True dat.

Yes, God Bless Ol' Dutch and small government.

Perhaps no better example of Reagan's model of smaller government was cutting the federal budget for OSHA, which contributed to:

200,000 and 250,000 workers being exposed to cancer-causing substances but were never informed of the danger to their health. The Reagan administration rejected a 1985 budget proposal to notify these workers that they were at risk for cancer.

Reagan's first OSHA administrator, Thorne Auchter, a 34-year-old construction company executive, best known for destroying OSHA booklets on brown lung disease because they were "anti-business".

From 1982 through 1985, the steel industry's work force lost workdays due to injuries soared from 77.7 per hundred workers in 1982 to 97.7 per hundred workers in 1985.

Ah the good old days of "Personal Freedom"

chuckie cheese open his fat mouth and removes all doubt about his stupidity.

It's remarkable how politically tone-deaf both parties have become.

gloat: lemmee guess: did you get a cancer causing substance, brown lung, or a steel beam thru yer dopey head? Someone has a teensy weensy beef with OSHA, huh?

Naaa-Pet' belongs to the "club".

"We realize that New Deal democracy, which is still our paradigm, which is sort of appeal to each group ... that doesn't work any more."

Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like the only Democrat Senator from NY with an ounce of both political acumen and common sense!

The Democrats think that Americans want more intrusion in their lives as long as it's Democratic-sponsored intrusion. Republican-sponsored intrusions such as listening in to terrorists' phone calls is just wrong in their book.

Reminding people of The Great Depression will also do Schumer no political good.

"President Bush proved that when he lowered the tax rates, causing the economy to boom"

Got this off of Drudge:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/29/cndollar29.xml

I'm suprised you didn;t include it in your links! THis is where the tax cuts funded by debt are getting us.

So Frank you're in favor of a stronger dollar which means more incentive to buy goods manufactured overseas and more incentive to move jobs overseas ? Or perhaps you just don't understand the implications of a declining dollar ?

"tax cuts funded by debt"

whoo...thanks for the case of the giggles, bud. Nothing like pretending collecting less taxes means paying someone something. Claim your mantle of irrelevancy, partner, you've earned it.

Mike -It's not that...No Liberal understands Econ 101...they prove it day-in and day out. We Conservatives may indeed be evil, but Liberals are by adn large stupid.

Heh.

"Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like the only Democrat Senator from NY with an ounce of both political acumen and common sense!"

That may be the most frightening single thing I have read all day?

You want health regulations on industries in your state? Fine, Thats what the heck local and state governments are FOR. The federal government constitutional has usurped the Job of the state and local governments by fiat, essentially.

There is no reason your state government couldn't have regulations on cancer causing substances and workplace danger (perhaps based on recommendations from a Federal level agency if we must) but the fact is the Fed has NO BUSINESS dictating these sorts of things (from federal 'drug laws' on down to OSHA regs) under some twisted interpretation of 'Interstate Commerce'.

Q.E.D.

Well, Gayle, I think Hillary campaigned for Goldwater when she was a teenager and was president of the Wellesley College chapter of student Republicans. I guess her past kind of haunts her every once in a very great while.

Does this mean Uncle Sam is going to get me a new pony? Economics and regulations are confusing, but ponies are soft and nice. They are also good eating when you have been taxed out of house and home.

Boy, Chucky really has got it completely backwards. "New Deal Democracy," whatever the hell that is, is dead on arrival. The last 26 years have proved it.

Another asshat, Chucky.

Hey Mosey & Jhow-

Here's one more from the 'ol Gipper

Sure, supply-side economics live on -- lives on? God help us. Yeah, Reagonomics is not dead, and socialism is not dead, and communism is not dead -- even Kevin Federline has fans.

Let me pose you a couple of questions. First, what is the Federal Reserve system? How important is the Federal Reserve system to the execution of the nation's fiscal policy? Who is the chariman of the federal reserve? Who appointed him? And now, a slightly tougher question -- for those who see the Wall Street Journal as a sedicious Blue-State, cut-and-run commie pinko rag -- what is the Federal Reserve chairman's stance on supply-side economics?

