What is Republican economic policy?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:12:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What is Republican economic policy?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: What is Republican economic policy?  (Read 2377 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2014, 12:06:51 AM »

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

I don't buy that at all.  First off, so much state level economic policy consists of a race to the bottom.  You have states giving away tax incentives to corporations trying to lure them from one state to another.  Maybe you could argue that such competition might spur the over-regulated states like California and New York to get their act together.  But, it doesn't really amount to any type of a philosophy.  

The fact is that the United States is not some loose confederation of countries.  We need to have some national strategy about how we can adapt and improve for the future.  We need to address these huge economic problems, inequality, crumbling infrastructure, the unemployment problem, the rising cost of education and healthcare.  If Republicans just look at those problems and shrug their shoulders, and say, "meh, federalism," that's pathetic.  If Republicans don't care about those problems, they should run for office.  

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.  The other group are semi-reasonable people who just sort of sit on the sidelines and whine about Obama.  Both are totally useless to anything constructive.

I say all of this as a capitalist, someone who believes in markets and deregulating when appropriate.   There are good libertarian and market based approaches that we could be putting into practice.  But, the Republican Party is so addicted to pandering and their slash and burn politics that they bring nothing to the table.  We all follow politics and we have no idea what a major party actually believes beyond their spite for poor people and shilling for a few corporate interests.  How can any thinking person be a Republican in 2014?  I don't get it.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2014, 12:12:21 AM »

Republican economic policy: roll back social welfare programs (particularly those that directly affect poor people), cut taxes for rich people and middle-income people (to a much lesser extent, granted, but still...), block any and all broad-based legislation that would actually help the poor, the working-poor, and the rest of the working population (such as minimum wage increases, extension of unemployment benefits, or spending programs like the stimulus bill, or Obamacare, or any jobs bill in Congress....) , and when all of the economic and social problems that inevitably occur from the resulting inequality and depressed consumer demand-blame it on Obama/the Democrats.

Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2014, 01:24:15 PM »

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.

Clinton signed Welfare reform and founded the Third Way because of my imagination? Obama pushed fracking through the EPA and Republicans signed off on CAFE because of my imagination?

The things I say are real, you've not been trained to understand or identify them.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2014, 01:41:04 PM »

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.

Clinton signed Welfare reform and founded the Third Way because of my imagination? Obama pushed fracking through the EPA and Republicans signed off on CAFE because of my imagination?

The things I say are real, you've not been trained to understand or identify them.

We disagree, but you definitely make up facts (example, "Obama pushed fracking through the EPA") and you're a blowhard.  I have no interest in discussing anything with you further because I find you distasteful on top of that. 
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2014, 01:41:48 PM »

It can seem like that, sure. Most authoritarian elements of the U.S. population are in the Republican Party

I understand what you're saying, but the people who expect government cheese every time they extend their hand are as authoritarian as the conservative Republicans who want to see SWAT teams night-sticking crowds of libertine hippsters. Liberals also birthed the hybrid-cars-only movement, carbon-caps, strict school lunch menus, punitive taxation, etc.

Conservative Republicans are usually okay with the police/military state. Liberals are usually fine with the PC nanny-state complex. They are both authoritarian arrangements, but one wears sheep's clothing.

I'm pretty sure the first ones don't exist; as for the second, are you confusing hippies with hipsters?

It must be a thing between him and BRTD. Anyways, don't Republicans have similar hand out programs including using the tax system to force fossil fuel dependence and rebuilding the welfare system through the IRS to subsidize wages?

I am honestly beginning to believe any economic idea, if pushed hard enough and without any regards of the consequences, will eventually work. It really just seems to be an issue out of 1)what happens in the interim and 2) what secular religion you are a part of.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2014, 08:44:11 PM »

We disagree, but you definitely make up facts (example, "Obama pushed fracking through the EPA") and you're a blowhard.  I have no interest in discussing anything with you further because I find you distasteful on top of that. 

You want me to placate you, which is far more arrogant and distasteful than any remark I've made.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2014, 10:19:28 AM »

All for the few, and suffer with a smile for everyone else. A pure plutocracy except for a few concessions to the Religious Right (an abortion ban and perhaps a ban on contraception).
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2014, 11:09:19 AM »

All for the few, and suffer with a smile for everyone else. A pure plutocracy except for a few concessions to the Religious Right (an abortion ban and perhaps a ban on contraception).

