Republican Party on the Decline?

[Albion]

How far do you have to cut taxes before you see this magic start happening?

Not far.

Even if true, it's not unreasonable to ask where that increased revenue is going.

I agree, but the point up until now has been only that cutting taxes either does or does not help the economy--depending on who you believe. All the tax cuts in recent history (such as occurred under JFK and Reagan) led to improved economies, however. And look at our current US economy...taxes up, highest corporate taxes in the world, and an economy stagnant for the longest period in US history. It's not for nothing that it's called "the great recession."

If only a tiny minority are able to reap the rewards, then it's much more difficult to justify aggressive tax cuts.

Do you want to improve the economy or spread the wealth? I was responding to someone who posted, incorrectly, that the way to help the economy was to increase taxes.

 

[AceHero]

Aww. You're just advising a party you don't care for to do what's not in its best interests. That's not the basis for a serious discussion here.

And BTW, the way to grow our economy is to CUT taxes. That's rudimentary. Not only would cutting taxes produce more revenue, but it's obviously a drag on the economy to raise taxes. More government jobs do not grow the economy, and if you doubt it, just review how the past five years have gone.

How far do you have to cut taxes before you see this magic start happening? Even if true, it's not unreasonable to ask where that increased revenue is going. If only a tiny minority are able to reap the rewards, then it's much more difficult to justify aggressive tax cuts.

The trickle-down experiment in Kansas has been nothing short of a disaster. Tax cuts there have caused the state to hemorrhage revenue, which resulted in their credit rating being downgraded.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not far.


I agree, but the point up until now has been only that cutting taxes either does or does not help the economy--depending on who you believe. All the tax cuts in recent history (such as occurred under JFK and Reagan) led to improved economies, however. And look at our current US economy...taxes up, highest corporate taxes in the world, and an economy stagnant for the longest period in US history. It's not for nothing that it's called "the great recession."

The aggressive tax cutting and deregulation agenda has been a prevailing influence for years now. When the promised improvements fail to materialise the predictable response is "More tax cuts! More deregulation!"

Do you want to improve the economy or spread the wealth? I was responding to someone who posted, incorrectly, that the way to help the economy was to increase taxes.

You ask as though those goals are separate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Aww. You're just advising a party you don't care for to do what's not in its best interests. That's not the basis for a serious discussion here.

I mostly vote for Republicans but I'm an independent conservative. I don't dislike the Party, I just think their priorities are misplaced.

And BTW, the way to grow our economy is to CUT taxes. That's rudimentary. Not only would cutting taxes produce more revenue, but it's obviously a drag on the economy to raise taxes. More government jobs do not grow the economy, and if you doubt it, just review how the past five years have gone

A robust economy depends on rapid spending (velocity, or, turnover), something the government is very good at. The malaise we feel over domestic and global events dampens our desire to spend, regardless of the tax rate. Optimistic people will spend more than pessimistic people regardless of the tax rate.


We do need to lower the corporate tax rate in order to raise more taxes from big business. As it is they offshore operations and profits, safe from the exorbitant corporate tax rate. Domestic businesses often reinvest profits in ill-advised expansions in order to protect them from the high corporate taxes when they should be retiring business loans.

Fairness aside, redistribution through the graduated tax rates, is a practical matter, not a political or ideological one. Those gifted economically will always eventually accumulate most of the money. Taxing them more is a proven way to reset the table, so it doesn't keep tipping over.

Regarding government/tax created jobs. The economics of this are indistinguishable from private sector jobs.

 

[Albion]

The aggressive tax cutting and deregulation agenda has been a prevailing influence for years now.

Talk about it. Proposals. Yes. But we're talking here about the Republican Party in danger because it doesn't stand behind its ideals. This is a good example. No, taxes haven't been cut, so it's ridiculous to talk as though they have been cut and yet failed.

By and large, Americans are taxed more now than ever. That still doesn't deny that when there were some cuts put into effect for awhile by past administrations, it did actually promote economic growth. But do we pay less than we did in, say, JFK's day (since I mentioned his tax cuts that are universally recognized as helping the economy)? No. They've more than been made up for by subsequent tax increases.

 

[Albion]

I mostly vote for Republicans but I'm an independent conservative. I don't dislike the Party, I just think their priorities are misplaced.

