Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's time to talk about the elephant in the room. The elephant that doesn't know economics or good public policy. How are there any supporters for Republican/conservative/right-wing politics? They are devoid of facts and bad for the health of our society. Here's a few points:
Quote:
Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s freedom....We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs, or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations...To that end, we propose to: Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages-commonly known as the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising on income, interest, dividends, and capital gains
The GOP-led House of Representatives embraced a former stimulus measure Friday, voting to make it and another related tax cut permanent, adding $287 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The largest part of the cut, worth more than $263 billion, is making permanent so-called bonus depreciation, which allows businesses to write off the cost of capital investments and improvements much more quickly.
They believe tax cuts and breaks - primarily for the rich and big corporations - lead to economic growth and prosperity. However, decades of research studies reject this premise. Tax cuts and breaks do not lead to economic growth. Instead, these forms of public policies increase income inequality because the rich and corporations are the main beneficiaries of these forms of tax reliefs. Taxing the 1%: Why the top tax rate could be over 80% | VOX, CEPR
Tax cuts and tax breaks do not create jobs. In fact, 14 of the largest corporations with the lowest effective tax rate - paying no income taxes - shed 63k jobs over a five year period despite $107 billion in pre-tax profits. However, 14 of the largest corporations with the highest effective tax rate created 115k jobs over the same period, reporting 168 billion in pre-tax profits. Think Corporate Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Think Again. | Center for Effective Government
Although corporations are richer than ever, in the midst of some of the lowest taxes they've seen in a century, this record amounts of corporate profit is being extracted for stock buybacks to increase stock performance rather than higher wages and investment. Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy - The Atlantic
Overall, tax cuts/breaks do not create jobs or spur investment or economic growth. They lead to income inequality and budget problems.
Their position on taxes strongly contributes to income inequality-------------------------------------
Quote:
"All the Occupy movement starts with the premise that we all owe them everything...That is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country, and why you need to reassert something by saying to them, 'Go get a job right after you take a bath,'" continued Gingrich, to loud applause from the audience.
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said "This plan that we'll hear about tonight appears to be more about redistribution, with added complexity, and class warfare, directed at job-creating small businesses, than about tax reform,"
Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul said on Fox News on Sunday that income inequality is “due to some people working harder,” denying studies that have shown his flat tax plan would increase inequality.
State Senate Minority Leader David Hann (R) acknowledged that there is income inequality, but he wasn't convinced that it was harmful. Instead, he worried that if the rich have less money, it will hurt the state, because they won't be paying as much in taxes:
Phil Gramm... the former Republican senator from Texas was the principal GOP witness at a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee. His task was, essentially, to spout Republican-friendly econ talk for a couple of hours, and blame all of the nation's economic woes on Democrats..."It's the one form of bigotry that is still allowed in America, and that's bigotry against the successful," Gramm declared.
It's evident the republicans favor lower taxes and tax breaks, and we know that those public policies increases income inequality. Let's go further.
From 1913 - 1933 and 1977 - 2008, the tax rates and tax breaks were persistent public policies. As a result, the top earners gained most of the income gains. What happened? When the top earners share of the national income peaks (23.9% in 1928, 23.5% in 2007) there is a major economic crisis. During these time periods, median wages declined and stagnated, economy performance worsened and collapsed. However, from 1947 - 1977, when top marginal tax rates were at all time highs, more of the income gains went to the middle class, median wages surged and the economy grew faster, given the ability of the middle class to consume more, and better jobs were created.
In summary, Republican administrations steered the nation into both the Great Depression and Great Recession by drastically lowering taxes allowing most of the income to concentrate at the top, effectively pulling the rug from under the economy. The most recent decline is traced back to the Reagan administration, where income inequality began to rise.
Income inequality is associated with social mobility. Countries with high income inequality have lower social mobility. That is, the American Dream is now better lived in other advanced nations. Thanks Reagan! http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Mul...ducation/2.jpg
They combat increases in the minimum wage-----------------------------
Quote:
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate's labor committee, said in a hearing Tuesday that he would prefer to see the minimum wage abolished.
