Republicans for Hillary: The self-immolation of the GOP

piezoe said:
Republican initiatives and policies are directly responsible for the redistribution of wealth from the middle-class upward to the wealthy; thus causing a dramatically skewed wealth distribution that is damaging the U.S. economy and in the long run is very bad for the wealthy themselves. But there are not enough wealthy to elect anyone. Therefore the Republican party has had to take under its wing all manner desparate political groups that are Incompatible with each other . The party is coming apart at the seams. Trump is very likely to prove disastrous not only for the country but for the party itself. That's why we see so many establishment Republicans trying to derail him. Oddly, Trump is the candidate of the misfits, the lower middle class, the misanthropes, and those barely making it. Those who control most of the capital in the country can't stand him. This election may turn out to be a test of whether the old money really is in control or whether it is all an illusion .
More...

I disagree. The primary cause of middle class wealth destruction has been free trade. The signature free trade deal was NAFTA, negotiated by one Bill Clinton. Until recently democrats were as eager as republicans to sign free trade deals. We have had 8 years of Clinton and 7 of Obama, during which next to nothing has been done to address unfair trading practices. I'm not absolving Bush, but you have had 15 years of democrats in control of the trade machinery and they have done nothing to protect US workers. They have however done plenty to make it tough to manufacture here, eg EPA and over the top pro union policies.

The other policy that has hurt the lower and lower middle classes has been unchecked immigration, legal and illegal. Illegal immigration has hurt the lower class, but legal immigration has been a gut punch to many people who had decent middle class jobs in fields like computer programming. While republicans have certainly done nothing to stem the tide, democrats in search for new dependency voters have been the ones pushing immigration.

The other thing that has sharpened income disparity has been the incredible rise in C suite compensation. The ratio of average worker to CEO pay has blown all out of whack since Clinton took office. If the democrats are so damned concerned about income disparity, you'd think they would have addressed it during their 15 years in charge of the White House, many of which years they controlled both houses of congress. Yet they did bupkus. They did manage to bail out the banks and car companies and used bailout funds to pay bonuses to execs who should have been facing indictments.
 
jem said:
congress kept spending and to be fair.. .his updating the military and spending on star wars... did largely contribute to the fall of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe.

so I understand why you dislike him so.
More...
Good, you're backing up. We haven't even brought up the schooling you got from Piezoe on this, re what the Fed did in those days. It's long past, years past, time for you to drop the simplistic tax cuts = revenue gains bit.
 
what the heck are you talking about backing up...

after the bush, reagan kennedy and mellon tax cuts revenues went up. and when wen we examined the bush tax cuts... even the 1% paid more in taxes.

We brought facts to piezoe's distortion of the tax cutting record.


Ricter said:
Good, you're backing up. We haven't even brought up the schooling you got from Piezoe on this, re what the Fed did in those days. It's long past, years past, time for you to drop the simplistic tax cuts = revenue gains bit.
More...
 
Last edited:
here is a link to the thread and the post. I just found it.

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/tax-cuts-and-revenue.285204/page-18#post-4000589


first of all the reagan supply side tax cuts were 1981... remember that when had to take the carter and dems policies of heavy inflation out of the system and bring back prosperity to america.
Reagan cut taxes rates.

1986 was a tax reform designed to be revenue neutral ... to broaden out the base and eliminate loopholes.

The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99–514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was given impetus by a detailed tax-simplification proposal from President Reagan's Treasury Department, and was designed to be tax-revenue neutral because Reagan stated that he would veto any bill that was not. Revenue neutrality was targeted by decreasing individual income tax rates, eliminating $30 billion annually in loopholes, while increasing corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and miscellaneous excises.[1] The act raised overall revenue by $54.9 billion in the first fiscal year after enactment [2] As of 2014, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets (for the individual income tax) to three.[3]


but we can engage on that too...

by the time they were done with exemptions even back then... very few people at the very bottom... actually paid income tax even if their rates went up in theory.
I was just out of school back then and I can assure you people making 10000 a year were not hit with more taxes. People making that little did not even bother filing back then.
Even people working for the federal govt.

But.... average income in 1986 was 22,600 dollars.
Many hardworking americans... making a little below average... they did see a tax rate cut... and a tax cut.
those americans making over 9170 dollars but less than 16,800 got a tax rate cut as did americans making over 31000.

