This explains our current parties pretty well

[Truthmatters]

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years


1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.

Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.

Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.

 

[Truthmatters]

Not if the top tier is taking all of the profit from their efforts and NOT increasing wages or job numbers.


Profits are a zero some game.

The more you give of the profits to ONLY the top the less there are in the pockets of your prospective buyers to buy your product.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

 

[Si modo]

 

[blastoff]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............................

 

[Avatar4321]

I never pictured Santa Claus as a Robber. See I always thought he gave away his own property. Not the property of others.

 

[Truthmatters]

Jude Wanniski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the U.S. Republican Party.[6][7]

The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.

This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).

The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief, but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused in an effort to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus.

 

[Si modo]

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged mate, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.​

P.J. O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores

 

[Sherry]

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years


1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.

Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.

Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.

The faster people would extend themselves until they drowned in their own debt.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now realize tht supply side economics was INVENTED by the right out of thin air to combat the fact that they could not sell their real intentions

 

[del]

Now realize tht supply side economics was INVENTED by the right out of thin air to combat the fact that they could not sell their real intentions

now realize that if you had another six brains, you'd have a half dozen.

ask your service animal to explain this to you.

 

[Truthmatters]

Andrew W. Mellon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Heres the real director of the republican line



The Great Depression

Mellon on U.S. stampMellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. He advised Herbert Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."[7] Additionally, he advocated weeding out "weak" banks as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation. He advocated spending cuts to keep the Federal budget balanced, and opposed fiscal stimulus measures. In 1929-31, he spent much of the time overseas, negotiating for repayment of European war debts from World War I. In February 1932, Mellon left the Treasury Department and accepted the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He served for one year and then retired to private life.

 

[sangha]

I'm not surprised to see the wingnuts working hard to not address the issue

 

[Misty]

Not if the top tier is taking all of the profit from their efforts and NOT increasing wages or job numbers.


Profits are a zero some game.

The more you give of the profits to ONLY the top the less there are in the pockets of your prospective buyers to buy your product.

unless you've run your own business, using the words of others to whine about business owners vs. Employees is a joke.

Produce something, insure it, market it, sell it, and see what it's like from the top tier. Then maybe I'll give anything you say, a second thought. But until then, you know nothing.

 

[Truthmatters]

Im sure they didnt even read the article

 

[Truthmatters]

Not if the top tier is taking all of the profit from their efforts and NOT increasing wages or job numbers.


Profits are a zero some game.

The more you give of the profits to ONLY the top the less there are in the pockets of your prospective buyers to buy your product.

unless you've run your own business, using the words of others to whine about business owners vs. Employees is a joke.

Produce something, insure it, market it, sell it, and see what it's like from the top tier. Then maybe I'll give anything you say, a second thought. But until then, you know nothing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


You are on record saying no one but the wealthy should haved a voice in the system.

How fucking stupid you are

 

[DiamondDave]

Im sure they didnt even read the article

An opinion fluff piece from common dreams... I put as much weight on that as I put on a child care book written by John Wayne Gacy

 

[Two Thumbs]

So you agree with me?

That both parties are a waste of time.

I'm friggin stunned, seriously, I think I got whiplash.

 

[Truthmatters]

If you didnt read the article why are you guys commenting?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Not if the top tier is taking all of the profit from their efforts and NOT increasing wages or job numbers.


Profits are a zero some game.

The more you give of the profits to ONLY the top the less there are in the pockets of your prospective buyers to buy your product.

unless you've run your own business, using the words of others to whine about business owners vs. Employees is a joke.

Produce something, insure it, market it, sell it, and see what it's like from the top tier. Then maybe I'll give anything you say, a second thought. But until then, you know nothing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


You are on record saying no one but the wealthy should haved a voice in the system.

How fucking stupid you are

Damn your an idiot.

She said try to run a business, not become rich by doing so, then you will understand how fucking dumb you are.