The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

Oh, are you still around, Sceptic-PK? Then tell us, did the stimulus work?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Oh, are you still around, Sceptic-PK? Then tell us, did the stimulus work?

Well if it did, it didn't work particularly well! That isn't an indictment of Keynes however, as much as you would like it to be. Given the amount of wealth lost in the GFC, the paltry stimulus was never going to be a panacea.

But, I'd like to ask you a question on that pretty little graph you pasted, that gets pasted a lot, even by dishonest conservatives here in Australia.

Do you accept that a recession as severe as the one recently experienced would have a negative impact on tax receipts, which would have a correspondingly negative impact on the budget's bottom line, even were it not for stimulus spending?

Also, as an aside, does that graph represent the budgets inclusive of war spending? Because neither war was included in budgets during Bush's presidency.

 

[BeAChooser]

the paltry stimulus was never going to be a panacea.

But Obama and the democrats assured us it would be.

Do you accept that a recession as severe as the one recently experienced would have a negative impact on tax receipts

Well that all depends on how long the recession lasts, don't you think? And that's the issue. The US has been in recessions before that were just as deep as this one was when it began. For example, consider the one from 1981-82 when unemployment briefly rose to 10.8%, higher than it's gotten in this one so far. But then of course, they didn't react the way the democrats foolishly did (and still are). For the most part, they let the market handle it. They did cut taxes. And as a result the US economy recovered quite rapidly with growth rates for quarter after quarter after quarter above 5%, and unemployment falling back to previous levels relatively quickly. It's the size and nature of this stimulus, and the other policies that the democrats pushed through in *a time of crisis*, which has led to great uncertainty on the part of businesses and consumers. And this caused them to pull back and wait to see what happens next. Because who knows what foolishness democrats will engage in next. Like trying to push even more stimulus and welfare.

Also, as an aside, does that graph represent the budgets inclusive of war spending? Because neither war was included in budgets during Bush's presidency.

Well if they weren't under Bush, then add an extra 20% to the length of the bars during the Bush years. That doesn't change what the chart proves at all.

 

[Cavemonster]

For example, consider the one from 1981-82 when unemployment briefly rose to 10.8%, higher than it's gotten in this one so far. But then of course, they didn't react the way the democrats foolishly did (and still are). For the most part, they let the market handle it. They did cut taxes. And as a result the US economy recovered quite rapidly with growth rates for quarter after quarter after quarter above 5%, and unemployment falling back to previous levels relatively quickly.

Umm, the corporate tax increase in 1982 was the largest tax increase since world war II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982.

Unemployment didn't fall back to 7.2% until election day 1984. That's not very quickly, and it's not even previous levels, which were markedly lower.

Everything you ever say is wrong.

 

[BeAChooser]

Umm, the corporate tax increase in 1982 was the largest tax increase since world war II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982

I have several comments.

First, corporate tax increases have a different character and effect than increasing personal income taxes (which is what democrats are now trying to do). For one, corporations can (and will) simply pass on the increases to their customers. And those increases tend to distribute the effect across all in income groups. Personal taxes are not so easy to pass on.

Second, Reagan signed this into law after Congress agreed to lower spending by $3 for each $1 increase in taxes. The CBO concluded (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/50xx/doc5099/doc16.pdf ) that the spending reductions would be largest in the lower income category … that the reductions in benefits going to this category would account for almost HALF the total benefit cuts. That means that while the upper income group were paying higher taxes, the lower income groups were paying just as much in reduced benefits and higher prices for corporate goods. Obama is offering nothing of the sort. In fact, right now he's trying to negotiate a deal where unemployment benefits (now essentially welfare) will be extended 6 months in return for not increasing taxes on top income groups. And offering nothing in the way of spending reductions in benefits to the lower groups.

In short you are comparing apples and oranges, and the effect they have on the body politic is different.

Unemployment didn't fall back to 7.2% until election day 1984. That's not very quickly

Relative to this recession it was indeed a fast decline.

Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in December 1982. Twelve months later it was down to 8.3%. Sixteen months later it was back down to 7.2%.

During this recession, the *official* unemployment rate peaked at about 10.1% in October 2009. So we are now about 14 months past the peak and unemployment is still at 9.8% (and climbing again). Most official projections show the unemployment rate remaining well above its normal level until 2015 or 2016. Some would characterize this as a depression ... one induced by trying to apply Keynesian economics ... the same thing that happened in the 1940s.

and it's not even previous levels, which were markedly lower.

And so were previous levels prior to the start of this recession.

Here:

http://www.thefundamentalanalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/us-unemployment-rate-may09.gif

As you can see, unemployment was at 4.5% back in May of 2007, six months before the official start of the recession in December 2007. Six months before the start of the 1981 recession, unemployment was around 7.2%. So I think it's fair to say that in the 1981-82 recession, by this time unemployment had returned to about the level it was leading into the recession. Whereas, we aren't anywhere close to that right now. Thanks Obama. Thanks democrats. And even some thanks to Bush Jr.

So it looks like you were the one who was wrong, Cavemonster.

 

[Cavemonster]

I have several comments.

First, corporate tax increases have a different character and effect than increasing personal income taxes (which is what democrats are now trying to do).

That may be true, but the largest corporate income tax increase in 40 years is hardly what I would call "letting the market work".

Overall, your points here do nothing to back up your original assertions that I corrected. You simply throw points in the general direction of something and loudly proclaim a hit.

Rubbish as usual.

Spending increased dramatically during the recession of the early 80s.

The 1979 deficit was 40.7 billion.
That increased dramatically under Reagan, up to 207.8 billion by the time recession was over, and you're saying that there was no deficit spending? how utterly dishonest.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

 

[Sceptic-PK]

But Obama and the democrats assured us it would be.

And they were wrong. So what?

Well that all depends on how long the recession lasts, don't you think?

Irrelevant. I was referring specifically to the graph you posted. Do you acknowledge that a severe contraction like the one recently experienced would have a negative impact on the budget’s bottom line, irrespective of the stimulus package?

Well if they weren't under Bush, then add an extra 20% to the length of the bars during the Bush years. That doesn't change what the chart proves at all.

Your chart doesn’t prove anything other than the US’ tax receipts took a massive hit due to the financial crisis. My graph is far more honest and accurate.

 

[BeAChooser]

That may be true, but the largest corporate income tax increase in 40 years is hardly what I would call "letting the market work".

Still, the overall goal of the that bill was to reduce government spending considerably ... $3 for ever dollar in new taxes ... so people would have more money to spend as they saw fit ... i.e., letting the market work. Personal tax rates dropped considerably at the same time. The overall goal was to get the government off people's backs. Which should be the goal now. If it took a deal instituting the largest corporate tax increase in history to get democrats to reduce Social spending $3 for ever $1 in new taxes, I'd be all for it. Will you join me in this?

Spending increased dramatically during the recession of the early 80s.

The 1979 deficit was 40.7 billion.
That increased dramatically under Reagan, up to 207.8 billion by the time recession was over, and you're saying that there was no deficit spending?

The deal Reagan made with Congress was that Congress would reduce SOCIAL spending $3 for every $1 in new taxes. And apparently they did ... which helped get the economy going again. Just as predicted. The deficit went up overall because of a little thing called *Winning The Cold War*. Reagan's defense spending ballooned the deficit. But this was good for the economy and unemployment too. And in not too many years, it paid off when the USSR collapsed as a result. Ever hear of the peace dividend? That was the reward. That's one of the factors that made Clinton's economy look good (although he had nothing to do with it). Another reward from that expenditure was a generation of American children getting to grow up without having to worry about Soviet ICBMs and Soviet troublemaking.

Seriously, Cavemonster, don't you know any history? Is all you know out of context?