OK. You don't "dislike" the party. You're open to liking it if it does what the Democrats want done. This is the problem--the Republican Party is danger of losing significance--because of not offering an alternative.

A robust economy depends on rapid spending (velocity, or, turnover), something the government is very good at.

No. There is something to be said for that, but government mainly administers rather than creates. There is no argument that government employment somehow is better for the economy than private employment. If it were, the standard of living in Communist nations would be the highest in the world.

We do need to lower the corporate tax rate in order to raise more taxes from big business. As it is they offshore operations and profits, safe from the exorbitant corporate tax rate. Domestic businesses often reinvest profits in ill-advised expansions in order to protect them from the high corporate taxes when they should be retiring business loans.

So, taxes should be lowered for various reasons.

Fairness aside, redistribution through the graduated tax rates, is a practical matter, not a political or ideological one.

No, it's basically ideological and always has been. That aside, there is a difference between a graduated tax and an confiscatory tax. It is the latter that too many in Washington today think would be a good idea. And if you think that the economy would be assisted or jobs created if everything that the "wealthy" earn is taxed away, I'd like to hear how that is supposed to work out. If it's good to tax at 35%, then why not 66%, and why not 102%? The higher the better would seem to be the logical answer--if taxing more helps the economy, that is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The trickle-down experiment in Kansas has been nothing short of a disaster. Tax cuts there have caused the state to hemorrhage revenue, which resulted in their credit rating being downgraded.

True. If your governorship is safe why screw around with the state's economy unnecessarily. Now Brownback's reelection is in some doubt.

Here are two more signs Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is in trouble - The Washington Post

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Talk[/I] about it. Proposals. Yes. But we're talking here about the Republican Party in danger because it doesn't stand behind its ideals. This is a good example. No, taxes haven't been cut, so it's ridiculous to talk as though they have been cut and yet failed.

By and large, Americans are taxed more now than ever. That still doesn't deny that when there were some cuts put into effect for awhile by past administrations, it did actually promote economic growth. But do we pay less than we did in, say, JFK's day (since I mentioned his tax cuts that are universally recognized as helping the economy)? No. They've more than been made up for by subsequent tax increases.

Proposals? No. Policies. Legislation. Even in the Clinton era the deregulation agenda made advances. It's always the answer, no matter what the question: cut taxes and deregulate. When it is pointed out that we've been on that trajectory for years now, the goal posts shift somewhat, and we are told that only "proposals" have been proffered. My goodness, if we haven't already seen the reality of these proposals come to light after years of enacting them, I would hate to see what these ideal "proposals" actually contain.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK. You don't "dislike" the party. You're open to liking it if it does what the Democrats want done. This is the problem--the Republican Party is danger of losing significance--because of not offering an alternative.

I don't care what the Democrats want. I want the Republican Party to do what I want.

No. There is something to be said for that, but government mainly administers rather than creates. There is no argument that government employment somehow is better for the economy than private employment. If it were, the standard of living in Communist nations would be the highest in the world.

Government employment is a part of the overall economy.

So, taxes should be lowered for various reasons.

Sure, if it can enhance gov't revenue, or relieve an over-taxed burden. Many who claim to overtaxed really aren't.

No, it's basically ideological and always has been. That aside, there is a difference between a graduated tax and an confiscatory tax. It is the latter that too many in Washington today think would be a good idea. And if you think that the economy would be assisted or jobs created if everything that the "wealthy" earn is taxed away, I'd like to hear how that is supposed to work out. If it's good to tax at 35%, then why not 66%, and why not 102%? The higher the better would seem to be the logical answer--if taxing more helps the economy, that is.

My point is that taxation shouldn't be a political or ideological thing. It should be a practical matter (oops, my ideals are showing).

 

[Albion]

Proposals? No. Policies. Legislation. Even in the Clinton era the deregulation agenda made advances. It's always the answer, no matter what the question: cut taxes and deregulate.

Stop. There have been spurts of small (and mainly temporary) cuts over the years, but overall, we are more highly taxed now--and much, much more highly regulated now--than ever. And look at the results. The alternative would of course make sense.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Stop. There have been spurts of small (and mainly temporary) cuts over the years, but overall, we are more highly taxed now--and much, much more highly regulated now--than ever. And look at the results. The alternative would of course make sense.