"In the 21st century, it's a disaster," Rubio said of increasing the minimum wage, drawing applause for his answer. "If you raise the minimum wage you're going to make people more expensive than a machine."
Raising the minimum wage does not hurt the economy or job creation. Research shows there is little to no evidence of a negative association between increasing minimum wage and employment. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
In fact, over 600 economists signed a letter of support of raising the federal minimum wage.
Quote:
In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.
They wage war against the poor and marginalized--------------------
Quote:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing. My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney also said in the video..
In his budget blueprint, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who took over for Ryan as chairman of the House Budget Committee this year, seeks to balance federal spending over 10 years by cutting assistance to the poor while boosting the defense budget.
The Republican-led US Congress passed a 2016 budget, a largely symbolic policy document which if fully enacted would balance federal spending and slash $5 trillion in social, education and health programs over the next decade. But it forms the start of a theoretical ten-year program that would lead to a total elimination of the US public deficit by 2024, without raising taxes — and beefs up Pentagon spending. The Senate approved the Republican budget by a final vote of 51 to 48, with all Democrats voting against.
They are consistently in favor of cutting social programs that benefit the middle class and poor, which of course positions our nation behind our advanced peers. They irrationally believe government spending on thee programs creates dependence on government, yet it actually increases social mobility. Government spending and intergenerational mobility
But it does best under Conservative ideas and values, compared to Social Progressive Collective ideas and values.
The Republican v. Democrat is the illusion they have projected, until the internet came along and the truth no longer could be protected.
Both parties have been majority Progressive since the 1880's.
Ask the guys that had the best economic policies ever to engulf this nation. They were not Progressive.
The most Progressive, Constitutional shredding and freedom taking President, was replaced by the most Laise Faire Presidents, to bring us to the prosperous time ever in our nations history.
Then another Progressive, Hoover... Who was a Republican. Republicans have been majority of Progressive since Teddy Roosevelt. It takes economic ruin, for the people to see through the lies and change coarse to a more Conservative Constitutionalist stance, when everyone elses money is already spent and they come after theirs.
The more Constitutional Conservative the nation becomes, the better the economy becomes. The more Social Progressive the nation becomes, we go into economic ruin, because there is not enough of other peoples money to pay for it.
You have to ask those that are getting rich off Government contracts, with a promise to use those profits to support their next re-election and those getting rich off Consumer contracts and a handshake.
Then look where highly restrictive labor, because the people needed it to be safe and not exploited, with government protecting corporations(promised support) to now allow them to by-pass the peoples restrictions on labor and make even more profits than ever, with Open Unrestricted Trade.
The crash of 2008, would not have happened and all the housing blunders the government was involved in. Had we not "heard that sucking sound of jobs leaving America" - Ross Perot, before NAFTA and the China Free Trade Act.
It isn't Republican or Democrat. That illusion is used to fool the ignorant.
It is Social Progressive Collectivism, that leads to economic ruin.
If I have to care for those that cannot pull their own weight, I will not be as economically prosperous, as a nation were the strong survive.
Unless you're at constant rape, pillaging and conquering for wealth(ask the Roman Empire)
Who attacked our nation, to get us involved in WW-I, WW-II, Korea, Vietnam..... or any "conflict" we have been the aggressor in. Our intent is to now Conquer the World.
Republican presidents always create a huge mess, and a Democrat prez has to clean it up afterwards.
They both have the big government is best and knows it all attitudes. There has been NO DIFFERENCE IN EITHER PARTY, since Hoover was elected. They play you like a fiddle, doing exactly as planned.
Not until the age of the internet and the suppression of the truth no longer able to happen, has a Constitutional Conservative voice been heard.(ask Ron Paul and his 2006 created grassroots Taxed Enough Already, Party)
When you get it out of your naive head, that it is Republican v. Democrat and Democrat v. Republican and start to realize it is the Government v. the People, they the government will no longer own you.
