I’ve still got $50.00 that says Republican economics are full of shit… any takers?
With all the recent talk about how the Republicans want to “fix” the economy by cutting taxes, I feel the need to reintroduce everyone with my standing bet.
Granted, the line between “Republican economics” and “generally accepted economics” has been blurred by crappy Democrats like Tom Carper and John Carney. Never-the-less, the GOP continues to associate itself with utterly failed policies of tax cuts for the wealthiest and service cuts for everyone else. Furthermore, they continue to claim that this combination can “fix” the economy. If by “fix” they mean to “destroy” I guess they have a point.
This is what I wrote about this a year or so ago.
I’m pretty sick of Republicans spouting economic bullshit and being taken seriously. Again today, the clownish head of the DE GOP, for example, said the path to economic growth is, “…keeping regulation and taxes low.” Really? When has that actually worked?
He also brazenly asserts that the utterly failed trickle down policies “of small government and low regulation” are “tried and true” ways to grow the economy. To that I say – enough already with the bullshit. Where is the evidence?
The fact is – Republicans like Sigler and Laffer are full of shit. The GOP’s economic policies are entirely faith-based, and I am at zero risk of losing my $50.00. But here is the official bet in case any wingnut wants to try and man up:
If anyone can present any evidence that the “tried and true policies of small government and low regulation” actually created any broad based, long term, durable economic growth …ever – I will give the person providing the evidence a crisp new $50.00 bill.
This bet is open to any GOPer who believes the nonsense at the heart of your philosophy, and any Democratic officer holder who has succumbed to the siren song of this absolute, totally discredited bullshit.
You are just like Hitler, who ever stuck to one name. How long do you think you’ll be able to hang around this time ?
How many times do we have to prove that Republican economics don’t work. It was proved in 2008. In 1992. In 1929.
You will never find evidence of it (at least here in the US) because Government itself would never allow it to blossom into fruition. For the Government to relinquish such powers to the People and the Markets would just prove that their existence is insignificant to the Union.
Historically, there has never been ” any broad based, long term, durable economic growth …” in the US. Everything is cyclic and it doesn’t matter what political party is in power.
look at Kansas
Oh boy. How convenient. Typical Republican chicken.
In the world of reality, without the US government we’d never have had economically beneficial things like the internet, the defeat of fascism in Europe, the Erie Canal. So if you want to get your produce to market by pushing a cart through a muddy rutted dirt path, in your low tax/government free utopia, move to Hati.
BTW – check your history books T. 1945 until the early 1970s. What happened in the early 1970’s? The Economic Ebola outbreak known as Trickle Down Economics. Thanks GOP!!
Look at Terry! The Sam Brownback defense. We didn’t go far enough!
Like I’ve said before I am vey suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers in two sentences. It’s a almost perfect indicator that one doesn’t know what one’s talking about.
It’s almost like a cultish chant. No matter how bad the free-market capitalist applications fail miserably, hurt people, drain state resources for education and infrastructure, &c. there’s always an excuse and another “slogan.” It’s actually pretty disgusting.
Post WWII is the exception because war-torn Europe had no production and we had the only farm with a horse.
1945 – 1970 Sure. If you say so. Europe was in ruins for 25 years. OR, let’s see… What changed in 1970?
Additionally, isn’t it the Democrats stance that political ideology changed sometime during/after the 1964 Civil Rights act? You know, those evil Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights act were actually Republicans?
I don’t get your point. If you are saying the Civil Rights Act hurt the economy and Shareholder Primacy didn’t, or the Civil Rights Act damaged the economy more than the rise of Shareholder Primacy – I’ll have to stop responding because you are either crazy or a nit wit.
My point is, you can’t have it both ways.
Simple question – Is the Democratic Party that voted against the 1964 Civil Right Act the same Democratic Party that was in power from 1945 – 1970?
So Jason330; What is the solution? Give us your; Economic recovery & Job Growth for the USA.
Terry, those Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act are Republicans now. Like Strom Thurmond. Richard Shelby.
