The GOP and the economy

While there has always been significant opposition to the “tax and spend” policies of liberal Democrats, the alternative Republican strategy of “don’t tax and spend” hasn’t done anyone any favors either (with the exception of the wealthiest sliver of our society).

David Stockman, Reagan’s OMB director, directs attention to the politically expediency but fiscal folly of the current GOP efforts to extend the Bush tax cuts and how the GOP leadership have betrayed the principles of fiscal responsibility that once served as a cornerstone of the party. And this betrayal didn’t just happen overnight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?scp=1&sq=deformations%20of%20the%20apocalypse&st=cse

Precipitated by Nixon’s abandonment of the gold standard back in 1971, which permitted the Treasury to print money like, well, like paper, the public debt exploded under Reagan (and continued under Bush, Sr. and Clinton) as the federal government fueled both a welfare and warfare state while simultaneously cutting taxes, reducing federal revenues by 2009 to 15% of GDP. George W. Bush closed the deal by abandoning all fiscal restraint, chopping taxes, passing a $1,000,000,000,000 unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan, and waging two wars without paying a dime. As Stockman puts it, “Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.”

The ultimate nail in the coffin for the American economy has been the expansion of the financial services industry, which produces nothing but binary bits of digital currency, which evaporate just as quickly as they appear, leaving nothing of tangible worth in their wake. An industry, by the way, which now holds the federal government hostage. For those who fear a government takeover of the private sector, a mere cursory review of recent events should dispel that myth. Corporate lobbyists write our laws, including healthcare reform and finreg, and shamelessly game the system to their own advantage. Washington’s running Wall Street? Hardly. Who got the money? The fat cats on Wall Street! Who spent the money? Washington! (and lest we forget, TARP was George Bush and Hank Paulson’s baby, rubber stamped by a feckless Congress scared shitless by the specter of another Great Depression). And who got the bill? John Q. Taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the middle class slowly sinks into the sunset, as American corporations morph into multi-nationals, shifting both jobs and production overseas into cheaper labor markets and leaving the US of A with a shell economy consisting of little more than service industries catering to a consumer society. Increasingly, most American workers are simply doing each other’s laundry. And the natives are getting restless.

Don’t misunderstand my intent. I’m not looking to give the Democrats a free pass on this unmitigated disaster. They own every bit as much of it, if not more, than the Republicans. What drives me crazy is the hypocrisy of the GOP when, to quote Stockman once again, “it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.”

For an even gloomier take on Stockman’s op-ed piece, read Paul Farrell’s commentary on the WSJ’s Market Watch website.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2

He certainly makes a case that spending is out of control. I have no argument with that. That said, I will never take any argument to raise taxes seriously that does not require primary reduction in spending.

Most people, if they were to get a raise in annual income from, for example, $50k/year to $100k/year, would expand their standard of living to meet that new income. The government certainly follows this pattern; and as such I have no reason to believe that if they were to receive an extra $x billion from the Evil Rich Bastards™ that it would do a damn thing to address our balance sheet(s). And to be honest, our deficit this year alone, huge though it may be, is a drop in the bucket compared to the unfunded liabilities of our social programs. Income and estate tax revenues for 2009 were, what, ballpark around a trillion dollars? Pulling another couple hundred billion from the ERBs isn’t the answer to a hundred trillion dollar question. Spending has to be cut, and in a much more meaningful way than is being done. Last April, Gibbs got up and told us that a $100M cut on a $3.69T budget was a big deal:

“I’m being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money,” Gibbs said. “It is where I’m from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/04/20/cnn-touts-obama-100m-spending-cut-even-white-house-acknowledges-insignifi#ixzz0wDN6VABP

On a side note, as far as the notion that the Bush Tax Cuts only help the rich, I’ve taken a look at the provisions expiring this year and how that will affect me next year. Assuming the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire and my income does not change, I will pay 106% more in income tax next year than I did this year. Married filing jointly, 1 child, 1 job (wife stays home with the baby), 5-figure middle class income.

:rolleyes:

I absolutely adore historical revisionism used to try and score political points.

I have a flash for you.
George Bush isnt President any more.
Democrats have controlled Congress since jan. 4th, 2007

Blaming Bush is getting old.

one of many links on the net

When the Democrats regained control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 – that’s $8.67 trillion.

In the three years Pelosi and the Democrats have been in charge, the national debt has grown to $12,302,465,487,917.34 – that’s $12.30 trillion.

