DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... While Trying to Bash the President, Ted Cruz Ends Up Proving GOP Economic Policies Don’t Work

link

I've made no secret of my belief that I think trickle-down economics is a giant con. It’s a fairly brilliant con, but it’s a con nonetheless. The entire premise behind this theory is that no matter if the economy is growing or struggling, the answer is always the same – cut taxes for the rich. For nearly 40 years, this is the economic philosophy on which our economy has been built. Meanwhile, for that same amount of time, the wealthy in this country have done better than ever before while the poor and middle class continue to fall further and further behind.

Even right now as almost every economic indicator we have in this country says our economy is doing better than it has in years, the one indisputable issue on which both Democrats and Republicans will agree on is wage stagnation. Sadly, they completely disagree on how to deal with it. Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, increase the minimum wage and pass laws that benefit the average working American.

Meanwhile, Republicans want to do what they always want to do – cut taxes for the rich and deregulate big business. Two things that, according to their failed economic theory, should benefit the average American worker – except it almost never does. Notice the difference? Democrats support policies that directly help 98 percent of Americans while Republican policies only directly benefit the richest and most powerful among us with the “promise” that by cutting their taxes and deregulating their businesses they’ll “trickle down” that excess to the rest of us and run their companies ethically.

Yet in the real world what we actually see is that cutting taxes only makes them richer and many corporations do just about everything they can to get around the regulations we have now, often only fixing dangerous or unethical issues when legally required to do so. I’m not really sure just how delusional someone has to be to honestly believe that fewer regulations would make corporations act more ethically and morally. That’s just asinine.

But it never ceases to amaze me when I see Republicans bring up income inequality because almost every time that they do, they’re essentially admitting that trickle-down economics doesn’t work. A prime example of this came when Sen. Ted Cruz tried to bash the president by claiming that the 1 percent has thrived during his administration, clearly trying to imply that Obama’s policies have been bad for 99 percent of Americans.

After saying the rich have gotten “fat and happy” during Obama’s presidency, Cruz went on to tell Fox News, “Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928.” That’s a statement that’s actually true. Though it’s completely ironic that Cruz would say something like this considering his party’s economic “plan” to combat income inequality is by making the 1 percent richer and blocking any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

Also, when you look at the 15 years listed by Politifact where the 1 percent earned such a high level of our national income, all but 2 (1936, 2012) preceded massive economic crashes. In fact, we hadn’t seen such income disparity since 1936 – until the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012. Amazing, isn’t it? The years directly preceding the economic crash of 2008 were years that the 1 percent earned a massive percentage of our national income – much in the same way the 1 percent did in the years leading up to the Great Depression. But I’m sure it’s just a huge coincidence that our nation’s two biggest economic collapses happened right around the time the richest 1 percent of all Americans controlled the largest percentage of our nation’s income.

It’s just absurd to see Republicans like Cruz try to claim Obama’s policies are causing these massive issues with income inequality when this is a pattern we’ve seen building for decades and it’s a direct result of the failed economic ideology his party supports known as trickle-down economics. And when any Republican talks about wage stagnation, while also claiming that the rich are doing better than they ever have before, they’re flat-out admitting that their entire economic philosophy is one giant scam.

So, have they been on the wrong side of this issue? Do they still believe the top 1% has earned their wealth and some 47% are looking for the government to take care of them?

The republican platform in a nutshell..
There are 12 cookies on a plate. A CEO, a middle class worker, and a poor unemployed person are sitting around it. The CEO takes 11 cookies the tells the middle class guy that the poor guy is trying to take his cookie.

No one in politics has clean hands. Anyone who thinks that Democrat policies will somehow force the rich into paying a lot more in taxes is crazy. It's like when Warren Buffett was calling for "his tax rate" to go uo, when he did not pay taxes based upon his income. He received stock options for his pay, and a such did not have much of a true income to be taxed.

The Middle Class was forced out of savings and into investments by a variety of political policies, including the use of monetary policy to force interest rates to ridiculous lows. The Middle Class took the hit because of panic caused when the market tanked. The rich could easily afford to come in near the bottom and pick the bones. Huge surprise that they made out better.

Anyway, here is an article about the President's proposals ...... just to give a different side.

Obama’s Tax Proposals Unlikely to Boost Middle-Class Incomes - WSJ
New Analysis Suggests Moves Could Raise Taxes on Many, by Some Measures
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-tax-proposals-unlikely-to-boost-middle-class-incomes-1422489195

By JOHN D. MCKINNON
Jan. 28, 2015 6:53 p.m. ET
15 COMMENTS
A new analysis suggests that President Barack Obama ’s recent tax proposals would do little to boost incomes for middle-class households, and actually could wind up raising taxes on many, at least by some measures.

The analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, tends to undercut recent administration statements that its plan is aimed at helping middle-class families get ahead and stimulate the economy.

The new study is likely to be cited by those critical of Mr. Obama’s tax proposals, which were highlighted his State of the Union address last week. Already, Mr. Obama has been forced to jettison a proposal to end tax-free distributions from 529 college-savings accounts because of concerns it could impact middle-class savers.

Administration officials didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama promised a new “middle-class economics” that would “[lower] the taxes of working families and [put] thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year.” The analysis, however, shows that Mr. Obama’s new proposals actually “would have very little net impact on middle-income households,” Urban Institute fellow Howard Gleckman said in a blog post.

Instead, much of the benefit of Mr. Obama’s plan goes to the lowest-income households, the analysis concludes.