 

[BeAChooser]

And they were wrong. So what?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well that all depends on how long the recession lasts, don't you think?

Irrelevant.

Your chart doesn’t prove anything other than the US’ tax receipts took a massive hit due to the financial crisis. My graph is far more honest and accurate.

Neither chart shows anything to do with how tax receipts varied between the Bush and financial crisis years. Now if you want to offer a chart that does explore that, be my guest. The fact remains that the Bush tax cuts were in place before the crisis began so that can't account for the sudden increase in the deficit when Obama took over. The war would only have raised the Bush bars in *my* chart another 20% (assuming that they don't already include the war costs). And the dark blue component in your chart (labeled "economic downturn") could very well be the result of Obama's policies.

 

[Hindmost]

Still, the overall goal of the that bill was to reduce government spending considerably ... $3 for ever dollar in new taxes ... so people would have more money to spend as they saw fit ... i.e., letting the market work. Personal tax rates dropped considerably at the same time. The overall goal was to get the government off people's backs. Which should be the goal now. If it took a deal instituting the largest corporate tax increase in history to get democrats to reduce Social spending $3 for ever $1 in new taxes, I'd be all for it. Will you join me in this?



The deal Reagan made with Congress was that Congress would reduce SOCIAL spending $3 for every $1 in new taxes. And apparently they did ... which helped get the economy going again. Just as predicted. The deficit went up overall because of a little thing called *Winning The Cold War*. Reagan's defense spending ballooned the deficit. But this was good for the economy and unemployment too. And in not too many years, it paid off when the USSR collapsed as a result. Ever hear of the peace dividend? That was the reward. That's one of the factors that made Clinton's economy look good (although he had nothing to do with it). Another reward from that expenditure was a generation of American children getting to grow up without having to worry about Soviet ICBMs and Soviet troublemaking.

Seriously, Cavemonster, don't you know any history? Is all you know out of context?

How is it that republican socialism spending money on defense is good, but all other spending by anyone other than a republican is bad? It just defies logic. (this should be funny)

Reagan's throw money at anything that has the word defense on it did not cause the USSR to collapse..it hastened it---but was not the prime cause. But you seem to forget history. Russia was the largest exporter of oil during the 70s and thru much of the 80s. When oil prices collapsed to single digits, their revenues collapsed as well and even selling huge amounts of diamonds and gold couldn't cover their costs. The russian's had 400 subs before Reagan was elected. It is not as if they had to build up their military. (certainly not to counter the sgt york tank)

Revenues dropped to about 15% of GDP due to the Bush recession--yes the Bush recession--it happened on his watch due to policies he was clueless about. Bush and your fellow conservatives increased govt spending from about 20% of GDP to about 23%. They were just big fat liars about being conservative. Coupled with unfunded wars and bad tax cuts, it caused the deficit we have now. At least the Obama stimulus is temporary. We can't get out of the cost of the wars.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/8/president-obama-says-the-federal-government-needs-/

And about earmarks too....way conservative. This is just more republican stimulus--just kept off the front pages. But I am sure you can rationalize this away as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-lilly/republican-earmarks-fool_b_495174.html


A report that I prepared along with others on the Appropriations minority staff in the fall of 2003 described how dramatically the practice had careened out of control. It indicated, fore instance that the number of earmarks in Defense Operation and Maintenance account had swelled from 33 before the Republican takeover to 232 by 2004. In Defense Research and Development the number of earmarks grew from 219 to 1299. This was happening in nearly every appropriation bill and it wasn't just happening in Appropriations.

The report drew only snickers from Republicans who were committed to conquering new heights in the realm of earmarks. Perhaps the pinnacle was reached with the passage of the 2005 highway bill. Instead of containing 487 earmarks--the number that sparked the all night protest by Republicans on the 1991 highway legislation--the bill contained 6,371 earmarks controlling the expenditure of $23 billion in federal money. As a report I did for the Center for American Progress indicated, the bill not only contained more earmarks than any highway bill in history it contained more than all highway bills combined.

