What is the Republican plan to fix our economy and why will it work?

[Sitnam]

I know this is a very general question and Republican Governors and House members each have different issues to deal with and ideas to fix them, but for the most part it seems to be lowering taxes on people who are deemed job creators. If I'm wrong please correct me.

So what evidence can they (and by extension you) provide that this will work?

[Critical1]

I have yet to see anything from the Republicans that even begins to resemble a plan.
lowering taxes on the rich just makes them richer or am I the only one who remembers "Trickle down economics"?

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Critical1

I have yet to see anything from the Republicans that even begins to resemble a plan.
lowering taxes on the rich just makes them richer or am I the only one who remembers "Trickle down economics"?

I call it "Reaganomics" or "voodoo economics."

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Critical1

I have yet to see anything from the Republicans that even begins to resemble a plan.

Ideologically, of course, they're not obliged to come up with one; their theory is that the economy will usually fix itself if government leaves it alone. Electorally, of course, they're usually obliged to come up with one anyway, but this cycle the voters were more forgiving/trusting on that point.

[Lobohan]

Their main plan seems to be to add 700 billion to the deficit by extending the Bush Tax cuts for the richest Americans for another ten years.

Eric Cantor was actually pretending not to understand that the tax cuts for the top brackets would add to the deficit. He was asked several times during MSNBC's coverage.

[BobLibDem]

Their plan is to cut taxes for the rich. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Of course it won't work, it didn't work when the Bush cuts first took effect. There aren't legions of venture capitalists sitting on their money because they quiver at the thought of paying a somewhat higher tax on their profits, they sit on their money because there aren't enough customers to justify expansion.

[Der Trihs]

As said, their "plan" is to cut taxes for the rich. They don't actually care about the economy or the welfare of the country in general. They've demonstrated that quite clearly; they just look at the nation as something to lord it over and to loot. Besides, the wealthy are better off in a bad economy; desperate people are more willing to put up with terrible conditions, bad treatment and low pay in return for a job, any job.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

As said, their "plan" is to cut taxes for the rich. They don't actually care about the economy or the welfare of the country in general. They've demonstrated that quite clearly; they just look at the nation as something to lord it over and to loot. Besides, the wealthy are better off in a bad economy; desperate people are more willing to put up with terrible conditions, bad treatment and low pay in return for a job, any job.

In return for helping elect people they incorrectly think are on their side, you mean.

[shiftless]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Their plan is to cut taxes for the rich. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Of course it won't work, it didn't work when the Bush cuts first took effect. There aren't legions of venture capitalists sitting on their money because they quiver at the thought of paying a somewhat higher tax on their profits, they sit on their money because there aren't enough customers to justify expansion.

Well, it works if you happen to be one of the rich.

[gonzomax]

If cutting taxes for the rich would create jobs, we would be ass deep in jobs since the rich have had their way for a decade. The lesson is clear, tax breaks for the poor and middle class is stimulative. Tax cuts and breaks for the wealthy do not create jobs.
But the Repubs will continue to push for dismantling the government, and then ask where did it go when they are done.

[Giles]

Doesn't the plan also involve reducing the deficit? If you are going to cut, rather than increase, taxes, that means reducing government expenditure in some way. If you cut government expenditure, that means cutting jobs, either directly or indirectly, in almost any conceivable way. That should lead, IMHO, to a double-dip recession or even triple-dip recession.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Giles

Doesn't the plan also involve reducing the deficit? If you are going to cut, rather than increase, taxes, that means reducing government expenditure in some way. If you cut government expenditure, that means cutting jobs, either directly or indirectly, in almost any conceivable way. That should lead, IMHO, to a double-dip recession or even triple-dip recession.

Government jobs aren't real jobs, remember? So sayeth Michael Steele.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Government jobs aren't real jobs, remember? So sayeth Michael Steele.

Tell that to all the defence contractors, building everything from bullets to aircraft carriers. (Though, of course, they won't be in the GOP's plans for deficit reduction.)

[DCnDC]

NM

[Jas09]

Snark aside, here is the closest thing to a plan that has been provided:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/

Note that this is just one House member's ideas, and many parts of it are obviously non-starters.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Snark aside, here is the closest thing to a plan that has been provided:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/

Note that this is just one House member's ideas, and many parts of it are obviously non-starters.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

[XT]

Well, you could read this one straight from the horses mouth. Certainly a large part of it is lowering taxes, but the devil is in the detail. I'd say come back to this subject in a couple months when things start to settle out and the new folks have been sworn in and are in place as to what the Republicans will or won't be offering up, plan wise, and whether it will work or not. Certainly nothing tried in the past few years has worked very well, so I'd go with 'this won't work either' as a pretty safe bet, but who knows, since the details are still sketchy and the election only a day old (plus some of the results aren't fully in yet, last I checked, and some of the races haven't had a winner declared yet).

-XT

[theR]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Snark aside, here is the closest thing to a plan that has been provided:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/

Note that this is just one House member's ideas, and many parts of it are obviously non-starters.

Which, if you look at it, is essentially the same plan they've had for years.

1. Cut taxes
2. Reduce spending -- they always say it's in the plan but haven't done it and won't do it in the future except on a select few programs that help "the lazy" (poor) while inflating spending on the whole
3. Privatize more of government, like SS

Honestly, can anyone tell me how the Ryan plan is anything significantly different from the above talking points the Republicans have had for years, the most significant of which they have never actually tried?

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Snark aside, here is the closest thing to a plan that has been provided:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/

Note that this is just one House member's ideas, and many parts of it are obviously non-starters.

I skimmed this thread, saw little but nattering and snarking from "both sides of the aisle;" so clicked this link and read. While you can argue Ryan does present specific "answers," much of his page is spent declaiming the errors of deficits, bailouts, and liberal philosophy. Over and over, typical rhetoric arguing against "liberal ideas" rather than espousing or explaining particular positive ideas.

Here are three specifics that caught my eye.

1. It contains a quote by Alexandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, complimenting Americans on saving Europe from World Wars, and their subsequent generosity.

2. He writes:

Second, the current system is unfair to minorities. The projected shorter life expectancies of minorities significantly reduces their benefits compared with Caucasians. For example, a 30-year old white man with average earnings and average life expectancy will receive nearly $70,000 more in lifetime Social Security benefits than an African American man with the same characteristics.

By this time, I admit I was skimming quickly. But not so quickly as to miss
3. one of his deficit-reduction ideas about seven tenths of the way through the page.

Elimination of the Corporate Income Tax.

Here I stopped reading. I hope someone else can summarize the last 3 tenths of Ryan's Plan.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by septimus

I skimmed this thread, saw little but nattering and snarking from "both sides of the aisle;" so clicked this link and read. While you can argue Ryan does present specific "answers," much of his page is spent declaiming the errors of deficits, bailouts, and liberal philosophy. Over and over, typical rhetoric arguing against "liberal ideas" rather than espousing or explaining particular positive ideas.

I don't disagree. I was merely pointing out what, to my knowledge, is the most complete and concrete plan that a GOP member has proposed. I certainly wasn't endorsing it - I figured posting the link was better than snark.

Here I stopped reading. I hope someone else can summarize the last 3 tenths of Ryan's Plan.

Elimination or severe reduction of the Corporate Income Tax is a very central idea to much of conservative economic thought. And, frankly, as long as a revenue source that replaces it is sufficiently progressive, I don't have a problem with it. There is certainly some merit to the argument that higher corporate taxes can discourage business growth (or lead towards off-shoring).

I believe one of the points you skipped was his proposed replacement for the Corporate Income Tax - a VAT-like device he calls a Business Consumption Tax (seems to be a flat 8.5%). I do believe this was one area in which his math was shown to be a bit dodgy (i.e., the hole created in the budget is much larger than he claims). It would likely need to be closer to double that to be a viable replacement, IIRC.

You also didn't mention his more radical personal income tax proposals - two brackets, no deductions, no capital gains or interest income taxes, nor estate taxes. The net result of those is a far more regressive tax code, and a large decrease in revenue. Whether that is a bug or a feature probably depends on your political alignment.

[Trepa Mayfield]

That's an interesting perspective, Democrats. I wonder what the Republican plan is.

[toadspittle]

Originally Posted by pedescribe

That's an interesting perspective, Democrats. I wonder what the Republican plan is.

Don't we all. We've been wondering for months and months. Now they've won the House, and were STILL wondering. I expect that two years from now, we'll STILL be wondering.

So, to parse the OP:

What is the Republican plan to fix our economy THEY HAVE NONE

and why will it work? IT WON'T

[Jas09]

One might also consider that a certain percentage of the population sincerely believes that government intrusion of any sort into most markets is a net negative, no matter how bad things may seem. So their natural, and to them quite right, inclination is to oppose any sort of government-led plan to "fix" the economy, as they believe by its very nature government is incapable of doing any such thing.

So the "plan to fix the economy" is "stop having the government try to fix the economy and let the economy fix itself".

[sqweels]

It just occured to me that cutting taxes for the rich is appeasement.

If we cut taxes on the rich in hopes that they'll create jobs, that will just embolden them to continue refusing to create jobs so we'll give them even more tax cuts.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Jas09

So the "plan to fix the economy" is

"stop having the government try to fix the economy and let the economy fix itself".

Did they actually ran for elections with that slogan? If they did, the US is pretty much a unique country.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

Did they actually ran for elections with that slogan? If they did, the US is pretty much a unique country.

No. But that is pretty much the explicit agenda of some members of the GOP that were elected last night (Rand Paul as an obvious example).

They did explicitly run on the slogan of "reduce the size of the government", for example. A very common phrase was "failed stimulus" and "government take-over of health care".

Or, as Ronald Reagan once put it "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'".

The idea that the government is ineffective at best at effecting economic growth is a commonly-held belief in the US.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Or, as Ronald Reagan once put it "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'".

You mean like right after a disaster, like Katrina? (Oh sorry, maybe that explains Katrina. Hmmm...)

P.S: I meant "Did they actually run for elections with that slogan? If they did, the US is pretty much a unique country." Big big mistake here. Bit drunk (or drank?)

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

You mean like right after a disaster, like Katrina? (Oh sorry, maybe that explains Katrina. Hmmm...)

Quite honestly, I have no idea what he meant - it always sounded like complete nonsense to me.

But it's a very popular saying amongst the portion of the GOP I'm referring to.

[RickJay]

The usual answer to this is "we'll cut waste!" It's what everyone says they'll do to control spending. It never happens, of course, but they always say it.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

So what evidence can they (and by extension you) provide that this will work?

The massive job creation that occured under Bush after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed.

[Wesley Clark]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...-cut-extension

Boehner also targeted spending identified by Republicans on the Budget Committee as items that could be eliminated immediately.

The GOP spending cut package includes $266 billion in remaining stimulus funds that could be repealed and another $111 billion for reducing government employment, freezing federal worker pay, canceling unspent bailout funds and reforming mortgage guarantors Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The amount of savings was estimated by Budget Committee Republicans in May, when they first proposed their plan.

Boehner's spending reductions would total more than $700 billion in savings beyond cuts that Democrats have proposed. But that’s also the approximate cost of extending the tax cuts for upper-income earners, meaning extending those tax cuts would wipe out those savings.

Also Boehner has talked about raising the min. SS age to 65 and the full age to 70. however I think that is only for people 40 or younger.

I have no idea what they will do to mandatory spending. Medicare, medicaid & SS. I don't know if they'll push to raise the ages to quality, increase copays, lower benefits, etc. Because mandatory spending is where all the money is, and if you aren't willing to raise taxes then cutting spending is the only alternative to balance the budget.

What happens to the tea party when the 2012 budget still has a 1 trillion deficit?

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

What happens to the tea party when the 2012 budget still has a 1 trillion deficit?

Well, as I understand it that's pretty much impossible. The only reason it's so high this year is because of the stimulus (with high unemployment exacerbating). Assuming at least some of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to sunset (estate tax will certainly not remain 0, at a minimum), there will be revenue increases.

Here's an interesting graphic from earlier this year at the NY Times about budget projections (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...e-graphic.html) - upshot being that a ton will depend on the economy. If unemployment drops the deficit will look much, much smaller.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

What happens to the tea party when the 2012 budget still has a 1 trillion deficit?

They'll come up with a new name, and Republicans will immediately start promising them tax cuts.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

The massive job creation that occured under Bush after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities would seriously disagree. Do you contend that they are partisan hacks?

[erez]

Yet another thread where butthurt statists display their laughable understanding of economics and of how businesses work...

Originally Posted by Sitnam

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities would seriously disagree. Do you contend that they are partisan hacks?

Fail.

"Acording to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."[4]" (Wikipedia)

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by erez

Yet another thread where butthurt statists display their laughable understanding of economics and of how businesses work...

Are you implying that the Republicans aren't "statists"? Because they most certainly are; they just want to regulate people's speech and bedrooms and religion instead of regulating corporations.

[John Mace]

I hope they don't have a plan. Government can't "fix" the economy. The economy is going to have to fix itself, which I'm confident it will do. So the Dems and Pubs can argue for the next 2 years about how it "fix" the economy, and during the time those of who actually work in the economy will fix it.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by erez

Yet another thread where butthurt statists display their laughable understanding of economics and of how businesses work...

Ok, do you have proof Bush's tax cuts led to enough economic growth to make up for the lost revenue?

Bonus if you can do it without statistics.

[erez]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Ok, do you have proof Bush's tax cuts led to enough economic growth to make up for the lost revenue?

Bonus if you can do it without statistics.

Why should I want to prove such a thing? Did I make such a claim? I said that you were wrong in thinking that "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" is non-partisan. Was it a nice, seemingly non-partisan name of this organization or was there some other reason for your misconception?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by erez

Yet another thread where butthurt statists display their laughable understanding of economics and of how businesses work...

Fine.

How about these:

The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

<snip>

The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.

SOURCE: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/...ord-on-record/

Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years
Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades

The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

SOURCE: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-legacy/26402/

Census Bureau Report referred to above: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf (PDF)

[erez]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Fine.

How about these:

Thank you for proving my point. There are only two possibilities: either you did not hear about the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble and you honestly didn't realize that their dates hugely affected any such comparison or you knew about them but posted this anyway. You conveniently wrote about the presidency without writing about the control of the Congress, which is easily just as important. Why? See this: http://dshort.com/articles/GDP-and-politics.html - there is no pattern. And before you make another bad assumption that by writing this I'm defending all of Bush's decisions - I'm not. I just don't like to see such blatant manipulation of the data in an attempt to prove a partisan point.

[Kolga]

I heard part of a speech on NPR this morning in which Rand Paul stated that the government cannot (CANNOT) create jobs. Only businessmen and -women can create jobs. (no discussion of how government policies might assist those business owners).

The Republicans plan will be to "cut taxes" and "cut spending." Those are the constant talking points from now on about fixing the economy. Everything will fall under those two broad categories.

Oh, and "reform regulations" came up, too.

[Digital Stimulus]

Originally Posted by Kolga

I heard part of a speech on NPR this morning in which Rand Paul stated that the government cannot (CANNOT) create jobs. Only businessmen and -women can create jobs. (no discussion of how government policies might assist those business owners).

For a real-world counterpoint, see: A big smooch for the stimulus bill.

[Chronos]

Did they actually ran for elections with that slogan? If they did, the US is pretty much a unique country.

Sharon Angle gave a speech to her supporters that said that she wasn't going to bring jobs to Nevada, and that that's not what a senator is supposed to do. Then again, she also lost.

[elucidator]

Der has a deep and abiding respect for religious people and institutions. Its why we call him Father Guido Sardonic.

[joebuck20]

Well, they did put out...

dare I say it, dare I say it

(snort)
The Pledge to America.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

I know this is a very general question and Republican Governors and House members each have different issues to deal with and ideas to fix them, but for the most part it seems to be lowering taxes on people who are deemed job creators. If I'm wrong please correct me.

So what evidence can they (and by extension you) provide that this will work?

Aren't they opposed to amnesty? This would help reduce the trend of 'importing poverty'.

The findings of this study indicate that poverty in America is increasingly being driven by immigration policy. With immigrant households now accounting for more than one-fifth of the poor, and one-fourth of child poverty, immigration policy should become an integral part of any discussion of poverty in America. In fact, it is not too much to say that an understanding of immigration has become essential to understanding the cause of poverty in America.

http://www.cis.org/articles/poverty_...ecsummary.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112167023

[elucidator]

So, in your non-partisan and unbiased opinion, your opinion is non-partisan and unbiased.

[erez]

Originally Posted by elucidator

So, in your non-partisan and unbiased opinion, your opinion is non-partisan and unbiased.

Who told you that I'm non-partisan? I pointed out gaping factual holes in Whack-a-Mole's partisan arguments. Nothing more.

[elucidator]

The same one I've been hearing about for forty years?