New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Republican Economic Policies

OldGaffer

Governor
So, according to liberals the value of money IS not what it can buy. Brilliant.

Back in the 'old days' when we used to be a free nation, and didn't practice wealth redistribution, the currency was very stable.

For instance, a $5 Gold Piece in the year 1900 would buy you a pretty decent suit. So would Five One dollar bills. And a $25 dollar gold piece had the same value as twenty five one dollar bills

Today, that same $5 Gold piece will still buy you a pretty decent suit, but it would now take three hundred and fifty one dollar bills. And a $25 gold piece now 'costs' about sixteen hundred one dollar bills.

If the currency isn't tied to something such as gold, silver or even copper, the government can print as many dollar bills as it wants to. And its proven fact that, the more dollar bills that you have in circulation that aren't backed by something of actual value, the less each dollar bill is worth.

An guess who loses the most when that happens. YOu guessed it "the little guy."
So which country is now on the gold standard?
 
You mean like your attempt of "proof by insult" in claiming that your arguements are the only ones that are logical and any sane person could see that?
All the charts in the world, and all your blathering, doesn't change the FACT that, before we went off the gold standard (which was effectively done by FDR when he banned the private ownership of gold, an act that was much later found to be unconstitutional, but by then in was too late), 5 dollars worth of paper currency had the same value as Five dollars worth of gold.

That is not the case as our paper currency is worth about 1/70th as much as gold is, and will purchase 1/70th as much as gold does now as compared to 100 years ago.
 
So which country is now on the gold standard?
None that I know of, which allows for the UN-limited printing in currency. It's catching up with a lot of them.

If printing currency was a solution to economic problems we wouldn't have any economic problems.

We could simply print a million or five million or ten million for every man woman and child in America.

Get it now? Probably not.
 

Lukey

Senator
The austrians are first and foremost ideologues. That is why they never became mainstream in the world of economics. Not even the far right wingers in Chicago thought they were sane.
And Keynesians aren't? LOL! The only reason the Austrians have difficulty supplanting the Keynesians is that it's pretty hard to convince people they have to pay for their lunch while the Keynesians are shouting "no - it's free!"
 

moddem38

Council Member
AND revenue to the USTreasury was the highest in our history during his administration. on the heels of the tax cuts.
Very misleading statement.This supply-side economic nonsense never dies. In nominal terms, revenue almost always goes up. It went up every year in the 1990s and every year in the 1980s, but 1984. As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues fell throughout Bush's rule.
In 2001, taxes revenues were 19.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2002, they fell to 17.6 percent of the GDP. In 2003, 16.2 percent of the GDP. In 2004, 16.1 percent of the GDP.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
 

Lukey

Senator
Very misleading statement.This supply-side economic nonsense never dies. In nominal terms, revenue almost always goes up. It went up every year in the 1990s and every year in the 1980s, but 1984. As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues fell throughout Bush's rule.
In 2001, taxes revenues were 19.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2002, they fell to 17.6 percent of the GDP. In 2003, 16.2 percent of the GDP. In 2004, 16.1 percent of the GDP.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Um, that's the whole idea behind supply side economics - that you can support the cost of government at a lower percent of a bigger GDP and everybody can get richer. Is it really the sole purpose of the left's tax policy to get taxes up to the highest percent of GDP possible? Sheesh!
 
Here is the difference...Keynes policies worked. Also, Keynes laid down the marker in 1936 with his supreme work of genius and the rest of the economics field since then has been trying to improve upon what apparently was a masterpiece...Keynes was no ideologue, he was a pragmatist...next.
 
The problem with supply side is that it does not work. But do carry on giving us advice based upon absolutely no evidence, track record or success. Economics can be quite funny sometimes.
 
Here is the difference...Keynes policies worked. Also, Keynes laid down the marker in 1936 with his supreme work of genius and the rest of the economics field since then has been trying to improve upon what apparently was a masterpiece...Keynes was no ideologue, he was a pragmatist...next.
Keynes policies extended the depression by at least 5 years, and we may never have gotten out of it if not for WW2.

The simple fact is that any money that a government injects into the private sector economy has to come out of the private sector economy.

Kind of like pumping water from one side of the swimming pool into the other and expecting the water level to rise. It simply doesn't work and only extends economic problems, as the government and not the individual gets to determine how that money is spent, who is penalized and who is rewarded.

If Keynes were alive today, he would admit his policies don't work.
 
T
he problem with supply side is that it does not work. But do carry on giving us advice based upon absolutely no evidence, track record or success. Economics can be quite funny sometimes.
Actually Supply/Demand economics creates more wealth, more jobs, and and a higher standard of living than any other system.

In periods of economic downturns, cutting taxes and leaving more money in the private economy creates increased demand which is filled by increased supply to meet that demand.

The increased supply creates jobs that create wealth for the workers employed in those jobs.

That increased wealth purchases more goods, further increasing jobs until you have full employment.

Keynesians think that you can tax supply and give to demand and that will increase supply.

That always fails and its quite easy to see why. It is because the private sector economy will not increase supply if it is penalized through taxes for increasing that supply.
 
