Has Dubya hammered the final nails in the supply-side coffin ?

[kentuck]

Reagan was the first to preach the effects of Dr Feelgood's taxcuts as the cure to everything that ills you. He spent the last six years of his presidency trying to make up for the lost revenues and to somehow relieve the huge deficits that he created. He failed and George Herbert Walker Bush paid for it when he raised taxes to try to alleviate some of the drag from the monstrous deficits.

Now, along comes W and he tries the same trick but twice as much and he runs deficits two times as much as Reagan. They scratch their heads as the "taxcut" economy only creates 38,000 jobs this month. They predicted 200,000. Will they finally realize that taxcuts for the wealthy are simply the worst possible way to try and stimulate an economy and when it leads to huge deficits, it is simply another nail in the coffin of supply siders and modern conservatism?

[cprise]

1. No

Because Democrats have not made a case for anything else to replace it.

[dbt]

2. Hell, kentuck, they don't CARE about the economy this time!

The Raygun boys at least had the apperance of concern about the economy; the bu$hitas don't give Shit One about what happens to people outside the Poppy Circle. The BFEE is trying to get its tentacles ahold of as much wealth as possible and then it's screw EVERYBODY else.

:freak:
dbt

[Fovea]

3. Killing Nosferatu

You would think that Bill Clinton's stake in the heart would have been enough, so no. I think we may have the opportunity to open the window on daylight, but then we have to destroy the box of native soil it sleeps on, to whit, the working class addiction to Horatio Alger porn and shadenfreude.

[dumpster_baby]

10. umm... how was CLinton NOT supply side?

There was precious little difference between the way clinton operated and the way Bush 1 & 2 and reagan operated, at least when it came to economics.

[leftistagitator]

13. Bullshit.

Clinton favored heavily taxing the rich and lowering taxes on the middle and lower class. Don't you remember how Clinton passed the "largest tax increase of all time" that was sure to ruin the economy? He also favored an increased minimum wage. It may mean nothing to you, but it sure as hell means a lot to those people who have seen their tax burden skyrocket under Bush* or who work on the poverty line. I suppose you're talking about other things he did like welfare reform, which was wrong, but welfare was about providing a needed service, it was never intended to be a mechanism for demand side economics, so it's not part of a fiscal policy. Free trade is also not part of a fiscal policy. The only economically different thing Clinton could have done was a massive spending projects or a hands-off laizze fair approach that let the economy self regulate. Which did you want Clinton to do?

[BillZBubb]

16. What a load of BULLSHIT!

You don't have a friggin clue about economics or recent history if you think Clinton's policies were anything like Reagan's.

Instead of proving you wrong right off, I'll first let you tell us how Clinton was supply side? I'd love to hear this!

[Fovea]

20. Uhh

You are so incredibly wrong...

Two words -- Budget Surplus.
Don't worry, you will not see them again in your lifetime.

[joefree1]

4. I'm not a Economist but ...

Even I can see that if you give corporations a tax cut they just give the surplus dough to their CEOs and shareholders.

Didn't America learn anything from the depression. To get the economy going Government needs to spend on public works and motivating small business.

Corporations don't give a shit about you and me.


Download the free bumper art here:
http://ediablo.com/eDiabloGallery.html

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

5. Yes, I think so...

or at least I hope so.

[Lithos]

6. Nope

People still fall for the Ponzi scheme, the Pukes will just add more window dressing to this lie.

Can't remember who said it, but I got a chuckle out of the statement the only idea that the right wingers have had in the last twenty or so years is that of Rational ignorance which forms the basis of supply side economics, education, deregulation, globalization and creationism.

[cosmicaug]

7. There is no hammer.

kentuck wrote:

Reagan was the first to preach the effects of Dr Feelgood's taxcuts as the cure to everything that ills you. He spent the last six years of his presidency trying to make up for the lost revenues and to somehow relieve the huge deficits that he created. He failed and George Herbert Walker Bush paid for it when he raised taxes to try to alleviate some of the drag from the monstrous deficits.

Now, along comes W and he tries the same trick but twice as much and he runs deficits two times as much as Reagan. They scratch their heads as the "taxcut" economy only creates 38,000 jobs this month. They predicted 200,000. Will they finally realize that taxcuts for the wealthy are simply the worst possible way to try and stimulate an economy and when it leads to huge deficits, it is simply another nail in the coffin of supply siders and modern conservatism?

Read stuff by Krugman mentioning supply siders (such as the old New York Times Magazine article archived at http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html). They can be divided into two camps: the true supply side believers and the Starve-the-Beasters.

The true believers, are dogmatists and nothing can convince them that their position is wrong. Nothing. It is an axiom to them.

The Starve-the-Beasters pursue supply side policies for reasons other than the precepts of supply side economics (tax less and you will always get more revenue). They want to use a broken budget as a tool of persuasion to implement a smaller government which they believe will always be a good thing (that's their dogma). The implication of this is that it does not matter if supply side does not work (indeed,in their view, it will be a good thing is this is the case) and thus no facts are likely to drive a nail in supply side economics with them either.

It is hard to know whether any given supply sider is in one camp or the other (or, if they're sufficiently deluded, in both) since most folk are unlikely to admit that, yes, they do want to bankrupt government (so that, in their view, good things will happen). Naturally, most of them pretend to be true believers.

So the answer is no, Dubya has not hammered the final nails in the supply-side coffin. Nothing ever will.
On Edit: Fixed syntax issue.

