[Cara]

Lessons from America's Lost Decade

By Robert Parry
January 15, 2010


As the United States takes the measure of Barack Obama’s first year in the White House and looks beyond to what could be a difficult new decade, it might be useful to first stop and extract some lessons from the 2000s, which proved to be a lost economic decade for many Americans.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the United States experienced zero job growth in a decade. Zero. And zero is actually worse than it sounds since none of the preceding six decades registered job growth of less than 20 percent.

By comparison, the 1970s, which are often bemoaned as a time of economic stagflation and political malaise, registered a 27 percent increase in jobs. Yet, in part because of that relatively slow rise in jobs – down from 31 percent in the 1960s – American voters turned to Ronald Reagan and his radical economic theories of tax cuts, global “free markets” and deregulation.

Reagan sold Americans on his core vision: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Through his personal magnetism, Reagan turned taxes into a third rail of American politics. He convinced many voters that the government’s only important role was funding the military.

Yet, instead of guiding the country to a bright new day of economic vitality, Reagan’s approach accelerated a de-industrialization of the United States and a slump in the growth of American jobs, down to 20 percent during the 1980s.
The percentage job increase for the 1990s stayed at 20 percent, although job growth did pick up later in the decade under Democrat Bill Clinton, who raised taxes and moderated some of Reagan's approaches while still pushing "free trade" agreements and deregulation.

Hard-line Reaganomics returned with a vengeance under George W. Bush – more tax cuts, more faith in “free trade,” more deregulation – and the Great American Job Engine finally started grinding to a halt. Zero percent increase.

Despite the painful statistics of the past three decades, Reaganomics remains a powerful force in American political life. Anyone tuning in CNBC or picking up the Wall Street Journal would think that these economic policies had enjoyed unqualified success.

Though the downward economic spiral can be traced over the past three decades, the facts are especially stark for the 2000s, the so-called “Aughts” or perhaps more accurately the “Naughts.”

“For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households,” wrote the Washington Post's Neil Irwin in a Jan. 2, 2010, review of comparative economic data. “But since 2000, the story is starkly different.”

As the Post article and its accompanying graphics show, the last decade’s sad story wasn’t just limited to the abysmal job numbers.

U.S. economic output slowed to its worst pace since the 1930s, rising only 17.8 percent in the 2000s, less than half the 38.1 percent increase in the despised 1970s. Household net worth declined 4 percent in the last decade, compared to a 28 percent rise in the 1970s. (All figures were adjusted for inflation.)

Even Worse

As grim as those numbers were, the overall economic legacies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush may be even worse.

Not only did the Great American Job Engine grind to a halt in the past decade, but the dire economic numbers were accompanied by massive increases in federal debt, part of a risky right-wing strategy to hamstring the government’s ability to ever address domestic problems in the future.

When Reagan took office, the total federal debt was still under $1 trillion ($909 billion). By the end of the 12-year Republican reign of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the total debt had quadrupled.

The rise in the red ink leveled off under Democrat Bill Clinton. Amazingly, he left office with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion.

The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

But Greenspan’s nervousness was soon quieted. In 2001, George W. Bush seized the White House after blocking a full counting of legally cast votes in Florida, with the help of five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then, though lacking a popular mandate – Bush also had lost the national popular vote to Al Gore – Bush governed as if he had won by a landslide. He pushed through a new round of tax cuts weighted in favor of the wealthy and, after the 9/11 attacks, launched two open-ended wars on borrowed money.

By the time Bush left office in 2009, the annual deficit had gone to $1.3 trillion (from a $236 billion surplus). Total federal debt had risen almost $5 trillion to $10.7 trillion. And the projected 10-year budget outlook called for $8 trillion more in red ink.

Despite this record of economic failure – trillions more in debt but no net increase in jobs – many Americans appear to have learned no lessons from either the Bush-II presidency or the legacy of Reaganomics. Any thought of raising taxes, addressing long-term problems like health costs, or investing in a stronger domestic infrastructure remains anathema to large segments of the population.

Indeed, across the news media, it is hard to find any serious – or sustained – criticism of the Reagan/Bush economic theories. Far more blame is heaped on Obama for not having fully turned around the financial and economic crisis that he inherited.

Less than a year into Obama’s presidency, voters in Massachusetts may be on the verge of electing a conservative Republican in a special Senate election, according to some polls. That result would enable the GOP to filibuster every significant Obama initiative, from health care to job programs. Many pundits anticipate more Republican victories in congressional elections next November.

Who’s to Blame?

Some of the fault for these Democratic political troubles can fairly be laid at Obama’s door, though surely not all.

Fearing a new Great Depression, Obama did continue Bush’s policies for bailing out large banks whose greed and recklessness contributed to the 2008 financial meltdown. Obama also alienated his “base” by rejecting calls for investigating Bush-era national security crimes, expanding the Afghan War, and accepting compromises on health-care reform.

Tactically, Obama was played for a sucker when he let health-care negotiations with “moderate” Republicans like Olympia Snowe of Maine drag on past his initial deadline of August. By slow-rolling the process, the Republicans bought time to organize right-wing populist opposition to the reform package and then marched the GOP (Snowe included) in lockstep behind a Senate filibuster of the legislation.

The unified Republican filibuster forced Obama and the Democratic leadership to make deals with conservative Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman, an Independent who seemed to enjoy bedeviling the legislative process. To get Lieberman’s support, the public option and other popular elements were jettisoned, causing many on the Left to denounce Obama as a sell-out.

Because of all the legislative delays, the health-care bill now hangs on the outcome of the Massachusetts election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat on Jan. 19.

More generally, few Americans appear to be paying any heed to the lessons of the past three decades. Instead, many are simply reprising the same mistakes.

Republicans and the Right are determined to protect the Reagan-Bush legacies by blocking Democratic domestic legislation that might take the country in a different direction. To stop that possibility, they continue to whip up anti-tax, anti-government furies.

Meanwhile, the Democrats still come across as flaccid protectors of an Establishment that many Americans understandably hate. And the American Left mostly sits in the bleachers booing all the players, rather than getting into the game.

As this new decade dawns, the U.S. political process seems resistant to the one of most obvious lessons of the past three decades: Simply put, Reaganomics didn’t work. As George H.W. Bush once commented – when he was running against Reagan in the 1980 primaries – it is “voodoo economics.”

Yet, the fact that the United States has embraced “voodoo economics” for 30 years and refuses to recognize the statistical evidence of Reaganomics’ abject failure suggests that the larger lesson of this era – and especially this past lost decade – is that the U.S. political process is dysfunctional.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

[MrReality]

[quote name='Cara' date='20 January 2010 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1263982758' post='218860']
Lessons from America's Lost Decade

By Robert Parry <------- Idiot.
January 15, 2010

Ronald Reagan and his radical economic theories of tax cuts, global “free markets” and deregulation. <------- False statement.

Reagan sold Americans on his core vision: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Through his personal magnetism, Reagan turned taxes into a third rail of American politics. He convinced many voters that the government’s only important role was funding the military. <------- False statement.

Yet, instead of guiding the country to a bright new day of economic vitality, Reagan’s approach accelerated a de-industrialization of the United States and a slump in the growth of American jobs, down to 20 percent during the 1980s. <------- False statement.

Hard-line Reaganomics returned with a vengeance under George W. Bush – more tax cuts, more faith in “free trade,” more deregulation – and the Great American Job Engine finally started grinding to a halt. Zero percent increase. <------- False statement.

Despite the painful statistics of the past three decades, Reaganomics remains a powerful force in American political life. Anyone tuning in CNBC or picking up the Wall Street Journal would think that these economic policies had enjoyed unqualified success. <------- Laughable statement.

“For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households,” wrote the Washington Post's Neil Irwin in a Jan. 2, 2010, review of comparative economic data. “But since 2000, the story is starkly different.”

As grim as those numbers were, the overall economic legacies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush may be even worse. <------- False statement.

part of a risky right-wing strategy to hamstring the government’s ability to ever address domestic problems in the future. <------- False statement.

When Reagan took office, the total federal debt was still under $1 trillion ($909 billion). By the end of the 12-year Republican reign of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the total debt had quadrupled. <------- And yet, they were more successful then Jimmy Carter ever was.

The rise in the red ink leveled off under Democrat Bill Clinton. Amazingly, he left office with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. <------- True, except government grew under Bill Clinton. This is not good.

The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

But Greenspan’s nervousness was soon quieted. In 2001, George W. Bush seized the White House after blocking a full counting of legally cast votes in Florida, with the help of five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court. <------- False statement.

Despite this record of economic failure – trillions more in debt but no net increase in jobs – many Americans appear to have learned no lessons from either the Bush-II presidency or the legacy of Reaganomics. <------- False statement. Reaganomics are much different from Bush-onomics.