President Bush decided to travel to Speaker Dennis Hastert's home state to sign the legislation and congratulate the speaker on a $200 million earmark to build a four lane highway near property the speaker had recently purchased.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/republican_earmarks_pork.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/18/bush-earmarks/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40344219/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

glenn

 

[BeAChooser]

How is it that republican socialism spending money on defense is good

I believe I clearly explained the benefit of Reagan building up our military. Did it just go in one ear and out the other?

Reagan's throw money at anything that has the word defense on it did not cause the USSR to collapse..it hastened it

Well a lot of folks would disagree with you. And even you admit it hastened that collapse. Probably by a lot.

But you seem to forget history. Russia was the largest exporter of oil during the 70s and thru much of the 80s. When oil prices collapsed to single digits, their revenues collapsed as well and even selling huge amounts of diamonds and gold couldn't cover their costs. The russian's had 400 subs before Reagan was elected. It is not as if they had to build up their military.

It is you who forgets history. In 1982, Reagan and his senior advisers mapped out a systematic strategy to hasten the defeat of the USSR. A strategy which attacked it's economy and political system. The crash in oil prices didn't happen by coincidence. The Reagan administration convinced the Saudis to drive down the price of oil. The US restricted Soviet access to Western credit to make up for it. Restricted technology. Funded the Polish Solidarity movement and the Czech underground. Provided covert aid to the Afghan resistance fighting the Soviet invasion to bled their military. And pushed the development of military technologies that would force the Soviets into greatly increase (and unaffordable) military spending. Here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

Ron and Mikhail's Excellent Adventure

How Reagan won the Cold War.

By Fred Kaplan

… snip …

The Soviet system was dysfunctional; its empire was collapsing; the cupboard was bare. And Reagan's surging military budgets, without question, brought this internal crisis to a head.

Here was Gorbachev speaking at a session of the Politburo in October 1986, days before he traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland to offer Reagan a groundbreaking disarmament plan, including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:

[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.

… snip …

If Reagan hadn't been president—if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place—Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed.

You see, Hindmost, Reagan saw a possibility that the liberals of the time simply dismissed out of hand … that the Soviet Union could collapse. And he saw the weakness that would bring about that collapse and took advantage of it. In contrast, most liberals at the time were either still idolizing the wonders of the Soviet System or at least saying we'd better learn to coexist with them because that system was going to be a fact of life indefinitely.

In fact, what a coincidence that Obama first entered the political world at the home of "little c" communist William Ayers ... at a gathering organized by a Communist Party USA member named Alice Palmer. Palmer took many trips to the Soviet Union and East Block. For example, in 1983 she traveled to Czechoslovakia to attend an assembly of the World Peace Council (an organization identified by the FBI as a communist front organization). In 1985 she was part of a delegation who visited the Soviet Union, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Afterwords, she wrote "We visited with foreign ministers, we talked with the editors of the major newspapers in these three cities … snip … We came back feeling that we could speak very well about the interest of the socialist countries in promoting peace." And in 1986 she covered the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow. Out of that trip came an article where she wrote "We Americans can be misled by the major media. We’re being told the Soviets are striving to achieve a comparatively low standard of living compared with ours, but actually they have reached a basic stability in meeting their needs and are now planning to double their production.” And just think … she hand picked Obama as the person she wanted to fill her vacated Illinois Senate seat. Food for thought.

At least the Obama stimulus is temporary.

LOL! Then why is the federal budget projected to be a trillion dollars or more far into the future now? The stimulus was just about new entitlements, when all is said and done. Just like the unemployment extension that democrats are now pushing.

 

[oggiesnr]

If the USA won the Cold War (and I'm not disputing that) why are all the Cold War Military spending commitments still in place plus all the ones from the so-called "War on Terror"?

