Republican economic policy

manifold

Diamond Member
Feb 19, 2008
57,723
8,638
2,030
your dreams
Fact or fiction...

Republican economic policy always prioritizes (favors) the wealthy over the poor and middle-class.

Please discuss with real world examples, and keep it clean.
 
Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Fact or fiction...

Republican economic policy always prioritizes (favors) the wealthy over the poor and middle-class.

Please discuss with real world examples, and keep it clean.

Fact.

Example - Bush tax cuts.

IIRC, the republicans were also willing to hold unemployment benefits for the poor and middle-class hostage to make sure these cuts were extended. Double whammy.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.

I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.
 
Fact or fiction...

Republican economic policy always prioritizes (favors) the wealthy over the poor and middle-class.
Please discuss with real world examples, and keep it clean.
Fact.
Example - Bush tax cuts.
So, the Obama's extension of the tax cuts for the rich must similarly prove that -His- economic policies -also- favor the wealthy over the poor and middle class.
 
Last edited:
Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.

I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.

I would see it as boiling down to which pathway does the money take, and which one brings about the greater good. The progressive model is to take the money through the government and distrbute it to those on the lower end, either directly or indirectly. What this creates is a larger buracracy (they have to have someone run it) and in the cases of direct welfare or tax credits at the low end, zero productivity for the money spent.

Now lets look at a supply side model. Say that you tax a person 200k less and they go out and buy a mercedes. Now the salesman makes money, the dealers owner makes money, the car manufacter and thier employees make money. Those people in turn now go out and spend money as well, the government gets a cut anyway via taxes at each level.

The main difference is now the rich person has a mercedes, and to me, evny over that is a big part of why people want to "Tax the Rich"
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.

I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.

I would see it as boiling down to which pathway does the money take, and which one brings about the greater good. The progressive model is to take the money through the government and distrbute it to those on the lower end, either directly or indirectly. What this creates is a larger buracracy (they have to have someone run it) and in the cases of direct welfare or tax credits at the low end, zero productivity for the money spent.

Now lets look at a supply side model. Say that you tax a person 200k less and they go out and buy a mercedes. Now the salesman makes money, the dealers owner makes money, the car manufacter and thier employees make money. Those people in turn now go out and spend money as well, the government gets a cut anyway via taxes at each level.

The main difference is now the rich person has a mercedes, and to me, evny over that is a big part of why people want to "Tax the Rich"

The multiplier effect can work both ways, even if you paint it as the villain and one context and the savior in another. You're suggesting that an extra dollar in the pocket of a rich man is worth more to the economy than an extra dollar in the pocket of a poor man. But that theory has never been proven either way.
 
Fact or fiction...

Republican economic policy always prioritizes (favors) the wealthy over the poor and middle-class.

Please discuss with real world examples, and keep it clean.

Did you ever get a job from a poor person?
 
If it worked as advertised I wouldnt mind if it favored the wealthy.

They always say it will create jobs if you do it.

It never does what they claim.


Yet they KEEP suggesting itwill work right after it fails for the tenth time in a row.
 
Any proof that Bush tax cuts increased jobs? Obama extended tax cuts going on two years ago. total of going on ten years and fewer jobs..

Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.
 
Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.

I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.


Republican policy is not to help the wealthy, much as the liberals would have us believe. The simple truth is that there is no other way to grow an economy and create more jobs than implementing the policies that are being advanced by the GOP. It's not a question of helping the wealthy, ANY policy that fosters growth is going to help the wealthy because they have the most money to invest. They're going to get the lion's share of the profits generated from economic growth, that's just the way it is. And gov't interference in this only serves to dampen the growth prospects.
 
Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.

I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.


Republican policy is not to help the wealthy, much as the liberals would have us believe. The simple truth is that there is no other way to grow an economy and create more jobs than implementing the policies that are being advanced by the GOP. It's not a question of helping the wealthy, ANY policy that fosters growth is going to help the wealthy because they have the most money to invest. They're going to get the lion's share of the profits generated from economic growth, that's just the way it is. And gov't interference in this only serves to dampen the growth prospects.

At what point does tax cuts for the wealthy begin to hurt economic growth?
 
