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

Republican Economic Policies

The arguments lukey and others make about where money should flow to maximize benefits to an economy are not based on economics at all. They are based upon ideology, politics and dogma. The reason he chooses to follow economists such as the von Mizes institute is that they agree with his pre-disposed views on what capitalism should be and how he views a mythical meritocracy that does not exist. Myth making is critical to his kind of world view. In his mind, America was built by the Edisons, Harrimans, Carnegies, Fords, Rockefellers and all the other giant moguls and inventors of history. It is like saying Walt Disney was the only person at Disneyland that mattered. These stories about the rise of paupers to riches supports his view of America as a land set apart from the rest of the world feeding his sense of belonging to a thing greater than any individual part. In many ways, I agree with a lot of this mythmaking myself.

But did anyone really start a massive new industry simply to get rich? No entreprenuer that I know was motivated primarily by being rich. Perhaps bankers and Wall Street types are only motivated by personal wealth but certainly no one that I know in Silicon Valley shares that singular purpose.

Money should move around our economy as efficiently as possible while supporting the overall improvement of the individual, the state and the people at large. Lumps of giant pools of money is like hoarding in many ways. If the distribution of money is lumpy, that is it collects in greater lumps for certain people, then the economy will be forced to either make more money out of thin air to provide some money to smooth out the lumps or the nation will just take a cut out of those lumps via taxes and end up in the same place.

Its not that hard to figure out if you first throw out all your baggage and treat this like a giant mathematical puzzle. The possible solution set has to be an economy that allows for the greatest possible wealth and prosperity for the most people. Anything short of that has always lead to poverty and eventually, revolution.
 

Lukey

Senator
Except in the 1990s it did no such thing.

After normalizing for expected GDP growth, inflation and population growth, the tax cuts HAD NO INCREASED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE ECONOMY

In fact for every $1 in tax cuts to the wealthy 30% disappeared from the GDP completely.

FACTS MATTER
HISTORY MATTERS
Perhaps you missed the part where I was talking about the DEFERRED tax "cuts" - IOW spending cuts (which co-incided nicely with the Clinton economic "miracle"). Oh, and your "facts" are made up crap!
 

Lukey

Senator
As opposed to the economic arguments of the left:

September 26, 2011|Charles Krauthammer

In a 2008 debate, former ABC News broadcaster Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

A most revealing window into our president's political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. It is nothing but punitive. It benefits no one — not the rich, not the poor, not the government. For Obama, however, it brings fairness, which is priceless.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-26/news/ct-oped-0926-krauthammer-20110926_1_barack-obama-capital-gains-taxes-class-warrior
 

Dino

Russian Asset
What is "Clinton economic policy" except for the economy that a Republican-controlled Newt Gingrich Congress dragged him to, after numerous vetoes?
 

degsme

Council Member
What is "Clinton economic policy" except for the economy that a Republican-controlled Newt Gingrich Congress dragged him to, after numerous vetoes?[/QUOTE]

Notice the "numerous vetoes" part? IOW Clinton limited the harm done by the initial GOP fervor and then got SOME of his own policies through. That included cutbacks in Defense spending and staffing which is so economically ineffecient that it is the one part of Government spending that pulls down GDP production dramatically.

Yes Gingrich also dragged Clinton into a harmful and economically ineffective policy of eviscerating the social safetynet for the poor - but that's hardly something for the GOP to be "proud of" yet they seem to be.
 

degsme

Council Member
As opposed to the economic arguments of the left:

September 26, 2011|Charles Krauthammer

In a 2008 debate, former ABC News broadcaster Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama about his support for raising capital gains taxes, given the historical record of government losing net revenue as a result. Obama persevered: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

A most revealing window into our president's political core: To impose a tax that actually impoverishes our communal bank account (the U.S. Treasury) is ridiculous. It is nothing but punitive. It benefits no one — not the rich, not the poor, not the government. For Obama, however, it brings fairness, which is priceless.
Its amazing how naive conservatives are... They cite the POLITICAL positioning of a policy as though that is the economic raison d'etre and completely ignore the underlying economics.

Bottom line is that the lower Capital Gains tax rate has NOT increased capital gains investment. Thus raising the rate has no adverse impact on the economy and very much eliminates an unfairness in the tax code. And also increases revenue at a time when we have insufficient revenue

yes and?

FACTS MATTER
the full panoply including the economic and political considerations.
 

degsme

Council Member
Perhaps you missed the part where I was talking about the DEFERRED tax "cuts" - IOW spending cuts (which co-incided nicely with the Clinton economic "miracle"). Oh, and your "facts" are made up crap!
No your claim is that deficit spending is a deffered tax increase and therefore businesses ignore CURRENT marginal tax rates.... And the economics and the math say that's bullshite

And there was no "Clinton Miracle" - Clinton engaged in MOSTLY rational economic policy. A bit on the conservative side (Nelson Rockeffelar and Nixon and Ike would never have eviscerated the social safetynet) and sometimes economically ineffective (welfare reform)

but mostly solid (though he made the mistake of not understanding the implications of Gramm-Leach-Bliley).
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Riiiight, and the whole "balanced budget" thing Dems love to crow about? Who was responsible for that? You'd be lying if you said Clinton was anything but ineffective until the Republican revolution of 1994. This began the line of Clinton's successes, fueled by fortuante market conditions and a determined Republican House.
 
