The Drive-a-Toyota Act

Page 13 of 15  
"F.H." wrote:


If you knew how the government worked, you would know that The Congress passes budgets. The Democratically controlled Congress (particularly the House) outspent Reagan's proposed spending budgets 7 out of 8 years. As the Reagan tax cuts kicked in, tax REVENUES rose, and roughly doubled. A country nearly on life support in 1981 with sky high interest rates, staggering inflation, high unemployment, and general malaise / stagflation of the Carter era becamse a thundering economy by the middle-late 1980s. Similarly, the tax REVENUES have been rising sharply since 2002.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

Uh huh.
Ever been to the racetrack? Been around knowledgeable, serious players? Everyone reads the same information (Racing Form, past performances) and come to all kinds of different conclusions on how a race will be run and what the past predicts for the future. The debates are pretty intense but when the race is over those who were wrong shrug it off and go right back at it. Just like economists. Figures don't speak but pundits do and being right is *all* important (even for wannabe economists on Usenet). And when wrong? Well..., that never happens, does it? Its all a matter of personal perspective.
Seems the starting point for proving anything is up for grabs. Everyone has favorites. I see you like to ridicule Carter but don't mention the oil problems (Arab oil embargo). Those to the left like to credit FDR with creating the middle class and Reagan policies with eroding it. It *does* seem to be eroding.
And when the economy is booming the criteria for giving credit depends on who's giving it. Like Reagan being responsible for the good Clinton economy. Sure.
Since we're currently in the process of killing for oil (and eroding the Constitution in the process) while friends of Bush and the military industrial complex get rich (Bush finally admitted it was all about oil) it might be interesting to note what Carter had to say about oil back in 77.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"F.H." wrote:

The oil embargo began before Carter. I don't ridicule him for that, I merely point out that his policies (actually lack of of thereof) caused a lot of people pain and fortunately the USA has not seen anything like that 1970s extremely high unemployment and inflation anytime since.

If you consider greatly extending a depression for over a decade while people suffered in Keysnian policies to be "creating the middle class," than so be it. FDR did do one important thing, he gave Americans pride and hope however.

Since middle class incomes nearly doubled during the Reagan years and unemployment was much less than the Carter years, imagine if those policies *hadn't* been "eroding." Reagan inherited an economy that was by far the worst since the Depression, with unemployment 7.4% and rising. Prime rates were around 21% (!). Poverty rates were high and still rising. The next years would see a remarkable turn around, unemployment plummeted and pooverty rates dropped. High taxes prevent people from doing better and the lower taxes that followed helped middle, upper, and lower classes. 82% of the job creation during the Reagan economy years were in high skill, high paying occupations.

Don't be so quick to dismiss what happened. Reagan ran on a theme of cutting marginal tax rates, and he did succeed getting the Democratic Congress to (begrudgingly) pass those reductions in the early years. (Unfortunately, the same Congress's spending would not be reigned in). Reducing tax rates means more money is available in the economy for investing in technology, investing in workers, investing in materials, etc. That provides a powerful economic multiplier effect over time. If taxes in the 1980s or 1990s were still at 1970s levels, the expansions could never have happened. (The 1980s expansion was the greatest in history, followed by the 1990s). Yes there were still cyclical downturns, yet these have been relatively very minor compared to those in prior history.

That is a very loaded statement. If we were "killing for oil," oil prices would have decreased. Also, there dooesn't appear to be too much oil in Afghanistan either, nor has the US been stealing oil out of Iraq, despite overturning the dictator regime there.

I recall Carter's approach to the failing economy was to wear a cardigan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

Thanks for your interpretations. Place your bets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"F.H." wrote:

My bet is on economic expansion through less government and lower tax rates, no matter what party may be in charge.. It's not a US phenomenon either, Japan's economy was plummeted into a tailspin when they rose tax rates a number of years back, and Russia discoovered that their economy boomed (and they collected more taxes) after they reduced their income tax rates arouond 5-7 years ago, despite the international "experts" that told them to do the opposite.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

