Four Deforemations of Apocalypse-By Former Reaganite.. Stockman.

• Footwedge

  The author is a lifelong Republican, a member of the House for 3 terms, and the chief budget director for Ronald Reagan during his first term.
  
  Mr. Stockman lays the blame correctly on our crumbling economy. He says that it was a 40 year process...which I agree with.
  
  An interesting article indeed. He even has scathing comments for the industry that made him a fortune. My opinion...Mr. Stockman has nailed it right on the head....
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Doesn't matter what he wrote: you will not get the group currently in power to cut back. They won't do it until it all comes crashing down and forces REAL changes to take place.
• Paladin

  Read it before and had planned to post it here, but would be wasting my time with the extremists here and businessmen here posing as "average Americans" . LIttle doubt he is right and another article in circulation with Greenspan is now shaming Rs for wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts will make some hay. They'll get alot of press on this & generate lots of exposure. I've said if before -- the chickens are coming home to roost for the Rs. The shame is the mess they have created, the harm they have done and the obstructionist positions they take to fix problems.
• Footwedge

  Stockman's number 3 is really telling..of course the high rolling financiers here on OC will probably lay claim that Stockman doesn't qualify to state as much...because he doesn't make enough money. LOL
  
  "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation. As a result, the combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008.
  
  But the trillion-dollar conglomerates that inhabit this new financial world are not free enterprises. They are rather wards of the state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives. They could never have survived, much less thrived, if their deposits had not been government-guaranteed and if they hadn’t been able to obtain virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bet".
  
  
  Stockman's dead nuts on assessment is the very reason I left this party a long time ago. And to those that wank to to Obama's spending, they need to look into the historical mirror. The GOP is a bunch of fiscal hypocrites...and their followers are fools for believing the malarkey.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;438782 wrote:Stockman's dead nuts on assessment is the very reason I left this party a long time ago. And to those that wank to to Obama's spending, they need to look into the historical mirror. The GOP is a bunch of fiscal hypocrites...and their followers are fools for believing the malarkey.

  Just so I'm understanding your point, you're suggesting that Obama's spending is better than Republican spending?
  
  C'mon Footie...There are plenty of conservatives on this forum who have railed against Republican spending as much as they have Obama. Nearly every conservative poster on here at one time or another has expressed anger over Republican gaffes and blown opportunities when the Gingrich Boys ha a chance to effect real change in Federal spending and have been somewhat vocal about abuse in the financial markets.
  
  You kill me...you really do. You call yourself an independent or libertarian but your particular brand of politics has a clear and distinct "I hate Republicans, conservatives, and especially neo-con war mongers" ring to it. I rarely hear you slam the Dems for their brand of fiscal insanity and that's sad considering they just happen to be the current fools in power.
  
  Admit Footie...You're really a flaming liberal. Isn't it time to come out of the closet?
• jhay78

  

  believer;438837 wrote:Just so I'm understanding your point, you're suggesting that Obama's spending is better than Republican spending?
  
  C'mon Footie...There are plenty of conservatives on this forum who have railed against Republican spending as much as they have Obama. Nearly every conservative poster on here at one time or another has expressed anger over Republican gaffes and blown opportunities when the Gingrich Boys ha a chance to effect real change in Federal spending and have been somewhat vocal about abuse in the financial markets.
  You kill me...you really do. You call yourself an independent or libertarian but your particular brand of politics has a clear and distinct "I hate Republicans, conservatives, and especially neo-con war mongers" ring to it. I rarely hear you slam the Dems for their brand of fiscal insanity and that's sad considering they just happen to be the current fools in power.
  
  Admit Footie...You're really a flaming liberal. Isn't it time to come out of the closet?

  
  Agreed- most, if not all, conservatives on this site have lamented spending from both R's and D's.
  
  Don't forget that Stockman wanted Reagan to make large cuts in SocSec and other New Deal programs to balance things out, but Reagan had campaigned against SS cuts.
  

  In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

  And Stockman rails against Keynesianism, and most conservatives on this site agree with him.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I agree with almost everything in there, although the Democrats are equally to blame for this mess, so only blaming Republicans is a bit ridiculous.
• QuakerOats

  Paladin;438750 wrote:Read it before and had planned to post it here, but would be wasting my time with the extremists here and businessmen here posing as "average Americans" . LIttle doubt he is right and another article in circulation with Greenspan is now shaming Rs for wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts will make some hay. They'll get alot of press on this & generate lots of exposure. I've said if before -- the chickens are coming home to roost for the Rs. The shame is the mess they have created, the harm they have done and the obstructionist positions they take to fix problems.

  
  That's almost funny. It took republican's Gingrich and Kasich to bring the budget back in line in the '90's after 40 years of democrat rule. They did it. Now granted, the republicans who had congress for Bush's first six years spent too much (although some circumstances were warranted since we did get attacked on our soil), but for the last 4 years it has been back to the democrats who have controlled the purse strings and, magically, we are back to MASSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED SPENDING, that FAR, FAR exceeds anything that Bush r's ever generated. So now, it will have to come down to whether conservative republicans will win big enough in November in order to rescue us from what the liberals have wrought - again.
• I Wear Pants

  This article was spot on.
  
  And of course the D's spend just as well as the R's. But anymore all you hear is how the R's would have us already turned around because tax cuts are the glorious saving grace to everything.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Lower taxes are definitely good for the economy if they are offset with spending cuts. This article is claiming that a strong dollar is even better, which I tend to agree with. What we have right now is the weakest dollar perhaps we ever had (in modern times), and it is only going to get worse.
• jhay78

  

  I thought it was interesting that Stockman railed against "the welfare state and the warfare state", but proceeded to mention specifics only in the area of military spending. Where was the mention of Obamacare- the largest unfunded mandate in history, which will make the $100 or so trillion unfunded mandates of SocSec and Medicare look small?
  
  If the Congress (controlled by, umm, uh, errr, I forget- oh that's right, the Dems!) hadn't smashed the piggy banks of all our great-great grandchildren with Obamacare, and flushed $800+ Billion down the toilet with the deceptively named "stimulus", then would there be as much heat on the Repubs for wanting to extend tax cuts?
  
  Some generation down the road (maybe sooner than we think) is going to have to prepare for old age with zero Social Security or Medicare. I personally have no expectation that the federal govt will be there for me- I've got to prepare for that myself.
• Footwedge

  Believer....call me a flaming liberal if you want. I'm OK with my OC skin. The author spends a lot of his time pointing the finger at the GOP for fiscal irresponsibility. If I'm a flaming liberal, then this Stockman dude is just as much of a flamer as I am...because I agree with every single word of his op ed.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;439334 wrote:Believer....call me a flaming liberal if you want. I'm OK with my OC skin. The author spends a lot of his time pointing the finger at the GOP for fiscal irresponsibility. If I'm a flaming liberal, then this Stockman dude is just as much of a flamer as I am...because I agree with every single word of his op ed.

  
  Fine but can you pretty, pretty please just one time start a thread with an op ed citing Dem abuses just to bring balance to the Force?
• general94

  Republicans = Suck
  Democrats = Suck a little more.
  
  I will bitch about all of the wasteful spending coming out of D.C. till my dying day whether it is done by Republicans, Democrats, or Kermit the Frog. I would say that the Republicans used to be better with the budget, but I agree, under G.W.B.'s terms they were awful. What amazes me is that the Democrats are even WORSE. I am willing to put the other party back in charge for two years and see if they learned anything. If not, then I will be one of the first ones on here saying throw the bums out.
• BGFalcons82

  

  general94;439394 wrote:Republicans = Suck
  Democrats = Suck a little more.
  
  I will bitch about all of the wasteful spending coming out of D.C. till my dying day whether it is done by Republicans, Democrats, or Kermit the Frog. I would say that the Republicans used to be better with the budget, but I agree, under G.W.B.'s terms they were awful. What amazes me is that the Democrats are even WORSE. I am willing to put the other party back in charge for two years and see if they learned anything. If not, then I will be one of the first ones on here saying throw the bums out.

  
  I'm going to agree with you, general. When anyone gets elected to Washington, they get a taste of power on day #1, it goes to their head, then to their voting clicker. All they want is more power over anything & everything in order to show how badly we "need" them and how much we can't live without their divine guidance and forbearance. What a crock of stinking crap that is. Prime example #1: Charlie Rangel. Prime example #2: Maxine Waters. Prime example #3: Tom Delay.
  