Steve

 

[Hindmost]

I believe I clearly explained the benefit of Reagan building up our military. Did it just go in one ear and out the other?

Missed the point, why is republican socialism better than democratic socialism when it comes to spending? Reagan built up the military ineffectively spending money and raising the deficit to new levels. It was a stimulus package republican style. It could have been as effective without throwing money at everything.

Well a lot of folks would disagree with you. And even you admit it hastened that collapse. Probably by a lot.



It is you who forgets history. In 1982, Reagan and his senior advisers mapped out a systematic strategy to hasten the defeat of the USSR. A strategy which attacked it's economy and political system. The crash in oil prices didn't happen by coincidence. The Reagan administration convinced the Saudis to drive down the price of oil. The US restricted Soviet access to Western credit to make up for it. Restricted technology. Funded the Polish Solidarity movement and the Czech underground. Provided covert aid to the Afghan resistance fighting the Soviet invasion to bled their military. And pushed the development of military technologies that would force the Soviets into greatly increase (and unaffordable) military spending. Here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

As I said, Reagan did hasten the "defeat"-- which was not necessarily a good thing that it happened so quickly as it has cost us more money to support their problems. Russia has been one of our biggest foreign aid benefactors as a result.

The crash in oil prices was due to prudhoe bay, brent and mexico's gulf oil production coming online coupled with a hard recession. It took the teeth out of OPEC which was in disarray anyhow. What you have written above is just fiction.

You see, Hindmost, Reagan saw a possibility that the liberals of the time simply dismissed out of hand … that the Soviet Union could collapse. And he saw the weakness that would bring about that collapse and took advantage of it. In contrast, most liberals at the time were either still idolizing the wonders of the Soviet System or at least saying we'd better learn to coexist with them because that system was going to be a fact of life indefinitely.

Actually, the CIA had constantly projected the threat from the soviets as much more than it was. Fortunately we are coexisting with them now. I don't know of anyone idolizing the soviet system outside of a few wackloons here and there. I worked with some russians that got out of russia over the years and they are just like us overall.

In fact, what a coincidence that Obama first entered the political world at the home of "little c" communist William Ayers ... at a gathering organized by a Communist Party USA member named Alice Palmer. Palmer took many trips to the Soviet Union and East Block. For example, in 1983 she traveled to Czechoslovakia to attend an assembly of the World Peace Council (an organization identified by the FBI as a communist front organization). In 1985 she was part of a delegation who visited the Soviet Union, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Afterwords, she wrote "We visited with foreign ministers, we talked with the editors of the major newspapers in these three cities … snip … We came back feeling that we could speak very well about the interest of the socialist countries in promoting peace." And in 1986 she covered the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow. Out of that trip came an article where she wrote "We Americans can be misled by the major media. We’re being told the Soviets are striving to achieve a comparatively low standard of living compared with ours, but actually they have reached a basic stability in meeting their needs and are now planning to double their production.” And just think … she hand picked Obama as the person she wanted to fill her vacated Illinois Senate seat. Food for thought.

This is just an ideological conspiracy rant..

LOL! Then why is the federal budget projected to be a trillion dollars or more far into the future now? The stimulus was just about new entitlements, when all is said and done. Just like the unemployment extension that democrats are now pushing.

OK, you tell everyone how we are going to get everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a perpetual problem with no solution in sight. At least the CBO projects the health plan to save money in the long run.

Again, you snip out the parts you don't like and don't identify such. It changes meanings and is intellectually dishonest. I had hoped you were up for an actual debate.

this has gotten way off topic anyhow..

glenn

 

[BeAChooser]

If the USA won the Cold War (and I'm not disputing that) why are all the Cold War Military spending commitments still in place

Not all of them are. That's what the peace dividend was. Now perhaps some that were specifically oriented towards the old Soviet threat didn't get dismantled. That could be because something else was viewed as a threat needing that too. China didn't go away and it's military has been building. And Russia in some ways took over were the Soviets left off ... with KGB in charge. But another reason is that government military programs are just like any government program. Once started, they are hard to get rid of, even if not needed. Congressmen fight all the time to keep open military bases or fund military programs that the military says they don't need any longer. They do it because the program means jobs in the Congressmen's district ... jobs that he can say he kept and thus help buy votes. You see, that's just another example where business does it better. Businesses rarely keep unneeded programs or facilities going. They are better at redirecting resources.