Since Pelosi and the Democrats regained control of Congress $3,631,869,244,944.30, or $3.63 trillion, has been added to the national debt. That is a increase in three years the Democrats have controlled Congress.

The Democrat controlled Congress gets the credit for the soaring national debt because under the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings:

Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The GOP has done a lot of dumb stuff. Tax cuts are not one of them.

Facts: After the so-called Bush Tax cuts, the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthiest went UP. Not down. (There was a short dip due to recession)

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

In fact, the IRS reached new records on taxes received during Bush’s time. Ie, the growth sparked by the tax cuts brought in more money overall.

Also fact. Every other time in history the marginal rate has gone up, tax receipts have gone down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html

Also interesting: Bush Tax Cut calculator – see how you will do

http://www.mytaxburden.org/


Yes, The GOP has screwed up by advocating spending. GWB was no Conservative. However, no society has ever taxed itself to prosperity. The Bush tax cuts need to be renewed. For all taxpayers, including those “wealthiest” among us. Spending must be cut. That is the only solution to the problem. Taking money out of the economy will not help the economy. It will not provide jobs. Those wealthiest among us spend money, and the invest money, and that money helps drive the economy.

Adding to this: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-destructive-economics-of-class-warfare-taxation/

Most republicans are social spenders just as much as the democrats.

I said in another thread but unless we somehow get a president who wants to cut the budget in half, and a Congress willing to do it our future is filled with high taxes, huge Federal budgets, and our financial situation is only going to get worse. Even if we get a republican most likely they will be a RINO…a McCain type, and those people love social spending. These programs that are ruining us are going to go full steam ahead, and most of Obama care is still going to be going on.

Look at what republicans did…they increased medicare/medicaid spending. Did they ever CUT spending? Spending increased under their control from when Clinton was in office.

Sure Bush cut taxes but never cut spending to go along with it, and even increased spending. That is why he was running a multi hundred billion dollar deficit every year. Now these social programs eat up every tax dollar taken in, and anything outside of that is deficit spending.

DOD spending, and the normal departments pale in comparison spent on entitlements and welfare. We spend more in one year on SS than Iraq has cost us since 2003.

This year they haven’t even passed a budget because they don’t want the numbers to come out.

This is 2009, and 2010 is going to be worse.

Welfare, entitlement, and debt spending is a majority of the budget. This doesn’t even include the mandatory state spending on these programs, either, and doesn’t include the huge amounts of money given out as tax refunds…speaking of which its not really a refund if you are getting way more back than you paid in. Its another form of welfare that doesn’t get included in these numbers.

allowing the bush tax cuts to expire right now would be a huge mistake. you simply can’t raise taxes in a recession

While I’m sure (or at least I hope) that most Americans know this to be true Pelosi is on record as saying we’re going to spend out way out of this recession. So I expect her to believe we can tax our way out of it too :suicide2:

never underestimate the stupidity of the average american. no, i don’t agree that most americans know or understand this. in fact there are economists, people that do this stuff for a living, who are on record as saying the exact same thing as pelosi.

Well, it’s not exactly incorrect is it? Revisionism would say that GWB was a fiscal conservative.

Nobody in government in the past 20(hell 100) years deserves a pass. The democrats are in charge now and deserve criticism for what they’re doing now. But we have decades of problems that have accumulated.

Can we no longer blame FDR for signing Social Security into law since there have been countless presidents since?

To be fair, Bush tried to make choices to get the economy out of the mess it was headed into and only dug us deeper. What I don’t understand is how people try to pin the recession on Bush - it was freaking Clinton that passed the legislation that allowed for the banks to get into the mess.

The Democrats started it, the Republicans made it worse, and so now the Democrats blame the Republicans for the mess THEY started.

Crashes don’t start at the moment of impact - they start once you no longer have enough room to come to a complete stop. The Democrats started this mess with the equal housing opportunity bills and now they want to pin this on Bush because the problem exploded at the end of his term. That’s not fair, it’s not right, and it’s revisionism in its truest sense.

Yeah, Bush made some stupid decisions, but anyone who thinks Bush was THE problem is either 1) uninformed, 2) a progressive revisionist, or 3) a liar.

The problem happened long before Bush and Bush did a heck of better job than Kerry could have done. People seem to forget it was either Bush or Kerry. If you’ve forgotten how bad we almost had it, listen to this…

John Kerry - The Candidate for ALL Americans

Can you source this? Hoping it has a interactive element.

You’re forgetting that Republicans were in charge of Congress during the Clinton administration.

The legislation you’re referring to that allowed banks to get into this mess is called the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass Steagall Act, was written by two Republicans and only signed into law by Bill Clinton. Clinton did not write or pass the legislation, only signed it into law. That means that both parties were complicit.

You’re right, crashes don’t start at the moment of impact. It generally takes 3-5 years for economic policy to take effect. You can do the math there.

The Democrats AND the Republicans started this mess. They were both complicit. It started under Clinton and was escalated under Bush. Yes, Bush was part of the problem, as was Clinton, but more importantly than both of them it was the Republican controlled Congress who wrote and repealed certain legislation.

Specifically which equal housing bills are you referring to? We can go further in depth if you’re interested, but I would need you to be a bit more specific. I have a feeling you’re talking about provisions added to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act regarding the Community Reinvestment Act but I want to be sure before we delve further into it.

Revisionism is to speak of the prescription drug benefit as if it was Bush’s idea…as if he somehow did it on his own. The media and the democrats were screaming for a larger benefit than what got passed ultimately after a rather nasty political battle…but now somehow this was a “Bush” spending item that was irresponsibly expensive?

It’s an intellectually dishonest attempt to score some short term political points in the hopes of making the current governmental fiscal incontinence more palatable. Deny, obfuscate, and make counter-accusations! Nevermind that the people bitching about the prescription drug benefit they lay at the feet of “Bush” were screaming a few years ago that it was too stingy and not large enough. They don’t have to worry about that because nobody is actually going to call them on the carpet for it.

Can we no longer blame FDR for signing Social Security into law since there have been countless presidents since?

FDR was the engine of the New Deal and the fiscal nightmare it has been. Bush was not the engine behind the prescription drug program…progressives were, because something “had to be done” about prescription drugs just like something “had to be done” about healthcare. He signed it…but go back and actually look through the criticisms at the time. The only criticisms about the expense were from conservatives who asked what in the hell we were doing. The progressives who pushed the issue criticized the program because we weren’t spending enough money.

It annoys the living hell out of me to see these kind of stories because they assume that we’re all too stupid to remember more than 5 minutes into the past. It’s yet more of the damnably low political discourse that has led us to the mess we face in Washington. Bush faced the absolute erosion of his base partially because he abandoned conservatism. He abandoned it under extreme pressure, just like his father did.

It can still be laid at Bush’s feet in the form that passed as he signed it.

And at the feet of the GOP Congress. The fact that the progressives wanted this and the Democrats wanted a bigger program should not be lost and they need to be tarred and feathered, but the GOP passed it and Bush signed it. He could have said no, we cannot afford this. Instead, he wanted “Compassionate Conservatism” which is a code word for progressive policy by Republicans. Bush screwed up a lot fiscal wise.

And who exerted that pressure on him? Progressives in Republican clothing. National Republicans who were more interested in staying in power through populism than in principle.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was sponsored by a Republican, passed by a Republican Congress, and signed into law by a Republican president.

While both parties share blame for this the majority is on democrats, and especially the progressive democrats.

Go back and look at the economic bill of rights AKA 2nd bill of rights. Its what FDR introducted in a state of the union speech, and has been the current goal of progressives for quite some time. Barney Frank has been pushing for housing for a long time, and now he refuses to admit he did anything wrong. His comittee in Congress has been pushing for increased borrowing and lending for housing for a long time, and that bubble came home to roost.

You can also think people like Obama who represented ACORN in a lawsuit against City Bank to force them to give loans to people by playing the race card. They didn’t want to loan money to inner city people, and they sued the bank to force them to loan it anyways.

I really do hate the term republicans and democrats because it depends on the person not what party they belong to. There are plenty of fiscally conservative republicans out there but there tons of the Bush/McCain types that love to spend money, and love the social programs to pander to a certain voting block. They will throw the country under the bus hoping more people will vote for them. The Democrat part has some conservatives in it (not many but a few).

But the liberal republicans took over sometime around 2000, and began the huge spending and pandering to the entitlement crowd. They never did anything fiscally that would put us in a better spot. There was a conservative spike after 1994 but that died, and the McCain/Graham types took over ending that. For all intents and purposes these same types are still leading the R’s, and I don’t think they have learned a single thing from it. Instead of going back to what made them successful in the mid to late 90’s we still got all the same ole rino’s in charge. They never did a damn thing but spend money we didn’t have.