  Has there ever been a better argument for term limits?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Haven't you heard? Rangel and Waters are only in trouble because they're black and being unfairly picked upon. It has nothing to do with whether they are scumbags who have jived the system and got caught.
• IggyPride00

  

  Using a new line from his repertoire, Obama tells his supporters: “When you want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in D. When you want to go back? You put it in R.”

  Politico covered an Obama fundraising event today and I found it to be somewhat humorous.
  
  Obama has once again brought his car metaphor out. The new line about the R & D thing makes for a good sound bite, even if the basis of it is ridiculous. Definitely sounds like something we can expect to hear alot of this campaign season.
  
  I will say though, that someone at the RNC does need to be coming up with an agenda of sorts because I do think Republicans running will need to have a credible answer for "why it will be different this time, and what will you do different."
  
  In 1994 you had the contract with America, but it was also 40 years since Republicans had controlled the house. When you've been out of power that long, it is very easy to base your argument for being elected around the idea of "we've tried their way and it failed, so give us the keys."
  
  People are pissed at the Democrats, but if you look at the polling they still hate the Republicans as well because their failure is still fresh in voters minds for the most part. That is why for as much as it seems obvious it should be a GOP blowout in November, they need to seal the deal with the public and let them know that putting them back in power will make things better.
  
  People (largely the independents who decide elections) who hate both of their options are more likely to be apathetic and stay home if they feel there will be misery either way, creating a "why bother" mentality.
  
  

  Beginning his remarks at a Democratic National Committee event in Atlanta, President Obama says the "last few years have been extraordinarily challenging."“We didn’t get here by accident,” he says. The Bush administration cut taxes for the wealthy and gave in to special interests, he says.“So when I took office – because of the help of some of the people in this room – we put forward a new economic plan," he says. "A plan that rewards hard work instead of greed ... a plan that’s focused on making our middle class more secure and the country more competitive in the long run.”
  
  He adds, “After 18 months, I can say with confidence, we are on the right track.”
  
  “That is the choice in this election," he continues. "The choice is whether we want to go forward or we want to go backwards to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place.”
  
  Republicans, he says, have not “engaged in some heavy reflection.” “They have not come up with a single, solitary new idea,” he says.
  
  Continuing his attack on Republicans, who he accused of steering the economy into the recession, President Obama says, “They’re counting on that you all forgot." The GOP wants to "bamboozle you,” he says.
  
  “These are the folks that were behind the steering wheel and drove into a ditch,” he says, using one of his preferred metaphors for the economy. Obama adds that Democrats &#8220ut on their galoshes” and started moving the car, while Republicans continued to stand on the sidelines and offer criticism.“That’s all right -- we don’t need any help," he says. "We’re going to keep on pushing and pushing.”
  
  Continuing with the metaphor, Obama says that once Democrats righted the car, Republicans said, “Hang on -- we want the keys back.”
  
  “You can’t have the keys back," he says. "You don’t know how to drive.”
  
  Using a new line from his repertoire, Obama tells his supporters: “When you want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in D. When you want to go back? You put it in R.”
  
  Talking up the small-business jobs bill, which he says wouldn’t add to the deficit and has garnered GOP support in the past, Obama asks why Republicans have stalled the bill's passage. &#8220ure politics,” he says.
  
  Returning to the car metaphor, Obama says he’s “jump-starting” a “homegrown” clean-energy sector, aiming to create 800,000 jobs by 2012. Obama points out that Republicans “continue to show up at the ribbon cuttings” of economic events, despite opposing his policies.
  
  “Cheesing and grinning,” he says. “Sending out press releases.”
  
  Reacting to House Minority Leader John Boehner's goal to repeal the new health care law, President Obama says he doesn’t understand how making that a top priority will create jobs.
  
  “That can’t be a real jobs plan,” he says.
  
  Obama adds that Republicans’ plan to overturn financial reform is also flawed. “They want to go back to the status quo that got us in this situation,” he says. The free market is supposed to have some “basic rules of the road” so that the system can’t be gamed, he says.
  
  Republicans, Obama continues, are "more interested in the next election instead of the next generation.” He adds that the “other party voted 'no' ” to change the student-loan system.
  
  “They want to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,” which will cost $700 billion, he says. Republicans also have &#8220rotected” oil companies from liabilities in the event of a spill, he charges.
  
