Stockman Savages the Republicans

Read the whole thing:

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

Stockman’s basic point is that the modern Republican party has become a party of irresponsible people, unwilling to demonstrate any kind of accountability or real leadership.  He’s still a Republican and doesn’t like Democrats but he lays the blame at the feet of Republican Presidents who have gladly lead the way into economic disaster.

  1. #1 by brewski on August 19, 2012 - 9:27 pm

    Stockman is not an economist and has no idea what he is talking about. He reveals his total ignorance when he says:
    “In fact, since chronic current-account deficits result from a nation spending more than it earns, stringent domestic belt-tightening is the only cure. ”

    This is nonsense and shows he has no idea what the current account is.

    Examples of some countries with very large current account surpluses:
    Iran, Algeria, Iraq, Angola…

    Examples of some countries with very large current account deficits:
    Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand…

    So Stockman’s whole analysis is based on total ignorance of economics as a whole. He is like some freshman who just read an article in TIME magazine and he is trying to impress some girl sociology major how smart he is.

    Only an idiot would repost it thinking he is making some point.

  2. #2 by Shane on August 20, 2012 - 12:02 am

    brewski on the other hand IS an economist! No really, trust him!

    The fact that it has even reached the point that there is debate about multimillionaires paying a tax rate that just a few decades ago would have been a massive tax cut is fairly telling. That allowing a temperary tax cut to lapse is couched as a tax hike more so. That the GOP continues to tell “job creator” lies about the same multimillionaires is simply amazing…

    Stockman thinks the situation screams for austerity, demonstarting that even brewski can be partially right, like a broken clock, twice a day. The only slowing the current recovery for the last few months has been the massive shedding of government jobs. The party of NO continues to do everything in their power to drive the country over a cliff edge, simply because the thought of an “other” in power drives them insane.

  3. #3 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 8:21 am

    “…drives them insane”.

    Mission Accomplished.

    Speaking of which, what ever happened to that recently-coined Rebublican catch-phrase, “anal poisoning”?

  4. #4 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 8:57 am

    Shane,
    The “tax rate” that you refer to is not the tax rate that multimillionaires are paying. It is the rate that multimillionaires avoid. So raising the rate that they don’t pay will not increase revenue. If you have ever read anything that I have ever written you would know that my proposals would see Warren Buffett’s and Mitt Rommey’s total taxes go up by 150%.

    So several things are clear:
    1. You don’t know the tax code
    2. You don’t know how Buffett and Rommey pay lower taxes.
    3. You haven’t read my proposals
    4. You don’t understand my proposals
    5. You love to talk about things you don’t understand.
    6. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
    amazing….

  5. #5 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 9:13 am

    7. Facts are like opinions – except they’re true.

    “…it’s the rate they avoid.” True!

    So, why not let them avoid a much higher rate?

  6. #6 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 9:20 am

    “So, why not let them avoid a much higher rate?”

    1. Because it does not generate revenue
    2. Because it chases away capital.

  7. #7 by cav on August 20, 2012 - 9:38 am

    Chasing away capital (and capitalists) might not be such a bad thing. As it stands, the only people being favored are themselves – the mythological ‘job creation’ aside.

  8. #8 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 9:59 am

    As it stands the only people being favored are the lawyers, accountants and their clients who have figured out that legal tax avoidance is easier than investing. We can change the rules so that investing is a better alternative than gaming the rules.

  9. #9 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 12:39 pm

    brewski–

    By your logic, the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich should not have led to massive federal deficits, because it’s all about taxable income, not the tax rate. Correct?

  10. #10 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 12:50 pm

    Wrong.

    If Bush-Obama had lowered the rates, AND closed loopholes, then it would not have affected the deficits by one cent.

    Lowering the rate and leaving the #69 tax code in the world is still the #69 tax code in the world.

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on August 20, 2012 - 12:57 pm

    So, if the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich were to expire at the end of this year, would there be more revenue for the federal government? (Correct answer is yes).

  12. #12 by brewski on August 20, 2012 - 1:07 pm

    If you ask a narrow question, then you will get a narrow answer. The answer is probably yes, but you are still left with the #69 tax code in the wold, you are still left with the highest marginal tax rate on corporate earnings, you are still left with a system which encourages companies to invest overseas rather than in the US, you are still left with a system with enormous perverse incentives which encourages leverage, punishes savings, etc. So you may raise more revenue, but you will harm the economy, cause more people to be unemployed, kill the middle class, ensure riches for lobbyists and lawyers and preserve the 10% tax rax on Warren Buffett. Is that what you want?

  13. #13 by Shane on August 20, 2012 - 4:59 pm

    Actual economists disagree with many or most of your points brewski. cav has it right, once they avoided a higher rate, and as a result payed a higher rate. Again, take the opinion of nobel prize winning economist, or the opinion of unemployed anonymous coward on a blog who has been shown many times to be incapable of reading…

  14. #14 by brewski on February 4, 2013 - 8:55 am

  15. #15 by cav on February 4, 2013 - 10:25 am

    At this point I tend to agree with what a lot of David Stockman channelling brewski is saying. But again. given the climate, it won’t be requiring the special skills of a rocket scientist, for example. Goldmansacks, is pretty transparently criminal at this point. Part of what gives truth to the Stockman / brewski pronouncement is that no one has dared to jail the big money players like Goldmansacks.. Therefore, revelation of yet another scam / bubble is only a matter of time. Apparently that time is now.

    Thank you.

  16. #16 by brewski on February 4, 2013 - 10:50 am

    Goldman Sachs was Obama’s #1 contributor in the 2008 cycle.

    And it just gets worse:
    http://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-government-including-elena-kagan/

    LIST OF GOLDIES TIED TO THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT.

    This lists compiles the names above and those in the prior diary on this. For more detail on names not annotated in this diary, see the earlier diary linked here):

    ALTMAN, ROGER.
    BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P.
    BIDEN, JOE.
    BRAINARD, LAEL.
    BUFFETT, WARREN.
    CLINTON, HILLARY.
    CRAIG, GREGORY. (revolving door)
    DONILON, THOMAS.
    DUDLEY, WILLIAM C.
    EFFRON, BLAIR W.
    ELMENDORF, DOUGLAS.
    EMANUEL, RAHM.
    FARRELL, DIANA.
    FRIEDMAN, STEPHEN.
    FROMAN, Michael.
    FUDGE, ANNE.
    FURMAN, JASON.
    GALLOGLY, MARK.
    GEITHNER, TIMOTHY.
    GENSLER, GARY.
    GEPHARDT, RICHARD (aka “DICK”) A.
    GREENSTONE, MICHAEL (revolving door to Hamilton Project)
    HAMILTON PROJECT, THE
    HORMATS, ROBERT.
    KAGAN, ELENA.
    KASHKARI, NEEL.
    KORNBLUH, KAREN.
    LEW, JACOB (AKA “JACK”) J.
    LIDDY, EDWARD MICHAEL.
    LIPTON, DAVID A.
    MINDICH, ERIC
    MURPHY, PHILLIP.
    NIEDERAUER, DUNCAN.
    OBAMA, BARACK H.
    ORSZAG, PETER.
    PATTERSON, MARK.
    PERRY, RICHARD.
    RATTNER, STEVE.
    REISCHAUER, ROBERT D.
    RIVLIN, ALICE.
    RUBIN, JAMES.
    RUBIN, ROBERT.
    SHAFRAN, STEVEN.
    SPERLING, GENE.
    STORCH, ADAM.
    SUMMERS, LARRY.
    THAIN, JOHN.
    TYSON, LAURA D’ANDREA.

  17. #17 by cav on February 4, 2013 - 3:25 pm

    These people, and you admittedly limited the list to those associated with the Obama administration, have ‘skin in the game’, plenty of money – in the unlikely need of court costs, and besides, I believe they own the courts. And, the Senate, and…Needless to say there is a comparable list that has members associated with Bush’s Mal-administration. And so it goes.

    It’s a shame.

  18. #18 by cav on February 4, 2013 - 5:20 pm

    I’ll believe it when I see it, but at least someone is making the correct sounds:

    Federal and state prosecutors intend to bring civil charges against Standard & Poor’s for wrongdoing in its rating of mortgage bonds prior to the 2008 financial crisis, The Wall Street Journal said on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.

  19. #19 by brewski on February 4, 2013 - 7:20 pm

    ” you admittedly limited the list to those associated with the Obama administration”
    Obama is the current president and finger-wagger in chief about how bad lobbyists, corporations and the rich are.

    “Needless to say there is a comparable list that has members associated with Bush’s Mal-administration.”
    Bush isn’t president and was not the finger-wagger in chief when he was. But your point is correct.

    “Federal and state prosecutors intend to bring civil charges against Standard & Poor’s for wrongdoing in its rating of mortgage bonds prior to the 2008 financial crisis, The Wall Street Journal said on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.”
    Yes, I saw this. My first reaction was, how convenient he gets around to this just after the election. Why not 2 years ago or so? Why just S&P? Where are the charges against Moody’s, Goldman, etc.?

  20. #20 by cav on February 4, 2013 - 8:50 pm

    PRESS RELEASE: Americans Make Hard Choices on Social Security, Prefer to Raise Payroll Taxes and Increase Benefits

    Survey finds sharp contrast between what Americans want and what lawmakers are talking about

    http://www.nasi.org/press/releases/2013/01/press-release-americans-make-hard-choices-social-security

  21. #21 by brewski on February 5, 2013 - 3:59 am

    Cav, the survey is flawed by limiting the choices the respondents could answer. No where were respondents asked if they could just keep their 15% contribution for themselves and save themselves. They didn’t inform the respondents that social security provided a negative return to retirees. Also, the source of the survey is an advocacy group. That would be like quoting an NRA-conducted survey. Hardly objective.

  22. #22 by brewski on February 5, 2013 - 12:03 pm

    Standard & Poor’s:
    The only rating agency to downgrade US debt.
    The only rating agency to be sued by the US government.
    Coincidence?

  23. #23 by cav on February 7, 2013 - 10:13 am

    Only Obama could release the white paper (Nixon to China, don’t you know) . . . because even coo-coo bananas, evidently, was too ashamed . . . now a couple of days debating like no one can know or understand or remember what due process of law means . . . so . . . whatever . . .

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: