Posted on 11/13/2012 11:19:28 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Trickle-down economics died last Tuesday. The post-election chatter has been dominated by demographics, Latinos, women, and the culture war. But economics played a strong and even pivotal role in this election too, and Reaganomics came out a huge loser, while the Democrats have started to wrap their arms around a simple, winning alternative: the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. It’s middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.
Supply side was rejected. And in its place, voters went for an economic vision that says: don’t invest in the wealthy in the hope that they’ll decide to spread the wealth around; invest in the middle class, because it’s demand from a prosperous middle class that ultimately creates more jobs, and because doing that makes for a healthier society all the way around.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
I remember a pie chart in a Planned Parenthood pamphlet, showing the various causes of pregnancy. By far the chief cause was “contraceptive failure.” If that’s the case, the obvious solution is to stop using those damn failing contraceptives!
Government “investment” was initially a euphamism for increased taxes. Oh, the Dems would like to increase tax RATES on the wealthy, to nail the coon skin on the barn for subsequent election campaigns, but they won’t realize any more revenue. We are so far beyond the maximum effective tax rate that an increase in tax rates is only going to further decrease economic activity. That leaves 2 alternatives: Printing Money (Ben Bernake) and increased borrowing to fund the “Grand Canyon” of budget shortfalls. (If we had a budget).
Obama won by 9.5 m in ‘08; currently ahead by 3.5 m. He lost 2/3 of his margin governing as he did. Plus, this really was the triumph of his community organizing “skills(?)” turning out 10,000- 0 precincts. Apparently the “white youth vote “ caught on to the corruption of identity politics, can only hope the Asian vote won’t be far behind.
Since the middle class is “where the money is”, so-called middle-out economics is just the government’s way of saying “you’re too stupid to spend & invest your own money wisely.” It also confirms that economic illiteracy is at an all-time high in this country. Thanks is largely due to the public “education” system and our socialist college professors. They’ve convinced 3 generations of Americans that the US federal gov’t owns all money in this country, and that people only succeed by scr3wing their fellow citizens (unless you’re St. Steve Jobs or some other uber-rich capitalist with the ability to construct a cult-like following).
Why do we let the free enterprise system be labelled “capitalism” or “trickle down.”
BECAUSE WE LET THE LEFT DEFINE US.
You can’t kill truth. You can, for a time, suppress it, or hide it, or distort it - but you can’t kill it.
What “middle out”???
Them there “middle” went to China under Clinton.
Tomasky, like all lib-leftists, is an ignoramus and a tremendous liar. Lib economics, based on socialist command-type economics, have always been huge failures. “Trickle down” economics is a lie cooked up the typical lib-leftist suspects like Tomasky. Everybody benefits from lower across the board rate cuts. Everybody loses when taxes are raised.
Yeah that across the board tax cut by Bush in 2003 which fueled the tremendous growth of the economy and resulted in under 5% unemployment was typical leftist economics. (snicker)
1. There is no such thing as “trickle down economics” and these liberal commentators know it.
2. Romney was not preaching Reaganomics. (They know that too.) Reagan was promising large tax cuts across the board. All Romney promised was not to raise taxes.
3. As this propagandist knows, supply side was not rejected. It was not on the ballot.
4. Obama may have prevailed in the vote, but that just means Obamanomics will collapse sooner. The people want growth and all Obama will give them is stagnation. Then they’ll want some pro-growth policies.
5. Romney is a liberal Republican who increased the size of government in Massachusetts. He governed the way that liberals would like to see us governed, so he could not be an effective spokesperson for the limited-government, pro-growth, market-oriented viewpoint.
What this dishonest, partisan propagandist is trying to do is preclude real, pro-growth economic views from even being advanced. It won’t work.
Bush’s tax cuts as implemented were (as we are now seeing) an unmitigated disaster. Unaccompanied by any discipline in spending, they increased debt (futures taxes). With rate cuts and credits they made a vast swath of the lower middle class into effectively non-taxpayers, who are predictably now permanent Democrats rather than swing voters.
Virtually all conservative economists and analysts disagree with you.
The uptick in the economy was from the provisions put in the tax cut by the Republicans in Congress, especially Bill Thomas. Thomas included the capital gains tax cut, something W adamantly opposed. The start of the Iraq war was also a factor (lots of government spending). The rise in the stock market was led by government contractors, and commodities (W's weak dollar helped them, as well as his decision to burn our food in our cars).
And I leave you with W's famous last quote he gave in his exit interview to his buddies at CNN.
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."
W’s tax cuts were temporary in nature, designed to boost consumerism rather than investment. Such policies provide a temporary boost, but are unsustainable. W’s government spending is in the same category.
In short you agree that the Bush tax cuts revived the economy. Thank you. And Bush tried the mini-stimulus (which I didn't think would work) because of the advice of a great many people, including many conservative economists, who told him it would be a disaster if he didn't do it. He didn't cause the financial meltdown (thank you Bill Clinton), and he tried to reform Fannie and Freddie. He did spend too much a lot of it probably to get Dem support for the war of terror.
The long and short of it is (1) no community reinvestment act (2) no Clinton admin forcing banks and lending instituitons to make bad loans (3) no Barney Frank or other Dems to stop reform of Fannie and Freddie (4) no financial crisis. Read Tom Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" to get the lowdown.
What kind of regulations did W cut, which would boost the economy without raising debt?
In short you agree that the Bush tax cuts revived the economy.
Nope. W's government spending and debt buildup temporarily boosted the economy, and led to Obama being president and the troubles we have now.
Notice how Communism never dies and the Left is even applauding the impending Soviet Reunion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.