The massive job creation that occured under Bush after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed.
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?
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.
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.
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 (Budget Forecasts, Compared With Reality - NYTimes.com) - upshot being that a ton will depend on the economy. If unemployment drops the deficit will look much, much smaller.
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?)
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.
They’ll come up with a new name, and Republicans will immediately start promising them tax cuts.
They blame it on the liberals, naturally.
They want people to think that the government is evil. The government after all the the only real source of power and protection the non-wealthy have; if they can be convinced to reject it, they become helpless prey for anyone richer, more numerous or otherwise more powerful than they are. Which is exactly what the Republicans want.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities would seriously disagree. Do you contend that they are partisan hacks?
I call it “Reaganomics” or “voodoo economics.”
Which, if you look at it, is essentially the same plan they’ve had for years.
- Cut taxes
- 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
- 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?
For a real-world counterpoint, see: A big smooch for the stimulus bill.
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.
Yet another thread where butthurt statists display their laughable understanding of economics and of how businesses work…
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)
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.
In return for helping elect people they incorrectly think are on their side, you mean.
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.
I know you do not think particularly highly of religions but churches do help the poor in many ways.
Der has a deep and abiding respect for religious people and institutions. Its why we call him Father Guido Sardonic.