Why do Republicans *still* have a reputation for "better economic management"?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Consider Reagan's arithmetic-defying supply-side economics, now accepted as an article of faith by the Republican Party. Or consider the administration of George W. Bush and his pathetic record at creating jobs. Or consider the Republican Congress's playing political games by threatening default on the United States debt.

Yet despite their horrible record, the Republicans still get support for "better fiscal management" than the Democrats, with 20% of Republicans, 9% of Independents, and 5% of Democrats saying that "better fiscal management/less debt" is the number one thing to like about the GOP.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx

If I hear one more time about the GOP's "smaller government views" or "fiscal conservatism"....

[Brittain33]

Fiscal management conveys something different from economic management - it means keeping the budget under control and not making the economy thrive. Republicans may not deserve that reputation because they don't care about the deficit or debt, just cutting taxes and sometimes cutting spending on Democratic constituencies. But they have been consistent in promoting a brand of budget cuts and tight fiscal control, and that has certainly been their mantra for as long as Obama has been president, other than when they won huge numbers in the House by railing against Obama's cuts to Medicare.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fiscal management conveys something different from economic management - it means keeping the budget under control and not making the economy thrive. Republicans may not deserve that reputation because they don't care about the deficit or debt, just cutting taxes and sometimes cutting spending on Democratic constituencies. But they have been consistent in promoting a brand of budget cuts and tight fiscal control, and that has certainly been their mantra for as long as Obama has been president, other than when they won huge numbers in the House by railing against Obama's cuts to Medicare.

Nothing says tight fiscal control like blowing $1 trillion on invading Iraq.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't think they have that reputation here in MN.. not anymore.  The MNGOP's absolute financial ruin has been the butt of many jokes, and because of their f**k up trying to buy legislative majorities in 2010 for the first time ever (the legislature was non-partisan until 1973), it appears they might be out of power again for another 40 years.

It's amazing to think that the "Minnesota Miracle" in 1971 was achieved with a non-partisan legislature dominated by those who caucused as "conservatives"... how conservatism has festered into a rotting, reactionary, dysfunctional mess since then.

[Sbane]

I don't think either party should have a reputation for "better economic management". One party gives away the treasury to public employee unions and the other gives it away to corporations. They both suck.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

The GOP tends to be very fiscally responsible when a D President is in office.......less so when an R President is in office.

[Mr.Phips]

The GOP tends to be very fiscally responsible when a D President is in office.......less so when an R President is in office.

And even then they are not.  Remember that in 1998, Republicans wanted to spend the surplus on a big tax cut for the wealthy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is it that they still have that reputation, or that they lost it and got some of it back?    At the very least, they are more concerned about cutting spending and lowering the deficit than during the Bush era.  They make the claim they'll balance the budget, which I don't recall hearing lately from national Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

Is it that they still have that reputation, or that they lost it and got some of it back?    At the very least, they are more concerned about cutting spending and lowering the deficit than during the Bush era.  They make the claim they'll balance the budget, which I don't recall hearing lately from national Democrats.

They wont balance the budget.  Look at the Bush years.  If they had their way, the spending cuts they want would destroy the economy.  That would mean that revenue would likely fall more than the amount of their spending cuts, leading to a bigger deficit. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Because it's true.

[© tweed]

they have the more masculine image in tow, and we view the mother as the one who blows hundreds on the shopping excursions, while father keeps survival always in mind.  this blended with the American masochistic streak: what makes me suffer more, must be better in the "long run".

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Because a lot of Americans think tax cuts = prosperity.

[jaichind]

I feel GOP is better mostly because inflation is lower under GOP administrations versus Democratic administrations.  I mostly judge a economic management by ability to keep low inflation.

[All Along The Watchtower]

they have the more masculine image in tow, and we view the mother as the one who blows hundreds on the shopping excursions, while father keeps survival always in mind.  this blended with the American masochistic streak: what makes me suffer more, must be better in the "long run".

You may be on to something here.

[old timey villain]

It's like when you're at a job and the boss puts you in charge of something but you do a crappy job so the boss gives your task to another guy. You're mad that you got canned so you nitpick the other guy's work, even if he's doing a better job than you were.

[Maxwell]

Republicans are better at messaging on that subject. Simple.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is it that they still have that reputation, or that they lost it and got some of it back?    At the very least, they are more concerned about cutting spending and lowering the deficit than during the Bush era.  They make the claim they'll balance the budget, which I don't recall hearing lately from national Democrats.

They wont balance the budget.  Look at the Bush years.  If they had their way, the spending cuts they want would destroy the economy.  That would mean that revenue would likely fall more than the amount of their spending cuts, leading to a bigger deficit. 

does that logic apply for tax increases as well?

[Zioneer]

I don't think either party should have a reputation for "better economic management". One party gives away the treasury to public employee unions and the other gives it away to corporations. They both suck.

How do Democrats give money away to unions? Where's your proof? They really don't, at all.

[Sbane]

I don't think either party should have a reputation for "better economic management". One party gives away the treasury to public employee unions and the other gives it away to corporations. They both suck.

How do Democrats give money away to unions? Where's your proof? They really don't, at all.

Of course they do. Maybe not in Utah, but certainly in other parts of the country.

[Torie]

Both parties I think are to some extent trapped from doing the necessary heavy lifting by their respective bases, which bases each have failed to educate and inform because they are too cowardly to tell them what the reality is that they just don't want to hear. Nobody wants to make the tough choices, particularly if it endangers their pathetic little somewhat meaningless political careers. What we have is both a truth gap, and a courage gap, and it's sad.

[Zioneer]

I don't think either party should have a reputation for "better economic management". One party gives away the treasury to public employee unions and the other gives it away to corporations. They both suck.

How do Democrats give money away to unions? Where's your proof? They really don't, at all.

Of course they do. Maybe not in Utah, but certainly in other parts of the country.

You didn't answer my question. How do they give taxpayer money away to public employee unions?

[Beet]

Consider Reagan's arithmetic-defying supply-side economics, now accepted as an article of faith by the Republican Party. Or consider the administration of George W. Bush and his pathetic record at creating jobs. Or consider the Republican Congress's playing political games by threatening default on the United States debt.

Yet despite their horrible record, the Republicans still get support for "better fiscal management" than the Democrats, with 20% of Republicans, 9% of Independents, and 5% of Democrats saying that "better fiscal management/less debt" is the number one thing to like about the GOP.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx

If I hear one more time about the GOP's "smaller government views" or "fiscal conservatism"....

The highest number on that poll is 20%

A better measure would be a straight-question poll, 'Which party do you trust more on the economy?'

Like this one
link

[bgwah]

Another factor is that Republican candidates come from private sector backgrounds more often than Democratic candidates do.

[Sbane]

I don't think either party should have a reputation for "better economic management". One party gives away the treasury to public employee unions and the other gives it away to corporations. They both suck.

How do Democrats give money away to unions? Where's your proof? They really don't, at all.

Of course they do. Maybe not in Utah, but certainly in other parts of the country.

You didn't answer my question. How do they give taxpayer money away to public employee unions?

They promise the unions generous pension benefits in the future while not making them pay in enough today. This way they garner support from them and so they can advertise to the electorate that they were endorsed by the cute and fuzzy teachers. And since the pension benefits are due in the future, they don't have to raise taxes today thus keeping the electorate happy.

[opebo]

Because it's true.

No, its because people are duped masochists.  They think 'if it hurts it must be good for me'.