 

[BeAChooser]

Missed the point, why is republican socialism better than democratic socialism when it comes to spending? Reagan built up the military ineffectively spending money and raising the deficit to new levels.

No, I did not miss the point. I explained quite clearly why what Reagan did was different than what Obama and the democrats have been trying to do. And why what he did was effective, not ineffective. His spending accomplished his goal. Obama's didn't. And the collapse of the Soviets offered a monetary return on that spending. Obama's hasn't and won't. Why do you simply ignore what I wrote?

As I said, Reagan did hasten the "defeat"-- which was not necessarily a good thing

It was a bad thing that the Soviets collapsed quickly? LOL! Now I've heard everything.

that it happened so quickly as it has cost us more money to support their problems.

It would have cost us more money regardless of when the Soviets collapsed. And delaying that collapse would have only made the collapse even more severe … perhaps requiring even more help from us than actually did occur.

The crash in oil prices was due to prudhoe bay, brent and mexico's gulf oil production coming online coupled with a hard recession. It took the teeth out of OPEC which was in disarray anyhow. What you have written above is just fiction.

Again, you demonstrate that you don't really know history. It's true that there was a glut of oil in the early 80's caused by falling demand after the 70's energy crisis, a recession and some new sources of oil, which did drive down prices by almost a factor of two. Here a chart of that drop: http://www.zmetro.com/archives/crude.jpg .

But Reagan was wise enough to realize that the Soviet economy and Soviet defense spending was VERY vulnerable where oil sales were concerned. He realized that by keeping those prices down, or driving them even lower, he could hurt the Soviets. So he did in fact negotiate with and pressure the Saudis into keeping the oil flowing at higher levels than they otherwise would have done based on past Saudi Oil policy. As a result of his negotiations, in September of 1985, the minister of oil for Saudi Arabia declared that the monarchy would no longer protect oil prices. Instead, during the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia quadrupled causing crude oil prices to drop by more than a factor of two … almost a factor of three. You can see that in that chart.

Which means you're the one spouting fiction.

Reagan also ordered direct attacks on the Soviet oil industry. In 1982, an explosion (one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history) occurred along a large segment of the newly-built Trans-Siberian pipeline, which was set to produce $8 billion in revenue a year for the USSR. And what caused it? Oil pipeline control software that the Soviets stole from a Canadian firm. Turns out we found out they were going to steal it, and Reagan ordered the CIA to insert extra code that would do something particularly nasty to any pipeline system in which it was used. Here:

http://pipelineandgasjournal.com/hacking-industrial-scada-network

The 3-kiloton Trans-Siberian natural gas pipeline explosion mentioned in the opening paragraph occurred during the Reagan administration. The event was initially acknowledged by a Russian general, and then subsequently denied by the Russian press, and kept secret within the CIA until 2004, when details were released upon publication of the Cold War memoirs of a retired insider. The events and methodology were explained and later presented in security testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. The story was reviewed by the Washington Post. Details are available for research in the full copy of the White Paper on which this article is based.

To not give Reagan due credit for the fall of the USSR is rather petty in my opinion.

I don't know of anyone idolizing the soviet system outside of a few wackloons here and there.

