Republican Economic Policies

[Woolleybugger]

They really cannot tell us anything at all about supply side economic successes because in reality, there were none. I correct myself. If by success you mean that the income distribution went towards the very wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class, then it has been a spectacular success. My version of success is a bit different.

 

[Bruce]

you're 75% right.

the last 2 years of Bush's administration was with a democrat congress

AND revenue to the USTreasury was the highest in our history during his administration. on the heels of the tax cuts.

he would have been a hero if he were a lib.

pulled us out of recession on the heels of 9/11. a president who finally struck back at global terrorism after 4 decades of getting our asses handed to us. tried to reform social security. bi partisan education legislation with none other than the fat drunk from MA (flawed legislation), Medicare part D - another huge entitelment giveaway.... Yale and Harvard...

but he wasn't a lib so he had to be destroyed.

How's that Iraq war working for ya? T Boone Pickens was on the other day and said that we would never control their oil or anything else. It's returned to hate america just as much as before with the ones we helped recently put in power.
Anyway, repubs never had any intention of paying down the debt nor assuming any fiscal responsibility from the beginning. It was all corporate and rich tax welfare and debt ceiling raises under the premise of fighting the enemy.

6. Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Pay for Themselves or Spur "Job Creators"
That Republican intransigence persists despite the complete debunking of two of the GOP's favorite myths.

The first tried and untrue Republican talking point is that "tax cuts pay for themselves." Sadly, that right-wing mythmaking is belied by the massive Bush deficits, half of were the result of the Bush tax cuts themselves. As a percentage of the American economy, tax revenues peaked in 2000; that is, before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Despite President Bush's bogus claim that "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase," Uncle Sam's cash flow from individual income taxes did not return to its pre-dot com bust level until 2006.

The second GOP fairy tale, as expressed by Speaker Boehner, is that "The top one percent of wage earners in the United States...pay forty percent of the income taxes...The people he's {President Obama] is talking about taxing are the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy."

If so, the Republican's so-called "Job Creators" failed to meet those expectations under George W. Bush. After all, the last time the top tax rate was 39.6% during the Clinton administration, the United States enjoyed rising incomes, 23 million new jobs and budget surpluses. Under Bush? Not so much.

On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." (The Journal's interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The dismal 3 million jobs created under President Bush didn't merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton's tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush's job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover:

 

[Bruce]

[QUOTE

=DefeatObama;216666]I am astounded by those in this forum who won't acknowledge half of a balance sheet. they want to pin deficits on reagan despite the dems role:

"His determination was surely strengthened by the fact that the “balanced approach” he had advocated in the 1982 budget deal had never come to pass. TEFRA was designed to bring about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue, which meant that, on paper, it advanced Reagan’s goal of shrinking the federal government. In practice, the results of TEFRA were almost exactly the opposite. While the tax increases were real, Congress never delivered on the spending cuts. By one calculation, the 1982 budget deal actually resulted in $1.14 of new spending for each extra tax dollar. Obama and today’s liberals have responded with incredulity to the Republicans’ refusal to take a 3-for-1 cuts-to-taxes deal (or a 10-to-1 deal, as was posed hypothetically to the GOP presidential field in an Iowa debate). Some of us have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.

Reagan struck a sorrowful note about the TEFRA deal in his memoirs, writing that “later the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.” Many of his closest aides agree with the judgment of Reagan’s longtime intimate, Edwin Meese, that “the TEFRA compromise—the ‘Debacle of 1982’—was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration. . . . Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an object lesson in how not to reduce the deficit.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-liberal-misappropriation-of-a-conservative-president[/QUOTE]/

Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
Among the Republicans who prophesied the default doomsday scenario was none other than conservative patron saint, Ronald Reagan. As he warned Congress in November 1983:

"The full consequences of a default -- or even the serious prospect of default -- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar."

Reagan knew what he was talking about. After all, the hemorrhage of red ink at the U.S. Treasury was his doing.

