Extreme Liberal's Blog

Where Liberalism Is Alive and Well!

Republicans Are Out Of Ideas!

They have nothing to offer anymore, no new ideas, no compassion for anyone, nothing. They are the “nothing party.” I saw Andrew Ross Sorkin on Morning Jerkoff with Starbucks this morning and he proclaimed that we must “cut taxes.” Give me a freakin break, is that the only response the right and the financial sector bots have, cut taxes?  They’ve been brainwashed repeatedly over the years to believe it, like zombies “must cut taxes, must cut taxes”…..it’s so ridiculous. Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” All you have to do is look back over the last 30 years at the growth of the national debt under Republican vs. Democratic presidents to see that this tactic does nothing but shift the wealth from the middle and lower income TAXPAYERS, to the wealthiest in our country who know every tax shelter and loophole there is to keep that money in their own damn pockets.

Kay over at WhiteNoiseInsanity has an excellent post up on this and other outrages from the right. Here is a sample…

Seriously, all I hear is bitching, complaining, and whining from the right wingers. Do they have any answers? Not that I can see. Let me know if you hear of one. Maybe if we all rubbed and stroked Scott Brown’s business suit the answers would come easily and our nation will be saved? Huh. Maybe.

Kay goes on to sum up the state of Republican thinking…..

Our nation had 8 years of blatant fascism under George Bush and we’ve had a one year reprieve thanks to President Obama being in the White House, but what is most disturbing is an Animal Farm Revolution is underway again where the animals are demanding to go back to those 8 years of fascism because they believe it’s better and they’ll be happier! How many times do we have to tell the imbeciles of our country that whenever we have a republican president in the White House our nation goes into a recession, our money ends up missing in huge clumps, and we end up miserable and suffering?

To paraphrase someone who isn’t coming to mind, Republicans think government can’t do anything right and then they get elected and prove it.

About these ads

January 25, 2010 - Posted by | Media, MSM, Politics, The Repugnant Party | , ,

19 Comments »

  1. “Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    Yes, and quite simply, every time tax cuts have happened, the economy did better, and created more jobs. People of all income spectrums (except those who do not pay taxes) benefit from lower taxes as they have more money to put into the economy.

    Remember, economy and government are separate. However, as you mention, deficit spending can be very damaging to the economy. The problem is, increased taxes AND deficit spending are suicidal to the economy and the government. We need to drop taxes AND spending for better economics.

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 25, 2010 | Reply

  2. Raw Story has a story about Robert Menendez calling out Jim Demint, good stuff. http://rawstory.com/2010/01/demint-i-did-not-want-this-to-be-the-presidents-waterloo/

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 25, 2010 | Reply

  3. I don’t think history bears out your statement “every time tax cuts have happened, the economy did better, and created more jobs.”, when I have more time I’ll find some facts to counter that. We have a recent example to the contrary. Bush cut 3 trillion in taxes over 10 years and how was our economy a year and 4 months ago, while he was still president. PANIC, DEPRESSSION, RUN FOR THE HILLS….we were on the edge of a financial collapse. Do you remember? So really, don’t try to pull out that tired old republican talking point, you have no right to do it anymore. The lies have to stop, facts are so much more fun.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 25, 2010 | Reply

  4. Bush cut taxes after 9/11, and this kept the sluggish economy from collapsing following that horrific date. For the next 5-6 years, we had solid and robust growth. The problem was that the interest rates remained too low, for too long, and that caused rampant inflation in the housing market. Once this happened, any weaknesses were exposed, and we saw several.

    I’m not using Republican talking points, but I DO have every right to use them should I wish.

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 25, 2010 | Reply

  5. It’s refreshing to hear someone admit they are using talking points.
    Here are some facts:
    Under Clinton (D) Year Growth Rate
    1994 4.074
    1995 2.515
    1996 3.741
    1997 4.457
    1998 4.355
    1999 4.826
    2000 4.139
    2001 1.080

    Under George W. year growth rate
    2002 1.814
    2003 2.490
    2004 3.573
    2005 3.054
    2006 2.673
    2007 2.141
    2008 0.439
    2009 -2.730
    I gave Clinton 2001, because the budget for 2001 was submitted the previous year by the him, the same is true for Bush getting 2009. The average growth rate under Clinton was 3.64, the average growth rate under Bush was 1.68. Facts. No spin in those facts. So you want to call that solid and robust growth, huh? He mortgaged our future, doubled our national debt by giving away the budget surplus plus taking out a big loan from China to give the wealthiest those tax breaks. He then started two wars which he put off budget, borrowed more money from China for that too, he loosened regulations on all sorts of businesses, pretty much all business, which caused all sorts of financial shenanigans, do I need to mention them here. And that is only the beginning of what he screwed up in this country. I’m really sorry that the old republican talking points don’t work any more, we have hard evidence to the contrary. We tried that supply side experiment, it didn’t work.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 25, 2010 | Reply

