When are we going to have another fiscally conservative Republican President?

Started by The Fiscal Conservative, September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Solar

Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 29, 2015, 08:17:06 PM
Holy crap it's Sioux Rebel's brother.
Oh...the idiot brother,Toothless Brave Face Plant, the only brave in the tribe with a chicken feather in his head band and allowed but one arrow in his quiver.
Yeah, the inspiration behind Fife.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 07:39:34 PM
Yes, I said that taxes should not be lowered. That is not the same as saying taxes should be raised. Even if your feeble mind cannot tell the difference.

I'm all for lowering personal taxes when we're back into a surplus and have started paying off the debt. We are not there. Not even close.
This short summary of why we see you as a naive kid, is we remember this like it was yesterday, while for you, some idiot Marxist econ Prof. teaches you a warped version of history and failed Keynes nonsense.
Yes, most of us lived through the Carter debacle and saw first hand how Capitalism and Free mkt principles applied by Reagan will always fix leftist interference and damage.
Read and learn.


Supply-Side Economics
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services.  In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.

The broader supply-side policy mix points to the importance of sound money; free trade; less regulation; low, flat-rate taxes; and spending restraint, as the keys to real economic growth.  These ideas are grounded in a classical economic analysis that understands that people adjust their behavior when the incentives change.  Accordingly, the lower the regulatory and trade barriers, and the lower and flatter the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce.

The supply-side approach stands in sharp contrast to economic theories that held sway from the 1930s through the 1970s which were preoccupied with boosting demand, ideas most closely associated with economist John Maynard Keynes and his publication of The General Theory.  These ideas enjoy a resurgence today as growth in spending, along with growing government involvement in the economy, has given new life to Keynesian ideas.  Indeed, the idea of government spending as a stimulus to help boost demand and consumption, is rooted in quintessentially Keynesian ideas.

Yet in the roughly 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply-side ideas contributed to the longest boom in United States history and an incredible transformation of the world economy.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion.  In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007.  When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year boom than in the previous 200 years.

This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it.  In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short.  In fact, throughout American history, the nation's economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time.  But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.
http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics/
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Quote from: Amred on September 29, 2015, 03:52:52 PM
You are correct about the Prebate.  The federal government sending out checks monthly to almost everyone.  Every politician will promise to send out larger checks than the other politician. You think we are in debt now ... this will be a disaster!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Read and think.

Politicians try and promise things?  I can't imagine a world like that.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

ChristieForPres

Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2015, 06:24:45 AM
This short summary of why we see you as a naive kid, is we remember this like it was yesterday, while for you, some idiot Marxist econ Prof. teaches you a warped version of history and failed Keynes nonsense.
Yes, most of us lived through the Carter debacle and saw first hand how Capitalism and Free mkt principles applied by Reagan will always fix leftist interference and damage.
Read and learn.


Supply-Side Economics
Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services.  In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.

The broader supply-side policy mix points to the importance of sound money; free trade; less regulation; low, flat-rate taxes; and spending restraint, as the keys to real economic growth.  These ideas are grounded in a classical economic analysis that understands that people adjust their behavior when the incentives change.  Accordingly, the lower the regulatory and trade barriers, and the lower and flatter the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce.

The supply-side approach stands in sharp contrast to economic theories that held sway from the 1930s through the 1970s which were preoccupied with boosting demand, ideas most closely associated with economist John Maynard Keynes and his publication of The General Theory.  These ideas enjoy a resurgence today as growth in spending, along with growing government involvement in the economy, has given new life to Keynesian ideas.  Indeed, the idea of government spending as a stimulus to help boost demand and consumption, is rooted in quintessentially Keynesian ideas.

Yet in the roughly 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply-side ideas contributed to the longest boom in United States history and an incredible transformation of the world economy.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion.  In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007.  When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year boom than in the previous 200 years.

This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it.  In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short.  In fact, throughout American history, the nation's economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time.  But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.
http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics/
Maybe Cruz could put in his Flat Tax plan, create jobs and excite corporations enough to stay in the United States, but with the revenue from abolishing the IRS and cutting spending on useless governmental departments, couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful? As long as the large majority of revenue was going to reducing the deficit, the government could help fix a few communities and create jobs. I'd be fine with that as long as Cruz didn't do something crazy with that money like pleasing the leftist democrats by pumping funds into "the crisis of police brutality and racism".

quiller

Quote from: taxed on November 24, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
Politicians try and promise things?  I can't imagine a world like that.
Well, in my neck of the woods they don't just try. They set land speed records on how many lies they can stuff into a two-fib sack.

If a politician offers to shake your hand and you're wearing your watch on the right wrist...remove it. If you wear the watch on your left hand, shake hands with your right...then immediately count your fingers.

Solar

Quote from: ChristieForPres on November 28, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
Maybe Cruz could put in his Flat Tax plan, create jobs and excite corporations enough to stay in the United States, but with the revenue from abolishing the IRS and cutting spending on useless governmental departments, couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful?

Govt so called jobs are a net loss to tax payers, the produce nothing, and suck income directly from the taxpayer.
If anything, govt should always contract with the private sector and never employ directly.

QuoteAs long as the large majority of revenue was going to reducing the deficit, the government could help fix a few communities and create jobs. I'd be fine with that as long as Cruz didn't do something crazy with that money like pleasing the leftist democrats by pumping funds into "the crisis of police brutality and racism".

