Stockman indicted
March 30, 2007 10:37 PM   Subscribe

Stockman agreed that supply-side theory was, in Greider's words, "only new language and argument to conceal a hoary old Republican doctrine: give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects 'trickle down' through the economy to reach everyone else." Said Stockman: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down' .. . Kemp-Roth [the supply-side tax bill] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate."
Reagon's Budget Director, David Stockman "was indicted for defrauding investors and banks of $1.6 billion while chairman of Collins & Aikman Corp., an auto-parts maker that collapsed days after he quit." via
posted by afu (14 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
The Laffer curve lives.
posted by longsleeves at 10:59 PM on March 30, 2007

"The Triumph of Politics" is still a great book.
posted by dglynn at 11:31 PM on March 30, 2007

So I guess these guys have always been this stupid and corrupt?

Or not, actually this bush II crew really does seem to be far more corrupt (and corrupting to the country) then anyone coming before. These guys drop teapot domes before breakfast. It may be that previous republican groups were just as mendacious, but didn't have the sheer level of incompetence necessary to get caught so often.
posted by delmoi at 11:52 PM on March 30, 2007

Bobbi Harlow: Your biology project, I assume?
Milo Bloom: Yup. A twelve-foot python named David Stockman. Eats rabbits.
Bobbi Harlow: Bunnies?
Milo Bloom: Yes. I've named them after various social programs. I'm afraid it was little CETA's turn, yesterday.
Bobbi Harlow: Ugh! That's horrid!
Milo Bloom: Well, that's the point.

(If I got it wrong, blame this person.)
posted by A dead Quaker at 11:56 PM on March 30, 2007

Interesting timing now that Rudy G. is running as a supply sider.

I've always thought supply side was clearer if you change the trickle down metaphor to the poor getting crumbs.
posted by srboisvert at 2:52 AM on March 31, 2007

To be fair, the personal failings of the man are not what invalidates his arguments.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:54 AM on March 31, 2007

...the personal failings of the man are not what invalidates his arguments.

I don't think that's the claim being made here. Supply side/trickle downers are claimed to only be in it for the money. When one of them is shown to have only been in something else for the money, that lends creedence to the first claim.
posted by DU at 3:30 AM on March 31, 2007

Trickle down? More like pissed on! (I believe that comes from Gil Scott Heron).

But yeah, it's weird seeing the hagiography of Reagan (with the tear down his cheek) when he was just as corrupt and evil as the current run of retards at the top. He just got stopped a bit earlier and was more constrained (and thus able to cause less damage). But his cronies were cronies, and were a friendly patina on evil economic and social policy...
posted by klangklangston at 7:36 AM on March 31, 2007

Now who has the last Laffer?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:48 AM on March 31, 2007

The last instance of supply side theory flaunted in public was the so-called bridge-to-nowhere in Alaska, a tax project selling the belief that it "if you build it, they will come" (and therefore the government is the business). The obvious economic problem is that the bar is too low for such investments, based on favoritism in government service itself.

Previously from last year's Wikipedia (haven't checked to see if it is still there):

Supply-siders maintain that they offer a production-centred world view, and that this was behind the writing of classical economists such as Adam Smith and Karl Marx. In contrast to the modern Keynesian world view these authors are thought, by supply-siders, to focus exclusively on production, as opposed to the effects of demand. Despite both economists being frequently characterised as polar opposites in economic thinking, Jude Wanniski says that their production-centered world view puts them closer to each other than to Keynesian economic thinking.
posted by Brian B. at 9:18 AM on March 31, 2007

Given that this is a federal prosecution, is it too cynical of me to wonder if this case is really motivated by a desire to punish Mr. Stockman for letting those particular multi-toed and sickly cats out of the bag, and to forestall him from becoming a figure like John Dean and Kevin Phillips, also Republicans of a previous era, who are attempting to wrest control of their party away from the Bush Crime Family and their utterly corrupted cohort?

If you are looking at stock fraud perpetrated by corporate officers in the Age of Bush, $1.6B could be seen as pretty small change.
posted by jamjam at 10:41 AM on March 31, 2007

Embrace the schmuck.
posted by Dizzy at 2:18 PM on March 31, 2007

From the FPP's Bloomberg article:
Stockman served two terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Michigan before Reagan, a Republican, appointed him as director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 1981. The federal deficit swelled following Reagan's tax cuts and defense buildup, prompting Stockman to voice concerns in the media that caused a furor in Washington.

He said the budget deficit "will be stuck at $200 billion as far as the eye can see,' according to a May 12, 1983, report by the Washington Post.
Well, not exactly. After a new low of - $413 billion in Bush 2004, the deficit is almost back up to Reagan-era levels: see the graph Yearly U.S. Budget Deficit or Surplus, 1961 - Present (in $Billions).
posted by cenoxo at 9:50 PM on April 1, 2007

posted by matteo at 7:37 AM on April 2, 2007

« Older I WAITED FOR YOU, FRY   |   Daniel Martin Diaz Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments