The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated our economic debate for three decades.

Since the Reagan years, free-market cliches have passed for sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that capitalism is ailing.

You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to "grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy is "protectionism."

The old script is in rewrite. "We are in a worldwide crisis now because of excessive deregulation…….

<link>

Oddly enough: "Reaganomics" only achieved the limited successes it "did' due to the (generalized) belief (held by enough of the American public at that time) that the President was still "Believable" and wouldn't lie TOO BADLY to the American Public about SERIOUS issues at hand.

But now: We have grown up... THEN we saw the "Bush Administration's SOP... The overall CREDIBILITY of the "Office of the President of the United States" is all BUT nonexistent.

No pubic perception of credibility = NOTHING GWB could ever say would be regarded as anything more the "Hot Air" by MOST of America's Voters = ANY WILD DREAM of an economic policy based upon "Reaganomics" goes to show WITHOUT DOUBT how very out-of-touch with REALITY the "Republicans" actually ARE!!!

Predisposed & DOOMED to FAIL MISERABLY long before it even got a chance to get off the ground.

means in economic terms.

Sort of says it ALL about "Your" under-informed opinion, huh? But then again "You" still think GWB is doing really great, too! (Even though 87% of your fellow countrymen know better then you seem to.)

Reagan's economic plans have never been implemented. He wanted to lower taxes and spending. He got half of what he wanted, but since the democrats and liberal republicans controlled congress, he could not get the spending cuts he considered necessary.

Mr. Bush and the liberal republicans in congress had no desire to even try to implement Reagan's ideas. They cut taxes and then proceeded to increase spending at the second fastest rate in history.

Liberals hate free markets. Capitalists make money that liberals want to use for enslaving the people. Liberals want to expand federal programs to the point we are all government dependents.

As much as the democrats refuse to admit it, our primary problem is a result of clinton's trade policies, not deregulation. Over regulation and over taxation gave US corporations the incentive to take advantage of the new trade policies and many closed their US factories and moved them to Mexico and China while others outsourced high paying jobs to India.

wmou:

He got half of what he wanted, but since the democrats and liberal republicans controlled congress, he could not get the spending cuts he considered necessary.

Republicans controlled the Senate by 53 to 47.

wmou:

They cut taxes and then proceeded to increase spending at the second fastest rate in history.

SECOND FASTEST!?!?!?! ..... According to YOU, "Who was #1???".... (Provide a credable source with a "Link")

LBJ and the democrat controlled congress of the mid 1960s expanded fed power and spending more. (Going to bed now, but will find the links later)

"He got half of what he wanted, but since the democrats and liberal republicans controlled congress,"

The liberal big government Rockefeller republicans never liked Reagan and worked with the democrats to undermine him and his policies. Reagan thought fed spending was too high and constantly bargained for cuts that never came.

<link>

(Charting Scale is multiplied in Hundred Million Dollar Increments)

OOPS! Looks like the USGAO (United States Government General Accounting Office) says "YOU'RE FULL-OF-IT!" yet once again!

Rush Limbaugh et al tell these con_dumbs every day that the financial crisis is due to TOO MUCH REGULATION and like the fools they are, they believe him.

Yep..... They'd MUCH RATHER hold on to the latest "It's all in your mind" Neo-Con (Party) approved EXCUSE, and wake-up in the clutches of a FULLY-BLOWN Economic "Depression" a year from now then to come-to-terms with the facts that the Nation is in the MIDDLE of a dangerous economic RECESSION, now!

of the underlying economic principles of so-called Reaganomics which is otherwise known as Supply Side Economics.

sorry, Paulie. you're wrong.

old man Bush was right when he accurately called trickle-down/supply-side/Reaga­nomics voodoo econ.

economic malaise.

Clearly you don't don't know the basic tenets of supply side economics.

If you do cite them and why they're no longer applicable if you can.

I'm betting you can't!

....It's obvious that underlying economic principles of so-called Reaganomics wasn't Supply Side Economics at ALL! It relied (for the greater part) upon "Non-deliverables" (Dialogue & Verbal Promises) used to encourage "Capital Investments"!!! The strategy relied ALMOST ENTIRELY upon "Trust" in future returns (ROI)!!!

EXACTLY the reason WHY "Reaganomic Strategies" DON'T WORK AT ALL for the Bush Administration (as well as being "Outdated" over-all) => "TRUST" must connect to "Credibility" for the strategy to "Increase Investment Capital" thereby STIMULATING the economy.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION (In and by it's OWN ACTIONS neither inspires "Credibility" -OR- "Trust" based capital investing (As well as trust-based anything ELSE!)

... Sorry Skippy! ...MAGIC isn't going to SAVE GWB from having yet another "Legacy" to add to his list of profound failures!!!

*** MISERABLY FAILED ECONOMIC POLICY!!! ***