Corporate Personhood and Personhood?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2014, 03:54:58 PM »

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

I don't buy that at all.  First off, so much state level economic policy consists of a race to the bottom.  You have states giving away tax incentives to corporations trying to lure them from one state to another.  Maybe you could argue that such competition might spur the over-regulated states like California and New York to get their act together.  But, it doesn't really amount to any type of a philosophy.
This sounds like you are proposing that the Feds intervene in state tax incentives for business. There's no question that some excess use of those incentives can be counterproductive. However, incentives are used as frequently by Dem states as by Pub ones. That's not a particularly partisan issue.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Historically many of these issues have been the province of the states, and today there are Dem states that still expect to have the major say in how to resolve some of these problems. How a state tackles the issue can expose the partisan rift in that state. For example in IL, the GOP has argued against the Dem policy of siphoning some of the gas taxes to pay for other programs rather than for the infrastructure for which it is intended.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I look at the party differences in IL, the GOP notes that IL has become uncompetitive with other states in part because the total package of rates for regulations and business taxes are higher than in neighboring states. As a party it doesn't seek to eliminate them, but to bring them in line with regional and to a lesser extent national norms. Whining about Obama takes a back seat for most Pubs here to whining about Chicago and all the special laws designed for its benefit.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2014, 04:35:46 PM »

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

I don't buy that at all.  First off, so much state level economic policy consists of a race to the bottom.  You have states giving away tax incentives to corporations trying to lure them from one state to another.  Maybe you could argue that such competition might spur the over-regulated states like California and New York to get their act together.  But, it doesn't really amount to any type of a philosophy.
This sounds like you are proposing that the Feds intervene in state tax incentives for business. There's no question that some excess use of those incentives can be counterproductive. However, incentives are used as frequently by Dem states as by Pub ones. That's not a particularly partisan issue.

I wasn't proposing anything.  I was saying that just saying, "federalism," doesn't cut it as an answer to these national problems.

The fact is that the United States is not some loose confederation of countries.  We need to have some national strategy about how we can adapt and improve for the future.  We need to address these huge economic problems, inequality, crumbling infrastructure, the unemployment problem, the rising cost of education and healthcare.  If Republicans just look at those problems and shrug their shoulders, and say, "meh, federalism," that's pathetic.  If Republicans don't care about those problems, they should run for office.
Historically many of these issues have been the province of the states, and today there are Dem states that still expect to have the major say in how to resolve some of these problems. How a state tackles the issue can expose the partisan rift in that state. For example in IL, the GOP has argued against the Dem policy of siphoning some of the gas taxes to pay for other programs rather than for the infrastructure for which it is intended.

These states don't have the fiscal flexibility or national scope to approach these national issues.  The Federal government can raise taxes on the rich nationwide without worrying about competing with other states or engaging in a race to the bottom.  The Federal government can put up large sums of money, even in a depressed economy and spark the economy.  A single state needs to carefully manage their budget year to year far more closely.  The Federal government can create national standards in a way that only California or Texas can even imagine.

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.  The other group are semi-reasonable people who just sort of sit on the sidelines and whine about Obama.  Both are totally useless to anything constructive.

I say all of this as a capitalist, someone who believes in markets and deregulating when appropriate.   There are good libertarian and market based approaches that we could be putting into practice.  But, the Republican Party is so addicted to pandering and their slash and burn politics that they bring nothing to the table.  We all follow politics and we have no idea what a major party actually believes beyond their spite for poor people and shilling for a few corporate interests.  How can any thinking person be a Republican in 2014?  I don't get it.

If I look at the party differences in IL, the GOP notes that IL has become uncompetitive with other states in part because the total package of rates for regulations and business taxes are higher than in neighboring states. As a party it doesn't seek to eliminate them, but to bring them in line with regional and to a lesser extent national norms. Whining about Obama takes a back seat for most Pubs here to whining about Chicago and all the special laws designed for its benefit.

Yes, Republicans are much more civilized when they're not in power.  When they're in power they do things like SB1070 and approving textbooks that doubt evolution and say Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Christ.  And, that just goes back to my point, Illinois doesn't have the freedom to expand their vision.  They're worrying about competing with Iowa.  And, give me a break, you can't tell me that the Republican party is this moderate group worried about improving the business climate in the US.  The evidence of GOP radicalism is all over the news and has been for years. 

But, even if that wasn't true, I hate that our state governments would look at their job like that.  Legislatures spend so much time catering to business, trying to fix regulations for business, giving them tax breaks and coddling business.  They're constantly worrying about angering the business Gods and causing the jobs creators to rain down fire and brimstone on their state for their evil, liberal, inefficient ways. 