My bet is the rich (who got all the tax breaks) will *continue* to sit on the money and within a couple of decades there will be no more middle class. Plenty of war, though, for friends of Bush. Had a look at Wall Street this week?
Do you believe history repeats? Here's some interesting stuff I stumbled across while cleaning my garage from a book entitled "My Four Years in Germany" (1917) written by a former Ambassador to Germany, James W. Gerard.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/watson.htm
"The war against Denmark in 1864, against Austria, Bavaria, etc., in 1866 and against France in 1870 enormously increased both the pride and prestige of the Prussian army."
"The nobles of Prussia are always for war. The businessmen and manufacturers and ship owners desire an increasing field for their activities. The German colonies were uninhabitable by Europeans. All his life the glittering Emperor and his generals had planned and thought of war; and the Crown Prince, surrounded by his remarkable collection of relics and reminders of Napoleon, dreamed only of taking the lead in a successful war of conquest. Early in the winter of 1913-14, the Crown Prince showed his collection of Napoleana to a beautiful American woman of my acquaintance, and said that he hoped war would occur while his father was alive, but, if not, he would start a war the moment he came to the throne."
And from page 79 this jewel of familiarity:
"The fact the Socialists, at the close of the session of the Reichstag, boldly remained in the Chamber and refused to rise or to cheer the name of the Emperor indicated a new spirit of resistance to autocracy; and autocracy saw that if it was to keep its hold upon Germany it must lead the nation into a short and successful war."
"This is no new trick of a ruling and aristocratic class. From the days when the patricians of Rome forced the people into war whenever the people showed a disposition to demand their rights, autocracies have always turned to war as the best antidote against the spirit of democracy." [end quotes]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"F.H." wrote:

Tax reductions went to *everyone* paying taxes, and also to people who now do not have to pay any taxes thanks to higher exclusion rates for the bottom income levels, including the "earned income credit." By the way, tax receipts have also increased. Your comment, "sit on the money," does not make any sense either, and indicates you think that wealth somehow just moves around magically, instead of being created in an economy.

You didn't make any connections, just rambling unconnected sentences.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

Heh, Usenet. You *could* be like a character out of a Woody Allen movie who pretends to be the owner of a car that was just bumped *or* you could be an apprentice at some right wing think tank. Maybe a legitimate think tank fellow (if there is such a thing) with too much time on his hands. Same for me. We don't know. That's why I used the race track analogy and it applies here again. We each have our favorite touts and sources that inform and support our particular leanings so why get too personal? We can be more efficient (you should appreciate that) by simply posting links instead of long winded exchanges. ;)
I have a few friends who are quite wealthy (one who recently ran for public office as a republican) and they don't share your analysis that the tax breaks were good for *everyone*. Nor have they invested any of their windfall. Myself, I find *these* analysis's of the tax breaks and Reaganomics to ring true.
http://tinyurl.com/2dcn5f http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html
However, the race continues. There is no winners circle in the game of history and economics. The lead changes, people congratulate themselves and high five each other but soon the lead changes again.
For example a year ago you no doubt would have been lavishing praise on the genius of subprime loans and the refinancing craze. Investment banks bundling mortgages of subprime borrowers and selling them off to investors such as hedge funds, mutual funds and other institutional investors. Brilliant. Bookies call that "laying off dangerous bets."
This week the European Central Bank loaned 130 *billion* at 4 percent and the Federal Reserve added 24 billion in temporary reserves to the U.S. Banking system. Heh, proof of genius's at work and a system so brilliant that for the first time we have something that human greed can't screw it up. And as the housing market collapses there is the usual chorus of conservatives blaming the consumers. Just like with credit card debt.

For "Wall Street" see above. As for friends of Bush profiting from war, I thought it was common knowledge. Haliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, Carlyle Group, etc..
One thing I've noticed is that dedicated true blue conservative economists don't seem to ever make a connection between policy and its effect on the general population or even democracy itself. Some sort of narcissism subtly expressed? The backslapping and the transfer of wealth continues but what lies in store for the recorders of history?
Of course, when I say "true blue conservative economists" I exclude the Bush's and other Aristocrats and representatives of the ruling class. Their tactics to undermine democracy and enrich themselves do seem timeless as per the historical example in my prior post. ;)
Here's a piece that resonates with me that you no doubt will find much fault with: (meanwhile, on to the next race)
http://tinyurl.com/2ykgbk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:

Not sure why a smart person would think sub-prime loans were a good idea as you imply. What you just did is called a strawman argument. Nice try.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"F.H." wrote:

I'm not a right winger, I am an economist. There is a huge difference.

Wow, alleged anecodoal evidence! So did these "friends" take the money *not* confiscated by the government and stuff it under their beds, if it wasn't being invested?

Would you really like to return to Jimmy Carter's America and it's malaise?

Your source conveniently hides the fact that tax REVENUE nearly doubled after the Reagan tax cuts by forgetting to point out Congress was spending ludicrously in the 1980s, and outspent Reagan's budget 7 of 8 fiscal years.
If you get a raise of double your income and increase your spending over three times by spending wastefully, it's not your raise's fault that you're going broke.

So you are claiming that the entire subprime mortgage market is not a legitimate one? Would you call for its extinction?
What about refinancing? Should homeowners not be permitted to seek a more favorable rate to pay in your utopia?
There will always be market abnormalities and corrections. Look how tiny and insignificant they are today compared to decades ago.

Really? You equate investing with bookies? Interesting, but a strawman fallacy, at best.

So are you saying that the central banking systems should not take action? Sounds like they are doing their job.