Any proof that Bush tax cuts increased jobs? Obama extended tax cuts going on two years ago. total of going on ten years and fewer jobs..

Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.

Bingo
 
I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.

I would see it as boiling down to which pathway does the money take, and which one brings about the greater good. The progressive model is to take the money through the government and distrbute it to those on the lower end, either directly or indirectly. What this creates is a larger buracracy (they have to have someone run it) and in the cases of direct welfare or tax credits at the low end, zero productivity for the money spent.

Now lets look at a supply side model. Say that you tax a person 200k less and they go out and buy a mercedes. Now the salesman makes money, the dealers owner makes money, the car manufacter and thier employees make money. Those people in turn now go out and spend money as well, the government gets a cut anyway via taxes at each level.

The main difference is now the rich person has a mercedes, and to me, evny over that is a big part of why people want to "Tax the Rich"

The multiplier effect can work both ways, even if you paint it as the villain and one context and the savior in another. You're suggesting that an extra dollar in the pocket of a rich man is worth more to the economy than an extra dollar in the pocket of a poor man. But that theory has never been proven either way.

The way I see it that extra dollar in the rich mans pocket leads to productivity down the chain, thus keeping the economy moving at multiple levels.

The extra dollar in the poor mans pocket nets you no return productivity.
 
I've heard this theory, packaged and repackaged about a thousand times. It still boils down to: help the wealthy directly and that in turn will help everyone eventually. But from a factual perspective, it does not refute the statement in the OP, but actually agrees with it.


Republican policy is not to help the wealthy, much as the liberals would have us believe. The simple truth is that there is no other way to grow an economy and create more jobs than implementing the policies that are being advanced by the GOP. It's not a question of helping the wealthy, ANY policy that fosters growth is going to help the wealthy because they have the most money to invest. They're going to get the lion's share of the profits generated from economic growth, that's just the way it is. And gov't interference in this only serves to dampen the growth prospects.

At what point does tax cuts for the wealthy begin to hurt economic growth?

Economic growth, or government growth?
 
I would see it as boiling down to which pathway does the money take, and which one brings about the greater good. The progressive model is to take the money through the government and distrbute it to those on the lower end, either directly or indirectly. What this creates is a larger buracracy (they have to have someone run it) and in the cases of direct welfare or tax credits at the low end, zero productivity for the money spent.

Now lets look at a supply side model. Say that you tax a person 200k less and they go out and buy a mercedes. Now the salesman makes money, the dealers owner makes money, the car manufacter and thier employees make money. Those people in turn now go out and spend money as well, the government gets a cut anyway via taxes at each level.

The main difference is now the rich person has a mercedes, and to me, evny over that is a big part of why people want to "Tax the Rich"

The multiplier effect can work both ways, even if you paint it as the villain and one context and the savior in another. You're suggesting that an extra dollar in the pocket of a rich man is worth more to the economy than an extra dollar in the pocket of a poor man. But that theory has never been proven either way.

The way I see it that extra dollar in the rich mans pocket leads to productivity down the chain, thus keeping the economy moving at multiple levels.

The extra dollar in the poor mans pocket nets you no return productivity.

And what happens when the poor man uses that dollar to purchase goods and services from the rich man? Does it not lead to productivity down the chain as well?
 
Any proof that Bush tax cuts increased jobs? Obama extended tax cuts going on two years ago. total of going on ten years and fewer jobs..

Republican economic policy favors everybody because it promotes more economic growth and more jobs. It enables more upward mobility and a more opportunistic environment where people have a better chance to improved their lot in life. Which leads to greater personal and societal stability for everybody.

The Bush tax cuts mentioned above lead to increased well-being for everybody from 2003 until the recession hit. As did the Reagan tax cuts back in the early 80s. The republican economic policy's main objective is to foster and improve the business climate; if that is not done, the current economic mess cannot improve to any appreciable degree.


The employment numbers from 2003-2008 were pretty good, comparable to Cinton's numbers in the 90s. It's true IMHO that extending those tax cuts didn't appreciably improve the jobs picture, but had we not extended them then it's very likely that the UE situation would have been a lot worse.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top