And your proof is? Please show us direct correlation between supply side policies and greater wealth for a nation. And also bring in the other side of the balance sheet to add a bit of color. You know, the liability side...personal debt expansion and soveriegn debt obligations...can't wait to read your cut and paste from the Heritage Foundation or some Beckian analysis..
 

Lukey

Senator
And your proof is? Please show us direct correlation between supply side policies and greater wealth for a nation. And also bring in the other side of the balance sheet to add a bit of color. You know, the liability side...personal debt expansion and soveriegn debt obligations...can't wait to read your cut and paste from the Heritage Foundation or some Beckian analysis..
I do that all the time.

Government Spending = Taxes (current + deferred). So the period of purest supply side economics was during the latter years of the Clinton Administration (after he cut capital gains taxes, deregulated banking and declared "the era of big government over"). The economy sure looked pretty good back then and, as predicted, the prosperity was quite widespread and the deficit disappeared.
 
And your proof is? Please show us direct correlation between supply side policies and greater wealth for a nation.
Bill Clintons cap gains tax cuts, JFK 's
lowering of tax rates, Reagan's lowering of tax rates, all increased both REVENUE and GDP. Which means they increased wealth.

The problem has always been government spending too much and taxing too much. The taxes can NEVER keep up with the spending, unless the spending is limited to revenue received.
 

Lukey

Senator
Bill Clintons cap gains tax cuts, JFK 's
lowering of tax rates, Reagan's lowering of tax rates, all increased both REVENUE and GDP. Which means they increased wealth.

The problem has always been government spending too much and taxing too much. The taxes can NEVER keep up with the spending, unless the spending is limited to revenue received.
Except during the Clinton Administration when the Republicans in Congress delivered on the budget cuts and the result was the best economy of the post-war period. Clinton was the most successful supply side President we ever had (thanks to the Republicans in Congress, of course).
 

moddem38

Council Member
Please show us direct correlation between supply side policies and greater wealth for a nation
He can't do that. There isn't any.

The economy throughout American history has actually done better with higher tax rates. 1933-1937 saw a huge increase in GDP, the 1950s did well despite high taxes, and the 1990s did well despite Clinton's tax increase.
 

moddem38

Council Member
read. learn.

"Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR’s ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying “no.” No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR’s top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR’s “excess profits” tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call “supply-side economics.” If the tax bill “has the effect which it is hoped it will have,” George said, “it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue.”
http://thewesternexperience.com/2010/04/12/fdr-and-the-revenue-act-of-1945/
What does any of that have to do with what I said? The three time periods of American history I mentioned were prosperous despite high levels of spending and higher taxes. Nothing in your post even addressed that issue.


Your quote from Sen. George was telling: "as the effect which it is hoped it will have,” which is what voodoo economics is, faith, hope, not actual proof. Just like Art Laffer and Dick Cheney hoped Reagan's tax cuts would increase revenue. The hope did not come true.
 

moddem38

Council Member
Except during the Clinton Administration when the Republicans in Congress delivered on the budget cuts and the result was the best economy of the post-war period. Clinton was the most successful supply side President we ever had (thanks to the Republicans in Congress, of course).
You're rewriting history. In 1993, when Clinton offered a tax increase to 39.6% as part of a budget deficit deal, no Republican signed on, every supply side economic believer predicted doom.. The WSJ op-ed page, Dick Armey, Lawrence Kudlow, et al, predicted disaster. The tax increase would hurt the economy, lose jobs, lose revenue, etc.. Everything they said turned out to be wrong. The stock market went up, revenues skyrocketed, productivity increased.
 

Bruce

Council Member
Well I'm not as pessimistic as that. Raise the top tax rate to 50% marginal rate, close loopholes so the EFFECTIVE top rate is around 35% (and the middle class Effective rate is around 14%) and the middle class starts doing OK again.

What we need is some long term basic R&D investment - like the kind in the 60s and 70s that gave us PC and Internet revolutions.

Yeah it will take 10-15 years to start paying off but that's the price we pay for the middle class being stupid enough to elect Happy Happy Joy Joy Reagan
No argument on your proposal.
Meanwhile we discuss contraceptives with Santorum. The guy that says life begins with an erection.
 

Lukey

Senator
You're rewriting history. In 1993, when Clinton offered a tax increase to 39.6% as part of a budget deficit deal, no Republican signed on, every supply side economic believer predicted doom.. The WSJ op-ed page, Dick Armey, Lawrence Kudlow, et al, predicted disaster. The tax increase would hurt the economy, lose jobs, lose revenue, etc.. Everything they said turned out to be wrong. The stock market went up, revenues skyrocketed, productivity increased.
That, of course, is bunk. As we all know, tax increases do not lead to robust economic health. If it did, the Eurozone would be the fastest growing developed economy instead of languishing among the slowest.

The robust economy didn't show up until Clinton agreed to cut spending after he lost the mid-terms and Congress fell under Republican control. He famously triangulated and adopted their fiscal restraint agenda, successfully ending the endless (deferred) tax increases and he lowered current taxes as well by lowering the capital gains rate. He was rewarded with brisk growth and widespread prosperity.
 
Top