Why are cons ALWAYS on the wrong side of history?

You meant to say if the GOP didn't keep gutting taxes on the "job creators" and actually wanted to govern, the US wouldn't be in this situation?

 

No, I didn't mean to say that. I understand economics better than you do.

 

That kind of drive by post, attacking the OP without substantive content, adds nothing to the discussion.

 

Why the Laffer Curve is garbage

Legislators and the voting public have consistently been persuaded by a false premise that if we reduce our tax rates on the wealthy and large corporations, our economy will improve. The rationale goes: By decreasing taxes on these two groups, our gross domestic product will increase due to investment in research and development, bolstered business infrastructure, new job opportunities, better pay and improved business climate which welcomes capital.

This flawed ideology, touted by Arthur Laffer in his book “The Laffer Curve,” rests on theories that don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny.

The Laffer Curve simply wears a thin veneer of economic theory. Laffer argues that if we implement a zero percent tax rate, we will raise no revenue. Alternatively, if we tax at 100 percent, we won’t generate any revenue either. There is supposedly some sweet spot, between zero percent and 100 percent for optimal tax receipts.

This model rests on the rational actor model, that people exclusively act in their economic interests at all times and everyone has equal access to the same information. Not only have numerous studies and authors debunked these economic underpinnings, but the model itself is an unreliable predictor of economic outcomes.
https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/18/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/

Greenspan admits ‘mistake’ that helped crisis

Badgered by lawmakers, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the nation’s economic crisis was his fault on Thursday but conceded the meltdown had revealed a flaw in a lifetime of economic thinking and left him in a “state of shocked disbelief.”

Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna27335454

Conservatives are fond of the idea that unfettered, free market capitalism produces ideal results. Like many aspects of conservative orthodoxy one wonders if the self-serving nature of their beliefs are genuine or cynical. I think it's the latter.

 

Just as important as economic policy, conservatives have tended to be on the wrong side of every advancement in US history.

Progressivism has brought us independence from England, slave abolitionism, racial desegregation, women’s suffrage, minimum wages and maximum hours, Social Security and Medicare, civil rights and civil liberties, clean air and clean water laws, pure food laws, public education, public libraries, public parks, public transportation, public health, public housing, pay equity, net neutrality, consumer, worker, health, and environmental protections, women’s rights, human rights, welfare, food programs, unemployment insurance, birth control and abortion rights, unions, paid vacation and sick leave, separation of church and state, anti-discrimination laws, racial and sexual marriage equality, a reduction in poverty, gun reform and protections, protections against corporate monopolies, medical and recreational marijuana, freedom of expression, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, and most of the rest of the public sphere that civilizes and enhances our society. Conservatives have opposed all these and other vital achievements throughout our history.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/11/republicans-are-wrong-side-history-and-everything-else

 

But that's what the right has done for 40+ years, almost like it's a plan

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending. The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States federal government and the programs it funds, using mainly American taxpayer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. Grover Norquist

 

Greenspans "flaw", Yeah who knew capitilists would put their own well being ahead of those whose money they hold in trust right? They would never let their own self interests to outweigh the Corp well being, lol

 

Greenspan's faith in "self-correcting markets," founded in laissez faire philosophy, brought the world's economies to its knees. Yet conservatives still cling to the dogma on tax cuts. Because they dance to the music corporations are playing.

 

Im not here defending the GOP. They are awful and have their own brand of damage they cause. You are the one trying to make dems out to be better for the poor and low income. Results show that to be 100% false.

Californians fled to Texas and took their voting habits with them.

 

The entire thread is nothing but partisan flame bait.

 

I wish it were a goal of all of those on the right but it isn't. My goal is to move the 70% of federal government that doesn't belong there somewhere else. Obviously I think Mr. Norquists goal would be a good start.

 

Simply amazing after the GOP great depression where "free markets" were let loose, then Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton having to bailout out the Banksters in the Asian/Latin America debt crisis then Dubya and his cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble, the right wing believes this nonsense of "self regulation"

 

Oh one of those guys who lost the fight when we changed from small Gov't Articles of Confederation to Strong Federal Constitution, can't accept it

 

Myth

The much-discussed ‘California exodus’ isn’t real, study finds
Claims that fed-up residents are leaving en masse have been widespread – but they’re a myth, researchers say
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/09/leaving-california-exodus-evidence-myth

Researchers from a consortium of universities – including the Berkeley, UCLA, Cornell and Stanford – teamed up in the fall of 2020 to study California’s population. Their finding, released this week, determined there was “no evidence of an abnormal increase in residents planning to move out of the state”.

NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED LINK

https://archive.ph/8MB5l#selection-1049.0-1054.0



Are Businesses Fleeing California? Myth-Busting Study Says No
Miniscule Job Loss Due to Businesses Leaving; Other Factors Have Far Greater Effect on Employment
https://www.ppic.org/press-release/are-businesses-fleeing-california-myth-busting-study-says-no/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammi...t-biden-should-pay-attention/?sh=a81ab8e23273

 

What I want is to return federal government to the way it was conceived and written in the constitution. I'm not your guy.

 

Cool we agree

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

 

Yes ignore 2 studies and show opinion and BS from a right winger who uses AEI, Heritage CofC, etc talking points


NO PAYWALL LINK FOR YOUR ARTICLE
https://archive.ph/iEDyb#selection-3013.0-3013.15

 

No we don't. The preamble is merely the statement of a goal. The text of the constitution is that to which I referred. Read the 10th amendment.

 

Weird how Corps were not allowed except for special purposes with the US founding, but we had laws restricting them, yet the activist SCOTUS said Corporations have rights?

But a goal stated in the US Constitution has less weight than that?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the U.S.


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

 

I appreciate the link. California is not a business friendly state. Many Californians did move to Texas for financial reasons and ended up voting to make it like CA. (A strategy similar to that of locusts)

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-i...inesses-should-know-before-leaving-california

https://www.kron4.com/news/californ...california-in-2021-stanford-researchers-find/

https://www.concordia.edu/blog/19-corporations-and-businesses-fleeing-california-for-texas.html

https://californiaglobe.com/article...y-other-year-prior-according-to-new-analysis/

 

Pure nonsense. Anyone can start a business in America without government approval and this has always been true. A corporation is one with protection for the owners of the business to be financially responsible for lawsuits against the business. The business has to deal with lawsuits, not the owners. Without it stockholders could be responsible for the activities of the business in which they have invested with no power in the management of the company. There would be no public companies without the existence of corporate protections. There is nothing at all in the constitution about any of this. The article is pure anti-business nonsense. I thought you were more aware of reality than you appear to be for posting this.