Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'

[ebaycj]

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."


Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

Article Here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1

Original Op-Ed Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

I have to agree. When you line everything up like that, it certainly looks like a carefully planned and executed strategy to stratify the elite and screw everyone else. And this is coming from a Reagan-era insider.

Please, at least RTFA before you comment.

.

 

[StageLeft]

I'm certainly open to the possibility. If you look at trends a lot of them got worse when he was in office; they started really tanking. For example gap between rich & poor and national deficit & debt. I'll read this in the morning, though

 

[EndGame]

Rahter difficult to make out what this guy wants. I'll agree, some of what he says makes a lot of sense but, he also gives failing marks to Democrats every chance he gets.........

 

[Greenman]

Book coming out soon?

 

[NoStateofMind]

If you for one second think it is ONE party responsible YOU are BLIND.

 

[Jhhnn]

Stockman's mostly right, although he does kinda skip the Clinton Admin, when deficits fell steadily YoY....

And seems a bit timid to apply the proper terms, like Lootocracy...

 

[Lemon law]

OH God, what a blast from the past, David Stockman, the very fellow who during the Reagan administration was screaming at the dimocratic congress to spend spend spend. And like waving a red flag in front of a bull, they did.

And now some 2 decades later, Stockman reinvented himself as a guiltless guru???????????

Maybe better late than never, but like the equally guilty Robert McNamara, will anyone ever learn from their past stupidity?

The one given is that no one ever learns from the past mistakes of history. All generations are seeming doomed to endlessly repeating past mistakes, its the only iron law of history.

 

[Jhhnn]

What Stockman points out, quite correctly, is that spending per se isn't the issue. Balance is the issue, raising enough in taxes to actually pay for what the people decide they want from the govt.

Republicans cast aside their principles in the Reagan era, and never looked back, except when the Dems were determining where the money gets spent. As per Tom DeLay, anytime is good time for a tax cut, and as per Dick Cheney, deficits don't matter. All that matters is creating a tax and trade structure that allows America's wealthiest to run off with the whole pie...

 

[ProfJohn]

Can someone help me out here...

I read the NYTimes op-ed and I don't see him say "GOP destroyed" anything.
At least not in so many words.

Am I just missing those words or is marketwatch.com exaggerating just a little?

 

[Jhhnn]

Can someone help me out here...

I read the NYTimes op-ed and I don't see him say "GOP destroyed" anything.
At least not in so many words.

Am I just missing those words or is marketwatch.com exaggerating just a little?

Being deliberately obtuse must get tiresome, even for you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Did you find that quote?

Could you quote that section and post it for me please, thanks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you find that quote?

Could you quote that section and post it for me please, thanks.

I once had a golden retriever whose dumb act was almost as good as your own. He was the smartest dog I've ever encountered, except when it came to learning something he didn't want to know...

 

[bradley]

I know President Reagan was old, but he was only two in 1913.

 

[shira]

Did you find that quote?

Could you quote that section and post it for me please, thanks.

So your point is that if Stockman didn't use the explicit words, "The GOP destroyed the U.S. economy," then that can't possibly be Stockman's position, even if the actual words he uses amount to the same thing?

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy.[

Oh, gee, he didn't say "destroyed our economy."

The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy.

Rats. He didn't say "destroyed."

This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

So, I guess Stockman really doesn't think the Republicans actually "detroyed" the U.S. economy. They merely crippled it, hollowed it out, and have left it a decaying fruit. You must be sooooo pleased.

 

[Craig234]

The article seems pretty right on.

This is a guy who has put a lot of effort into researching the Reagan-era policies.

He doesn't seem partisan, despite his appointment by Reagan, but rather to be concerned with the country.

Funny, though, however much Republicans say they want that, when a Republican 'leaves the reservation' to do just that, they tend to demonize and blackball them, like cultists.

 

[ProfJohn]

So your point is that if Stockman didn't use the explicit words, "The GOP destroyed the U.S. economy," then that can't possibly be Stockman's position, even if the actual words he uses amount to the same thing?

If he didn't say the words then marketwatch.com should not be quoting him as saying those words.

Can I just make up words and pretend that Obama said then?

Amazing how many people are willing to give a free pass on something like that. Making up headlines is now ok, what is next?

 

[Craig234]

If he didn't say the words then marketwatch.com should not be quoting him as saying those words.

Can I just make up words and pretend that Obama said then?

Amazing how many people are willing to give a free pass on something like that. Making up headlines is now ok, what is next?

1. Those word were the sub-title to the article, printed in the print NY Times but omitted from the Online version of the editorial. They are apparently Stockman's words.

2. You are not someone with any right to challenge others on misrepresenting what people say.

I was concerned about the Stockman quote here, and looked it up. You on the other hand have felt free to lie about what people say, such as your recent lie about Bill Clinton.

 

[Double Trouble]

There are certainly elements of truth in the article linked in the OP, but it's hard to read when it's full of logical fallacies, blanket statements made without evidence to back them up, and ideological attacks from an obviously jaded ex-republican. I'm sure he's pushing some book or trying to get into the Obama cabinet or something.

One of the main things he conveniently ignores time and time again is that the budget and spending is controlled by congress, not by the president. He's right that republicans went off the rails when they started the notion of tax cuts without spending cuts to offset the revenue decline, but he fails to mention that (for example) even during the Reagan years, the democrats held congress, and thus controlled both taxation and budgeting, not the GOP.

He says spending is not the problem, but that tax cuts are the devil, when in fact anyone even halfway rational would realize that neither is necessarily a problem, so long as they are balanced. If you want to cut taxes, you must cut spending to match. If you want to increase spending, then you must increase taxation (revenue) to pay for it. That's the reality. And spending/taxation are in the hands of... you guessed it.. congress.

In fact, congress has been largely in democratic hands for the past 40 years (the time frame the author is talking about). A quick breakdown: democrats controlled BOTH houses of congress for more than 22 years of those 40 years, the republicans controlled both houses for 10 of those 40 years (the remaining 8 years being split).

Bottom line: a combination of reckless spending and government policies (including tax cuts) have put us in the situation where we are now. Laying the blame on one party is stupid and naive (or simple partisan hackery), especially when the facts don't support that party having control of the budget, legislation or spending the vast majority of the time.

 

[ayabe]

It's less about who voted for what and what letter was next to their name when they did. This is the supply side ideology in action.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why would anyone listen to a traitor?

 

[StageLeft]

Why would anyone listen to a traitor?

Even if he is do not criminals have some insight to share of their actions?

 

[Jhhnn]

That's fundamentally incorrect, DT. The Executive proposes the budget subject to congressional modification and also has veto power. Reagan never vetoed a budget proposal, and actual expenditures during that period were within a couple of percentage points of what was proposed other than in 1982 with Stockman's famously rosy projections.

I'll agree that congressional dems have engaged in a race to see who could favor business with more tax cut goodies, but repubs actually won that contest. Repubs have consistently based their actions on the premise that tax cuts will stimulate business to the point that actual revenue increases will occur to more than offset lower rates, which is hogwash. Yeh, sure, investors cash in when rates are cut, but there's only just so much water in that cistern- it's totally temporary in effect.

You also rather pointedly ignore the effect of executive leadership and the power of the bully pulpit in the hands of somebody as popular as Reagan. And your first paragraph gives you away, being basically an ad hom attack against Stockman's character rather than an engagement of the issues he presents...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Why would anyone listen to a traitor?

LOL

""Purge the Infidels!"" for speaking out.




--

 

[Jhhnn]

That's fundamentally incorrect, DT. The Executive proposes the budget subject to congressional modification and also has veto power. Reagan never vetoed a budget proposal, and actual expenditures during that period were within a couple of percentage points of what was proposed other than in 1982 with Stockman's famously rosy projections.

I'll agree that congressional dems have engaged in a race to see who could favor business with more tax cut goodies, but repubs actually won that contest. Repubs have consistently based their actions on the premise that tax cuts will stimulate business to the point that actual revenue increases will occur to more than offset lower rates, which is hogwash. Yeh, sure, investors cash in when rates are cut, but there's only just so much water in that cistern- it's totally temporary in effect.

You also rather pointedly ignore the effect of executive leadership and the power of the bully pulpit in the hands of somebody as popular as Reagan. And your first paragraph gives you away, being basically an ad hom attack against Stockman's character rather than an engagement of the issues he presents...

 

[nick1985]

Blaming the GOP for the economy will lose you seats this fall, and the presidency in 2012. More people now blame Obama for the economy than blame Bush.

But keep up with your "Its the Republican's fault!!" mantra, its only losing you seats. People are tired of that excuse, especially the millions out of work.