy best works when the money is held in and for the middle class, and the economy is driven by demand, versus supply. Tell me how taxes on the richest 1% hurt them, when these corporations (and the rich) made tons of money, as well as helping to build America since the Great Depression, and through the Second World War, even when the top income tax rate was 90%. Now they can only whine if they don't make billions. It's just obscene.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. Supply-side does not work. Keeping the money at the top stalls that money. The economy works best when there is a free flow of money, as in classic Keynesian economics, which made America successful through much of the 20th century, at least until Reagan acted to keep the money supply at the top. This economy best works when the money is held in and ...[text shortened]... x rate was 90%. Now they can only whine if they don't make billions. It's just obscene.

The richest companies and individuals pay billions in taxes. What is obscene is that our government needs even more money -- partially because it has no desire to operate efficiently and that people like you complain that they should pay even more.
When the income tax was 90% there were countless more deduction and countless less regulation. Perhaps it is time to increase deductions and decrease regulations.

Originally posted by quackquack
The richest companies and individuals pay billions in taxes. What is obscene is that our government needs even more money -- partially because it has no desire to operate efficiently and that people like you complain that they should pay even more.
When the income tax was 90% there were countless more deduction and countless less regulation. Perhaps it is time to increase deductions and decrease regulations.

You're living in Reagan's fantasyland. The richest companies and individuals pay nothing in taxes. In fact, many of them get paid by the government through loopholes and rebates, in addition to local government 'incentives' to move to that state. Most pay nothing, and that is part of why Trump will not release his tax returns.

And by the way, reduced regulation only results in catastrophes for the middle class like what happened in Flint, MI.

Three times in George W. Bush's administration, Libertarianism experiments were carried out. All three failed miserably. We've known this since 2009. First in Iraq, then in the Marianas, and then one last time in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, free-market experiments were carried out with the hope of finally creating a Libertarian utopia. The planning for this experiment in Iraq goes back as far as 1998:

"In 1998, Project for the New American Century - a distinctly neocon organization, issued a letter to President Clinton. This letter was signed by such notable neocons as; Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. It embodied a feverish call for a military attack against Iraq: "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor... Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater."

Read the full essay here: http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/articles/general/388-there-was-a-plan-to-rebuild-iraq-but-it-didnt-work

So 9/11 was just a convenient excuse. This essay was written in 2009, but after reading it, it becomes clear that this was the beginning of the creation of a vacuum that would later be filled by ISIL. So ISIL was not created by Obama and Hillary, but rather by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neo-con buddies after the failure of their grand experiment to create a Libertarian utopia in Iraq.

Reaganomics is dead?

What about Obamanomics?

How do you like trillion dollar deficits every year? Was Dick Cheney right, Reagan proved that deficits no longer matter? It seems to me that Reaganomics is alive and well in that regard.