  6. I don’t use talking points.

    First off, look to 2001. Despite the dot-com bust and 9/11, we saw an uptick in 2002, and growth for years after, despite new fears in the market, and an event that changed much of our approach at business domestically and internationally. Was this sheer luck? No.

    Clinton inherited an economy that was bustling, albeit imperfect in some sectors. Bush inherited a bust and near-recession.

    There’s no disagreement that increasing debt is harmful to the economy/future. But therein lies the premise: The government is much more capable of harm than good.

    When discussing GDP growth as it affects people, you need to focus on per capita growth rates. Here they are:

    Clinton:
    1994 4.98 %
    1995 3.42 %
    1996 4.49 %
    1997 5.04 %
    1998 4.31 %
    1999 5.16 %
    2000 5.23 %
    Bush:
    2001 2.32 %
    2002 2.47 %
    2003 3.73 %
    2004 5.56 %
    2005 5.53 %
    2006 5.03 %
    2007 4.05 %
    2008 1.64 %
    2009 -2.10 %

    Again, despite 9/11 and the dot-com bust, we saw no recession, and not long after, the market assumed 5+% growth (two years at over 5.5% which Clinton did not ever have). This is because when the people have the money in their own pockets, it actually hits the economy.

    Here’s what we know: Raising taxes, never in the history of mankind, has boosted the economy. But, we’ve seen lowering of taxes boost it with several presidents.

    Again, deficit spending is extremely damaging as it devalues currency. With less buying power, the people can have more money… but still do less with it. What we have to look at is a happy medium of drastic government spending reductions, with moderately lower taxes. This will accomplish deficit reduction AND increase to the economy.

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 26, 2010 | Reply

  7. Market growth isn’t real, the bubble was being blown up then and we all know how that turned out don’t we. Bush mortgaged our future, don’t you get it. It’s like someone running up a bunch of credit cards, they live high on the hog for a while and then the bill comes due.

    I don’t see any evidence from you of this theory about raising taxes and boosting the economy. If you are talking about Reagan, there were a few other factors involved like the massive build up of military spending, Reagan quadrupled our national debt, which means he spent money he didn’t have which of course stimulates economic growth so everything is wonderful……until the bill is due.

    Bush Jr. did the same thing, spent all sorts of money he didn’t have but he went a few steps further, he loosened the regulations on the financial markets which allowed that nice bubble to form. We know how that came out, right.

    Once again, dude, the facts just don’t support you. Supply side economics doesn’t work.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 27, 2010 | Reply

  8. GDP is different from the market. I agree, market growth is not necessarily an overall economic indicator.

    “Bush mortgaged our future, don’t you get it.” You need to read what I’ve said: “deficit spending is extremely damaging as it devalues currency”. In that, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr., or pretty much every president since Andrew Jackson has mortgaged our future.

    “I don’t see any evidence from you of this theory about raising taxes and boosting the economy.” So you’re saying the evidence points to higher taxes being the answer to economic problems? This is good “dude”. So, when people take home less, they can now spend more into the economy? When businesses keep less, they can invest MORE into the economy? This is economics 101. The more money people have, the more they are able to invest into the economy.

    You have missed half my points, and thus some of your repetitive points/arguments. So, I’ll repeat. There is no argument on deficit spending. There are times it is necessary, but it is always more expensive and damaging than balancing the budget, so it has to be for emergencies only.

    What needs to happen is drastic governmental spending cuts to reduce the need for taxes, coupled with tax reductions to people and businesses. This will free up capital for personal and business investment. While bringing taxes to zero will not balance any budgets, we saw greater governmental intake of tax dollars as a result from some tax cuts due to the fact that it spurred growth in investment (buying goods, services, or securities). Now, also couple this with simplification of tax code, and thus reduction of many of the loopholes that allow circumvention of payment (and more difficult enforcement) also needs to happen.

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 27, 2010 | Reply

  9. I’m sorry, I mistyped……I meant to say no evidence that cutting taxes boosted the economy. Freudian slip there. :)I’m for submitting balanced budgets, but not on the backs of working people and the poor, but by cutting out the loopholes and waste and subsidies to corporations who are doing just fine.

    I’ve had way too many economics classes in college, I have a Bachelors degree in business, so unfortunately I had to learn way more about this crap than I ever wanted to.

    Things don’t happen in a vaccuum, simply saying cutting taxes boosted the economy without factoring in all the variables is misleading and dishonest. I’m not saying you are doing that, I’m just saying when people make blanket statements and present them as facts without context, they are proving themselves a fool, in my opinion.

    Although I’m an extreme liberal, I am also one who believes in fiscal responsibility. Simply cutting taxes doesn’t guarantee that the money will be reinvested or spent on things that boost the economy. I prefer targeted tax cuts for business, instead of handing out a pile of money to a banker who then gives himself a nice big bonus or buys a new yacht, I would like to see (what our president has talked about and is doing), targeting the cuts to job creation and reinvestment. Republicans don’t like to attach any strings to these tax cuts, why would that be…..GREED!

    Government waste has to be cut drastically. Tax loopholes for corporations and individuals have to be closed, Bush and the republicans created all sorts of them. And even though you may not like it, Bush is your legacy as a conservative…..you elected him, you have to take some blame for his idiocy. If in fact you did vote for him.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 27, 2010 | Reply

  10. That makes more sense without the mistype. Sorry.

    But there has been evidence — every time we’ve implemented across-the board tax cuts — that within a year of going into effect, tax cuts boosted the economy. It’s simple math. More money in the paycheck, the more goes into the economy. This equals a boost.

    Simply cutting taxes DOES guarantee reinvestment. Even if people don’t spend it, they put the extra into savings, which is in turn used to be either lent back out to borrowers or invested.

    “Republicans don’t like to attach any strings to these tax cuts, why would that be…..GREED!” Possibly… the GOP supports big business. The DNC supports big government, which amounts to the same thing: GREED. Look at where the power and money is so rapidly flowing in the last year. The two main parties are the same beast, just differently labeled.

    “Tax loopholes for corporations and individuals have to be closed, Bush and the republicans created all sorts of them.” So did the Dems, don’t kid yourself. It’s all about kickbacks with the two main parties. It’s so blatant it’s scary.

    But you mentioned “targetted tax cuts”. What is YOUR definition of successful ones? Would this be more loopholes, or across the board, flat cuts?

    Again, the numbers don’t lie. You cut taxes, and people take home more. We’ve never seem the converse to be true, unless the person is on government aid, and the increase in taxes immediately results in larger benefits for those on the system… which is not an economic booster. Most people forget that when taxes are taken out from the economy by the government, it literally does nothing. It goes dormant. When people put money in banks or spend, it hits the economy. At best, people who get refunds on their taxes (typically lower, and middle incomes) they have given an interest-free loan to the government for their hard-earned cash.

    Bush is not my legacy. I voted against him.

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 28, 2010 | Reply

  11. I sounds like we agree on several things. I’m all for tax cuts for people who need more disposable income, it then goes into the economy. But when they are proportionally going to the wealthiest, if often ends up in someones pocket or in some offshore tax shelter or a new yacht.

    I would argue that those tax cuts you are talking about may not be the sole reason for an economic boost, in Reagan’s case, while he lowered taxes, he cranked up spending on the Military which also spurred the economy, and he didn’t pay for it. So yes, the economy picks up briefly as the contractors ramp up and of course other small businesses who support them, but if you don’t pay for it there is a down side eventually. So you can’t cause and effect tax cuts, other things weigh into the equation. Republicans have proven in the last 30 years that they are the worst at this game of cutting taxes and raising spending.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 28, 2010 | Reply

  12. “I’m all for tax cuts for people who need more disposable income, it then goes into the economy. But when they are proportionally going to the wealthiest…”

    When did we give a proportionately larger cut to the wealthy than the poor?

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 28, 2010 | Reply

  13. From the Washington Post….here is the link http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
    The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.

    Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

    Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 28, 2010 | Reply

  14. Wasn’t it Dick Cheney who spewed last year or the year before that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”? Yes….yes it was ole Dickey!

    Comment by KayInMaine | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  15. Frankly, this study was dubious. The rates for the top income bracket dropped only 12.5% (39.6 to 35). So we know that they are playing with numbers to support some conclusion. Additionally, the average range of “middle fifth” crossed two tax brackets in ’04 as opposed to 1 in 2000. But according to the data, the actual drop was about 4 times was the article claims.

