WhHy I think GOP economic policies in the past have failed

independentusa · Jun 30, 2017

I think there are two reasons that GOP economic policies in the past have failed both based on the GOP policy of providing the wealthy tax relief. The Bush tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy. The idea that they would create jobs. The first problem with this idea is that we are a consumer driven economy, not one driven by investment. The Bush tax cuts would have worked better if they had provided most of their tax cuts or credits to the poor and the middle class. These people spend most of their income and given more income would have given a huge boost to the economy. The wealthy spend a much smaller percentage of their income thus be providing them the greatest proportion of the tax cuts, the GOP tax cuts failed to give our economy the necessary push in consumer spending it needed to take off. The second failure of the GOP tax cuts was that the wealthy no longer create jobs as they once did. At one time in the past the wealthy actually invested in companies. Today they chase the wealth around by constantly changing investments looking for the best and quickest way to increase their wealth. Often this chase leads then too invest their wealth overseas rather than in the USA. So the tax cuts by the GOP created few if any jobs leading to the deep recession at the end of he Bush presidency. Now it seems the GOP is once again is gong to do the same thing with cuts in taxes for the wealthy both through Trumpcare and their tax reform. Hope history doesn't repeat itself.

sear · Jun 30, 2017

My confidence in the reasonable solidity and stability of the Republican economic agenda began to diminish after Barry Goldwater lost his presidential bid.

Reagan talked a great game. But talk is cheap, and Reagan's deficits and debt are not.

In defense of the GOP, some if not most of the marvelous prosperity of the Clinton administration has been credited to the policies Reagan implemented to undo the harm President Carter had caused.

BUT !!

Governor Clinton ran against President Bush with slogans including: "It's the economy stupid."
I'm not calling anyone stupid here. I'm quoting Governor Clinton.

Point being, Clinton KNEW the economy was a major issue, and with that slogan Clinton was announcing to the whole electorate his intention reflect that in his presidential administration's policies. Therefore crediting Reagan for Clinton's prosperity may seem a reach to some.

independentusa · Jun 30, 2017

You do realize that after his initial tax cuts, Reagan raised taxes 18 times to try and offset the deficits his original tax cuts cost.

sear · Jun 30, 2017

"You do" iu #3

a) Correct.

b) So what?

I've never seen a one-sided coin. You're only addressing half the equation.

Revenue is ABSOLUTELY important to quantifying the deficit to surplus ratio.

BUT !!

The other half of the equation is $SPENDING. And Reagan made a conscious decision to spend the Soviets into $oblivion with his Star Wars (SDI) gambit.

And let us please not be simple about this.

Reagan was president for 8 years. Do you really expect me to believe the Gipper wasn't smart enough to figure out by year 7 that our outgo was going to exceed our income? That adjusting SOMEthing was overdue?

Reagan (R-CA) had 8 years to balance a budget, and didn't.

Reagan's VP Bush (R-TX) had 4 years to balance a budget, and didn't. "Read my lips." It took

Clinton (D-AR) to balance consecutive federal budgets, albeit by fudging Social Security revenues. But the previous two fellows couldn't even do that.

So what's your point?

apdst · Jun 30, 2017

independentusa said:
I think there are two reasons that GOP economic policies in the past have failed both based on the GOP policy of providing the wealthy tax relief. The Bush tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy. The idea that they would create jobs. The first problem with this idea is that we are a consumer driven economy, not one driven by investment. The Bush tax cuts would have worked better if they had provided most of their tax cuts or credits to the poor and the middle class. These people spend most of their income and given more income would have given a huge boost to the economy. The wealthy spend a much smaller percentage of their income thus be providing them the greatest proportion of the tax cuts, the GOP tax cuts failed to give our economy the necessary push in consumer spending it needed to take off. The second failure of the GOP tax cuts was that the wealthy no longer create jobs as they once did. At one time in the past the wealthy actually invested in companies. Today they chase the wealth around by constantly changing investments looking for the best and quickest way to increase their wealth. Often this chase leads then too invest their wealth overseas rather than in the USA. So the tax cuts by the GOP created few if any jobs leading to the deep recession at the end of he Bush presidency. Now it seems the GOP is once again is gong to do the same thing with cuts in taxes for the wealthy both through Trumpcare and their tax reform. Hope history doesn't repeat itself.

It's impossible to give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes.

sear · Jun 30, 2017

"I think there are two reasons that GOP economic policies in the past have failed both based on the GOP policy of providing the wealthy tax relief." a #5

They're trying to up their game a tad.
But McConnell's (R-KY) fig leaf is one layer of cellophane. THEY call it a healthcare bill.

What it really is is a tax cut bill for the wealthy.

