Robert Reich, "So why are Democrats voting for Reaganomics?"

Exactly.

More than thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan came to Washington intent on reducing taxes on the wealthy and shrinking every aspect of government except defense.The new tax deal embodies the essence of Reaganomics…
…The only practical effect of adding $858 billion to the deficit will be to put more pressure on Democrats to reduce non-defense spending of all sorts, including Social Security and Medicare, as well as education and infrastructure.
It is nothing short of Ronald Reagan’s (and David Stockman’s) notorious “starve the beast” strategy…
In 2012, an election year, when congressional Democrats have less power than they do now, the pressure to extend the Bush tax cuts further will be overwhelming.
Worse yet, the deal adds to the underlying structural problem that caused the Great Recession in the first place…
…Yet the richest 1 percent of Americans is now taking home a larger percentage of the nation’s income than at any time since 1928. And we recall what happened in 1929.
Unless the vast majority of Americans has enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without going ever more deeply into debt, the economy will eventually go over a cliff…
…Will lower taxes on the rich spur them to create more jobs? Not a chance. Since 1980, Reagan’s supply-siders have said lower taxes on the rich will trickle down to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at history.
During the almost three decade spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent.
Between 1983 and the start of the Great Recession, when the top rate ranged between 35 percent and 39 percent, average growth was 3 percent…
…Nor did George W. Bush’s tax cuts trickle down. Between 2002 and 2007 the median wage actually dropped. And Bush’s record of job creation was pathetic relative to Bill Clinton’s, when taxes were higher…
…So why are Democrats voting for Reaganomics?
They say they have no choice — either vote for this or watch taxes rise on everyone starting January 1.That Democrats have allowed themselves to get into this fix is a testament to either their timidity, obtuseness, or dependence on the campaign contributions of those at the top.

No kidding. Supply-side economics doesn’t work. Neoliberalism doesn’t work. Libertarianism doesn’t work. Friedmanite laissez-faire economics doesn’t work. We now have 30-40 years of evidence staring us right in the face.
What’s with Americans? Why are they so fucked in the head? I don’t get it.
Are we all nihilists? It seems to me that ever since Reagan came to power in the 1980’s, the dominant ideology in this country has been nihilism. I’ve got mine, screw you. Everything for me, nothing for anyone else.
Not only is rightwing economics failing, but American nihilism is failing badly too.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Robert Reich, "So why are Democrats voting for Reaganomics?"”

  1. A Euro-American’s disdain for thew application of wide scale Big Government socialism in a hopelessly multi-cultural country should of course not result in his sympathy for tax cuts for the rich Elite which has worked against the interests of (cross-class. i.e. Organic) Majority America for the past thirty years.

  2. @Robert Lindsay
    Doesn’t social economies of Europe work primarily because US covers things like defence for these countries and relatively small size?
    Although these countries have their own military they are part of NATO which coordinate with US which covers the bulk of the expenses and manpower and even gets contracts in foreign wars like Germany did in reconstruction of the former Yugoslavia when that got bombed.
    Even in the EU it is Germany that covers most of the costs.
    Plus the countries are still overwhelmingly white in the 90% range, have no regional threats or conflicts to contend with (unless they are controlled and created like in the former Yugoslavia) and population wise relatively small.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *