The Republican Utopia

[Moiraine]

Just to add to my complaint above, it seems like at least once a week we hear about 100 million or 50 million or 150 million people being affected by a data breach. Today it was Quora. There are 325 million people in the U.S.  Every one of us has had our personal data stolen. Yet the Republican M.O. is damage caps to limit our ability to sue companies that f*** up, reduce regulations as much as possible, and lower corporate taxes. Huge corporations can be negligent and not pay a price for it, regardless of what the industry is. Maybe not the greatest example since lawsuits over data breaches fail before a cap even comes into play. My major bone to pick is with the taxes. Having high corporate tax rates is a way to balance out all of the numerous advantages these big corporations have that no one else does.

[Danny Bateman]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Just to add to my complaint above, it seems like at least once a week we hear about 100 million or 50 million or 150 million people being affected by a data breach. Today it was Quora. There are 325 million people in the U.S.  Every one of us has had our personal data stolen. Yet the Republican M.O. is damage caps to limit our ability to sue companies that f*** up, reduce regulations as much as possible, and lower corporate taxes. Huge corporations can be negligent and not pay a price for it, regardless of what the industry is. Maybe not the greatest example since lawsuits over data breaches fail before a cap even comes into play. My major bone to pick is with the taxes. Having high corporate tax rates is a way to balance out all of the numerous advantages these big corporations have that no one else does.

 

One question that gets asked to full-blown MAGAheads a lot but never answered: When was America great? At what point exactly in our history were the social and economic conditions such that we were a more perfect union that we should all be striving to turn back the clock to?

 

Presumably, FDR did a pretty good job with the economy. He ushered in a long era of prosperity and vastly improved quality of life for the middle class that lasted until Reagan drastically shifted the way a good chunk of the country thought about economics.

 

But FDR did so by using a big stick with Big Business. His corporate tax rate got as high as 94% in 1944.

 

And yet the MAGAheads cheer Trump's economic "reforms" roundly. So I'm left to believe they're either ignorant, lying to themselves or this whole thing is more about social/cultural conditions than economic ones.

[FrankWheeler]

17 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

One question that gets asked to full-blown MAGAheads a lot but never answered: When was America great? At what point exactly in our history were the social and economic conditions such that we were a more perfect union that we should all be striving to turn back the clock to?

 

Presumably, FDR did a pretty good job with the economy. He ushered in a long era of prosperity and vastly improved quality of life for the middle class that lasted until Reagan drastically shifted the way a good chunk of the country thought about economics.

 

But FDR did so by using a big stick with Big Business. His corporate tax rate got as high as 94% in 1944.

 

And yet the MAGAheads cheer Trump's economic "reforms" roundly. So I'm left to believe they're either ignorant, lying to themselves or this whole thing is more about social/cultural conditions than economic ones.

 

A lot of the people I know in rural America tell me that Republicans are going to bring back 'jobs' to their areas.  These people clearly don't understand the current economic climate.  They consistently vote against their best interest and would be much better off if spending on social programs were increased.  They complain about the cost of healthcare and lack of opportunities where they are, but vote for people who cut these same programs.  I have the belief that it is both ignorance and social/cultural.

[TGHusker]

On 12/2/2018 at 5:49 PM, Clifford Franklin said:

WTF. The Wisconsin GOP is as crooked as they come.

 

Good thing they know what policies and governance the people want better than the actual voters.

 

 

I was just going to post the same article.  If you lose by the rules, what do you do ... You change the rules   Pretty bad politics long term.  The same game will be played on them eventually only ratcheted up a few more times.  This is how we got so polarized.

[TGHusker]

26 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

One question that gets asked to full-blown MAGAheads a lot but never answered: When was America great? At what point exactly in our history were the social and economic conditions such that we were a more perfect union that we should all be striving to turn back the clock to?

 

Presumably, FDR did a pretty good job with the economy. He ushered in a long era of prosperity and vastly improved quality of life for the middle class that lasted until Reagan drastically shifted the way a good chunk of the country thought about economics.

 

But FDR did so by using a big stick with Big Business. His corporate tax rate got as high as 94% in 1944.

 

And yet the MAGAheads cheer Trump's economic "reforms" roundly. So I'm left to believe they're either ignorant, lying to themselves or this whole thing is more about social/cultural conditions than economic ones.

I agreed with you on with my last quote of you above, on this one I have to disagree regarding the bold - disagree with your overall assumption.

The assumption made is that FDR did a good job wt the economy.  There have been books written (The Forgotten Man by historian/professor Ammity Shlaes, FDR's Folly by Jim Powell are just 2 of many on the subject). Both speak along similar lines as summarized on the inside book jacket of Powell's book:

Quote

Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929-33. Truth to tell as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powells analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical.
Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

There is a critical and often forgotten difference between disaster and tragedy. Disasters happen to us all, no matter what we do. Tragedies are brought upon ourselves by hubris. The Depression of the 1930s would have been a brief disaster if it hadn't been for the national tragedy of the New Deal. Jim Powell has proven this.
P.J. ORourke, author of Parliament of Whores and Eat the Rich

We have to remember that there was a great recession in the middle of the Great Depression in 1937.  Many claim, that it was WW 2 not FDR's policies that eventually pulled us out of the Great Depression.  After the war, there was a huge demand to spend for goods and services not available during the war, and we also had the post war housing boom and the baby boom to help fuel the growth. 

Regarding Reagan - 2 points:  (1) The middle class was facing a real crisis when he took office.  Interest rates in the 20s, mortgage rates approaching the teens, very high inflation, high unemployment etc.  The middle class wasn't sitting very good in 1980.  Nothing cures these ills better than job growth and govt policy that would curb inflation and interest rates.   It work and we had the longest peace time growth of the economy.   (2)  I don't believe Reagan believed that tax cutting was to be an placebo to fix every economic ill. However, many of his later followers including GWB and those promoting Trump's tax cuts saw it as such.  Both tax cuts by GWB and Trump are ill advised I believe.  GWB did it at a time of fighting 2 wars plus other economic stressors and Trump's tax cuts are already loosing their punch and only served to inflate corp bank accounts long term.  There is a place where tax cuts loose their benefit / effectiveness & the law of diminishing returns kicks in.  In 1980, personal and corporate tax levels were excessively high due to the New Deal and Great Society (LBJ) administrative burdens placed on the economy along with the Vietnam war and recessions in the 1970s. Tax cuts and yes some targeted tax increases, and change in federal reserve policy where needed to kick start the economy.  This worked for Reagan.  The Republicans after him made the mistake of thinking it was a magic lamp and have fooled voters since then of its over hyped value. 
 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I agreed with you on with my last quote of you above, on this one I have to disagree regarding the bold - disagree with your overall assumption.

The assumption made is that FDR did a good job wt the economy.  There have been books written (The Forgotten Man by historian/professor Ammity Shlaes, FDR's Folly by Jim Powell are just 2 of many on the subject). Both speak along similar lines as summarized on the inside book jacket of Powell's book:

We have to remember that there was a great recession in the middle of the Great Depression in 1937.  Many claim, that it was WW 2 not FDR's policies that eventually pulled us out of the Great Depression.  After the war, there was a huge demand to spend for goods and services not available during the war, and we also had the post war housing boom and the baby boom to help fuel the growth. 

The anti-spending arguments of Shlaes, Friedman, Powell, et al. have been pretty thoroughly debunked. "Austerity: History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Blyth probably does the best of job of explaining why.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

The anti-spending arguments of Shlaes, Friedman, Powell, et al. have been pretty thoroughly debunked. "Austerity: History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Blyth probably does the best of job of explaining why.

I'll ck it out.   without reading it I would say that govt spending is also a stimulus.  Reagan's spending on the massive military revitalization  (which was needed to meet the Soviet threat) was also an economy boast.   There has got to be a balance between the right mix of taxes and the right amount of spending. 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not sure why there has to be certain sides to this in economics.  There are times when government spending is a stimulus.  There are times to cut government spending.  There are times to raise taxes.  There are times to lower taxes.  

 

These issues, to me, are no different than the feds deciding when it's good to raise interest rates or lower them.  One isn't bad and the other one good.  The situation dictates what needs done.

[Danny Bateman]

Wisconsin Republican lawmakers looking to pass a raft of lame-duck laws to weaken the duly-elected incoming Governor and A.G. because "we don't trust Tony Evers right now."

 

LMAO. These clowns making clown moves like this are one of the big reasons we have such a dysfunctional political system. What's the point of having elections if these corrupt state parties try to brazenly steal power from those who win?

[TGHusker]

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not sure why there has to be certain sides to this in economics.  There are times when government spending is a stimulus.  There are times to cut government spending.  There are times to raise taxes.  There are times to lower taxes.  

 

These issues, to me, are no different than the feds deciding when it's good to raise interest rates or lower them.  One isn't bad and the other one good.  The situation dictates what needs done.

Exactly right.  However both parties have drawn lines in the sand on their pet position - it has become political dogma:  Repubs mantra has been tax cuts, tax cuts.  Dems - spend, spend.  So to prove your street cred as a Repub you have to bash all govt spending and propose tax cuts of some kind.  To prove your street cred as a Dem you have to think of new ways to spend money or develop new revenue enhancers (tax).

[RedDenver]

20 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I'll ck it out.   without reading it I would say that govt spending is also a stimulus.  Reagan's spending on the massive military revitalization  (which was needed to meet the Soviet threat) was also an economy boast.   There has got to be a balance between the right mix of taxes and the right amount of spending. 

 

18 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not sure why there has to be certain sides to this in economics.  There are times when government spending is a stimulus.  There are times to cut government spending.  There are times to raise taxes.  There are times to lower taxes.  

 

These issues, to me, are no different than the feds deciding when it's good to raise interest rates or lower them.  One isn't bad and the other one good.  The situation dictates what needs done.

I agree with both of you. My previous point was about whether spending our way out of the Great Depression worked or whether we should have made cuts.

 

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Exactly right.  However both parties have drawn lines in the sand on their pet position - it has become political dogma:  Repubs mantra has been tax cuts, tax cuts.  Dems - spend, spend.  So to prove your street cred as a Repub you have to bash all govt spending and propose tax cuts of some kind.  To prove your street cred as a Dem you have to think of new ways to spend money or develop new revenue enhancers (tax).

I disagree that the Dems are any more spend, spend than the Republicans, but you are correct about the mantras and rhetoric.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

I agree with both of you. My previous point was about whether spending our way out of the Great Depression worked or whether we should have made cuts.

 

I disagree that the Dems are any more spend, spend than the Republicans, but you are correct about the mantras and rhetoric.

You  are correct in current times. The repubs have shown they can spend wt the best of them now.

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

You  are correct in current times. The repubs have shown they can spend wt the best of them now.

When was the last time the Repubs actually reduced spending? Before Reagan? I honestly don't remember any time in my lifetime.

[TGHusker]

27 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

When was the last time the Repubs actually reduced spending? Before Reagan? I honestly don't remember any time in my lifetime.

When we talk about reducing spending - it is always in the 'reduce the growth of spending'.  It gets played both ways.  The repubs say they are reducing spending and want the voter brownie points - voters thinking  actual cuts are made when they aren't (for the most part).  The Dems then  play it their voters that the Repubs are cutting everyone's SS check or other benefit.  Both are lying - The repubs are still increasing spending at a slower rate.   

[BigRedBuster]

Nowhere else to put this, so I'll put it here.  I have no clue what happened before this picture, but I got a laugh out of the look on Trump's face like he's totally offended that Bush is reaching in front of him to have a funny moment with Michelle.