Who do they think they're kiddin'?

"tax cuts" U.S. President Bush (younger)

"They [Republicans] would have us borrow $700 $Billion $Dollars over the next ten years, to give a tax cut of about a $hundred $thousand $dollars each to folks who are already $millionaires." U.S. President Obama 2010

KLATTU · Jun 30, 2017

independentusa said:
I think there are two reasons that GOP economic policies in the past have failed both based on the GOP policy of providing the wealthy tax relief. The Bush tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy. The idea that they would create jobs. The first problem with this idea is that we are a consumer driven economy, not one driven by investment. itself.

You're off to a shaky start.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/#6c655e5800af

KLATTU · Jun 30, 2017

independentusa said:
I t The second failure of the GOP tax cuts was that the wealthy no longer create jobs as they once did. eat itself.

More LW fantasy...

They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%. Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.

Because of that increased investment, labor productivity soared by 2.5% annually from 2003 to 2007, higher than the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. As a result, real after tax income per capita increased by more than 11%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/#6c655e5800af

sear · Jun 30, 2017

KLATTU said:
You're off to a shaky start.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/#6c655e5800af

- dandy -

But you're conflating revenue with prosperity. They are not synonyms.

KLATTU · Jun 30, 2017

I'm not one who thinks tax cuts are always a good idea, but I also don't believe either party has any such thing as the magic answer.

KLATTU · Jun 30, 2017

sear said:
- dandy -

But you're conflating revenue with prosperity. They are not synonyms.

That comment doesn't make no sense . You premised you op on the fact that the Bush tax cuts didn't focus enough on consumer spending because the bottom half spends more and I just showed you that they had more to spend because of the Bush tax cuts.

Cephus · Jun 30, 2017

The problem is that, as I've said many times before, conservatism builds nations and liberalism tears them down. When you reach a certain point in a nation's economic growth, and we reached this by around WWII, people start wanting things for free from the government and people start becoming more and more liberal. When most people don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from or having a roof over their head, they turn outward and stop caring about personal and fiscal responsibility. After all, you live in a nation of plenty, you just deserve stuff. This is what's happened to the U.S., especially since the late 60s/early 70s. Conservative views don't work as well in that climate.

But let's be honest, the GOP isn't conservative. It hasn't been for a very long time. It's hyper-religious socially and very liberal fiscally. They spend money like drunken sailors, just like the Democrats. They wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it bit them, but what they want to spend money on isn't the liberal idiots with their hands out, it's the military, which is every bit as big of a problem. So the liberal morons are complaining that they aren't getting the money. That's what really separates the left from the right these days.

sear · Jun 30, 2017

"That comment doesn't make no sense ." K #11

It might not, to someone that doesn't distinguish government prosperity from that of the whole nation, and the good People of the United States.

If prosperity of the People and the prosperity of the government were identical, then tax rate wouldn't matter.

Set the tax rate to 100%, and the government might seem to prosper*. And since in your world prosperity of the government is prosperity of the People, all would prosper.

Set the tax rate to $zero%, and the People might seem to prosper. And since in your world prosperity of the People is prosperity of the government, all would prosper.

Here's a primer to help you out:

The following excerpted from U.S. Presidential candidate Libertarian Andre Marrou's
1992 stump speech.

"... the United States is increasingly socialistic under the Democrats & Republicans.
The Democrats are essentially left wing socialists. The Republicans are right wing
socialists. How do you define socialism? More money to government, more power to
government, more bureaucrats, and more regulations, and on and on ... .
The federal government spends 25% of the Gross National Product. State, county, and
local government spend another 22%. That's 47% of the Gross National Product of this
country being spent by the government bureaucrats primarily on themselves. That
leaves 53% in your pockets. You're the people who earn it. 47% vs 53%; how can we
get your 53% up to 90%? One and only one way, we must reduce the 47% the
government spends, down to 10%. That is the only way it can be done.

I refuted the conflation.

Marrou demonstrates that rather than proportional, it's rather more INVERSELY proportional!

Government prosperity can and often is at the expense of the People.
We needn't look beyond the Soviet Union, and North Korea to confirm / validate that.

