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

[Squink]

That’s supposed to be a Republican job, eh, Shodan?

[Shodan]

TARP was bipartisan, IIRC. Maybe I don’t understand your point.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

If you mean TARP, that gets paid back. The problem being that Obama and the Democrats spent the paybacks too.

Regards,
Shodan

Yes, people often confuse TARP with the stimulus,

TARP has been paid back. The stimulus money meant to create jobs seems to have mostly gone to state a local governments, and not the private sector. So, if we’re lucky, “limited government” will mean no more stimulus.

[BobLibDem]

@Sam_Stone

Pretty much. But that won’t happen if government keeps messing up the playing field.

The best thing the government could do is just stop doing so much. Announce a freeze on major new regulations. Adopt a credible plan to at least control the increase in spending and flatten it out with some reasonable deficit reductions as a result. Stop demonizing investors and business people. Launch a review of the health care bill with an eye towards reforming/removing/delaying the more expensive aspects of it. Start serious discussions towards reforming entitlements, because the markets are getting increasingly spooked by the coming entitlement tsunami.

What new regulations, say over the past decade, have hurt business? Who demonizes investors and what effect does it have, other than hurting their wittle feelings?

Same old turd between two new slices of bread. Conservatives keep thinking that if we keep throwing money at the rich, they’ll eventually out of the goodness of their hearts start creating jobs. As if they’re sitting around on pins and needles, sitting on their money so that someday they might be able to invest it and keep 78% of the profits rather than 75%.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Lantern

What the economy needs is high government spending in the short run to boost demand combined with a credible plan for fiscal austerity in the longer run to reduce the deficit. What the Republicans will likely propose will do exactly the opposite: more tax cuts for the wealthy which will do very little to boost demand now but which will seriously damage the long-run fiscal balance.

The historical record in the last three decades is pretty clear. The Reagan tax cuts played a major role in the massive 80’s deficits. The Bush(1)/Clinton tax increases played a major role in bringing the budget into balance in the 90’s. The Bush(2) tax cuts helped create the large deficits of the last decade. And now the Republicans seem to want yet another decade of even higher deficits while piously crowing about fiscal prudence.

Another big thing we need is more security and stability. Right now nobody knows if the economy will collapse again, if businesses will go bankrupt next year or if people will be unemployed again. I have money saved but am not spending it because I don’t know when I will be laid off (again), and if I am how long I’ll be unemployed until another job opens up.

Republicans just use ‘balanced budgets’ as an smokescreen for their real agenda, to cut government spending on social programs and infrastructure. If they can balloon the deficit on tax cuts and military spending they will.

[Evil_Captor]

The Republicans have a very clear economic plan, the one they enact, or try to enact, whenever they get in power:

1. Cut taxes to the rich as close to zero as can possibly be managed. Also, inheritance taxes. ANYTHING to make the plight of the top 2 percent of the American people more bearable.

2. Loot social security. Oh, they want it. They want all of it, make no mistake. Remember Dubya’s attempt to persuade the American people to “privatize” Social Security? Know what would have happened to most Americans’ retirement income if it had been in the private sector during Bush’s term? Basically, the wealthy classes want to get their hands on the money set aside to administer Social Security so they can gamble with it on the stock market, and the Republicans want to help them.

3. Dismantle any programs designed to help the poor and the middle class. They are not necessary to the wealthy, therefore they are not necessary.

4. Dismantle the education system, “privatizing” it so that the wealthy can have the schools they can afford and the middle class and the poor can get by as best they can.

5. Make sure everyone has access to guns so the middle class and the poor can feed themselves by fishing and hunting, the only skills they will have left (see point 4).

6. Stimulate the economy by starting wars and giving big contractors lots of money that is extremely fungible. The poor and the middle class, hunting to survive, will already be trained marksmen when drafted, and will be glad for the work, being unemplyable otherwise.

Sadly, only points 5 and 6 are made up. I THINK they are made up. The Republican’s economic plans do seem to be aimed at dissolving the differences between the poor and the middle class. I would have included a point about making “one dollar one vote” the principle of democracy, but the Supreme Court has already done this for them quite handily.