I'll save you a little effort there. Ben Bernanke is the Federal Reserve chairman, and he is most emphatically not a supply-sider. Nor is any reputable economist, outside of those who are paid to have such opinions by neoconservative think tanks and press organs.

"To hell with you," you will say, and more besides: all intended to draw your readers' attention from the material fact that the top banking officer in the federal government does not respect Reaganomics.

20,000 votes and Schmucky would still be in the minority in the Senate and the House. How many times have we had figures like this quoted when the donks lose? Hardly a landslide or a mandate for anything.

Schmucky doesn't seem to notice the donks have been infiltrated by blue dog conservatives. Going to lead to some really interesting times for Schmucky.

Some things never change:

The Dems continue to worship commie-style at the alter of all-controlling government (like these Godless socialists would possibly know what's "right" for this country beyond their usual agenda of advancing abortion, gay marriage, retreat, and any religion but Christianity).

Pathetic.

astifaga:

Let me pose you a couple of questions. First, what is the Federal Reserve system? How important is the Federal Reserve system to the execution of the nation's fiscal policy? Who is the chariman of the federal reserve? Who appointed him? And now, a slightly tougher question -- for those who see the Wall Street Journal as a sedicious Blue-State, cut-and-run commie pinko rag -- what is the Federal Reserve chairman's stance on supply-side economics?

Given that the topic at hand is fiscal policy, you don't seem to grasp the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. Helicopter Ben isn't responsible for fiscal policy (i.e. tax cuts); he's responsible for monetary policy.

Your clueless diatribe with a condescending tone was good for a hearty chuck though. Thanks.

The "Reagan Philosophy" of breaking U.S. and international law to justify conservative ends (recall "Iran-Contra" and the mining of Nicaragua's harbors) is definitely NOT dead, but will live on in the selfish, arrogant hearts of American conservatives everywhere.

Your clueless diatribe with a condescending tone was good for a hearty chuck though. Thanks.

Let's put it this way, underlined Mike: Is the guy up on all things financial in the US? Of course. Does he believe in supply side economics? No.

Hope you like that tone better, dweeb.

astigafa:

Let's put it this way, underlined Mike: Is the guy up on all things financial in the US? Of course. Does he believe in supply side economics? No.
Hope you like that tone better, dweeb.

Ah.. so you're clueless as to the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy AND you're attempting to use ad verecundiam. Are you trying to prove your clueless on multiple fronts ? If so, well done.

I suppose I could employ the same fallacy and point out that the recently deceased noble laureate Milton Friedman was somewhat of a supply-sider (he believed there was an incentive effect created that _could_ stimulate growth but believed monetary policy had a more direct effect on economic health)... but then it's a lazy, useless debate trick.

Your turn, simpleton...

Guaranteed I'm not well versed in economic theory but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know things aren't great.

Many people that I know who have lost jobs in various industries due to outsourcing or downsizing or the like have ended up taking either lesser paying jobs and some are working two jobs to stay above water. There are many others who are doing with a whole lot less than what they were used to because in some cases there is only one income earner now working as one of the spouses might be having a difficult time finding work in their field and if older need to retrain and that is not always as easy as it sounds.

I know people from all different walks of life whose incomes whether they have risen or not that are having an extremely hard time staying afloat with the rising costs of health insurance, property taxes, dwelling insurances, electric, water, telephone, much less tuition costs and the attending purchases all going up.

In essence the benefits of Bush's tax cuts did no such thing as trickle down to the middle class. Statistic after statistic shows it has helped the haves and the have mores, just like he promised it would. Don't give me the horse pucky that the middle class has benefitted. Go out and TALK to the "middle class" (what's left of them). You'll have a whole different viewpoint than what the government is trying to persuade the country is happening.

I think his Schumer's reference had more to do with government size and purpose than any sort of fiscal policy. Think Katrina and how well Republicans managed that one.

20,000 votes and Schmucky would still be in the minority in the Senate and the House.

And 537 votes in 2000 and Bush would still be clearing brush 24/7. What's your point?

