Comments on: Economic Malpractice

By: Bill_OConnel

Bill_OConnel — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:46:42 +0000

I have a hard time grasping your world view when you make a comment that Reagan was one of the worst things to ever happen to our country. Let see, he began a 25 year run of unprecendented economic growth, he ended the cold war without firing a shot, he made Americans, yourself excluded, proud to be Americans again. Ending Research and Development on alternative energy resources? Do you mean like Jimmy Carter's Synfuels Project? The project where we spent billions of dollars trying to convert coal into oil, only to have the project crash and burn when oil prices, once again, came down as they tend to do in a free market. Government predictions of a permanently high level in the price of oil proved (surprise!) not to be prescient. I didn't know that Jimmy Carter had a magic machine that could control solar activity and thereby control global warming. The current fiscal crisis was caused by a chain of related events. How you can say that two government related entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac becoming insolvent were not a factor in the financial meltdown, is simply putting your head in the sand. It is even more ridiculuous when Barney Frank says six months beforehand that there is no problem with Fannie and Freddie, and he heads the committee that writes the laws regulating them, and your pet peeve is not enough regulation. Ayn Rand wrote, as you say, about Conservative economic thought. I never read any of her books on religion. On the other hand I don't know that she every killed anyone, let alone tens of millions to enforce her economic views, a la, Stalin, Mao, Castro and other proponents of the "worker's paradise." Remember, the Berlin Wall was put up to keep people IN not keep Westerners OUT

By: JASPER JOTTINGS Week 52 – 2009 December 27 « Jasper Jottings Weekly … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:37:28 +0000

[...] http://libertyslifeline.com/2009/12/05/economic-malpractice/ Stebbins, Donald M (MC1961) and O’Connell Bill (MC1976) are expanding on last week’s endnote in the comments. [...]

By: Bill_OConnel

Bill_OConnel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:35:32 +0000

Don, it's nice to see you finally identified some policies of Bush that you dislike. So let me address those points. First, let me address your comment about the unemployment rate. You are absolutely correct about the lagging nature of unemployment as well as the history with Reagan. However, Reagan attacked the problem by cutting tax rates and shrinking government. The results are in and they worked. Reagan never promised that any given program would cap the unemployment rate at a specific level nor did he offer a "do nothing" scenario that ultimately turned out to be better than the action. Instead of following this success formula, Obama is choosing the path of FDR, which is to spend his way out of the problem and that is proved to have failed according to Henry Morganthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary. Most rational people would choose the formula that worked over the one that didn't, but if you real goal is to pay off you backers with pork projects and expand the scope and control of the government, perhaps not.

Tax Cuts — Kennedy cut taxes and the economy grew. Reagan cut taxes and the economy grew. Clinton cut taxes in 1997 and the last years of his administration were his best economically. Clinton handed Bush a recession after the dot.com bubble burst and then 9/11 hit. Bush cut taxes and GDP growth in 2004 and 2005 topped any year under Clinton. You opinion is that tax cuts are reckless. The facts are that they work for both Democrats and Republicans.

Foolish war spending. That's interesting coming from a liberal. Woodrow Wilson (D) World War I; FDR (D) World War II; Truman (D) Korea; Kennedy/Johnson (D/D) Viet Nam. To provide for the national defense is explicit in the Constitution. I may argue that we may have avoided some of these conflicts with tougher diplomacy. You call it foolish, I call it keeping us safe, which Bush did. We were safe for seven years. Now that Obama is in office, there are brush fires breaking out around the world and in Fort Hood we once again have a terrorist attack on our soil. Obama is going to put the 9/11 terrorists on trial in a civil court in Manhattan, which is insane and unprecedented in American history, and this upstanding administration says it was Attorney General Holder's decision alone and Obama had nothing to do with it. Now that's leadership.

Neglect of infrastructure. Where in the Constitution does it say that infrastructure is the responsibility of the president? This is another of my pet peeves with the expansion of the government. If the people of New York need a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn, why should someone in Arizona pay for it? It should be paid for by the City of New York. Oh, we can't afford it! No? Well by federalizing everything as soon as the guy in Arizona pays for your bridge, you will have to pay for his sewage treatment plant, then pay for a turtle crossing in Florida, and an airport for John Murtha's "Airport for No One" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204… Cut taxes and let people pay for their own local projects.