[Marley23]

@Capitaine_Zombie

Careful with your blinders, if worn too tightly, they can hamper the flow of blood to the head…

Again - please tone down your comments toward other posters.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Marley23

Again - please tone down your comments toward other posters.

I’ll be honest, I have a hard time figuring out the etiquette here. Read the rules but it wasnt much help. As I am not looking for flame wars and I enjoy this forum, I will go for a “painfully neutral in every way” posting strategy till I get a better grasp of the flow.

[XT]

@BobLibDem

Same old turd between two new slices of bread. Conservatives keep thinking that if we keep throwing money at the rich, they’ll eventually out of the goodness of their hearts start creating jobs. As if they’re sitting around on pins and needles, sitting on their money so that someday they might be able to invest it and keep 78% of the profits rather than 75%.

Good grief. :rolleyes: ‘Out of the goodness of their hearts’?? Who thinks this? What fantasy ‘conservatives’ think this? Can you list names and give some quotes of any ‘conservative’ who said anything as dippy as this? Ever?

-XT

[Sitnam]

@erez

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?

Ok, I was wrong. But I asked in the OP for the Republican plan and proof that it will work, and so far you haven’t provided a sentence addressing either of those.

If you have no intention of doing that go play somewhere else.

[Tristan]

@Der_Trihs

Exactly. If Pepsi ran a soup kitchen where they handed out Pepsis and covered the walls in advertisements for Pepsi, that’s an advertising program not a charitable venture. And that’s what religious “charity” typically is - an advertising gimmick.

So?

As someone who has benefited from church based charity in the past, having to listen to a 20 minute sermon to get a meal when my other options would have been “no meal”, it was well worth it.

Churches do good, often in concert with their drive to increase their “consumer base”. Big deal.

Tristan-athiest.

[Der_Trihs]

@Tristan

Churches do good, often in concert with their drive to increase their “consumer base”. Big deal.

It is a big deal. It means that when there’s a financial crunch the aid gets cut but not the preaching. It means they may well not actually help at all, and just pray over you as you die. The fact that they don’t actually care what happens to you affects how they “help” you.

And ritually humiliating people before “helping” them is disgusting. I recall reading some years ago about some Christians in Iraq who were forcing people to submit to baptism before they would allow them their water rations; I’m sure they just loved that.

[erez]

@Whack-a-Mole

Which, I might add, was the specific issue I was answering (Bush’s performance on creating jobs). I provided distinct data points on his jobs record and you want to blabber about partisanship. :rolleyes:

You didn’t address any of the points that I brought up. You do not seem to understand that the executive branch by itself has very little influence on things like job creation. Business cycles are much more important. If you believe that the executive branch should be judged simply by how many jobs were added during its tenure, why don’t you blame Obama for all the jobs lost since he became the president?

@Whack-a-Mole

Most of that was during a republican held congress as well.

No. Job gains were under Republican Congress. Job losses were under Democratic Congress. Most of job gains during Clinton’s administration were also under Republican Congress. (Note: I’m still not saying that this is meaningful).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@erez

You didn’t address any of the points that I brought up.

You initially took someone to task for their cite on job creation under President Bush. I provided other cites. Seems to me I was addressing your point.

You do not seem to understand that the executive branch by itself has very little influence on things like job creation. Business cycles are much more important. If you believe that the executive branch should be judged simply by how many jobs were added during its tenure, why don’t you blame Obama for all the jobs lost since he became the president?

No. Job gains were under Republican Congress. Job losses were under Democratic Congress. Most of job gains during Clinton’s administration were also under Republican Congress. (Note: I’m still not saying that this is meaningful).

If you run around a house pouring gasoline all over it and light a match it is hard to blame the person who walks in after for the fire.

You claim the executive has little to do with job creation yet have provided no citations for issues beyond their control that affect the economy and why they should not be held accountable in any way. Apparently you think they are all pissing into the wind and are at the mercy of things wholly beyond their control.

This despite distinct and notable statistical trends as I have already cited.

Here’s another (bolding mine):

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

<snip>

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

<snip>

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=2

So, over and over again we see the same story being told yet you choose to ignore all that despite having provided absolutely no other explanation.