[PsN2Wind]

8. Not yet

Still too many in Kansas and other places that will vote against their own economic interests before "votin' for no damn librul". Many are still believing that any time now the trickle down effect Raygun promised, those many years ago, will dump manna on them instead of that nasty brown substance that has trickled down thus far.

[dumpster_baby]

9. let us hope so. I have been thinking the same thing

BUt it is an information dissemination war--whichever side is able to manipulate the mass media to best reach and convince the largest portion of the public wins. And for the last 20 years to right wing (really, the Top Wing) has been able to easily best the left wing (actually the Bottom wing) when it comes to the information war.

I also think that events of the past 4 years has pulled the mass media blinders from a lot of people. But not enough yet....

[quaker bill]

11. Stimulating the supply side was only ever good for one thing

Specifically, a high inflation economy. When there are too many dollars chasing to few goods prices rise. At such times, like the end of the 70's, a supply side stimulus can bring inflation under control.

Of course, it was not supply sidee stimulus alone that did it. Paul Volker also used fiscal policy by raising interest rates massively to reduce the money supply. This caused the recession of 1981 and 1982, which did bring inflation under control.

The part of supply side economics that never worked was the much storied "Laffer Curve" which portended to show that federal revenue would increase substantially as taxes were cut. The problem was that the model that produced the "Laffer Curve" made a faulty assumption. It assumed that a significant portion of the tax cut dollars would go to build new factories and "create new jobs". However, in the low demand economy that Volker created, there was nearly no incentive to invest in new productive capacity, so most of the money went into Mansions, Yachts, and stock market ponzi schemes.

The problem was further compounded in that the combination of tax cuts coupled with a recession both increased government outlays for unemployment insurance and reduced revenues. The curves never came close to meeting.

Clinton figured out that a demand side stimulus was needed to resolve the problem. So he chose to raise the minimum wage. This caused a quick spike in demand, increased tax revenues, and because of increased demand largely resolved the uemployment problem which in turn reduced government expenditures for unemployment insurance. The curves finally met and we went into surplus.

The supply siders have had a good idea. It is a good cure for a very specific set of economic symptoms. The problem is that we almost never have this problem, but they keep using the cure. The way they use it is like taking antibiotics to cure a broken leg.

[Veggie Meathead]

12. Supply side economics is what the older Bush, in a rare moment

of lucidity called "Voodoo Economics".The idea that tax cuts will produce a surge in investment from the capital generated by the tax cuts and unleash huge increases in employment that will replenish the Treasury many times over seems like a fairy tale which indeed it is.From Reagan to Bush the Elder to Bush the dumber it has been a miserable failure even though the Right wing shills keep repeating the mantra that it is an unqualified success.

I think the economists ( Arthur Laffer,Jude Wanniski and the entire
gang at WSJ) have ignored two major factors that keep interfering with the Supply Side Fantasy.The first is the fact that the vast increase in computing power makes it unnecessary to have large workforces to produce goods.The second is the availability of large workforces in India and China which can reduce labor costs of multinational corporations to a fraction of what they are in the US.
The fact that Bush's huge tax cuts have produced only 32,000 new jobs in the past month tell the story of this huge miscalculation.

Hidden from our view in all this economic mumbo jumbo is the fact that Bush the Dumber's tax cuts for the wealthy has caused a huge demand collapse in our economy.Our auto sales and retail sales are tanking and without the demand from these important sectors even the world economy is in for some painful surprises.

[Lefty48197]

14. Only the kool aid drinkers believe in Reaganomics/Voodoo economics now

so that narrows it down to the Republicans.

[Veggie Meathead]

15. I liken Supply Side Economics to a perpetual motion machine,

a chimera.

[BillZBubb]

17. Sadly no.

It's part of the core Repug belief system. So, like creationists, they'll go on believing in spite of massive evidence showing that it has always failed.

Then, whenever the economy isn't booming, the Repugs will yell that taxes are too high and the economic illiterates will buy in. Just cut taxes, they'll yell, and all will be better. And we'll grow our way out of the deficits! Free lunches for all!!!!! Of course they won't say that they are really only cutting taxes for high wage earners--and the corporate media won't bother to point that out either.

It's hokum, but it's here to stay.

[NuttyFluffers]

18. cultists are beyond redemption...

whereas sane people will, by now, have seen the light.

when the cultists are finally out of professorships, think tanks, brain trusts, media, and complete stranglehold of government - then yes, the final nail in the coffin would be placed, for this generation. granted in 2-3 generations the monster would ressurect and ghoul more servants...

[LoZoccolo]

19. No.

Now tons of people that don't know much of anything about economics believe that simple, silly little story "the people that create the jobs need money to start businesses". They fail to see that the people that create the jobs could just use the money to assimilate more existing businesses into their own (usually eliminating redundant jobs, I'd imagine) or do whatever else they want with the money. Now, even if all the smart people no longer believed in it, these naive people indoctrinated into it will go vote for someone who isn't that smart...oh hey, wait a second...

[kentuck]

21. And isn't that welfare ?

When we have to give special "tax breaks" to businesses, sometimes subsidies, so they can compete in the "free market" place? Why does the "free market" have to have a special crutch?

[indepat]

22. Dubya IMHO has hammered many nails in this Republic's coffin: Time

will likely soon tell if those were the final nails in the coffin of this once land of liberty.