As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting debt. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Forced to raise taxes eleven times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder Stockman lamented last year:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

It's no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as his greatest regret.

 

[Lukey]

Sure it is (any day now the economy is going to take off):

 

[Lukey]

They really cannot tell us anything at all about supply side economic successes because in reality, there were none. I correct myself. If by success you mean that the income distribution went towards the very wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class, then it has been a spectacular success. My version of success is a bit different.

Not when it was done correctly (by Bill Clinton).

 

[Bruce]

Good to know that's where you lefties are taking us! Asperational default. Spoken like a true Euro-socialist!

As it turns out, Republican majorities voted to raise the U.S. debt ceiling seven times while George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office. (It should be noted, as Ezra Klein did, that party-line votes on debt ceiling increases tied to other legislation is not solely the province of the GOP.) As ThinkProgress pointed out, during the Bush presidency, the current GOP leadership team voted 19 times to increase debt limit. During his tenure, the U.S. national debt doubled, fueled by the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Mitch McConnell and John Boehner voted for all of it and the debt which ensued because, as Orrin Hatch later explained: "It was standard practice not to pay for things."

 

[Bruce]

[

QUOTE=DefeatObama;216666]I am astounded by those in this forum who won't acknowledge half of a balance sheet. they want to pin deficits on reagan despite the dems role:

"His determination was surely strengthened by the fact that the “balanced approach” he had advocated in the 1982 budget deal had never come to pass. TEFRA was designed to bring about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue, which meant that, on paper, it advanced Reagan’s goal of shrinking the federal government. In practice, the results of TEFRA were almost exactly the opposite. While the tax increases were real, Congress never delivered on the spending cuts. By one calculation, the 1982 budget deal actually resulted in $1.14 of new spending for each extra tax dollar. Obama and today’s liberals have responded with incredulity to the Republicans’ refusal to take a 3-for-1 cuts-to-taxes deal (or a 10-to-1 deal, as was posed hypothetically to the GOP presidential field in an Iowa debate). Some of us have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.

Reagan struck a sorrowful note about the TEFRA deal in his memoirs, writing that “later the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.” Many of his closest aides agree with the judgment of Reagan’s longtime intimate, Edwin Meese, that “the TEFRA compromise—the ‘Debacle of 1982’—was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration. . . . Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an object lesson in how not to reduce the deficit.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-liberal-misappropriation-of-a-conservative-president/

[/QUOTE]
Definition of 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'
Federal tax legislation passed in 1982 that modified some aspects of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA). Both of these pieces of tax legislation took place during the Reagan Presidency.
Investopedia explains 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'
The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. TEFRA increased the tax received but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct.

So we crippled Reagans plans by denying the rich or corporations some early depreciation schedules? Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Legislation in the United States, passed in 1982, that rolled back some of the tax cuts the federal government enacted the previous year. It repealed accelerated depreciation deductions and created a 10% withholding tax on all dividends sent to accounts without tax identification numbers. It also increased the unemployment tax. While TEFRA raised taxes, they remained well below what they were prior to Ronald Reagan's accession to the presidency.
Maybe the best way to define republican conservative is "A small assbackward group of american society that thinks they deserve everything."

 

[Bruce]

Just a reminder of VOO DOO economics.
Reaganomics
An informal term for supply-side economics, which is a macroeconomic theory stating that a government can best promote growth by providing incentives for persons to produce goods and services. The primary way a supply-side oriented government does this is by maintaining low tax rates so that investors and entrepreneurs may use their money toward production. Maintaining low tax rates on the wealthy is one of the most important and controversial aspects of supply-side economics; the theory states that well off persons have the capital available to produce goods and services and thereby create jobs and grow the economy. Critics contend that this does not happen in reality, and that the wealthy are more likely to keep, rather than invest, their money. Reaganomics acquired the name because it was crucial to the economic policies of the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. See also: Keynesian economics, Monetarism, Trickle-down economics.
So as it stand's we're haggling with corporations to bring back estimated 2 trillion in offshore funds that were diverted from taxes in offshore bank accounts. 2 trillion to me would probably be about 25% of the real number, Romney could probably give us a true number if he were honest as diverting capital to offfshore banks is his profession and I hear he's very good at it.