Indeed, across the news media, it is hard to find any serious – or sustained – criticism of the Reagan/Bush economic theories. <------- False statement.

Who’s to Blame? Ignorant fools on both sides of the aisle. <------ True statement.

To stop that possibility, they continue to whip up anti-tax, anti-government furies. <------- False statement.

And the American Left mostly sits in the bleachers booing all the players, rather than getting into the game. <------ True statement, and it can stay that way as far as I'm concerned.

Simply put, Reaganomics didn’t work. <------- False statement.

Yet, the fact that the United States has embraced “voodoo economics” for 30 years and refuses to recognize the statistical evidence of Reaganomics’ abject failure suggests that the larger lesson of this era – and especially this past lost decade – is that the U.S. political process is dysfunctional. <------- False statement.

Conclusion: Article is bull.

[Cara]

[quote name='MrReality' date='24 January 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1264317262' post='220030']

Cara, on 20 January 2010 - 03:19 AM, said:

Lessons from America's Lost Decade

By Robert Parry <------- Idiot.
January 15, 2010

Ronald Reagan and his radical economic theories of tax cuts, global “free markets” and deregulation. <------- False statement.

Reagan sold Americans on his core vision: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Through his personal magnetism, Reagan turned taxes into a third rail of American politics. He convinced many voters that the government’s only important role was funding the military. <------- False statement.

Yet, instead of guiding the country to a bright new day of economic vitality, Reagan’s approach accelerated a de-industrialization of the United States and a slump in the growth of American jobs, down to 20 percent during the 1980s. <------- False statement.

Hard-line Reaganomics returned with a vengeance under George W. Bush – more tax cuts, more faith in “free trade,” more deregulation – and the Great American Job Engine finally started grinding to a halt. Zero percent increase. <------- False statement.

Despite the painful statistics of the past three decades, Reaganomics remains a powerful force in American political life. Anyone tuning in CNBC or picking up the Wall Street Journal would think that these economic policies had enjoyed unqualified success. <------- Laughable statement.

“For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households,” wrote the Washington Post's Neil Irwin in a Jan. 2, 2010, review of comparative economic data. “But since 2000, the story is starkly different.”

As grim as those numbers were, the overall economic legacies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush may be even worse. <------- False statement.

part of a risky right-wing strategy to hamstring the government’s ability to ever address domestic problems in the future. <------- False statement.

When Reagan took office, the total federal debt was still under $1 trillion ($909 billion). By the end of the 12-year Republican reign of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the total debt had quadrupled. <------- And yet, they were more successful then Jimmy Carter ever was.

The rise in the red ink leveled off under Democrat Bill Clinton. Amazingly, he left office with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. <------- True, except government grew under Bill Clinton. This is not good.

The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

But Greenspan’s nervousness was soon quieted. In 2001, George W. Bush seized the White House after blocking a full counting of legally cast votes in Florida, with the help of five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court. <------- False statement.

Despite this record of economic failure – trillions more in debt but no net increase in jobs – many Americans appear to have learned no lessons from either the Bush-II presidency or the legacy of Reaganomics. <------- False statement. Reaganomics are much different from Bush-onomics.

Indeed, across the news media, it is hard to find any serious – or sustained – criticism of the Reagan/Bush economic theories. <------- False statement.

Who’s to Blame? Ignorant fools on both sides of the aisle. <------ True statement.

To stop that possibility, they continue to whip up anti-tax, anti-government furies. <------- False statement.

And the American Left mostly sits in the bleachers booing all the players, rather than getting into the game. <------ True statement, and it can stay that way as far as I'm concerned.

Simply put, Reaganomics didn’t work. <------- False statement.

Yet, the fact that the United States has embraced “voodoo economics” for 30 years and refuses to recognize the statistical evidence of Reaganomics’ abject failure suggests that the larger lesson of this era – and especially this past lost decade – is that the U.S. political process is dysfunctional. <------- False statement.

Conclusion: Article is bull.

'MrReality' - Thanks for your reply. Prove your claims and let's debate! Cara

[MrReality]

Lol, those claims are way to obvious to need to be proven.

[CaptKirk]

MrReality, on 28 January 2010 - 12:22 AM, said:

Lol, those claims are way to obvious to need to be proven.

Interesting way to say "You're right, I can't prove them."