  “When we forced BP to put $20 billion aside ... and what happened?" he says. "The guy who would be the chairman of the Energy Committee in the House apologized to BP.”

  http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0810/obama_at_dnc_finance_event_71184f08-2130-41a9-bb42-1b62a7cdfbfe.html
• jmog

  I think its funny that Footie here puts this article up thinking that the conservatives on here will be all pissed, argue with it, etc.
  
  Then, he puts it up and all the conservatives are like "yeah, we agree, cut spending and taxes, get the budget balanced".
  
  You won't find a conservative on here who hasn't said "yup, the Rs have screwed up fiscal responsibility a few times". However, you also won't find a conservative on here that won't also point out that the Ds have owned Congress for much more of the last 40+ years than the Rs (it is Congress who owns the purse strings btw).
• majorspark

  

  Using a new line from his repertoire, Obama tells his supporters: “When you want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in D. When you want to go back? You put it in R.”

  Obamas got it in D all right. Right over the cliff. I settle for a little R right now. R in federal spending. R in growth of our bloated federal government. R in the currupt cesspool that is Washington politics.
  
  Unless the republicans drastically change their ways R will not stand for Republican (which I highly doubt). The R will stand for Revolution.
• IggyPride00

  

  (it is Congress who owns the purse strings btw

  That is true, but the President is every bit as responsible for the spending increases if they refuse to wield the Veto pen to try and stop it.
  
  The Democrats never had 2/3rd's majorities in the House and Senate at any time Reagan, Bush or Bush II were President.
  
  Had they vetoed Dem Congress spending bills, and promised to continue Vetoing them until they brought any of them a bill they liked, the wild spending would not have been possible as Democrats would never have had the votes to override a Veto.
  
  Republicans/Conservatives have been equally complicit in profligate spending because mathematically it would have been impossible for it to occur had they kept up a united front in the quest to keep spending under control.
  
  All through the 80's, had Reagan told Congressional Dems and their bloated spending bills to stuff it by Vetoing spending bill after spending bill, the debt spiral could have never started if Republicans held firm and didn't join in an attempt to overturn a Veto. The same formula applies to either Bush presidency as well.
  
  Liberals have been allowed to tax and spend only because Republicans have let them. In my eyes that makes them equally if not more complicit because they could have stopped them in every single instance and made a conscious decision not to.
• jmog

  Trust me Iggy, I'm in agreement that the Rs are to blame as well.
  
  However, to say that its "easy" to stand united against a spending bill in Congress just so the Ds don't override a veto by 2/3s is not true. There almost always are Ds and Rs alike that "jump" the fence.
• BGFalcons82

  

  jmog;440355 wrote:Trust me Iggy, I'm in agreement that the Rs are to blame as well.
  
  However, to say that its "easy" to stand united against a spending bill in Congress just so the Ds don't override a veto by 2/3s is not true. There almost always are Ds and Rs alike that "jump" the fence.

  
  The first congressman to come forward and declare they don't want any pork for their district nor will they accept any pork barrell spending will be a hero to many. Maybe if 1 said it, more would get in line. It's this kind of leadership we are so sorely missing in Washington.
• fish82

  

  BGFalcons82;440503 wrote:The first congressman to come forward and declare they don't want any pork for their district nor will they accept any pork barrell spending will be a hero to many. Maybe if 1 said it, more would get in line. It's this kind of leadership we are so sorely missing in Washington.

  Ironically, the Orange One has been running a pork-free district for several years now.
• QuakerOats

  Writerbuckeye;439848 wrote:Haven't you heard? Rangel and Waters are only in trouble because they're black and being unfairly picked upon. It has nothing to do with whether they are scumbags who have jived the system and got caught.

  
  Waters is not smart enough to jive the system; she is among the dumbest people to ever hold office in D.C. But she is a racist.
• FairwoodKing

  I don't think anything radical will change in November. Any political scientist can tell you that incumbents have a big advantage over their opponents. That's how George W. Bush, clearly one of the worst presidents we ever had, got re-elected. Voters want to throw someone else's bums out, not their own. Even our representative in the Steubenville area will like get re-elected even though I have yet to hear one person defend him.
  
  It may take an all-out disaster like a second Great Depression to turn this country around. The Republicans failed to control much of anything when they were in power, and the Democrats have not been any better.
  
  I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Obama turns out to be the great president that I think he can be. Only time will tell.