Yeah, if you go ring up huge amounts of credit card debt buying 'stuff' that you can't pay for, someone *made* you do it, and it's society's fault!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

Isn't everyone nowdays? Economists and Foreign Relations experts from tax sheltered think tanks.

Calm down, its *anecdotal*. They're just sitting on it mostly via savings. Does that expand the economy and create jobs. Oh well, live and learn. *You're* the economist.

You seem to have missed my point about no winners circle. ;)

And set the stage for poor Bush senior to panic and blow it while at the same time setting the stage for all those retards in the Clinton administration to build up a surplus. I swear, the more I look into this economics business the more I find myself thinking about the parallels to religion. So many preachers, so many interpretations. So little consensus and so much ridicule.

Econ 101?

Is *that* your interpretation? Hmmm, are you saying today that its all hunky dory? (I guess my presumption of what you would say last year is correct). BTW, is putting words into peoples mouths part of the job of an economist?

Now you're going a little beyond silly. ;)

I think I alluded to that already. Part of my main point.

Actually, its a *perfect* analogy. Bookies "lay off" high risks bets. Either to other bookies or have a carrier go to the track itself. They learned the value of this strategy the hard way.

You *do* seem to have trouble understanding what I'm saying. If you have a spouse I'll bet he/she just *loves* arguing with you.

To borrow some style from you.... So...., you think predatory lending and lending institutions literally writing the laws that govern them is just part of the wonderful miracle of the free market system?
Note:
I did a quick check of how many helpful (on topic) posts you and Bill have offered to my favorite newsgroup and found it is none. So..., Bill is toast (so annoying anyway) and I'll give you a parting shot if you wish. (matter of respect for others with problems that actually pertain to the name of the newsgroup)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:

Hey idiot - I don't normaly post on ...gm or ...toyota. You're cross-posting, so this is showing up on groups I don't normally post to. If I had to choose on whether you are dishonest, or stupid, I choose mostly dishonest, but also a good bit of stupid. Case in point: Citing one week variation in stock market to make broad conclusions.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"F.H." wrote:

If only! We'd all be in better shape. Unfortunately too few people understand even basic personal finances let alone simple macro. I see this even in college students. The best I can do is make sure that *my* students are challenged and are much further ahead than their average peers.

Absolutely it does!!! When you save money by putting it in a bank, you enable that bank to make loans to others, including homes, businesses, construction, etc. Some of that money saved or earned through those investments is placed in a bank again. This is what is known as the multiplier effect, and it is a very powerful function of our economy. This is also part of the reason why there is not some fixed amount of wealth that must be moved around. Wealth can be and is created, including expansions of the money supply.

That is why you can use the luxury of hindsight to examine economies over many decades and see what has happened and its effects. If "poor Bush senior paniced and blew it" is that on-par with some of the great economic failures? Of course he didn't panic and blow anything. We know that Clinton for the most part took a laissez faire attitude with monetary policy and that led to good results. (I really am party agnostic). His fiscal policies were pretty damned lousy in the first two years, but his own fiscal policies (as well as his Treasurer) became much more conservative after the new Congress was sworn in in 1995, and that led to great results too, for a while.

Usually macro comes after 101.

I didn't put any words into mouths, I merely asked a question. Your response was only another question.

Not as much as complaining about a "refinancing craze." I'm sure glad I was able to re-finance my properties, it has saved me handsomely.

I'll leave to your expertise of how bookies work..... Packaging loans (to the standards of quasi-government institutions) has enabled millions of homeowoners to own their properties for decades.

No, I understand what you're saying and it is a series of non-sequiturs. Complaining about the central banks doing their job doesn't merit a sarcastic comment aboout "geniuses" or "human greed."

A strawman question, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. The people elect law-makers.

I'm not surprised. How many of yours did you find helpful? It is fascinating to read complaining about off-topic in an off topic post :)

Bill knows more about LH cars than almost anyone here and is always eager to help out, offer suggestions, and answer questions. You might learn something, if you were interested.

Gosh, thanks!

Such as all of your other posts?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

There you go again, Greg - using facts.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

Thanks for the brevity. Nothing like coatails to accentuate depth. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Now that is totally unfair, Greg! Using facts. LOL!
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This cliche was banned, for overuse, from all of the alt newsgroups on Jan 13, 2002. You are hereby killfiled, for 28 days, for lack of imagination.
cordially, as always,
rm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's see if I understand this;
Anything bad that happened during the Clinton presidency is Clintons fault.
But anything bad that happened during the BUSH fiasco is Clinton's or Congress' fault.
Who writes your material?? .... Rush Limbaugh ?
<rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you just joined the Loonie Liberal Leftist hall of shame. The day I beleve your Loonie Liberal Leftist BullShit is the day monkeys fly out of my butt.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
n5hsr wrote:

Well goddamn....
Who knew monkeys were that color? Now, at least, we know where they're coming from. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.