Originally Posted By ecdc If you look at the Republican presidential candidates, the most extreme ones have something in common: they don't have to govern. Trump, Carson, and Fiorina have never had an elected job. Guys like Cruz, Paul, and Santorum in the Senate (or formerly in the Senate), can just demagogue and vote against anything that promotes governance. But governors usually have to govern, even if conservatively. I'm not arguing that Christie, Bush, or Kasich are liberals or even moderates, but governing a state requires *some* measure of reasonableness that'll quickly get you labeled a RINO by the "real" conservatives. The exception to the governors have to govern rule is Sam Brownback, who has gotten everything he wanted and has implemented the Republican wet dream in Kansas. And, try not to be shocked, it has been an utter and complete disaster. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/obama-outpolls-republican-governor-brownback-kansas/412378/">http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.../412378/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's amazing that time and again, voodoo trickle down economics have been shown to never work, and yet hardliners keep on trying. Slash taxes and the jobs will come, they say. And it never happens.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf It actually did work fairly well under Reagan. What you have to understand is conservative economic policies aren't meant to directly improve the lives of most individuals, but they may eventually indirectly. The theory goes like this: you slash upper end tax rates (especially cap gains), people with capital are more inclined to invest/take risk with their capital, investment happens, innovation occurs, millionaires are made, many people get jobs, society benefits from the innovation. The trick is finding the balance to where tax rates are low enough to promote an appropriate amount of risk and innovation but not too low to encourage too much risk nor too high to discourage capital investment and innovation. Much of the growth and innovation in the eighties and nineties can be attributed to the Reagan tax-cuts. But there were obvious imbalances and subsequent presidents had to address them with sensible tax increases. We seemed to get to a sweet-spot in terms of federal taxes under Clinton. Politicians give stuff away for votes. Conservatives give tax cuts, that's what they do, whether they make sense or not. Often they don't make sense (just read the article linked to in the OP) and need to be corrected. But sometimes they do make sense, let's not forget that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Trickle down economics had virtually nothing to do with the growth during the Reagan years. The growth was due to massive military spending and the monster budget deficit that came with that.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Sorry, you guys are either missing my point or are flat wrong (or both). The upper end tax cuts that Reagan implemented fostered risk-taking, which in turn led to innovation and all the good that innovation brings. If I am wrong, prove me wrong (rather than just saying "nope"). Now if you want to argue that he cut taxes too much, which fostered too much risk taking and led to budget deficits, I probably won't disagree with you. But I was responding to the comment that slashing taxes never leads to more jobs. Sometimes it does, especially when tax rates are out of whack. Here's an opinion piece that shares my view on this subject.... https://www.aei.org/publication/the-real-lessons-of-reaganomics-at-least-as-i-see-them/
Originally Posted By Yookeroo Actually, you made the claim that trickle down worked, it's up to you to defend it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox When Milton Friedman advocated the trickle down supply side economics commonly known as "Reaganomics" he failed to consider that good paying American manufacturing jobs which grew and strengthened the post WWII middle class baby boom, would be outsourced to other countries by the end of the century. In order for supply side economics to actually work, the system needs to remain mostly closed, i.e., you don't import more than you export. The killer for supply side economics is trade deficit. And we've been drowning in trade deficit for decades. Reaganomics light the match but conservative business leaders like Jack Welch held it to the kindling when he advocated businesses move their factories and customer service centers to Asia and India. And that outsourcing fire has been systematically destroying the American middle class ever since.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The growth was due to massive military spending<< Ding! Ding! Ding!
