You have to hand it to MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow. She’s bold, bright and takes no prisoners when it comes to political bullies. During Friday’s edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, Republican economist Steve Moore (I want my name back!), was defending Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts (VooDoo Economics), or trickle-down economics if you were one of the hardworking Americans who were pissed on during the 80s. Moore made the absurd claim that the cuts were wonderful for America.
(video after the jump)
When Maddow tried to assert that those policies were only “wonderful” if you were rich, Moore became his usual spastic self and began bullying Rachel by constantly attempting to talk over her. The verbal war of words became so intense that Maddow had to literally stand up just to get her point across:
MADDOW: From 1980 until 1990, the top 1% saw their income go up by roughly 80%. The median wage in the country over ten years went up 3%. That means for the people who are best off on the country, it was the Matterhorn and for everybody else in the country, it was like this. (crosstalk) So if you were rich, Reagan was awesome. And if you were anybody else, it sucked.
As luck would have it, the third panelist on the show was none other than Regan’s budget director, who seemed to accept Maddow’s assessment over Moore’s and added how irresponsible the Republicans have become in their spending practices.
WATCH:
[From: CrooksandLiars.com]
About Stew Steve
Maddow was excellent. That girl is smart and savy. The crown jewel here was when Reagan’s own top economic advisor said, the policy hurt the American economy.
Couldn’t agree more. I love Maddow and the fact that she got in Moore’s face was a treat. Each time that guy appears on “Real Time,” he chuckles like a hillbilly and speaks over the other panelists. Go Rachel!
It seems to me that what regan’s former budget director misses is that the Republicans did not control both houses of Congress during Reagan’s terms and therefore could not decrease spending and that under Obama the defecit has almost doubled from $10 trillion to $14 trillion.
I think we all can agree that tax cuts don’t work without corrosponding spending cuts, but it seems that neigher party has the stomach for the needed cuts. This is the primary reason why the Tea Party was formed.
The bottom line is that while Reagans ideas were correct, they have since been misconstrued to mean that any amount of debt is acceptable which is ridiculous. Certainly, some debt is acceptable, but there is a point where debt service impedes the governments ability to provide necessary services. We are well past that point and must reverse the trend immediately.
Rubbish and more Rubbish. First, check your math…”$10 trillion to $14 trillion…” is not “almost doubled.” Even if those figures were correct and not “misconstrued” as you put it. And you obviously haven’t done your homework on Reagan’s economic policies, which are widely agreed to be a failure. Trickle-down economics was good for the wealthy and everyone else got pissed on. End of story.
Widely agreed to be a failure? What? Everyone’s wealth increased over the tax cuts. It’s funny that Maddow says that he increased the debt, so did Obama.
The table below shows that by 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.
Incomes Moved Up in the 1980s
(billions 1981 dollars)
Workers Earning $50,000 > $75,000
1981 66.0 9.9 3.0
1989 62.6 15.8 5.5
Difference -3.4 5.9 2.5
% Change -5% 60% 83%
Source: Cato Institute calculations based on Bureau of the Census; U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1996, p. 478, Table 740.
*Earning levels are adjusted for inflation between 1981 and 1989
Thanks Tom – you just proved Maddow’s point: the wealthy got richer and the poor got poorer. VooDoo economics FAILED! My parents were those who saw their incomes fall under Reagan and rise under Clinton, only to fall again under Bush I and Bush II. Debt increased under Obama because of Dubya.
I love how you right-wingers use fuzzy math to try and defend the further fattening of fat-cats.
Yes, WIDELY AGREED. Did you even watch the clip? Did you notice who the third panelist was sitting next to Moore and Maddow? None other than Reagan’s budget director, and he agreed with Maddow. What do you think you know that he doesn’t?
Good try.