* No lecture on the Laffer Curve please.

jonny5 · Jun 30, 2017

independentusa said:
I think there are two reasons that GOP economic policies in the past have failed both based on the GOP policy of providing the wealthy tax relief. The Bush tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy. The idea that they would create jobs. The first problem with this idea is that we are a consumer driven economy, not one driven by investment. The Bush tax cuts would have worked better if they had provided most of their tax cuts or credits to the poor and the middle class. These people spend most of their income and given more income would have given a huge boost to the economy. The wealthy spend a much smaller percentage of their income thus be providing them the greatest proportion of the tax cuts, the GOP tax cuts failed to give our economy the necessary push in consumer spending it needed to take off. The second failure of the GOP tax cuts was that the wealthy no longer create jobs as they once did. At one time in the past the wealthy actually invested in companies. Today they chase the wealth around by constantly changing investments looking for the best and quickest way to increase their wealth. Often this chase leads then too invest their wealth overseas rather than in the USA. So the tax cuts by the GOP created few if any jobs leading to the deep recession at the end of he Bush presidency. Now it seems the GOP is once again is gong to do the same thing with cuts in taxes for the wealthy both through Trumpcare and their tax reform. Hope history doesn't repeat itself.

The Bush tax cuts didnt go mostly to the wealthy. 64% of the share of tax change went to the bottom 99%. And they top 1% are paying ever more of the share of income tax.

https://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/t08-0151.gif

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

Furthermore, the wealthy spend far more on consumer items than the poor.

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich/

According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays. Outlays include consumer spending, interest payments on installment debt and transfer payments.

sear · Jun 30, 2017

"as I've said many times before, conservatism builds nations and liberalism tears them down." C #12

I can't attest to how many times you've made this assertion.

BUT !!

In the case of the United States of America, you are absolutely wrong.

We are on the cusp of our annual Independence Day celebration. And many of our most enthusiastic celebrants deem themselves patriots.
And as such they revere and remember our nations Founders.
And as these U.S. "patriots" honor our Founders, their ideological kinship can slip them into believe that if they (our contemporary countrymen) are patriots, our Founders were too.

THEY WERE NOT !!! !!!

Our nation's Founders were traitors. And they were unambiguously clear about that.

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.

The U.S. nation's Founders weren't conservatives building a nation.
The U.S. Founders were Revolutionary radicals; what would pass today for "liberal".

"as I've said many times before, conservatism builds nations and liberalism tears them down." C #12

In context of the United States of America, you could not possibly have been more wrong each time.

Happy Independence Day!

PS
"Conservatives" tend to conserve, that is, preserve the status quo.
They may be more likely to stagnate a nation than to "build" it.

jonny5 · Jul 1, 2017

sear said:
I can't attest to how many times you've made this assertion.

BUT !!

In the case of the United States of America, you are absolutely wrong.

We are on the cusp of our annual Independence Day celebration. And many of our most enthusiastic celebrants deem themselves patriots.
And as such they revere and remember our nations Founders.
And as these U.S. "patriots" honor our Founders, their ideological kinship can slip them into believe that if they (our contemporary countrymen) are patriots, our Founders were too.

THEY WERE NOT !!! !!!

Our nation's Founders were traitors. And they were unambiguously clear about that.

The U.S. nation's Founders weren't conservatives building a nation.
The U.S. Founders were Revolutionary radicals; what would pass today for "liberal".

In context of the United States of America, you could not possibly have been more wrong each time.

Happy Independence Day!

PS
"Conservatives" tend to conserve, that is, preserve the status quo.
They may be more likely to stagnate a nation than to "build" it.

They weren't traitors. They declared independence and would have been fine if left alone. They did not want to overthrow England or help its enemies destroy them.

countryboy · Jul 1, 2017

independentusa said:
I think there are two reasons that GOP economic policies in the past have failed both based on the GOP policy of providing the wealthy tax relief. The Bush tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy. The idea that they would create jobs. The first problem with this idea is that we are a consumer driven economy, not one driven by investment. The Bush tax cuts would have worked better if they had provided most of their tax cuts or credits to the poor and the middle class. These people spend most of their income and given more income would have given a huge boost to the economy. The wealthy spend a much smaller percentage of their income thus be providing them the greatest proportion of the tax cuts, the GOP tax cuts failed to give our economy the necessary push in consumer spending it needed to take off. The second failure of the GOP tax cuts was that the wealthy no longer create jobs as they once did. At one time in the past the wealthy actually invested in companies. Today they chase the wealth around by constantly changing investments looking for the best and quickest way to increase their wealth. Often this chase leads then too invest their wealth overseas rather than in the USA. So the tax cuts by the GOP created few if any jobs leading to the deep recession at the end of he Bush presidency. Now it seems the GOP is once again is gong to do the same thing with cuts in taxes for the wealthy both through Trumpcare and their tax reform. Hope history doesn't repeat itself.

Yes, we know leftist loons deny the reality that tax cuts increase federal revenue, and that the Democrat created housing crisis played a huge role in the recession at the end of Bush's presidency. :yawn:

sear · Jul 1, 2017

" They did not want to overthrow England or help its enemies destroy them. " j5

Splendid, but immaterial.

Whatever else anyone else including you may have thought or think, KG3 thought of the American colonies as his colonies.
That's why he'd been imposing among other things the Townsend Act taxes, etc. on them.
Why would he have taxed them if he didn't think they were his?
Are you suggesting Trump should tax Portugal?

Have you forgotten:

"No taxation without representation?"

Your opinion is noted.
But I believe Benjamin Franklin's opinion carries more weight then yours.

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.

beerftw · Jul 1, 2017

independentusa said:
You do realize that after his initial tax cuts, Reagan raised taxes 18 times to try and offset the deficits his original tax cuts cost.

Reagan did, and that was because he never intended his tax cuts to be permanent, but rather as a short term to spur economic growth, then to gradually go back up as the economy recovered. His policy was a hybrid of keynesian and supply side economics.

sear · Jul 1, 2017

jonny5 · Jul 7, 2017

sear said:
Splendid, but immaterial.

Whatever else anyone else including you may have thought or think, KG3 thought of the American colonies as his colonies.
That's why he'd been imposing among other things the Townsend Act taxes, etc. on them.
Why would he have taxed them if he didn't think they were his?
Are you suggesting Trump should tax Portugal?

Have you forgotten:

Your opinion is noted.
But I believe Benjamin Franklin's opinion carries more weight then yours.

Splendid but immaterial. KG3 had no right to think he owned the colonies. I prefer Franklins other work that he signed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

People are free and have a right to form their own govt. It is not treason to do so.

sear · Jul 9, 2017

"KG3 had no right to think he owned the colonies." j5 #21

"Owned" may not be quite the right word.
"Had rightful sovereign control over" may be the better way to phrase it.

No bodies made KG3's case for him better than the American colonists.

Did they turn to Revolution? OF COURSE !!

BUT !!

Revolution was not their first choice, but their last.
And if you read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, you'll find most of it is a laundry list of whining on issues THE COLONISTS wanted KG3 to address, but he didn't.

So not only did King George III consider himself the sovereign of the colonies. The colonists thought so too.

"Tyranny like hell, is not easily conquered." Common Sense author Thomas Paine

NOTE: This publication sold ~500K copies among a ~1.5M population, :. ~33% of population owned a copy, believed influential in persuading colonists to revolt

jonny5 · Jul 10, 2017

sear said:
"Owned" may not be quite the right word.
"Had rightful sovereign control over" may be the better way to phrase it.

No bodies made KG3's case for him better than the American colonists.

Did they turn to Revolution? OF COURSE !!

BUT !!

Revolution was not their first choice, but their last.
And if you read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, you'll find most of it is a laundry list of whining on issues THE COLONISTS wanted KG3 to address, but he didn't.

So not only did King George III consider himself the sovereign of the colonies. The colonists thought so too.

Some reason you cant use quotes with my tag in it? KG3 had no rightful sovereign control over the colonies either once the declared independence. Freedom is a unalienable natural right. And obviously the colonists did not consider him soveriegn given the signed their name to a document declaring exactly the opposite.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

sear · Jul 10, 2017

"Freedom is a unalienable natural right." j5

President Abraham Lincoln didn't think so.

The presidential oath as enumerated in our Constitution requires our presidents to preside in accordance with the law.

And our Constitution, the "Supreme law of the land" enumerates the requirement that the U.S. president suppress insurrections.

I'll leave you to your ruminations on "freedom".

The Founders addressed "Liberty".

BUT !!

Liberty of individuals is not the same as sovereignty.

You may retain the right of Liberty.

But you have no "right" to simply declare yourself a sovereign, declare your fashionable split-level in the development as "j5ville" stop paying taxes, stop obeying the laws, etc.

It simply doesn't work that way.

Wresting sovereign rights from a monarch generally requires bloodshed. No example of such case being settled in a court of law comes to my mind.

Territory may be acquired that way.

The U.S. acquired Alaska from the Russia at the exorbitant price of ~2 pennies per acre (reportedly).

But that was not Alaska's seditious initiative. It was an open market real estate transaction which just happened to include a transfer of sovereignty.

jonny5 · Jul 11, 2017

P

But you have no "right" to simply declare yourself a sovereign, declare your fashionable split-level in the development as "j5ville" stop paying taxes, stop obeying the laws, etc.

y.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Says so right there.

You and Lincoln dont agree with that, fine.

Thats why we fight wars.

WhHy I think GOP economic policies in the past have failed

independentusa

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

independentusa

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

apdst

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

KLATTU

KLATTU

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

KLATTU

KLATTU

Cephus

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jonny5

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jonny5

countryboy

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

beerftw

proud ammosexual

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jonny5

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jonny5

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jonny5