 

[OldGaffer]

Speaking of snake oil, your voodoo economics is the biggest load of snake oil ever perpetrated on the American public, bar none. It has almost destroyed the middle class in this country and is on the verge of turning us into a full blown hereditary oligarchy, the effort to turn the clock back to 1890 and the days of the Robber Barons is unceasing, with shills like you espousing its greatness and desirability. Your pandering to the rich is beyond the pale.

 

[Days]

just saw this... you explained the velocity of money quite well, but now think about what you just posted and what I posted... I'm pointing to what your model leaves out; real money. Without it, fractional banking collapses upon itself. With it, it still does when it gets too far ahead of what can be anchored by the gold and silver in currency that is expanding the money base to cover for the interest. Today, that's no longer the case, but today, everything is an asset, everything is traded as if it was money; giant purchases take place in the billions of dollars and not a dime of money is involved, they cover it with assets and stocks.

I'm just poking my nose into the middle of a thread and I haven't read the thread, not even this mini thread, so my comment might have been totally irrelevant to the argument... if that was the case, I'm sorry.

 

[degsme]

how about it's none of your damn business what corporations or individuals do with their profits

Based on what? Corporations are incorporated purely as an artifact of Governmental permissions. In doing so Society is granting them a level of legal protections and organizational benefits that otherwise they would not have.

As for individuals - are you suggesting that we as a society have no right to set standards for ourselves on what we wish to support and what not? After all the Constitution very much permits this and if you don't want to participate, there is nothing that precludes you from finding a place where society is more amenable to your more isolationist approach. Mind you, such societies/nations TEND to do much much much worse economically and societally - but if that's your "happy place" - you might consider it.

 

[degsme]

Sure it is (any day now the economy is going to take off):

View attachment 403

Not as long as we keep forward with the "supply side" policies of the last 30 years. We need

1. About a $1.5 Trillion stimulus
2. reduction in wasteful government spending (Read Defense related spending which has a Fiscal Multiplier of 0.5 on average)
3. raise taxation rate from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP by taxing less efficient sectors of the economy
   • Raise top marginal income tax rates to at least 50% (but no higher than 70%)
   • Raise cap gains tax rates to between 35% and 45% (historical points that have had ZERO Adverse investment effect)
   • And/Or readjust AMT so that ALL forms of income above $500k are taxed at a flat 50% rate

Do that, and within 3 mos your economy will be doing just fine.

 

[degsme]

interesting that you'd want to debate job creation .... what was that brilliant little diddy obama uttered when selling his porkulus snake oil? are you at least honest enough to admit that the unemployment rate exceeded 8% and that it's not currently at 6% which is where he and his pointy heads said it'd be?

Um.... can you point to where Obama and his "pointy heads" said that inflation would be at 6%???

See I know you cannot. because they never actually said nor wrote that.

Furthermore, since the stimulus expired over 18mos ago - we essentially have been running the economy on "supply side" voodoo economics for 18 mos.. and the slow rate of job growth is exactly the same as we saw under GWB with the same polices...

As Gomer Pyle would say.... SuhPraahzz SUHPRAAHHZZ SUUUHHHPRAAHHHZZ!!!

FACTS MATTER
got any?

 

[degsme]

well we won. irksome to the left, who figured saddam was a swell fellow in between gassings...

Want some oats with all that straw? And no, the average Iraqi is not "better off now"... women have fewer rights, per capita GDP is below that of Hussein and likelihood of death higher.

Curious under what rubrik that is "better off".

 

[Lukey]

Not as long as we keep forward with the "supply side" policies of the last 30 years. We need

1. About a $1.5 Trillion stimulus
2. reduction in wasteful government spending (Read Defense related spending which has a Fiscal Multiplier of 0.5 on average)
3. raise taxation rate from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP by taxing less efficient sectors of the economy
   • Raise top marginal income tax rates to at least 50% (but no higher than 70%)
   • Raise cap gains tax rates to between 35% and 45% (historical points that have had ZERO Adverse investment effect)
   • And/Or readjust AMT so that ALL forms of income above $500k are taxed at a flat 50% rate

Do that, and within 3 mos your economy will be doing just fine.

We have had $1.5 trillion in "stimulus" every year since Obama was elected. And Obama is projecting another $1.5 trillion for 2013 already.

Now you want ANOTHER $1.5 trillion? So you think we should run a $3 trillion deficit? Are you insane? LOL!

 

[degsme]

the 1950's were possible because of the period I note.
o o o
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.

And here's the part you left out - the wealthiest Quintile paid a AVERAGE of 33% of TOTAL income in taxes... today it is ... ONE HALF OF THAT.

Clinton was able to raise taxes because of the prosperity he inherited.

FROM KENNEDY and NIXON and CARTER. The "prosperity" of the 1990s (and Greenspan published an intersting paper on this in 1992) came from the dramatic WORKER PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES driven by.... the PC and Internet revolutions. NONE OF WHICH had anything to do with Supply Side econ. IN fact they were the antithesis of "government is the problem" voodoo economics.

The Microprocessor and Internet are both direct outgrowths of "The Government Picking Winners and Losers" in R&D with a 20 year lead time.

or are you going with the 'things would have been better had Carter won' mantra?

Actually they would be TODAY. Because Carter would have invested in basic R&D... something Reagan and GWHB did not. And hence we are now 20 years hence and

LAGGING IN

• "Green" technologies - specifically Solar and Wind
• Hybrid vehicle Technologies - except for tiny luxoury startups like Tesla
• BioGenetics - Korea and EU lead us here

All areas where serious BASIC RESEARCH work was being done in the 1980s and early 1990s and which "Supply Side Economics" and religious ideology caused REagan to pull the plug on.

 

[degsme]

We have had $1.5 trillion in "stimulus" every year since Obama was elected.

Nope. We have had a $1.5 Trillion deficit that has been a net Wealth REdistribution from the most efficient economic actors to the least efficient.

That's not a "stimulus". Stimulus and deficit spending are not synonymous. MOST Stimulus spending is deficit spending because it is most effective to do during down economies and it is the way to break the Liquidity trap.

but Deficit spending because you are collecting too little from the inefficient upper quintile earners is not "stimuluative". Nor is deficit spending on defense related expenditures with an FM of 0.5. The GWB structural deficit of $500 Billion was BOTH. And with the economy crashing, the net revenue collection goes further.

Now you want ANOTHER $1.5 trillion? So you think we should run a $3 trillion deficit? Are you insane? LOL!

hmmm a robust growing economy is "insane"???? Well that explains why it is called "voodoo economics"...

 

[degsme]

so Bill Gates and Steve Jobs owe their success to the federal government?

Yes. Without the Feds, Gates and Jobs would not have had access to cheap MicroProcessors.

 

[degsme]

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.

Which itself is a meaningless statement. Why? Because $5 worth of gold never had a fixed rate of exchange with commodities like Food, Gasoline, Housing etc. So we had both inflation and deflation under a Gold Standard.

So since we had all the BAD things you ascribe to a floating dollar, and we also had periodic deflationary panics - why do we want a specie based currency again?

 

[degsme]

Originally Posted by degsmeAhh so we should engage the world economy with both hands tied behind our backs... you know... kinda like Somalia....

That's more like what big government does (which is why so much of big businesses', you know, business, is done overseas).

Right.. Somalia with no effective central government is an example of "what big government does"
but Germany
With a bigger central government than the USA and which outperformed the US GDP growth rate during the GWB tax cuts BY 35%.. is an example of what Small government does

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Up is Down
Black is the new white.
Poverty is prosperity
Being Rich is a burden.
White men are discriminated against...

RIGHTTT