Republicans Only: What should our Party be?

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

Your Party had best learn right quick the difference between economic conservatism of the genuine, Coolidgean variety and supply-side welfareism. One won't drain the treasury.

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes. Supply-side economics is populism for social conservatives, who just can't stomach the idea that their taxes go to support nigrahs.

An authentically conservative government, to the contrary, would focus on eliminating spending: end entitlements, auction off military bases and slash the defense budget, sell off government-owned land and utilities, stop funding to innumerable government programmes, etc. It would then take the money thus saved and place it in a Rainy Day Fund or something similar, for use during an actual catastrophe.

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes. Supply-side economics is populism for social conservatives, who just can't stomach the idea that their taxes go to support nigrahs.

An authentically conservative government, to the contrary, would focus on eliminating spending: end entitlements, auction off military bases and slash the defense budget, sell off government-owned land and utilities, stop funding to innumerable government programmes, etc. It would then take the money thus saved and place it in a Rainy Day Fund or something similar, for use during an actual catastrophe.

Disregard my earlier post, I completely understand what you're saying now, and for the most part I agree with it.

To Reagan's credit, he did cut spending (albeit not nearly enough). To his eternal discredit, he did the furthest possible thing from conserving the money saved: he turned around and handed everyone a welfare check in it, doing absolutely nothing to save money in the process and gutting the government's ability to handle economic downturns.

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes.

 

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go look at some of the rhetoric Reagan used when kicking off his first Presidential campaign, specifically his first appearance in Philadelphia, Mississippi. There was a massive undercurrent of racialism in his economic policies, and you'd have to be a hack not to notice it. Or I'll just let Lee Atwater say it for me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's how they sold supply-side economics to the people in the 1980's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which they are. The recipe for success for any government is a moderate level of taxation and almost no government spending, save when it is required, at which point funds can be had almost any time.

The first priority of any government is to be able to spend when necessary. That means not spending at all when not necessary, and being able to generate revenue during boom periods through moderate taxation. The government ought always to run a surplus.

[Scam of God]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

[Scam of God]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

I thought that's what supply-side economics is.  Lower marginal rates, lower corporate and capital gains taxes,  remove barriers to trade --> reward production, increase foreign investment, increase consumer spending --> more GDP --> more revenue.  What cog in the wheel am I missing?

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

[Scam of God]

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.  I see your point now, and agree with it.

The problem for the Republican Party being, of course, that people generally like an activist government, be it supply-side or Keynesian; it would be tremendously difficult to sell a 'Coolidgean' style of no-spending, no-rebate economic conservatism, even though that's what the economy needs today. Tax rebates are crack cocaine for Republican voters; you'd either have to become basically social fascists to compensate, or work out a whole new electoral strategy. Even then I don't think you could win running on such a platform.

[Scam of God]

Don my pain target is big spenders, Tom Delay included. The trouble is that you are so afraid of conservatives that you are supporting some of the biggest Pork-Barrelers in congress and are contributing to you so called "China problem".

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

I thought that's what supply-side economics is.  Lower marginal rates, lower corporate and capital gains taxes,  remove barriers to trade --> reward production, increase foreign investment, increase consumer spending --> more GDP --> more revenue.  What cog in the wheel am I missing?

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

Who the hell said anything about Tax rebates. I was talking about Tax cuts. I opposed the tax rebate even though I personally benefitted from. I am the biggest fan of Coolidge on this forum and I basically agree with what you said. The problem is that too often you have to add a populist element to conservativism to make it more palatible that usually screws up any chance of fiscal responsibility(ex. Kinder Gentler Conservativism, Compassionate Conservative)

Then that is your fault, for being member of an ideology that cannot directly compete in a democratic election without betraying certain core premises of its philosophy. A charismatic libertarian, on the other hand, could almost certainly run and win on a purely libertarian platform, provided that he was smart enough to sell it to the right voters, a base consisting of a mix of latte liberals, Western farmers and the progressive members of the middle-class.

It isn't the electorate that's flawed. It's your ideology, being unable to compete in a purified form.

EDIT: Also, it wasn't Poppy Bushes "Kinder, Gentler Conservatism" that racked up the early 90's debt. It was directly the fault of Ronald goddamned Reagan.