So, was it a fundamental shift of ideology across the board, D’s became R’s and R’s became D’s in the late 60’s/early 70’s?
Anon, Easy – Basically the opposite of what the GOP, Tom Carper and John Carney are doing.
Increase government revenue by collecting taxes from the people and corporations that have been getting a free ride over the past 20 years. Invest that revenue in the infrastructure and return some purchasing power to the middle class. Lock all of those gains in with a return to tax policy that rewards reinvestment in domestic manufacturing and punishes outsourcing and cash hording.
Is the current administration in DE, who is Democrats, Doing this?
Fisker – down the drain. Money well spent there.
The government “picks winners and losers” all the time. Don’t you agree that it is about time that Delaware’s working people win a little and billionaire bankers and their do-nothing heirs lose a little?
I have said that the line between “Republican Economics” and “generally accepted economics” has been blurred by crappy Democrats. The game is rigged to favor the wealthy. If you don’t see that you are blinded by affection for a team that doesn’t give a flying fuck about you.
Wait a sec — are we all going to play “piss on the troll”?
You can’t win an argument with a pig. The more evidence you present, the more he will retreat into his mental fantasyland, where corporations never use their greater freedom to rip off consumers.
You’d think that after siphoning billions of dollars from their supporters’ pockets, some of these fools would start to understand their role in the GOP system. Hearing them bleat like this ought to give them a clue: They exist to be sheared.
The right has passed the point where they ignore facts. Now they think facts can’t be true because they don’t fit into their ideology.
Geezer, I didn’t think he was a full on troll at first because I took his “What is the solution?” at face value. Silly of me, I know.
You can tell he’s a southern racist pretending that blacks and Democrats are the REAL racists from the dunderheaded insistence that because Lincoln was a Republican, today’s Republicans can’t be racist.
They’re the smartest guys in fourth grade.
On the way home today, I heard that the Dow is at its HIGHEST POINT EVER. 17,000+.
When President Obama took office, it was somewhere around 8,000.
It BLOWS MY MIND that the stock market can be doing that well and Republican can be crying that the economy sucks. Republicans — those most likely to have stocks that aren’t retirement accounts!
Why are Democrats not talking about this? Why is it not on bumper stickers and signs and the twitter? It can only get better with continued progressive (of whatever party) leadership, as tax and regulatory structures free drive funding for infrastructure and energy projects.
Just saying.
Geezer & Jason330: first of all, I won’t lower myself to call names. In a true business environment, you don’t put out money w/o a ROI. We all realize that not all business investments make money. But, how do you give an unproven business like Fisker, money w/o having any incentives in there. For example; you make so many cars you get X, you make so many more you get another X. No they just gave them the whole ball of wax.
Read the story today in the NJ; this administration did not learn anything from Fisker? They gave Bloom the whole thing again; they have “benchmarks”, but no penalty, again what sense does that make & with our money?? It’s NOT good business!!
@anonymous: Throwing money at corporations is not a good strategy under any circumstances. The money would have been better spent giving raises to the lowest-earning government employees.
“first of all, I won’t lower myself to call names.”
Well aren’t you special.
California and Texas, our first and second largest states by population, and third and second by land area, both with long coastlines, and both with significant minority populations, primarily Hispanic. Both have significant, though dissimilar, natural resources. One is one of our “bluest” states, completely controlled by the Democrats, with a slight pause for a moderate Republican governor, while the other has been run by conservative Republicans, with some influence by conservative Democrats in the state legislature, for twenty years.
California has, by far, the nation’s highest level of poverty under an alternative method devised by the Census Bureau that takes into account both broader measures of income and the cost of living.
When it comes to taxes, WalletHub ranked the fifty states and the District of Columbia, and the Pyrite State, with an average annual state and local tax burden of $9,509, 36% above the national average, was number 50, with only New York’s $9,718 rate being worse. Major companies are fleeing California, with not a few of them winding up in Texas, taking good jobs with them.
I’ll do this in three comments, because of the large number of hyperlinks.
Texas, home to the former President that the left blame for everything, and home to a conservative economic approach of lower taxes and fewer regulations, has not only been leading the nation in job growth, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported that the Lone Star State has been leading the nation in job creation at all pay levels.
As for “liberal” economics, states that emphasize redistribution above growth have a wider gap between lower and higher incomes.
Of course, both Texas and California are under the federal government, and both are impacted by the economic policies of the Obama Administration, but at least as far as they are able to have different economic rules, they have had rather different economic results. At least as far as Texas is concerned, it appears that what the Republican economics are full of is prosperity.
Texas isn’t perfect, by any means; no place is. But unless you wish to argue that government policies have no impact at all on economic results, then you would have to concede that Texas’ Republican economic policies have had better results for their people than California’s Democratic ones.
Do you know who owns the Wall Street Journal? Probably not. You are an idiot. I’ll probably ban your ass for stupidity again pretty soon.
Enjoy talking to yoursf here in the meantime.
The links I provided were to the Dallas News, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the Sacramento Bee, Wallet Hub, and The Wall Street Journal. Rather than discuss statistics which dispute your belief, you attack the ownership of one (very well-respected) source, and threaten to ban me (again.)
How, I wonder, is your $50 bet supposed to be taken seriously if you won’t discuss the actual numbers?
Dana: And if you look at wages in Texas, you’ll find that the jobs it is growing aren’t worth much. Like the rest of the south, its wages lag the civilized part of the nation:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/low-wages-in-texas/?_r=0
But by all means, please move to Texas. I’d like to get all you assholes in one place if we can.
As you note, California and Texas are very different, and also have pursued differing policies for decades. None of your stories mention how much safer it is to work in, say, a fertilizer plant in California than one in Texas.
Kansas is a much better test case, because its laws were changed specifically to reflect conservative economic beliefs. It has failed that test.
Okay Dummy – Here you go. The Sacramento Bee story is about a state trying to recover from the Republican idiocy (no taxes on the wealth and no public investments) that I’ve been talking about. Dallas News notes that the Texas job growth “…has been largely service-based.” and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas also notes that Texas is unique in that “immigrants make up 21 percent of Texas’ workforce, but account for a much greater share of its economic growth.”
Finally, only an idiot would cite The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to support his version of reality. Especially an editorial, written by Stephen Moore, a founder the Club for Growth.
Face is moron. You are an out and out DUPE. Now on your way.
Mr Geezer, I already linked to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report which stated that Texas had led the nation, since 2000, in the creation of jobs at all wage levels. I’m sure this won’t format properly, but I’ll reproduce the numbers for you
Wage . . . . . . . 26.04
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . 627.9 …………………298.2………………..512.7 ………………618.3
US minus Texas . . 2329.6……………….. -731.4 ……………. 11.4 ………………3398.5
Those are additional jobs, in thousands, and it looks like Texas is seeing job growth throughout the range, while the rest of the country sees job growth at the bottom and the top, but is missing the middle. Since 2000, Texas has seen 2,057,100 new jobs, a 24.9% increase, while the rest of the nation has seen 5,008,200 new jobs, a whopping 4.7% increase.
OK, the wage groups didn’t reproduce properly, but they are in quartiles, lowest to highest, from left to right: less than 11.41 per hour, 11.42-16.92, 16.92 to 26.04, and above 26.04
The Texas oil and gas boom created some jobs, mostly shitty jobs, some less shitty around the edges of the boom (lawyers, accountants). You’re links prove nothing.
But vote with your feet Dumbass. Move to your Republican Utopia – You’ll be a hero there, because Texas is a place that native born people are leaving in droves.
It’s not about the new jobs, it’s about all the jobs. The pay scales in Texas don’t match those in the Northeast.
Also left out of your equations: federal money to the states. California gets back 79 cents on every tax dollar, Texas 94 cents.
But let’s stop talking about a single state that’s trying to import jobs as part of a ponzi scheme to keep itself in business.
Explain Kansas.