Oh, you mean that false crisis created by communist Soros and his Marxist minion followers, all under the guise of Black Lies Matter?
The only racism and brutality comes from the left, it's akin to "Do you still beat your wife"?
Accuse someone of being racist, and with the new leftist narrative in place, you're guilty until you give into our demands.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: ChristieForPres on November 28, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
Maybe Cruz could put in his Flat Tax plan, create jobs and excite corporations enough to stay in the United States, but with the revenue from abolishing the IRS and cutting spending on useless governmental departments, couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful? As long as the large majority of revenue was going to reducing the deficit, the government could help fix a few communities and create jobs. I'd be fine with that as long as Cruz didn't do something crazy with that money like pleasing the leftist democrats by pumping funds into "the crisis of police brutality and racism".

"couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful?"

If that is Christie's position it is a prime example of why he has no chance. When has the government spent money wisely?
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

ChristieForPres

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 29, 2015, 08:10:46 AM
"couldn't some Keynesian economics be used to create jobs as long as the money was being spent wisely and on something useful?"

If that is Christie's position it is a prime example of why he has no chance. When has the government spent money wisely?
Thats what I'm saying, that's the change I'm asking for? Government to spend wisely

supsalemgr

Quote from: ChristieForPres on November 29, 2015, 10:56:16 AM
Thats what I'm saying, that's the change I'm asking for? Government to spend wisely

I believe you missed my point. Government is incapable of spending wisely.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Solar

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 29, 2015, 11:33:15 AM
I believe you missed my point. Government is incapable of spending wisely.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yep, it's the nature of the bureaucratic beast.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Wyatt5

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
So Donald McTrump unveiled his ridiculous tax plan, claiming it will be revenue neutral. Anyone who has had even a cursory glance at it can see that tax revenues will plummet, meaning the deficit will soar.

Every Republican President over the last 50 years has raised the deficit during their Presidency. In fact, there are only two Presidents in the last 50 years that have actually lowered the deficit. The problem is they all want to slash taxes, but they aren't willing to slash spending. Or at least not near as much as they slash taxes. This of course leads to a rising deficit. The more the deficit rises, the faster the debt rises. The higher the debt, the more way have to pay in interest on the debt. This is basic Economics.

Of all the Republicans running who have promised to slash taxes, none have made a convincing argument that they will cut spending as much as tax revenues. I can't see the deficit not rising under any of them.

Where is our hope? When can we get someone who understands basic Economics?

Fiscal, you have made quite an effort in support of your beliefs, but alas, to no avail for my fellow forum members. I absolutely agree with your main premise---politicians want to cut taxes but not spending.

I am sure Ted Cruz and some others will work mightily to cut many domestic programs but all of his savings will go to military spending. Many will agree with that but it will not solve our debt problems.

A part of the problem: Somewhere between 45 and 60% of GOP supporters of the 1994 Contract With America sincerely believed that the budget could be balanced by simply getting rid of AFDC, support for the Arts, foreign aid, and Amtrak. We on this forum know that is a pantsload, but the problem continues: we can not agree on what to cut.  Every member of Congress (and every one of us) can propose a balanced budget, but getting one through Congress is the rub.

Here are a couple of ancient links, I will try to find some newer ones. The problem has not changed in all these years.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/legal_reform/repub-renew.htm

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-1995/whatever-happened-contract-america
(Start at paragraph 5 on this one)

Solar

Quote from: Wyatt5 on November 30, 2015, 06:22:42 AM
Fiscal, you have made quite an effort in support of your beliefs, but alas, to no avail for my fellow forum members. I absolutely agree with your main premise---politicians want to cut taxes but not spending.

I am sure Ted Cruz and some others will work mightily to cut many domestic programs but all of his savings will go to military spending. Many will agree with that but it will not solve our debt problems.

A part of the problem: Somewhere between 45 and 60% of GOP supporters of the 1994 Contract With America sincerely believed that the budget could be balanced by simply getting rid of AFDC, support for the Arts, foreign aid, and Amtrak. We on this forum know that is a pantsload, but the problem continues: we can not agree on what to cut.  Every member of Congress (and every one of us) can propose a balanced budget, but getting one through Congress is the rub.

Here are a couple of ancient links, I will try to find some newer ones. The problem has not changed in all these years.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/legal_reform/repub-renew.htm

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-1995/whatever-happened-contract-america
(Start at paragraph 5 on this one)
And you're certain of this, how?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Traninit

Quote from: The Fiscal Conservative on September 29, 2015, 01:28:05 AM
Where is our hope?

Hope? Don't hold your breath. You will not see ANY republican in office next year. I lament. :mad:

What I do hope for...is to be completely wrong.
One more liberal President in 2016 will mean the irreversible, eventual and total demise of our democracy. The rise and fall of democracy IS past the "apathy stage" at this moment. If this  momentum continues on its present path, restoration of democracy will require the least desired of actions.

Solar

Quote from: Traninit on December 21, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
Hope? Don't hold your breath. You will not see ANY republican in office next year. I lament. :mad:

What I do hope for...is to be completely wrong.
Not to worry, you are.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

supsalemgr

Quote from: Traninit on December 21, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
Hope? Don't hold your breath. You will not see ANY republican in office next year. I lament. :mad:

What I do hope for...is to be completely wrong.

I believe you are totally disregarding the fact that Hillary is a disaster. She can't help it and cannot be cleaned up. When it is only her and the GOP candidate she will no longer be able to hide. The more she is seen and heard she becomes more irritating. Say what you will about Trump, but he has her pegged about about no stamina.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"