Even at the time of Reagan (which is what we are talking about here), many democrats and the mainstream media still openly expressed admiration for the Soviet system or portions of it. And there are numerous "wackloons" with close associations with Obama who did. I already mentioned Alice Palmer, the woman who aided Obama's entry into politics. Obama's "teenage mentor" (Barack's description of him), Frank Marshall Davis, wrote poetry glorifying the Soviet Union. Bill Ayers, who Obama worked side by side with for years, was a Soviet admiring communist. His campaign even allowed a band to play the Soviet National Anthem at the beginning of fundraising concerts which were given for Obama in places like Oregon (http://groups.google.com/group/misc.rural/browse_thread/thread/a5a55659b7b1478e ). And I could go on.

This is just an ideological conspiracy rant.

No, it's the unvarnished truth, which you apparently can't handle.

OK, you tell everyone how we are going to get everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a perpetual problem with no solution in sight.

You think Iraq and Afganistan wouldn't have been a perpetual problem if we hadn't invaded?

At least the CBO projects the health plan to save money in the long run.

Oh that's right … the CBO predicted a measly $143 billion dollars in net budgetary savings related to healthcare over a 10 year period (2010-2019). That's far less than one-half percent of expected US health care costs over that period. And that figure is VERY uncertain. It includes all sorts of questionable accounting: http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/18/gimme-gimmicks-getting-giddy-o . The fact is that CBO estimates only reflect what ever assumptions the administration makes. And many of those assumptions have been rosy (not unlike their prediction that unemployment would peak at 8% if the Stimulus was passed). The truth is that CBO projections have historically notoriously underestimated actual costs of government programs. And for all that uncertainty and measly predicted savings, we completely overhaul our system introducing a new system that has additional uncertainy in that it took DECADES before other countries even came close to satisfying their *customers* with similar systems.

 

[Hindmost]

No, I did not miss the point. I explained quite clearly why what Reagan did was different than what Obama and the democrats have been trying to do. And why what he did was effective, not ineffective. His spending accomplished his goal. Obama's didn't. And the collapse of the Soviets offered a monetary return on that spending. Obama's hasn't and won't. Why do you simply ignore what I wrote?



It was a bad thing that the Soviets collapsed quickly? LOL! Now I've heard everything.



It would have cost us more money regardless of when the Soviets collapsed. And delaying that collapse would have only made the collapse even more severe … perhaps requiring even more help from us than actually did occur.



Again, you demonstrate that you don't really know history. It's true that there was a glut of oil in the early 80's caused by falling demand after the 70's energy crisis, a recession and some new sources of oil, which did drive down prices by almost a factor of two. Here a chart of that drop: http://www.zmetro.com/archives/crude.jpg .

But Reagan was wise enough to realize that the Soviet economy and Soviet defense spending was VERY vulnerable where oil sales were concerned. He realized that by keeping those prices down, or driving them even lower, he could hurt the Soviets. So he did in fact negotiate with and pressure the Saudis into keeping the oil flowing at higher levels than they otherwise would have done based on past Saudi Oil policy. As a result of his negotiations, in September of 1985, the minister of oil for Saudi Arabia declared that the monarchy would no longer protect oil prices. Instead, during the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia quadrupled causing crude oil prices to drop by more than a factor of two … almost a factor of three. You can see that in that chart.

Which means you're the one spouting fiction.

Reagan also ordered direct attacks on the Soviet oil industry. In 1982, an explosion (one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history) occurred along a large segment of the newly-built Trans-Siberian pipeline, which was set to produce $8 billion in revenue a year for the USSR. And what caused it? Oil pipeline control software that the Soviets stole from a Canadian firm. Turns out we found out they were going to steal it, and Reagan ordered the CIA to insert extra code that would do something particularly nasty to any pipeline system in which it was used. Here:

http://pipelineandgasjournal.com/hacking-industrial-scada-network



To not give Reagan due credit for the fall of the USSR is rather petty in my opinion.



Even at the time of Reagan (which is what we are talking about here), many democrats and the mainstream media still openly expressed admiration for the Soviet system or portions of it. And there are numerous "wackloons" with close associations with Obama who did. I already mentioned Alice Palmer, the woman who aided Obama's entry into politics. Obama's "teenage mentor" (Barack's description of him), Frank Marshall Davis, wrote poetry glorifying the Soviet Union. Bill Ayers, who Obama worked side by side with for years, was a Soviet admiring communist. His campaign even allowed a band to play the Soviet National Anthem at the beginning of fundraising concerts which were given for Obama in places like Oregon (http://groups.google.com/group/misc.rural/browse_thread/thread/a5a55659b7b1478e ). And I could go on.



No, it's the unvarnished truth, which you apparently can't handle.



You think Iraq and Afganistan wouldn't have been a perpetual problem if we hadn't invaded?



Oh that's right … the CBO predicted a measly $143 billion dollars in net budgetary savings related to healthcare over a 10 year period (2010-2019). That's far less than one-half percent of expected US health care costs over that period. And that figure is VERY uncertain. It includes all sorts of questionable accounting: http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/18/gimme-gimmicks-getting-giddy-o . The fact is that CBO estimates only reflect what ever assumptions the administration makes. And many of those assumptions have been rosy (not unlike their prediction that unemployment would peak at 8% if the Stimulus was passed). The truth is that CBO projections have historically notoriously underestimated actual costs of government programs. And for all that uncertainty and measly predicted savings, we completely overhaul our system introducing a new system that has additional uncertainy in that it took DECADES before other countries even came close to satisfying their *customers* with similar systems.

I am sorry I got involved in this crazy thread...I am leaving again and will try and avoid Einstein's definition of insanity.

A few things...

Again you clipped my posts without identifying such changing the meaning. (adding varnish I suppose)

A fast collapse of the Soviet union--with their 40000+ nukes was not desireable. With the economy, we try for a soft landing...not a crash like the Bush one where drastic and risky measures had to be taken.

Saudi arabia cut production by a factor of 3 in the 80s and only raised production in 86 because OPEC couldn't coordinate production quotas...here is links to their production. They only recently got back to their top production. So you had close to the right number, but the wrong direction.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=sa&product=oil&graph=production

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=SA

on this second link, click on the 30 year curve and you will have verification.

 

[BeAChooser]

I am sorry I got involved in this crazy thread...I am leaving again and will try and avoid Einstein's definition of insanity.

In other words, you are going to run after I showed you either lied or are woefully ignorant about the real history of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Saudi arabia cut production by a factor of 3 in the 80s and only raised production in 86 because OPEC couldn't coordinate production quotas...here is links to their production.

Of course the Saudis cut production from 1980 to 1985. Did I suggest they didn't? That was Saudi oil policy, Hindmost. Control production to bolster the price of oil. It's what the Saudis had always done. But it is a fact that the Reagan administration met with and pressured the Saudis to do just the opposite in 1985. Expand production even though you yourself admitted there was already a glut of oil on the market. It made no economic sense for the Saudis to do that. It would make other oil producers mad. Producing more oil would only lower the price further. The net gain in revenues was likely to be minimal. In fact, this source, http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/pripri/reprap/2009-01-30/crubru-eng.php , shows Saudi revenues from oil exports. As you can see, from 1986 to 1988, revenues were essentially flat. The Saudis gained nothing. Now why would they do that … sell three or four times the amount of a limited, valuable national resource with no gain in total income? I'll tell you why. Because Reagan pressured them. Because the Saudis were also anti-communist and wanted to see the USSR collapse.

 

[Hindmost]

In other words, you are going to run after I showed you either lied or are woefully ignorant about the real history of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Nah, you're 180 out.

 

[BeAChooser]

Nah, you're 180 out.

Nah, you and Obama are the ones facing the wrong way. Here's proof:

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/InfoGraphics/2010/10/special_obama_vs_reagan_recovery2_590.ashxg

 

[Arthur Mann]

Nah, you and Obama are the ones facing the wrong way.

I think you guys should stop bickering about it, Obama isn't on either one of your sides, he's on the side against both of you.