Talk to the middle class? I have. And they're doing fine. Thanks for asking.

All one needs to know about: How well a Democrat Mayor and a Democrat governor managed Katrina is in this picture.

http://wizbangblog.com/2005/10/04/never-flooded-new-orleans-buses-not-used-for-evacuation.php

One more clue, In May 2006, the Mayor was reelected.

Pagar, Pagar, Pagar, aren't you aware that the blame always lies with the first Republican you come to going up the excutive ladder. Mayor is Democrat, next. Governor is Democrat, next. The President,........ OK, we've got one. Nagin and Blanco are lucky the South lost the Civil War. With the increased State autonomy that would have brought, imagine having no Republican to try to reasonably paste the blame on.

"Many people that I know who have lost jobs in various industries due to outsourcing or downsizing..." And do you believe a holocaust of new regulations courtesy of the Democrats is going to create high paying jobs? More likely it'll force U.S. firms to offshore millions more jobs just to stay in business.

_Mike_:

Ah.. so you're clueless as to the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy AND you're attempting to use ad verecundiam. Are you trying to prove your clueless on multiple fronts ? If so, well done.

Nice little tour-de-merde there. I'm saying that the guy the administration got to run the fed is not a fan of Reaganomics, you try to prove that there's a magic wall there somewhere -- a guy who administrates one policy knows nothing of the other. Or shouldn't know? Or couldn't know? That's just stupid. You're just arguing ad nauseum. There is no "debate" here, and you can just speak to the hand -- or, in this case, the finger.

A central theme of Milton Friedman and Reaganomics is that inflation is more closely related to the supply of money rather than the Phillips curve (trade off of inflation and unemployment). For twenty-five years or so the Fed has managed rates and reserves accordingly and that has produced the two longest expansions in US history, and much more stability than in prior years.

While it is true that the current Fed Chairman is not a strict follower of Reagan, it also can be said that he is not reverting to the JMK theories either. He is not that dissimilar to Greenspan in theory, just in degree. Almost all of the central banks now seek to control inflation and the money supply rather than unemployment as the target goal. The economic events during the Carter years gave the dump to those old liberal theories.

Another central theme of Reaganomics is that lower taxes lead to better economic growth, which leads in turn to higher tax revenue in the long run. In general and over time, the countries with the lower taxes (and regulation) have higher economic growth rates. Almost nobody disputes this so far.

What is in dispute is whether lower taxes lead to higher revenues. This is fairly hard to isolate in the data because of time and so many other factors involved. But it can be said that the Bush (43) and Reagan administrations experienced rather sharp revenue growth after an earlier time when taxes had been reduced. It certainly can be also said that Reaganomics has not been definitively disproved in the way that Keynes theories have been.

Another sign of this is that Clinton renewed Greenspan, certainly more Reagan than Carter, over a long period of time.

Another way to prove things is to disprove the reverse: France is still trying to manage unemployment and has been a spectacular failure. Over twenty-five years the US growth rate has been very high in the industrialized world while France's growth has been flat or even negative. As a result of the much higher growth rates in the US, we have created jobs in far greater numbers - we have added a whole France or two to our employment while again job growth in France has been stagnant. As a result, over a long time, it cannot be disputed that our revenue is up while taxes are down; in France the opposite is true.

astifaga:

Nice little tour-de-merde there. I'm saying that the guy the administration got to run the fed is not a fan of Reaganomics, you try to prove that there's a magic wall there somewhere -- a guy who administrates one policy knows nothing of the other. Or shouldn't know? Or couldn't know? That's just stupid. You're just arguing ad nauseum. There is no "debate" here, and you can just speak to the hand -- or, in this case, the finger.

Again, you go with the fallacious appeal to authority. Whether the current Fed chair is a 'fan' of Reaganomics has no bearing on the validity of the theory even if he is, to use your term, like 'up on all things financial' and stuff.

_Mike_ babe:

With God as my witness, I did not read your last response -- saw it was you, noted the length, for whatever reason -- clicked the "add your comment" link, and here we are.

Bye bye.