Takes a True Believer to ignore all facts and hand wave away all evidence that doesn’t fit with their worldview.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Whack-a-Mole

You claim the executive has little to do with job creation yet have provided no citations for issues beyond their control that affect the economy and why they should not be held accountable in any way.

Wait: do you believe citations are necessary supporting the existence of issues affecting the economic climate over which a president has no control? As noted by the article you link to, it is generally accepted by economists that the president himself has relatively little power in this regard. This isn’t the say that the noted statistical regularly should be disregarded – but when you say

So, over and over again we see the same story being told yet you choose to ignore all that despite having provided absolutely no other explanation.

your case has been overstated. Until you provide some explanation or at least a plausible story for the oval office’s power, mere statistical correlation is only minimally convincing. There could be innumerable confounding factors that explain this apparent relationship. However strong a correlation is, if you try to argue causality without further digging then you won’t get a paper published – thus I see no reason to be snide about this.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Paranoid_Randroid

Wait: do you believe citations are necessary supporting the existence of issues affecting the economic climate over which a president has no control? As noted by the article you link to, it is generally accepted by economists that the president himself has relatively little power in this regard. This isn’t the say that the noted statistical regularly should be disregarded – but when you say

your case has been overstated. Until you provide some explanation or at least a plausible story for the oval office’s power, mere statistical correlation is only minimally convincing. There could be innumerable confounding factors that explain this apparent relationship. However strong a correlation is, if you try to argue causality without further digging then you won’t get a paper published – thus I see no reason to be snide about this.

It is not overstated.

While the president’s power is not absolute it is considerable. He is generally considered the head of his party and we only have two political parties worth mentioning in the US.

The president has veto power which is substantial in its ability for the president to push the direction of legislation.

His ability to appoint a cabinet and various others in government is likewise powerful. For example republicans have been able to move the Supreme Court to a conservative court which has a huge impact on life in the US.

We have a statistical regularity that stretches 60+ years. That is telling and hand waving that away is absurd.

For cites from others showing I am wrong I want someone to show that had Al Gore won in 2000 (and for the sake of argument again in 2004) the economy and jobs and so on would be substantially where they are today. They would show this by pointing out all the things Gore, as president, would have no control over and the outcome was a foregone conclusion such that we can’t really blame Bush for it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der_Trihs

Oh, using the offer of aid to blackmail desperate people into submitting to being preached at. How very noble of them. :rolleyes:

With money they’ve extracted mostly from gullible lower class people to boot.

Blackmail? Wow!

[InterestedObserver]

Their plan is more of the same policies that resulted in the current mess and can’t possibly “work” in any sense but enriching the already enriched.

But see, they have no interest in actually “fixing” anything over the next 2 years, quite the contrary. Their “most important” goal is to, as McConnell put it, “to make Obama a one-term president.”

Any improvements in the economy would make Obama look good, regardless of which party’s policies were responsible (the fact that we were losing 100s of thousands of jobs a month under Bush and are now ADDING jobs every month didn’t translate into support for the Democrats…they don’t have to worry about being blamed for anything they do, since the shit tends to stick to the party in control of the White House regardless)

Their plan is to keep and/or make things as bad as possible until 2012 so they can run against Obama in a climate of voter anger, frustration and fear.

Actually quite cunning (if borderline treasonous) since they can do the things they want to do (extend tax cuts for the rich, corporate butt kissing, etc…) and STILL fuck things up and make Obama look bad.

[monavis]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I know you do not think particularly highly of religions but churches do help the poor in many ways.

In some cases the religions that do not approve of the morning after pill, and birth control are also responsible (in a way) for there being so many poor. Religions don’t get money when the poor multiply, and jobs become sparse. (Look at Haiti for an example), Rich pople may give a little in those cases but do not give a fair amount (in many cases).

Greed is the religion of many! It is becoming a nation of the rich people, by the rich people and for the rich people. As soon a s some one wins the lottery the first thing they seem to do, is try to see how little they can pay in taxes. We have taxes because people’s generosity seems to weaken when they have money.

[SmartAlecCat]

Create jobs by cutting stimulus spending.

Balance the budget by cutting taxes and removing “waste, fraud and abuse” from all government spending.

Fix healthcare by repealing healthcare reform.

Prevent economic disasters by deregulating banks.