Increasing Wealth and Income of the Rich. This is from an analysis done on data from the Bureau of Economic Statistics by Steven Horwitz, The overall lesson is clear: lives for Americans below the poverty line continue to get better in terms of what they are able to put in their households and have to make use of everyday. And do note that the average American household in 2005 was doing much better than its 1971 counterpart. MUCH better – and this doesn't even count medical advances and the like. So whatever one hears about stagnating wages and the like, the bottom line is ultimately what we can afford to buy and have in our households to improve our lives. By those measures, life for the average American is better today than 35 years ago, life for poor Americans is much better than it was 35 years ago, and poor Americans today largely live better than the average American did 35 years ago. Hard to square with a narrative of economic stagnation or decline. It's time to put the final nail in that coffin that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where wealth and income are concerned, there is a floor ($0), but there is no ceiling. So over time, America being the land of opportunity that it is, allows hard working creative people to, yes, get rich. It is not a zero sum game, like liberals like to think. How did Bill Gates' establishment of Microsoft impoverish anyone? On the contrary, with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, many more people benefit from his starting Microsoft than he himself. Does that make him evil? While we're on that subject, while the average libera'ls income is typically 6% higher than the average conservative's, why do those evil, greedy, heartless conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals? Why don't you ask VP Joe Biden, who despite being a millionaire and being paid handsomely by we taxpayers, contributes about $1 per day to charity? Doesn't he believe in helping those less fortunate than himself or only by stealing from other people through the government and giving away their money?

So what does liberal nirvana look like. Well, Detroit has been run by liberals and the auto unions since 1961. Take a look here: (

” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw)

By: Donald M Stebbins

Donald M Stebbins — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:59:15 +0000

Bill, true to the form of all arguments I have with neocons you describe your opinions and misstatements of history as "hard facts". As far as I am concerned you have presented very few if any facts let alone hard ones.. One fact you seem not to be aware
of is that it took Reagan over two years to bring unemployment down below 10%
Beyond that you do not seem to be reading my comments which included the words:
"Our high unemployment rate was caused by Bush policies. Any look
at the history of recessions bears out the fact that it takes years to turn around
unemployment after a recession of the magnitude of Bush II's- which was brought about by reckless tax cuts, foolish war spending, and neglect of our infrastructure coupled with long standing conservative policies of increasing the wealth and income of the rich at everyone else's expense."
Then you say I did not give a single example of Bush's poor policies. I count four in that sentence alone.
You call the magnificent Paul Krugman shrill after he accurately predicted the Bush
debacle and more recently presciently said that the Obama stimulus package would turn out not be be large enough
As far as your opinion that it President Obama's very rational policies are insane
I can only wonder what "air" you have been breathing that could so affect your reasoning ability.
Anyone listening to Obama or reading his books knows he stands head and shoulders above any Republican, libertarian, neocon, or rightist of any sort in his reasoning ability and devotion to his country. He is a great American doing his best
to correct the follies of the conservatives and their fellow travelers.. Start thinking instead of invoking the ideology of the right, which is almost always wrong.

By: Bill_OConnel

Bill_OConnel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:48:40 +0000

Don, the way you tap dance would put Fred Astaire and Michael Flatley to shame. Is it four or five times you generically mention "Bush ruined our economy with his stupid and reckless policies," without mentioning a single policy and how it contributed to the recession? You make it hard to rebut your claims. I don't agree with a lot of what Bush did, including increasing spending but, oops, no that's a good thing, right, because that's all Obama has been doing since taking office. It's nice you give a nod to Paul Krugman who is a Nobel Laureate. However, he won the Nobel for his work on trade, for which he is respected, but otherwise he is a shrill left wing complainer for the New York Times. You like to put forth bromides like, "By any honest reckoning Obama's stimulus has been a success." Back it up with some facts, man! Get in the arena and drop the platitudes. When Obama promised that unemployment would not rise above 8% and it would hit 9% if we did nothing, and he slams through a 1,000 page stimulus bill that no one reads and unemployment rises to 10.2%, do you really call that, "success by any honest reckoning," really? You sound like every liberal wonk who looks over the wreckage of another failed government program lamenting, "I guess we didn't spend enough." Rather than honestly saying, "Well, that didn't work, let's scrap it and try something else, like leave it alone." Or are you relying on the Obama fabrication "jobs saved"?

Here's an important note to my friends in the news media: the White House has absolutely no earthly clue how many job losses have been prevented because of the stimulus bill. None. Not Christina Romer. Not Jared Bernstein. Not Austen Goolsbee. Each of these distinguished economists would have failed Statistics 101 for making such a laughable claim. But we see them now repeating these assertions to reporters who have seemingly abandoned all skepticism. -- Tony Fratto, CNBC, 2 June 2009

I should be supporting his efforts? I think I have demonstrated to you through quotes from FDR's own Treasury Secretary that what Obama is doing, following the model of FDR does not work. I will do everything in my power to stop these insane policies before he bankrupts the country. Wake up, Don. If Obama's policies are so wonderful, why is his approval ratings lower than any president in history at the same point in their presidency? Why does he continue to support and push legislation that a majority of Americans oppose? This is hubris, the likes of which we have never seen. It's time to get your head out in the fresh air, Don. I support the principles on which this country was based, not on government running every aspect of our lives. If you want to have an honest debate, come prepared to defend your position with hard facts. I think we can both pick and choose our favorite times during the S&P 500s history and have some fun with those numbers, but what does that have to do with Barack Obama's inexperience and incompetence?

By: Donald M Stebbins

Donald M Stebbins — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:37:55 +0000

Bill Even the Forbes article I sent you via email shows that Democrats outperformed
Republicans during the last 80 years. Where do you get your numbers- they conflict
with any numbers I can find
Frankly I think conservatives have a enormous amount of chutzpah criticizing Obama
after the way Bush ruined our economy with his stupid and reckless policies.
Paul Krugman and others predicted what would happen back in 2000. He was right on the money.. I have to ask whether conservatives in general are incapable of
learning from their mistakes. Paul Krugman recently said he was naive when he
believed that people would abandon a policy after it failed utterly .
By any honest reckoning Obama's stimulus has been a success. Cons have been
intellectually dishonest in saying otherwise given the time it took Saint Ronnie
to end his recession – it started after he took office- it should never have happened
according to the way you judge Obama. Obama is doing his best to correct the
disaster created by Bush and the neocons- You should be supporting his efforts rather
the complaining and continuing to support the failed policies of conservatism

By: Bill_OConnel

Bill_OConnel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:13:02 +0000

Don, looking backward anyone can be a successful investor. In your 80 year scenario, with the exception of Bill Clinton, investing during the term of any Democratic president would have yielded returns below the historical average. What does that prove? You can slice the stock market's performace any number of way to make it look the way you want. Take a 10 year average that looks impressive and slip it two years and it can look bad. Do you long for the days of Jimmy Carter when he left office with inflation at 12%, and mortgage rates of 17.5%? I give him credit for some of his deregulation moves regarding airlines and trucking, but his economic policies were not good. FDR was president for eight years, spent boatloads of money and still couldn't end the Great Depression causing his Treasury Secretary Morganthau to lament in May 1939

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. {emphasis added} And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!"*

And yet this is the very failed model that Barack Obama is following. I give Clinton credit for negotiating NAFTA, and he would probably get a lot more credit if he kept his eyes on the ball and his hands off the help. But you refuse to answer my biggest beef and that is why is the government involved in these things that the Constitution gives them no power to do? Take the $787 billion stimulus bill, most of the money went to the Department of Education, the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. Only about $4 billion went to the Department of Transportation for "shovel ready" projects. When 70%-80% of jobs in this country are created by small businesses, even if the stimulus was a good idea, why is spending most of the money in three departments that shouldn't even exist, going to end the rise in unemployment? The proof is in, it didn't. The federal government took $2,314 of wealth from every man, woman and child in this country and wasted it on a false promise that it would cap unemployment at 8% and it did not. Someone should be held accountable. Instead this administration is doubling down, and tripling down, on more and more spending on empty promises that an overwhelming majority of Americans are against, according to most polls. And the arrogant life time politicians in Washington say, "too bad, you are too stupid to manage your own affairs, you need we Harvard educated elites to tell you what to do, for your own good."

By: Donald M Stebbins

Donald M Stebbins — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:10:44 +0000

Bill 80 years is not enough for you? Before the 1930's neither party was consistently liberal or conservative. Teddy Roosevelt condemned the "malefactors of great wealth"
and Woodrow Wilson was a racist Therefore claiming Republican good times as
evidence of superior "conservative" performance is disingenuous. I will check your numbers later
BTW the NYT article was not produced by the Times but submitted to them as an oped
article by Tommy McCall of Money Magazine

Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants

By TOMMY McCALL

Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.
Home

By: Bill_OConnel

Bill_OConnel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:53:08 +0000

Don, if we really want to make it fun, let's compare your New York Times data with to conservative presidents and in that group I'll include Harding/Coolidge, Eisenhower and Reagan, each serving eight years. Your $10,000 investment would have grown to $42,940 under Harding/Coolidge. Put that under the mattress and take it out in 1952 at the beginning of the Eisenhower administration. When Ike left office, it would be worth $150,880. Back under the matterss until Reagan takes office. Invest your $150,880 and when Reagan turns the reins over to Bush (41), your original $10,000 investment would be worth $523,350. Aren't numbers fun?

By: Bill_OConnel

Bill_OConnel — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:10:10 +0000

You know what they say Don, about lies, damned lies and statistics. Okay, the New York Times (hmmmm, I wonder what their point of view is), produces a nice study that says investments were better under selective Democratic presidents than Republicans. Let's look at your numbers this way. The historical average rate of return for the S&P 500 from 1871 to 2008 is 10.4%. Looking at your list of Presidents, on the Republican side, G.H.W Bush, Eisenhower, Reagan and Ford all beat that average; on the Democrats bench Bill Clinton is the only one to do so. If you look more closely at Clinton's record, and on the economic front it's pretty good, it was pretty weak his first two years in office and rather strong the last six. What happend in those last six years? The Republicans took control of Congress and turned Bill Clinton into a moderate. It's nice of the Times to start with Herbert Hoover, who by the way was no free market conservative. Hoover believed in government intervention and made things decidedly worse by doing so. Also notice, the Times conveniently left out the Roaring 20s a period of tremendous economic growth with the stock market averaging 19.98% per year from 1920 to 1928, all under Republican administrations.