Say you have 100,000 people and 100 billion bucks to spread around them. 1000 people take 99 billion right off the table and stash it tax free somewhere. The other 99,000 people then get to fight over the remaining 1 billion dollars and when they earn it, they get taxed on it. This is pure capitalism working its magic with no guaranteed outcomes, only winners and losers. No one has any right to determine how the money is distributed nor can they complain about the distribution. If they want to join the club that takes the 99 billion off the table, they have to figure out how to get into that club or die trying. That is one side of the equation.

The other side is 100,000 people and 100 billion bucks and each and every person gets the exact same amount. That is what the right gins up when they bray about communism or socialism. Ain't gonna happen, never has happened, no one says it is the right thing to do.

Can we at least agree that somewhere in the middle is where all the wealthy nations of the world have ended up? Can we agree that we are trending towards the first extreme example?
 

degsme

Council Member
Riiiight, and the whole "balanced budget" thing Dems love to crow about?
well its a combination of Clinton cutting Defense headcount - the least economically efficient part of government, and long term investments made by Kennedy Nixon and Carter.
Investments that Reagan eviscerated, Clinton tried to put back but was stopped by Gingrich, and GWB destroyed.

Hence coming onto 15 years of sub-par GDP growth (since the Obama Stimulus expired we are basically running on Reagan/GWB taxation and spending policies).

You'd be lying if you said Clinton was anything but ineffective until the Republican revolution of 1994.
And that is when Clinton did the deepest staffing cuts in Defense spending. Which took about 4 years to pay off.
yes and?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Republicans take-over, fortunate market (internet) timing, and disciplined budgeting greatly assisted the economy. Clinton benefitted greatly from Republican policy during this time and compromise, forced on Clinton for the most part, was a mainstay.

Saying Republicans were using poor economic policy is folly, as the results proved.

That's the past, and it is over and written. There's nothing to speak about now, though to wonder why Republicans today act and speand like Democrats. THAT's the major problem we face.
 

degsme

Council Member
Republicans take-over, fortunate market (internet) timing, and disciplined budgeting greatly assisted the economy. Clinton benefitted greatly from Republican policy during this time and compromise, forced on Clinton for the most part, was a mainstay.
Clinton's economy was harmed by GOP policy. The government shutdown reduced GDP growth, so did welfare "reform". the "healthcare debate" set in motion explosive inflation in healthcare insurance. The "line Item Veto" was meaningless as it was unconstitutional from the getgo. The anti-crime legislation harmed GDP growth by focussing too many resources on drug interdiction. Cap Gains tax cuts did nothing to help the GDP growth and in the long run are part of our current deficit problem

I see zero evidence that the GOP benefitted Clinton in any way.

And the Internet/PC revolution was not "lucky" it was the result of investments by mostly Dem POTUSes about 20 years earlier. That's the long term "Research to Market" cycle time

[quote
Saying Republicans were using poor economic policy is folly, as the results proved.
[/quote]

Actually the results of Tax cuts were not increased growth but in some cases REDUCED GDP growth (the Reagan cuts to the upper quintiles resulted in a 30% GDP reduction for every $1 in cuts received) and in othercases the long term result was deficits.

In other cases the lack of "picking winners and losers" has resulted in the USA losing the edge in technological innovation in the biological sciences and green power.

And in deregulation we have had the 2nd and 3rd worse economic crashes as a direct result of GOP Economic and Regulatory policies.

Claiming these are "good results" is folly

That's the past, and it is over and written.
Precisely. The record is the record. and it speaks VERY VERY Poorly if GOP economic ideology
 

Lukey

Senator
Say you have 100,000 people and 100 billion bucks to spread around them. 1000 people take 99 billion right off the table and stash it tax free somewhere. The other 99,000 people then get to fight over the remaining 1 billion dollars and when they earn it, they get taxed on it. This is pure capitalism working its magic with no guaranteed outcomes, only winners and losers. No one has any right to determine how the money is distributed nor can they complain about the distribution. If they want to join the club that takes the 99 billion off the table, they have to figure out how to get into that club or die trying. That is one side of the equation.

The other side is 100,000 people and 100 billion bucks and each and every person gets the exact same amount. That is what the right gins up when they bray about communism or socialism. Ain't gonna happen, never has happened, no one says it is the right thing to do.

Can we at least agree that somewhere in the middle is where all the wealthy nations of the world have ended up? Can we agree that we are trending towards the first extreme example?
It's always a finite pie with you lefties. And then you wonder why your policies always lead to economic stagnation.
 

degsme

Council Member
It's always a finite pie with you lefties. And then you wonder why your policies always lead to economic stagnation.
Want some oats with all that straw??


The irony of course is that it is conservatives running around saying $!5 trillion Debt is catastrophic... That logic only works in a "finite pie" form or reasoning.
 

Lukey

Senator
Want some oats with all that straw??


The irony of course is that it is conservatives running around saying $!5 trillion Debt is catastrophic... That logic only works in a "finite pie" form or reasoning.
It does when it is growing at a rate several times your GDP growth rate.
 

degsme

Council Member
Top