What about the climate for human beings in America?  For non-rich people?  I'll tell you, the American norm for non-rich people is getting a lot worse.  Middle class and working class people have lost a ton of ground in America.  Forget startup companies, being a startup person in America and your state is harder and harder.  Just take student loan debt and health care.  Republicans see both of those things as a privilege.  Maybe you'll get lucky enough to become educated and maybe you'll earn the ability to have health insurance.  And, your party across America refuses to expand Medicaid and is constantly attacking public education.  There is no neutral position on those issues.

But, I'm sure you are right about some regulations obviously.  There are plenty of silly rules that find their way into our laws.  But, to act like competing with other states in this race to please big corporations is an answer, is just ridiculous.  Moderate Republicans are just distracting the average Americans with this fan dance about small business and red tape, while their Republican buddies hollow out this country like its one of Mitt Romney's corporate takeovers.  That's how your party acts, like a barbarian at the gate, like T Boone Pickens or any other corporate raider who sees the average person's quality of life as a great place to cut costs.   

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2014, 05:39:33 PM »

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2014, 05:50:24 PM »
« Edited: September 26, 2014, 05:58:02 PM by Torie »

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

Do you think there are any economic externalities with states doing their own thing, some of which might be quite negative as a race to the bottom? My idea is to let states experiment, find out what works, and then nationalize the issue, and then over time, let states experiment some more, so you have decentralization, and then centralization, and back and forth, with the delta function being what drives creative change, while minimizing the externalities. Does this make sense to you at all, as a Grand Unified Theory?

I admit I am a most odd Pub on this issue, because in general, I am hostile to "states rights," however much that might not comport with our political history.

Intrastate tensions are very interesting, with Illinois and NY perhaps being rather unique, since their respective major cities are so dominant, while having a substantial out state non major city population, but not enough to really have that much political power. Thus you have policies that work for the dominating cities, but don't work for the hinterlands. In NY, that has tended to result in upstate NY being an economic basket case. It just can't economically compete with a very robust social safety net, and high taxes, while having no high paying economic sectors that can afford to pay for it all. Now the end game, is to just live off government transfer payments, with a very anemic middle class. That is why in part, "states rights" sometimes don't work very well, because within some states, what is on the ground is just so different.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2014, 05:53:04 PM »

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

To me, that's just doesn't cut it as an answer.  There's no idea that those ideas are correlated to anything positive for the American economy, that's my point.  You're not saying, more federalism equals a better economy or low taxes equals a better economy.  You're saying, we're not interested in national macroeconomic performance, national competitiveness or economic inequality and the stagnation of the middle class.  That's the telling point.  You can't tell a story where your policies actually get the economy on a positive track.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2014, 06:14:04 PM »

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

To me, that's just doesn't cut it as an answer.  There's no idea that those ideas are correlated to anything positive for the American economy, that's my point.  You're not saying, more federalism equals a better economy or low taxes equals a better economy.  You're saying, we're not interested in national macroeconomic performance, national competitiveness or economic inequality and the stagnation of the middle class.  That's the telling point.  You can't tell a story where your policies actually get the economy on a positive track.

But if voters in an area believe that what they want most is to be able to pursue their economic goals independently from a broad policy that fixes things far from their experience, then wouldn't they be prone to elect representatives to local, state, and national government who will carry that message? I've not been saying in this thread that this is a national policy, but I do claim that it is a philosophy supported by a significant segment of the population, not just CEOs of corporations. That's why you will see many state GOP platforms, whether the state is run by Pubs or Dems, stress job creation through the private sector. It is a reflection of the people they represent.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2014, 06:32:12 PM »

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

To me, that's just doesn't cut it as an answer.  There's no idea that those ideas are correlated to anything positive for the American economy, that's my point.  You're not saying, more federalism equals a better economy or low taxes equals a better economy.  You're saying, we're not interested in national macroeconomic performance, national competitiveness or economic inequality and the stagnation of the middle class.  That's the telling point.  You can't tell a story where your policies actually get the economy on a positive track.

But if voters in an area believe that what they want most is to be able to pursue their economic goals independently from a broad policy that fixes things far from their experience, then wouldn't they be prone to elect representatives to local, state, and national government who will carry that message? I've not been saying in this thread that this is a national policy, but I do claim that it is a philosophy supported by a significant segment of the population, not just CEOs of corporations. That's why you will see many state GOP platforms, whether the state is run by Pubs or Dems, stress job creation through the private sector. It is a reflection of the people they represent.

I don't think that's what politics ought to be about, no.

I think good politics requires a vision that includes some idea of the common good.  That we are part of a political community of equals who care about each other and the good of the country.  I think politics requires some intellectual foundation where you believe you're working for the common good. 

And, is the Republican Party just listening to the voters?  Of course not.  They're constantly pumping out propaganda to create this false consciousness and political divide.  They scapegoat people, try to make people hate poor people, black people, immigrants and gay people.  It's divide, demoralize and then just say, "oh well, the best we can do is accommodate the job creators."   

And, that's the problem, the Republican Party is so infatuated with power and hatred for the marginalized people in society that they forgot what their job is. 
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2014, 10:05:54 PM »

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

To me, that's just doesn't cut it as an answer.  There's no idea that those ideas are correlated to anything positive for the American economy, that's my point.  You're not saying, more federalism equals a better economy or low taxes equals a better economy.  You're saying, we're not interested in national macroeconomic performance, national competitiveness or economic inequality and the stagnation of the middle class.  That's the telling point.  You can't tell a story where your policies actually get the economy on a positive track.

But if voters in an area believe that what they want most is to be able to pursue their economic goals independently from a broad policy that fixes things far from their experience, then wouldn't they be prone to elect representatives to local, state, and national government who will carry that message? I've not been saying in this thread that this is a national policy, but I do claim that it is a philosophy supported by a significant segment of the population, not just CEOs of corporations. That's why you will see many state GOP platforms, whether the state is run by Pubs or Dems, stress job creation through the private sector. It is a reflection of the people they represent.

I don't think that's what politics ought to be about, no.

I think good politics requires a vision that includes some idea of the common good.  That we are part of a political community of equals who care about each other and the good of the country.  I think politics requires some intellectual foundation where you believe you're working for the common good. 

And, is the Republican Party just listening to the voters?  Of course not.  They're constantly pumping out propaganda to create this false consciousness and political divide.  They scapegoat people, try to make people hate poor people, black people, immigrants and gay people.  It's divide, demoralize and then just say, "oh well, the best we can do is accommodate the job creators."   

And, that's the problem, the Republican Party is so infatuated with power and hatred for the marginalized people in society that they forgot what their job is. 

And here's the rub. I agree with you on your second paragraph, as to what politics should be. I find little to agree with in your final two paragraphs as it pertains to real voters in my area. I would welcome you to visit my community and talk to my neighbors. I think you would find a very different story than the national media portrays.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2014, 06:41:54 AM »

Intrastate tensions are very interesting, with Illinois and NY perhaps being rather unique, since their respective major cities are so dominant, while having a substantial out state non major city population, but not enough to really have that much political power. Thus you have policies that work for the dominating cities, but don't work for the hinterlands. In NY, that has tended to result in upstate NY being an economic basket case. It just can't economically compete with a very robust social safety net, and high taxes, while having no high paying economic sectors that can afford to pay for it all. Now the end game, is to just live off government transfer payments, with a very anemic middle class. That is why in part, "states rights" sometimes don't work very well, because within some states, what is on the ground is just so different.

"Basket case" overstates things. At a minimum, there's more economic opportunity in Upstate NY than, say, the High Plains or Appalachia. The politics of this state are toxic and dysfunctional, and the property tax burden is heavy (although it helps that housing is inexpensive in most locales not within commuting distance of NYC), but, in terms of median income, life expectancy, and educational attainment, Upstate NY is better off than most of the country.

Then again, it's more a matter of how you choose your comparisons and how much unfulfilled potential you perceive. What most distinguishes Upstate NY, in my experience, is pessimism born out of the sheer duration of its relative decline. I have been hearing the same conversations since I was old enough to understand them. The main effect of the 2008 recession was to put the rest of the country on the same wavelength. The region has been in a malaise since the '70s.

However, I don't see much indication that there's an unusual degree of dependence on transfer payments in Upstate NY (or downstate IL, for that matter), although maybe your definition differs from my own.





It looks like the map is only federal transfer payments. State transfer payments may not exactly mirror federal transfers.

There are indirect transfer payments as well. For example, in IL schools are funded by a complicated formula based on local property taxes and state payments. The state share is based in large part on the property tax base for a district but comes from the general revenue. It's not unusual for a downstate district to get 75% of school costs from the state while suburban districts get 25% or less. That creates much higher property tax rates in the suburbs compared to downstate. Effectively that acts as a transfer payment.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2014, 09:04:38 PM »

1) Let's all acknowledge that this thread was never meant to be anything other than a red avatar (and our favorite "blue" one, King) love fest, and any genuine response from a non-Democrat/liberal poster will be met with less-than-tasteful mockery.

2) In the most general terms, despite the narrative of how *crazy* the GOP has become, Republican economic policy has largely remained unchanged for several decades.  In a few overly basic points:

- Social welfare programs are at best too wasteful and sometimes abused while at worst create dependency, stagnate upper mobility and need to be rolled back.
- Environments that allow business to thrive will have a better overall effect on the economy.  Encouraging business and profits is more effective than playing economic nanny, reducing private sector profits and stagnating growth and innovation.
- Unions are generally a strain on the above point.
- It's generally a better long term strategy to reduce the tax burden and cut spending than the other way around.
- The private sector is generally more efficient than the public sector - not always, but most of the time.
- All demonizing the rich, Wall Street, investment success, etc. does is create class animosity and provide less incentive for upward mobility.

I'm not looking for some retort on the logic behind these beliefs; we already know where the Dems of this forum stand.  But the OP asked, and I did my best to respond.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2014, 10:04:21 AM »

1) Let's all acknowledge that this thread was never meant to be anything other than a red avatar (and our favorite "blue" one, King) love fest, and any genuine response from a non-Democrat/liberal poster will be met with less-than-tasteful mockery.

2) In the most general terms, despite the narrative of how *crazy* the GOP has become, Republican economic policy has largely remained unchanged for several decades.  In a few overly basic points:

- Social welfare programs are at best too wasteful and sometimes abused while at worst create dependency, stagnate upper mobility and need to be rolled back.
- Environments that allow business to thrive will have a better overall effect on the economy.  Encouraging business and profits is more effective than playing economic nanny, reducing private sector profits and stagnating growth and innovation.
- Unions are generally a strain on the above point.
- It's generally a better long term strategy to reduce the tax burden and cut spending than the other way around.
- The private sector is generally more efficient than the public sector - not always, but most of the time.
- All demonizing the rich, Wall Street, investment success, etc. does is create class animosity and provide less incentive for upward mobility.

I'm not looking for some retort on the logic behind these beliefs; we already know where the Dems of this forum stand.  But the OP asked, and I did my best to respond.

That's a good attempt.  Here's my problem.  You are confusing philosophy with policy.  Policy actually requires that you look a the facts on the ground rather than just spout these fundamental precepts.

Let's say you have a world where the US has no old age pension system at all.  Creating one would be a social welfare program, which you assert is wasteful and creates dependency.  Yet, Republicans support social security.  So, to say their policy is that social welfare is generally bad, that's just not true. 

Rather if you look at documents like the Ryan budget, Republican policy is to keep those entitlements in place, but make them less efficient and more expensive by allowing corporate America to profit off our entitlements.  Republicans love programs like Medicare advantage which costs taxpayers more money, but funnels profits to private corporations.

That's generally what I'm missing here.  The problem-solving idea in government policy.  If we have different problems than we had 30 years ago, perhaps different solutions are called for.  If the top tax rate is 35% or 39%, maybe you care less about tax cuts than if the top tax rate is 70% like it was during the golden age of the American middle class.  If we just had a giant financial crisis caused by out of control speculation by banks, maybe you need to regulate Wall Street, even if you hurt their feelings.  If there is low inflation and high unemployment, maybe your policies are going to be different than a situation with high inflation and low unemployment.

But, that's actually how Republicans have become crazy in my eyes.  It's not their general philosophy, which seems pretty common-sense and moderate as you describe it.  Republicans live in their own world where facts are whatever you want them to be.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2014, 10:10:06 AM »

Rockefeller is just proving our point. No policy, just pie in the sky generalizations and dreams.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2014, 12:28:38 PM »

Rockefeller is just proving our point. No policy, just pie in the sky generalizations and dreams.

Do you feel that by keeping an ironic blue avatar, while sharing none of the party's beliefs, that it somehow gives you more credibility when trolling the GOP?  Seems pretty insecure, but whatever.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2014, 12:29:11 PM »

Nice ad hominem attack, bro.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2014, 12:32:50 PM »


I've never seen you post anything but partisan anti-Republican drivel.  Under a blue avatar, you give even more fighting juice to the already numerous Democratic hacks on this board.  Just kind of curious as to why you see that being worth your while.
Logged
Dixie Reborn
BeyondTruthAndIdeals
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 817
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2014, 01:23:16 PM »

We are far more likely to prove the Nakai and Zariski-Lipman conjectures than we are to find out why King has a blue avatar.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2014, 01:24:20 PM »

I've already explained it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 12 queries.