[jeffkrol]

Video - Stockman: Tax-Cut Deal Is Bad Policy - WSJ.com

Apparently the interviewer wasn't too happy, particularily at a "trade tax".



Boehner banter on tax cuts called 'silly' by Reagan budget chief Stockman - Columbus Government | Examiner.com

Stockman labels Boehner support for tax cuts "silly"

Speaking to Fareed Zakaria on his Sunday CNN show "GPS," Stockman, who after 25 years of being out of the political limelight has returned to it to make his case that America and Americans cannot continue to live beyond their means, says Republicans like Boehner, Democrats like President Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who appear very willing to extend the Bush-era tax cuts are only adding to what he says has been a "30-year binge of debt creation in the public and private sectors," that is creating a "new normal of poor growth" and will lead to an economic Armageddon, once buyers of U.S. stocks, bonds and treasury notes wake up to the reality that America is no longer the sound investment it once was.

Colbert Puts on David Stockman to Trash Reaganomics, Bush Tax Cuts | NewsBusters.org

COLBERT: Why can't we cut? I mean, our Republican, my Republican friends say give the rich their tax cuts and revenue will go up.

STOCKMAN: Well, that is not true. If we give the rich their tax cuts, essentially it's taking uncle sam's credit card, handing it to the top two percent [of] taxpayers in the country and saying, go out and have a good time, buy some more stuff at Tiffany's and maybe have a Caribbean cruise on our card, while you're at it. That doesn't stimulate –

There's the liberal mentality right there. Extending the Bush tax cuts is like sending rich people on a cruise on "our card," as if all money is the government's money or the People's money. More Reagan-bashing followed:

COLBERT: And that stimulates the economy. Those people create jobs. Those are the people who create jobs in America. Correct?

STOCKMAN: No, but the problem is if you believe that, we should borrow $10 trillion, get it over with and drop money out of a helicopter.

COLBERT: But trickle-down economics is what I'm talking about. The Reagan economics was trickle down economics. It's like you're slapping yourself in the face.

STOCKMAN I'm trying to sober up actually. [Applause, laughter]

COLBERTStephen: Okay...please [continue].

STOCKMAN: No, I think what I'm really saying is the country has to sober up. We've had a party like none in history for the last 30 years, households have buried themselves in debt. The government has buried itself in debt. Now we're coming to the day of reckoning, and we're going to have to change our ways. And it's not going to be a lot of fun.

COLBERT: So what are you going to cut? You also have to cut spending. Let's hear it. What are you going to cut?

STOCKMAN: We ought to cut the defense budget. It's 800 billion dollars. [Applause]

COLBERT: Cut the defense budget?

STOCKMAN: Absolutely.

COLBERT: Cut the defense budget?

STOCKMAN: Yes.

COLBERT: Listen to them clap in fear. Why not just hand the keys to al-Qaeda and put Lady Liberty in a burqa and ban bacon. If you show weakness, that's what you do. America's enemies will close in on us.

[GeneV]

This is actually what he has been saying for years, and it is why he left the Reagan Administration. The Reagan defense buildup is a bone in his throat.

He has a point, though. Reaganomics really was the art of using the national credit card, and it is about time that those on both ideological poles see it for what it is.

[skyredoubt]

He has a point, though. Reaganomics really was the art of using the national credit card, and it is about time that those on both ideological poles see it for what it is.

Except the national credit card is a contradiction in terms. When one takes out a credit card it means that one has a credit line with a counterparty. For the US government the counterparty is... itself! All US debt, for example, is a promise to pay US dollars for interest and principal of US bonds. Not gold, not oil or any other real resource, but those useless pieces of paper or bits of 0 and 1 in a computer at the Fed which the US government is the sole issuer of. The US government simply cannot run out of credit!
The real credit is not denominated in dollars but in real resources: it is human skills and health and general well-being as well as the means to extract energy etc. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.
In that respect Stockman is right: spending money on wars or tax cuts that are not stimulative for the economy is not going to translate into economic growth and real resources. And then one may get too much money in the private sector chasing too little goods which would cause inflation. I am just not sure he himself understands it this way or is still stuck in the mindset that the US government can somehow run out of money.

[Parallax]

There's the liberal mentality right there. Extending the Bush tax cuts is like sending rich people on a cruise on "our card," as if all money is the government's money or the People's money. More Reagan-bashing followed:

That sums it up perfectly!
If I earn a dollar, and pay 30 cents of it in taxes a conservative will say that I gave 30 cents of my dollar to the government.
A liberal will say that I was allowed to keep 70 cents of the government's dollar.

[skyredoubt]

That sums it up perfectly!
If I earn a dollar, and pay 30 cents of it in taxes a conservative will say that I gave 30 cents of my dollar to the government.
A liberal will say that I was allowed to keep 70 cents of the government's dollar.

And none of the views is correct. The taxes are a means to regulate the monetary base to either encourage or discourage private sector spending/saving.
Now, even though you earned a $1, some unspecified part of it was due to the government supplying you with protection, roads, research etc. You could also be using non-renewable resources which will have become scarce and thus would go up in price in the future. Or cause ecological problems which will require massive government intervention. It would be next to impossible to put a number on all those factors that enabled you to earn that dollar.
So, instead of worrying that somebody "took your money", think about taxes as handle thru which the govt can regulate the economy.

(By the way, no liberal will ever say you were " allowed to keep 70 cents of the government's dollar". A red herring on your part, my friend)

[Parallax]

..................

(By the way, no liberal will ever say you were " allowed to keep 70 cents of the government's dollar". A red herring on your part, my friend)

LINK

[skyredoubt]

LINK

-----

[jeffkrol]

And none of the views is correct. The taxes are a means to regulate the monetary base to either encourage or discourage private sector spending/saving.
Now, even though you earned a $1, some unspecified part of it was due to the government supplying you with protection, roads, research etc. You could also be using non-renewable resources which will have become scarce and thus would go up in price in the future. Or cause ecological problems which will require massive government intervention. It would be next to impossible to put a number on all those factors that enabled you to earn that dollar.
So, instead of worrying that somebody "took your money", think about taxes as handle thru which the govt can regulate the economy.

(By the way, no liberal will ever say you were " allowed to keep 70 cents of the government's dollar". A red herring on your part, my friend)

It's HARD to convince people............

[GeneV]

Except the national credit card is a contradiction in terms. When one takes out a credit card it means that one has a credit line with a counterparty. For the US government the counterparty is... itself! All US debt, for example, is a promise to pay US dollars for interest and principal of US bonds. Not gold, not oil or any other real resource, but those useless pieces of paper or bits of 0 and 1 in a computer at the Fed which the US government is the sole issuer of. The US government simply cannot run out of credit!
The real credit is not denominated in dollars but in real resources: it is human skills and health and general well-being as well as the means to extract energy etc. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.
In that respect Stockman is right: spending money on wars or tax cuts that are not stimulative for the economy is not going to translate into economic growth and real resources. And then one may get too much money in the private sector chasing too little goods which would cause inflation. I am just not sure he himself understands it this way or is still stuck in the mindset that the US government can somehow run out of money.

I get what you are saying, but that is somewhat beside the point I was making. To the extent Reaganomics was effective, it was not because there was less government or less government activity in the economy. It was because government put more money into circulation than it took out in taxes. You can call that whatever you want.

[skyredoubt]

I get what you are saying

I know, I just like repeating that

[jeffkrol]

I really like this one.