[Zim]

Looks like MrReality took creating his own, fully to heart.

Lisa

[MrReality]

Lessons from America's Lost Decade

By Robert Parry <------- Idiot.
January 15, 2010

Ronald Reagan and his radical economic theories of tax cuts, global “free markets” and deregulation. <------- False statement. Reagan's theories were far from radical. Tax cuts work because they create incentive for the American people. Putting more strain on their income does not. Free markets have always succeeded more then controlled markets (I dare you to find a time when the free market didn't work as well), and deregulation is good because as we all know, constant strict laws can hold back American innovation. When has the government ever run something right?

Reagan sold Americans on his core vision: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Through his personal magnetism, Reagan turned taxes into a third rail of American politics. He convinced many voters that the government’s only important role was funding the military. <------- False statement. Reagan convinced voters that our taxpayer dollars should be spent on projects that or actually worthwhile and don't waste our money. Suggesting that "he convinced voters that the government's only important role was funding the military"' is complete bull.

Yet, instead of guiding the country to a bright new day of economic vitality, Reagan’s approach accelerated a de-industrialization of the United States and a slump in the growth of American jobs, down to 20 percent during the 1980s. <------- False statement. Pure bull. America climbed out of the Jimmy Carter induced recession under Reagan's conservative administration. Liberals struggle with this and will deny it in every way possible.

Hard-line Reaganomics returned with a vengeance under George W. Bush – more tax cuts, more faith in “free trade,” more deregulation – and the Great American Job Engine finally started grinding to a halt. Zero percent increase. <------- False statement. The Great American Job Engine ground to a halt when the Democrats took over Congress while Bush was still in power. I'm still wondering where tax increases, less free trade, and more regulation has ever helped out the economy.

Despite the painful statistics of the past three decades, Reaganomics remains a powerful force in American political life. Anyone tuning in CNBC or picking up the Wall Street Journal would think that these economic policies had enjoyed unqualified success. <------- Laughable statement. CNBC is has extreme left wing bias that of course would not celebrate Reagan's successful, conservative presidency. Suggesting otherwise would be the same as stamping pinhead on your face.

“For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households,” wrote the Washington Post's Neil Irwin in a Jan. 2, 2010, review of comparative economic data. “But since 2000, the story is starkly different.”

As grim as those numbers were, the overall economic legacies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush may be even worse. <------- False statement. Economic policies of Reagan and Bush were different. Suggesting I have to explain this one shows that you know nothing.

part of a risky right-wing strategy to hamstring the government’s ability to ever address domestic problems in the future. <------- False statement. Hahaha! Don't the Dems have a 60 vote supermajority? Wait, not anymore. Because they suck at fixing domestic problems.

When Reagan took office, the total federal debt was still under $1 trillion ($909 billion). By the end of the 12-year Republican reign of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the total debt had quadrupled. <------- And yet, they were more successful then Jimmy Carter ever was.

The rise in the red ink leveled off under Democrat Bill Clinton. Amazingly, he left office with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. <------- True, except government grew under Bill Clinton. This is not good. And Bill Clinton governed from the center after 1994 when the GOP wiped him out in those congressional elections.

The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

But Greenspan’s nervousness was soon quieted. In 2001, George W. Bush seized the White House after blocking a full counting of legally cast votes in Florida, with the help of five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court. <------- False statement. Bush won the electoral college; therefore, he won the election.

Despite this record of economic failure – trillions more in debt but no net increase in jobs – many Americans appear to have learned no lessons from either the Bush-II presidency or the legacy of Reaganomics. <------- False statement. Reaganomics are much different from Bush-onomics.

Indeed, across the news media, it is hard to find any serious – or sustained – criticism of the Reagan/Bush economic theories. <------- False statement. And hahaahahahhahah! The media is way to the left! Except for FNC, all you here is BLAH BLAH BLASH BUSH'S FAULT BLAH BLAH BLAH OBAMA IS THE MESSIAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Who’s to Blame? Ignorant fools on both sides of the aisle. <------ True statement.

To stop that possibility, they continue to whip up anti-tax, anti-government furies. <------- False statement. They whip of less taxes, smaller government suggestions.

And the American Left mostly sits in the bleachers booing all the players, rather than getting into the game. <------ True statement, and it can stay that way as far as I'm concerned.

Simply put, Reaganomics didn’t work. <------- False statement. The economy recovered under Reagan, and prosperity boomed.

Yet, the fact that the United States has embraced “voodoo economics” for 30 years and refuses to recognize the statistical evidence of Reaganomics’ abject failure suggests that the larger lesson of this era – and especially this past lost decade – is that the U.S. political process is dysfunctional. <------- False statement. All this is saying is "As liberals we refuse to accept that Reagan's policies succeeded, and we conclude that U.S. voters are to blame because they elected these terrible Reagan people, and we must become socialists."

Conclusion: Article is bull. I've read Reagan's diaries, by the way. I know a lot about him. They were very good.

[CaptKirk]

Well, I guess that explains how Reagan was able to eliminate the deficit.

No, wait...

[Mark]

CaptKirk, on 28 January 2010 - 07:17 PM, said:

Well, I guess that explains how Reagan was able to eliminate the deficit.

No, wait...

Where Reagan(or someone) went wrong was after the economy came back, the taxes should have went up slightly to pay the debt. NO ONE since Bush I is ready to try that tactic again. The people have been conditioned to believe that they can get anything they want, and lower taxes to boot.

[Zim]

Again, creating your own reality is lots of fun I'm sure. And you do it so well!

Lisa

[Mark]

Zim, on 29 January 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

Again, creating your own reality is lots of fun I'm sure. And you do it so well!

Lisa

You'd have to explain that.

[Heretic]

MrReality, on 28 January 2010 - 08:16 PM, said:

By Robert Parry <------- Idiot.

Don't know much about Parry, but he seems to be the left's answer to another non-economist "expert", the late Robert Bartley, whose mission it was to stick it to the liberals rather than a free flow of information.

Quote

Free markets have always succeeded more then controlled markets (I dare you to find a time when the free market didn't work as well)

How about the Great Depression and the Long Depression for starters? Or are you going to blame them on controlled markets?

[MrReality]

Mark, on 29 January 2010 - 06:47 AM, said:

Zim, on 29 January 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

Again, creating your own reality is lots of fun I'm sure. And you do it so well!

Lisa

You'd have to explain that.

Naw. Only conservatives have to try to explain themselves, remember? It's Liberal Law #67.

[CaptKirk]

MrReality, on 16 February 2010 - 12:10 AM, said:

Mark, on 29 January 2010 - 06:47 AM, said:

Zim, on 29 January 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

Again, creating your own reality is lots of fun I'm sure. And you do it so well!

Lisa

You'd have to explain that.

Naw. Only conservatives have to try to explain themselves, remember? It's Liberal Law #67.

Poor soul. You're so oppressed.

[Jeff in Kentucky]

How many times have you seen the media cover Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader? Perot had to buy his TV time. The presidential debates should include all of the candidates, not just the few at the top of the polls.

Carter was hurt by the 1973 oil embargo, and by his poor speech giving abilities. In addition, I think he was sabotaged by the conservatives, the same as Obama is now.

I think both Reagan and Clinton were lucky- they just happened to be president during worldwide economic upswings at the end of their 8 years.

W. Bush was unlucky and stupid, with his 8 years beginning with 9/11, and ending with a worldwide economic downturn, which he made worse by spending huge amounts of borrowed money in Afghanistan and Iraq. We could have used that money for campaign finance reform, to improve health insurance, and to invest in new energy technology, giving less money to foreign dictators who hate us to buy their oil.

[MrReality]

Jeff in Kentucky, on 03 March 2010 - 06:36 PM, said:

How many times have you seen the media cover Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader? Perot had to buy his TV time. The presidential debates should include all of the candidates, not just the few at the top of the polls.

That's because no one cares about Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader. No one cares about them because they know that they are not a good option for the country. Party trumps person, and that's just the way it is in American politics. If they want to be in the debates, then they need to get with the American people. Not way out there wacky extremism.

Quote

Carter was hurt by the 1973 oil embargo, and by his poor speech giving abilities. In addition, I think he was sabotaged by the conservatives, the same as Obama is now.

Whatever makes you feel better. I see it (the Carter presidency) as an example of failure of liberal policies.

Quote

I think both Reagan and Clinton were lucky- they just happened to be president during worldwide economic upswings at the end of their 8 years.

Oh, for sure. Luck determines a president's success. Right.

[Absque-Finio-Ire]

MrReality, on 11 March 2010 - 12:02 AM, said:

Oh, for sure. Luck determines a president's success. Right.

Is being at the right place at the right time luck?