Improvements came from the democratic president.
Problems came from the previous republican president.
Kind of like how hot days are from global warming and cold days are just weather.
It's called facts, not liberal tripe.
The economy has historically done much better under a Democratic president. Just compare Clinton and Obama's economy to the two Bushes. Reagan was the outlier but his voodoo economics eventually caught up to him and US plunged into a recession.
.
It's time to talk about the elephant in the room. The elephant that doesn't know economics or good public policy. How are there any supporters for Republican/conservative/right-wing politics? They are devoid of facts and bad for the health of our society. Here's a few points:
They believe tax cuts and breaks - primarily for the rich and big corporations - lead to economic growth and prosperity. However, decades of research studies reject this premise. Tax cuts and breaks do not lead to economic growth. Instead, these forms of public policies increase income inequality because the rich and corporations are the main beneficiaries of these forms of tax reliefs. Taxing the 1%: Why the top tax rate could be over 80% | VOX, CEPR
Tax cuts and tax breaks do not create jobs. In fact, 14 of the largest corporations with the lowest effective tax rate - paying no income taxes - shed 63k jobs over a five year period despite $107 billion in pre-tax profits. However, 14 of the largest corporations with the highest effective tax rate created 115k jobs over the same period, reporting 168 billion in pre-tax profits. Think Corporate Tax Cuts Create Jobs? Think Again. | Center for Effective Government
Although corporations are richer than ever, in the midst of some of the lowest taxes they've seen in a century, this record amounts of corporate profit is being extracted for stock buybacks to increase stock performance rather than higher wages and investment. Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy - The Atlantic
It's evident the republicans favor lower taxes and tax breaks, and we know that those public policies increases income inequality. Let's go further.
From 1913 - 1933 and 1977 - 2008, the tax rates and tax breaks were persistent public policies. As a result, the top earners gained most of the income gains. What happened? When the top earners share of the national income peaks (23.9% in 1928, 23.5% in 2007) there is a major economic crisis. During these time periods, median wages declined and stagnated, economy performance worsened and collapsed. However, from 1947 - 1977, when top marginal tax rates were at all time highs, more of the income gains went to the middle class, median wages surged and the economy grew faster, given the ability of the middle class to consume more, and better jobs were created.
In summary, Republican administrations steered the nation into both the Great Depression and Great Recession by drastically lowering taxes allowing most of the income to concentrate at the top, effectively pulling the rug from under the economy. The most recent decline is traced back to the Reagan administration, where income inequality began to rise.
Income inequality is associated with social mobility. Countries with high income inequality have lower social mobility. That is, the American Dream is now better lived in other advanced nations. Thanks Reagan! http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Mul...ducation/2.jpg
They combat increases in the minimum wage-----------------------------
Raising the minimum wage does not hurt the economy or job creation. Research shows there is little to no evidence of a negative association between increasing minimum wage and employment. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
They are consistently in favor of cutting social programs that benefit the middle class and poor, which of course positions our nation behind our advanced peers. They irrationally believe government spending on thee programs creates dependence on government, yet it actually increases social mobility. Government spending and intergenerational mobility
Are you an economist that studies these issues? Secondly, you've chosen a very small narrow number and your touting it as a complete fact and the US economy is all lumped into one big giant (yet tiny) spectrum.
Why are more people on food stamps than ever before?
Why are insurance premiums at an all time high?
why are wages not keeping up with inflation?
Why is Social Security going bankrupt?
Why is Medicare going bankrupt?
If there were more taxes, let's say triple what we have now, where would the money go? To more United Nations green projects?
On a smaller scale, look at what happened in Kansas after Brownback pushed through the GOP ideas. The state went broke. So he cut education to try to balance the budget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Raising the minimum wage does not hurt the economy or job creation. Research shows there is little to no evidence of a negative association between increasing minimum wage and employment.