    Of course the dollar amount will be greater for the wealthy on earned income than poor or middle just due to the much higher rate and total paid in. Where I think the gap is, is not in income tax, but capital gains, where many people who do not earn regular incomes reside. This is a different beast. The problem with changing capital gains, is that it affects everyone. When they even threaten to raise this, everyone’s 401k that has any investment in stock, bond, mutual fund, or pretty much any market starts to dip. If they want to truly be fair, the capital gains needs to be treated as regular income. The problem with this, again, is that if you do this, then anyone who is in the market or plans to live on something other than SS is in big trouble.

    When this tax was lowered, shortly thereafter we saw a drop in unemployment. We saw the GDP go up. Of course the market soared, but as we agree that’s not an indicator.

    But this is where the easiest way in law, math, or any other argument is to define a variable (theory): Plug in real numbers. When your tax rate is lowered, what do you have? More money. Now, if you spend it, it goes directly into the economy, i.e. lowering your taxes directly boosts the economy. If you save this money, it goes indirectly into the economy as either a bank can lend it out to new borrowers, or if invested into the market, it funds capital investment in the recipient. Again, lowering taxes boosts the economy.

    We again, both agree that deficit spending is irresponsible at best, but in all likelihood is quite damaging as it devalues currency, and causes budgets to increase just to repay.

    While I’m not a Republican, claiming they are the “Party of NO” is like watching a child claim that their parents only tell them “no” when they want to do something irresponsible. Most of the current administration’s proposals are horribly irresponsible, so I don’t blame the GOP for fighting it. They, however, did not block the credit card legislation, which was a smart bill. I don’t find fault in them per se, but congress (including the GOP) as a whole is the problem. Our incumbents focus more on doing little PR moves and maneuvers that get them re-elected, than something smart are responsible. They are very generous with our money, and they need to take less of it.

    Comment by LOUDelf | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  16. We’ve had a progressive tax system since 1861, it isn’t something new. And we aren’t the only nation that does it either. It makes me laugh how many people don’t claim to be republicans anymore, rats fleeing a sinking ship. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, tastes like a rat…..it’s a rat.

    I had a debate with a fellow professor the other day who is an “independent” as he claims, but he voted for Bush twice. Uh, sorry, but he’s a Republican. I could claim to be an independent too, but I’m honest, I always vote Democratic and I’m a proud Democrat.

    Thanks for the great debate, though. It’s nice to actually talk about issues rather than the trolls who just like to call names.

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  17. We need to tax the wealthy at the same rate Ronald Reagan did: AT 80%!

    Comment by KayInMaine | January 30, 2010 | Reply

  18. “rats fleeing a sinking ship” I’d say their stock is way up considering the last 3 big elections. The basic formula is, “who is in power now” = “popularity will bip” + “the other main party gains ground”. Actually looks like they’re jumping on the ship.

    “I had a debate with a fellow professor the other day who is an “independent” as he claims, but he voted for Bush twice. Uh, sorry, but he’s a Republican. ” — So if you vote for a candidate or party twice in a row, you can’t be independent? This is silly at best. And you always vote Democrat AND you’re a professor? Voting by party lines is ignorant in pure sense. I hope you can become enlightened some day, and don’t share this flawed thought process with your students.

    I think you’ve bought the two-party Kool-aid as I believe you’ve even tried to link ME with one of them. I agree, issues are king, but you can’t really get to them without removing some preconceptions and labels first…

    Comment by LOUDelf | February 1, 2010 | Reply

  19. LOL…..Well, that professor used to be a Republican, called himself one….until Bush came into office. He IS a republican, spews their talking points with the best of them. He just won’t admit it anymore, rat fleeing…..

    I voted for a Republican twice, I knew the guy personally and he was decent and honest and pretty moderate. But that was an exception. I’m proud to be a democrat and especially in the last 20 years, there is a huge gap between the policies on either side and it isn’t hard for me to choose the democrats.

    I don’t let my politics loose on my students, I teach film and video production, editing and effects. Unlike many “independents” I don’t like to throw my vote away on someone like a Nadar or Perot, to send some sort of “message”…because they never get the message anyway. Sure, sometimes it’ the lesser of two evils, but the key word there is lesser.

    I guess these days if you support someone strongly, you drank the Kook-aid, I accuse people of it too so I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Kook-aid is delicious, especially grape. :)

    Comment by ExtremeLiberal | February 1, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers

%d bloggers like this: