Republicans: we are now against spending cuts, they're unpopular and won't work (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 05:49:15 AM
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)
  Republicans: we are now against spending cuts, they're unpopular and won't work (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Republicans: we are now against spending cuts, they're unpopular and won't work  (Read 2989 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« on: October 20, 2017, 01:02:17 AM »

First they didn't hate Russians, then they went protectionist...now they're against spending cuts.  I suspect they'll be pro-union by spring.

Remember Janus will likely be decided in the spring by a 5-4 vote against the public sector unions.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2017, 01:06:34 AM »

The only reason you had a small gov't, tea party wave in the first place was because the bailouts gave libertarians the chance to become populists by running against Wall Street, creating the surge for candidates like Toomey and Rand Paul to win states that are not small gov't by any means.


Trump also didn't get elected by promising to cut spending. He did the exact opposite, ran to center on healthcare, called for massive infrastructure spending and opposed cuts to entitlement programs.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2017, 01:22:29 AM »

So where are all the "I vote Republican because I'm a sensible American concerned about fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and the deficit SmileySmileySmiley" people now?

Still here, about 90% Republican learners, too.  The fact is, most people of tons of ideologies love their government entitlements.

cutting non-defense discretionary programs get you no where though and frankly Republicans like to believe there is this massive amount of waste and duplication that if they just magically erase then they will get spending under control.

If you really want to get spending under control you have to do 3 very basic things.

1. Across the gov't procurement reform, from letting Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices to competitive bidding on contracts in the Pentagon. Of course that pinches Republican donors in the Pharma and defense contractor industries.

2. Entitlement Reform - Republicans need to come to reality that that true driver of Medicare costs is the denial of care earlier in life, and the aging population. If you want to get Medicare under control, the first thing you need to do is ensure access to preventative care throughout the life span. Republicans too often love to cut now, in exchange for double the amount in higher spending later through Medicare. And yes I support block granting Medicaid and Obamacare, but at much higher funding levels then Graham-Cassidy. We have had back door Universal Healthcare via the emergency room for decades and it is time Republicans acknowledge it, bring it to the front door and quit trying to use poverty as a substitute for gov't death panels to bring down costs. Instead they should try to get as many insured as possible with market/state based insurers, paid for with block grants to the states or a sliding scale subsidy, and then work on reforming delivery and other reforms that will bring costs under control without killing people.

3. Stop using the tax code to hide spending behind of shield of "Oh I am not spending money, I am just returning your money too you". This attitude of take two tax credits and call me in the morning has riddled the code with ridiculous complexity, lowered revenues, and added a hidden tax to the tune of $500 billion dollars in tax code compliance costs, which acts as a regressive tax on small business, making it harder for them to compete with larger firms. Republicans should simplify the tax code, remove all the special loopholes and bring down the rates. Then they should apply fees and/or taxes to hedgefunds and financial transactions by big firms to fund/incentivize loans to small business by local and community banks and bring down the deficit/debt.

Republicans talk about all this but often times pull a bait and switch, like on financial regulations, where Republicans should work to restore market competition, not foster a regulatory environment that consolidates more banks into larger too big to fail firms that will leave tax payers on the hook with another bailout down the road.

Glass-Steagall is a fiscally conservative proposal when you account for the cost of the bailout. Taxing financial transactions/hedge funds is a fiscally conservative proposal when you account for the lost revenues of the Great Recession and expenses it generated.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2017, 03:54:32 PM »

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.


Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

But the fiscally responsible party didn't control the House. Reagan once joked that Tip O'Neal was like Pac man, because he was a round thing that swallows up money.

The balance of power in the House was held by a bunch of pork barreling good ole' boy Southern Democrats. So the only way to get anything done in Congress was to basically pay for it with increased spending.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2017, 07:06:00 PM »

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.


Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

But the fiscally responsible party didn't control the House. Reagan once joked that Tip O'Neal was like Pac man, because he was a round thing that swallows up money.

The balance of power in the House was held by a bunch of pork barreling good ole' boy Southern Democrats. So the only way to get anything done in Congress was to basically pay for it with increased spending.

We need only look at 2001-2007 to see that it would've made zero difference

You really going to make me defend the Bush-Delay years. Screw that.

My point was and still stands, "The fiscally conservative party" didn't control congress and frankly that is true regardless of who is actually in charge. There is an old saying in DC, that there are three parties "The Republicans, the Democrats and the Appropriators".  Mike Pence is a Republican, Paul Ryan is a Republican. Hal Rodgers is an Appropriator, Thad Cochran is an Appropriator. Robert Byrd was an appropriator. Ted Stevens was an appropriator. Dan Inouye was an appropriator. The appropriators are always high in seniority and always dominate the Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate that actually spend the money. I found it funny how people like Ryan, Pence and the RSC members who often went after this were on the Budget Committee and that that says about the values. "Yes we value your ideals and principles so we are going to let you write budget, but the old spend thrifts will actually spend the money and do so how we want". And you wonder why we had a Tea Party!

After the 2006 elections there was a scene where Dan Inouye and Ted Stevens, locked arms and in a measure of the worst sort of bipartisanship (which disturbingly people look back to fondly) and said "we will continue to pass out the pork business as usual". There was a scene in the house of Representatives where one of the fiscal conservatives from NJ, who always gets fleeced in terms of return on tax receipts (something like 50 cents on the dollar) was challenging an appropriation in Alaska (which gets like 2 dollars in spending for $1 in taxes and it gets worse when you account for the military etc), and Don Young came to the floor and said, "How dare you go after that, its 'MY MONEY', I don't go after your money". And you wonder why we had a Tea Party!

The problem with the Tea party was that it replaced bipartisan corruption and irresponsibility, with ideological zeal and resulting irresponsibility, instead of common sense and responsibility. That is why the tea party got hijacked by fringe nuts and establishment crooks. And that is why we ended up with the Trump movement and President Trump.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.033 seconds with 13 queries.