However, similar to what AAA stated... there is no way you can blame those tax levels on income disparity now... because the bottom half of the country takes money from the federal govt.
 
We've lost sight of how wildly irresponsible the Republican tax plans are
Updated by Ezra Klein and Jeff Stein on February 25, 2016, 8:40 a.m. ET

"You know what hasn't gotten enough attention in this election? How utterly ridiculous the Republican tax plans have become.

"Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump are the top three contenders for the Republican nomination. Rubio has promised tax cuts amounting to $6.8 trillion, Cruz $8.6 trillion, and Trump a whopping $9.5 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center (and that's not including interest on the debt they would rack up!).

"To put that in perspective, the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed during the 2000 campaign were $1.32 trillion — which would be $1.82 trillion in today's dollars. And taxes were higher in 2000 than they are today, and the country was running surpluses rather than deficits.

"It gets worse. Rubio and Cruz both support a Balanced Budget Amendment, so they can't just add their tax cuts to the national debt. They also support spending more on the military — up to $1 trillion for Rubio, about $2.4 trillion for Cruz. Trump supports more military spending and has also promised to avoid cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

"All this talk of trillions of dollars can melt the brain. So let's get more specific. We worked with Marc Goldwein of the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget and reams of Congressional Budget Office numbers to come up with some illustrative examples of how much the Republicans would have to cut to pay for their tax plans.1 These aren't their only paths, of course — but for every FBI they want to save, they would need to cut other spending of equal value. As you'll see, it gets very hard, very fast.

How could Marco Rubio get to $6.8 trillion in tax cuts?

"On day one of Marco Rubio's presidency, he announces that he'll pay for his tax cuts by doing something truly big: ending funding for Medicaid and for the Children’s Health Insurance Program — which 71 million Americans, or 22 percent of the country, rely on for health care. Impressive, right?

"The problem is that only gets Rubio about $4.7 trillion.

"To close the gap, Rubio could find another trillion dollars by eliminating all education spending — Pell grants, the Department of Education, K-12 funds, school nutrition programs, Head Start, all of it. That gets him to roughly $5.7 trillion.

"Knocking out all justice spending could net another $561 billion. But there might be some political resistance to wiping out the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, much of the Department of Justice, all United States attorneys, the entire federal judiciary, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

"The good news is Rubio is pretty close now. All he needs is another $540 billion or so. And he could get that by wiping out international spending — so closing all US embassies and consulates around the world, zeroing all aid to developing nations, ending all military funding for allies, and closing the State Department, among other functions.

"At this point, Rubio's there. Of course, he's also proposed increasing military spending by somewhere in the range of $1 trillion, so he somehow needs to pay for that, too. And then to fulfill his balanced budget promise, he's got to get rid of the deficits that already exist and are projected to grow in the coming years."

How can Ted Cruz get to $8.6 trillion in tax cuts?

"Cruz doesn't go for any of Rubio's small-ball $6.8 trillion stuff. He's proposing a full $8.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"To get there, he could start with everything on Rubio's list and then end all federal transportation funding. Goodbye, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Highway Administration! And sorry, all you states relying on federal funds to build or rebuild your highways and ports!

"The problem is all that money only amounts to $935 billion."

More >>
 
Ricter said:
We've lost sight of how wildly irresponsible the Republican tax plans are
Updated by Ezra Klein and Jeff Stein on February 25, 2016, 8:40 a.m. ET

"You know what hasn't gotten enough attention in this election? How utterly ridiculous the Republican tax plans have become.

"Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump are the top three contenders for the Republican nomination. Rubio has promised tax cuts amounting to $6.8 trillion, Cruz $8.6 trillion, and Trump a whopping $9.5 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center (and that's not including interest on the debt they would rack up!).

"To put that in perspective, the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed during the 2000 campaign were $1.32 trillion — which would be $1.82 trillion in today's dollars. And taxes were higher in 2000 than they are today, and the country was running surpluses rather than deficits.

"It gets worse. Rubio and Cruz both support a Balanced Budget Amendment, so they can't just add their tax cuts to the national debt. They also support spending more on the military — up to $1 trillion for Rubio, about $2.4 trillion for Cruz. Trump supports more military spending and has also promised to avoid cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

"All this talk of trillions of dollars can melt the brain. So let's get more specific. We worked with Marc Goldwein of the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget and reams of Congressional Budget Office numbers to come up with some illustrative examples of how much the Republicans would have to cut to pay for their tax plans.1 These aren't their only paths, of course — but for every FBI they want to save, they would need to cut other spending of equal value. As you'll see, it gets very hard, very fast.

How could Marco Rubio get to $6.8 trillion in tax cuts?

"On day one of Marco Rubio's presidency, he announces that he'll pay for his tax cuts by doing something truly big: ending funding for Medicaid and for the Children’s Health Insurance Program — which 71 million Americans, or 22 percent of the country, rely on for health care. Impressive, right?

"The problem is that only gets Rubio about $4.7 trillion.

"To close the gap, Rubio could find another trillion dollars by eliminating all education spending — Pell grants, the Department of Education, K-12 funds, school nutrition programs, Head Start, all of it. That gets him to roughly $5.7 trillion.

"Knocking out all justice spending could net another $561 billion. But there might be some political resistance to wiping out the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, much of the Department of Justice, all United States attorneys, the entire federal judiciary, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

"The good news is Rubio is pretty close now. All he needs is another $540 billion or so. And he could get that by wiping out international spending — so closing all US embassies and consulates around the world, zeroing all aid to developing nations, ending all military funding for allies, and closing the State Department, among other functions.

"At this point, Rubio's there. Of course, he's also proposed increasing military spending by somewhere in the range of $1 trillion, so he somehow needs to pay for that, too. And then to fulfill his balanced budget promise, he's got to get rid of the deficits that already exist and are projected to grow in the coming years."

How can Ted Cruz get to $8.6 trillion in tax cuts?

"Cruz doesn't go for any of Rubio's small-ball $6.8 trillion stuff. He's proposing a full $8.6 trillion in tax cuts.

"To get there, he could start with everything on Rubio's list and then end all federal transportation funding. Goodbye, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Highway Administration! And sorry, all you states relying on federal funds to build or rebuild your highways and ports!

"The problem is all that money only amounts to $935 billion."

More >>
More...

Bernie?

What you're missing: gutting taxes, regulation, and tariffs grows the economy considerably. Further, Trump plans to cut the size and scope of the Federal Government = less expense.
 
jem said:
Reagan's policies were in part responsible for massive wealth generation that bolstered the working class as well for about 20 years.
if you are concerned about the 1986 balancing that was also democrat policy.

and if you are concerned about tax receipts... they went up massively after his tax cuts...

$517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 --


If you want to rip on republicans - feel free rip on the establishment republicans and democrats but don't misrepresent what tax cuts did for our economy and those working in it. We lived it. It was very good for a while. I was making a thousand dollars a week teaching tennis as 21 and 22 (112 grand a year today.) year old in back then. The economy was smoking good because of lowered taxes and deregulation. People were making cash... and the irony was that hollywood was trying to make fun of republicans but Alex P. Keaton was loved because the economy was kicking ass.
More...
In the studies I have seen, it was only the Kennedy cuts that could reasonably be said to have resulted in moderate revenue increases.

The Reagan tax cuts, were accompanied by massive increases in spending. This resulted in deficits of historic proportions. Tax revenue increases, which were far smaller than had been anticipated, after the Reagan cuts, are attributed by economists today to massive economic stimulus spending and recovery from recession. (Revenues always increase coming out of recession.)

Reagan's huge cold war expenditures had negligible affect on the Soviet economy. He is often falsely given credit for collapse of the Soviet Union which occurred on his watch. As Moynihan pointed out when he was in Ford's cabinet, the Soviet Union was in the process of collapsing entirely on its own, and if we just sat back and did nothing, the Soviet Union would completely collapse in a few years. There was copious data to support Moynihan's view. Moynihan's sharp disagreement on this point with other members of Ford's cabinet eventually led to Moynihan leaving the cabinet.

Because of the horrendous, long-term damage done to the U.S. Economy due to screwball, supply-side, trickle-down economics, and privatizing things that never should have been privatized, it is fair to say that Reagan's administration was the worst in our twentieth Century History. His economic adviser's radical ideas hang on still today in the form of anarcho-capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top