Would you guys consider this trade w/OKC?

[stevebozell]

While I am not a huge Bush fan, he is by NO MEANS Ronald Reagan...Ronald Reagan's policies have a track record of success....Batron, while I agree with some of what you are saying, you havent been able to name an instance where "trickle up" economics has worked.

This spending spree, at a time of huge eceonomic difficulty, is about as irresponsible as it gets.

If you can show me a time where something like that worked, then you may have an argument. But off the top of my head, I dont remember such radical spending ever working in the long run.

[carrottop12]

While I am not a huge Bush fan, he is by NO MEANS Ronald Reagan...Ronald Reagan's policies have a track record of success....Batron, while I agree with some of what you are saying, you havent been able to name an instance where "trickle up" economics has worked.

This spending spree, at a time of huge eceonomic difficulty, is about as irresponsible as it gets.

If you can show me a time where something like that worked, then you may have an argument. But off the top of my head, I dont remember such radical spending ever working in the long run.

Well the idea of "trickle up" doesn't work because if the people at the bottom have no extra money there is nothing to trickle.

However the idea of the powers forever staying in power which is what Reagonomics essentially stands for ends up polarizing nations, it's basically everything flawed with capitolism, and it rewards it.

KD go read up on the Alternative Minimum Tax, and look at what Reagan did to the national deficit. And don't talk about Clinton getting lucky with the .com boom while failing to mention what dropping oil prices did to save Reagan's policies when he was leaving office.

And yes Steve Bozell, there are plently of examples of bailouts working, FDR created the HOLC which really saved the US during the great depression which was a bailout, the Chrysler Bailout more recently has been a huge success even if it wasn't looked as so immediately after it happened, but the company survived because of it.

The bailouts themselves aren't the problem, the money will help, more people will keep their jobs because of it, and ideally these companies will be able to pay back 75% or more of what the government gave them with in 5-10 years. IF that happens the economy will be in good shape again. Yes, it's a gamble, but it's better then the alternative of letting these companies go bankrupt, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. And if that many people lose jobs the economy would basically go into a downward spiraling tailspin resulting in millions of people declaring bankruptcy (which is even worse for the economy.)

The problem with the bailout is the idea that people will start to fall back on the idea of a bailout, will let their companies fall apart thinking that in the future the bailout will always be there to catch them. There are certainly some companies that shouldn't be bailed out, but letting the car companies fail wouldn't benefit anyone, right or wrong.

[jazzfan1971]

Not a basketball thread anymore. I invite you to continue your discussion in the current affairs forum.