Spurts? Neoliberals have been setting the agenda for years, and all we get are "spurts?" I would hate to see what you think a full blown neoliberal revolution would look like then.

 

[Albion]

Spurts? Neoliberals have been setting the agenda for years, and all we get are "spurts?" I would hate to see what you think a full blown neoliberal revolution would look like then.

I would like to discuss the topic of this thread.

 

[HonestTruth]

While numerically there are more Democrats, the Republican stronghold on power will not cease as that party engages in too much voter suppression:



The Republicans? Profane Attack on the Sacred Right to Vote | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

 

[Albion]

While numerically there are more Democrats, the Republican stronghold on power will not cease as that party engages in too much voter suppression

Maybe there should be a new party for folks who imagine that that's actually true. It could be called the Paranoia Party.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would like to discuss the topic of this thread.

Fine. We can relate it to the topic of the thread. Republicans refuse to budge from the neoliberal agenda for fear of being perceived as "impure" by their Tea Party brethren, many of whom threaten to oust them from office for even the whisper of compromise.

 

[Albion]

Fine. We can relate it to the topic of the thread. Republicans refuse to budge from the neoliberal agenda for fear of being perceived as "impure" by their Tea Party brethren, many of whom threaten to oust them from office for even the whisper of compromise.

That's an interesting twist, but the reason the Republican Party seems always to fail to match up to its potential is because it fails to be conservative enough, even though its principles are generally conservative and the American people are conservative. It's the media and the Democrats that they seem afraid of, certainly not the Tea Party folks whom the Party leaders suppress at every opportunity. I might also add that, while it's been the case for some time that ordinary Republicans have felt 'sold out' over and over again, in recent days even prominent Republican Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have begun to say that they think the Party is losing because it constantly appeases the Democrats. So that's the issue.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's an interesting twist, but the reason the Republican Party seems always to fail to match up to its potential is because it fails to be conservative enough,

*Wide-eyed*

As with your "proposals," I would genuinely hate to see what you think constitutes "conservative enough."

even though its principles are generally conservative and the American people are conservative.

Conservative relative to?

It's the media and the Democrats that they seem afraid of, certainly not the Tea Party folks whom the Party leaders suppress at every opportunity. I might also add that, while it's been the case for some time that ordinary Republicans have felt 'sold out' over and over again, in recent days even prominent Republican Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have begun to say that they think the Party is losing because it constantly appeases the Democrats. So that's the issue.

So that's the issue? That the party filled to the brim with hard right figures is not hard right enough, even after its infusion of Tea?

 

[Albion]

*Wide-eyed*

Yeh, Arch. That's the issue of this thread, and even if you find it hard to believe, coming from your own perspective, there's been a lot of talk about it in recent years.

It's not a secret that the Republican Party has been failing to win in elections when it's been expected that it would win. Naturally, that points, at least in part, to the disaffection of people who normally vote Republican with the direction being taken by their own Party.

So that's the issue? That the party filled to the brim with hard right figures is not hard right enough, even after its infusion of Tea?

I'm tempted to snap back in kind, but in a way you are right on the money with that comment. YES, the Party is mainly made up of conservatives (the Jacob Javitses and Nelson Rockefellers are long gone now) so why does it so often give in to the Democrats in the clutch?

It was within the power of the Republicans in Congress to stop Obamacare, for example, but they delivered the votes that passed it. It was within the power of the Republicans in Congress to stop some of the profligate give-away schemes of the President...but they caved. They always seem to run scared if someone is going to accuse them of "shutting down the government" or conducting a "war on women" or some other catchy insult. Well, if they won't stand up for their principles, they are going to lose support among Republicans. Natch. At least that's the issue.

Or to put it another way, they may attract some more moderates by doing this, but it's pretty much known that they are losing support among conservatives who traditionally had voted Republican. So which way does the balance tilt? It appears that they are losing when they should be winning (as in 2012), so the "issue" here is about the wisdom of pursuing this trade-off.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To the OP. We'll find out next Tuesday evening.

 

[Albion]

To the OP. We'll find out next Tuesday evening.

That seems right to say. But if it isn't a Republican "wave," the "issue" here is alive and well.

Simply scraping by, or even picking up a few seats in each house of Congress--in an off-year election when the focus is on the "across the board" failures of the current administration--won't dispel the suspicion that the Republican Party is bound to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.