For example, those making between $49,000 and $84,000—the middle quintile of earners—would actually see their taxes go up by an average of $7 under Mr. Obama’s proposals.

In the middle, there would be a mix of winners and losers. About one quarter would get a tax cut averaging about $550, while about half would get a tax increase averaging about $290.

Instead, the biggest boost to incomes would come in the lowest quintile, those with incomes up to about $25,000. They would see their incomes go up by about 1.2%, or $174. Those in the top 1% would see theirs fall by 2%, or about $29,000.

One reason for the result is that experts tried to estimate the impact on all U.S. workers of the president’s new proposed tax on highly-leveraged financial institutions. That is not a direct tax increase on those workers, but economists figure they would pay in some fashion—through lower compensation and benefits, for example.

The picture is slightly better for the administration if the bank tax is set aside. In that case, only about 6% of households in the middle quintile see a tax increase, as opposed to almost half. But the overall impact of the president’s plan on this group remains negligible-essentially, no change in after-tax incomes and an average $12 tax cut.

The analysis also has the potential to undermine administration claims on its capital gains proposal. In its State of the Union fact sheet, the White House said that 99% of the impact of those increases would fall on the top 1% of earners. The TPC analysis shows that about 62% of the overall tax increase would fall on the top 1%, while the rest—38%—would fall on people with lower incomes. These increases would be felt far down the income spectrum, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s proposal to start imposing capital-gains tax on many inheritances.

Although very few households would be affected at incomes below $500,000 in a given year, some people in lower brackets could see increases because of the administration’s proposal to impose capital gains tax on inheritances. The analysis, for example, says the average increase for people in the $75,000-$100,000 income range would be $101,000.

The source is laughable!

I wonder if they have an article on how to avoid the
Dreamer Measles?

Wonder if they mention that 23 percent of all new jobs created over the last 6 years were created in Republican Texas?

I've always thought Ted Cruz was a bit laughable.

And which a vast majority of had nothing to do with either party's policies, but rather the booming gas and oil industry that developed new technologies.

Both sides try to take way too much credit, and try to place too much blame, for things that aren't a result of any political policy.

Disagree, The mining industry in Texas, of which oil and gas extraction are the main part, generated 9.8 percent of Texas’ GDP in 2012 significantly less than manufacturing’s share of 14.5 percent—the Lone Star State’s economy is more diversified than its critics contend.

I meant, your source, www.forwardprogressives.com - but I wouldn't expect you to realize that.

Might as well quote the Communist Party or the Nazi Party.

I would say Nazi.

I say turn socialist like me and create a USA Wealth protection act that puts a cap on the amount of total assets a person can privately own at say 1 billion. That means once they are maxed they HAVE to either give it away or have it taxed away. With that Law passed trickle down economics would definately work. Then use a flat tax for everything else.

It will never happen but it would work great =)

Admire your politics not so much.

But we can all retire when we make that first Billion? YEA!!!

Then move overseas to grow our $10 Billion idea!

can always do like south korea where they only allow a limited of wealth to leave the country so that their rich are forced to invest in their own country to make money. Thier economy is pretty strong btw.

You would make Canada the richest country in the world.

Guy has an idea for a business and makes a billion while developing it in the US. He sees it has the potential to grow to a 30 billion dollar company. Now he opens a branch in Canada and begins growing it there. Next he closes US operations and moves everything to Canada. He makes and keeps all the profits and hires someone to slap you for making him move. In the meantime he crushes your single billionaires in the US in other business ventures.

Yes, I realized that you were completely ignoring the content of the article.

I'm not sure why you couldn't acknowledge or maybe understand that Ted Cruz is THE source sited for the republican opinion that the top 1% has benefited the most during this economy.

Considering that you totally misunderstood the whole point of the article could you possibly provide one of your mentality opinions about yourself?

never said anything about limiting business wealth. Just personal. I also mentioned making it illegal to move assets or to change who you pay the taxes to. Tariffs are there for everything else, but oh wait we don't use those anymore either because it would be a sin to protect the american wage. Like I said South Korea has had no problem using this policy to create significant wealth for its country.

but by all means let the billionaires keep all their wealth rotting in a bank except when they use it to leverage smaller businesses into bankruptcy by using temporary price reduction and operating at a loss to eliminate competition then jumping back at double price to increase inflation to pay for their losses.

Here is something more substantial than quotes. It's a 20-minute address on just this subject.

The speaker is mega-capitalist. A multi-billionaire. He is NOT a member of the one-percent club. He's a member of the .01-percent club.

This is what he has to say about it:

Pay special attention to what he says at exactly the 18:00 mark... because that has been the source of our national fight about "trickle-down" ever since it was pitched to the American public in 1980.

lol. Well the democrats are as much to blame. Both parties do a wonderful job of obscuring the truth. But hey, everyone needs someone to point a finger at.

Wages are driven by supply and demand just like everything else.

Tons of out of work people means companies can pay less. I don't blame them. Everyone looks for a deal. Fact is technology, companies moving overseas, out-sourcing, regulations, have all helped to decrease the number of jobs in this country.

You know what happens when illegal immigrants flood into the US. They work for less, and this lowers wages.
You know what happens when companies move over-seas? Wages go down.
Outsourcing...the same.

You know what happens when you raise taxes on business owners? They lose profit.
You know what happens then? They lay people off.
Or it's not worth growing the business, so they don't expand and hire more workers.

Taxes should be lower across the board. Companies and people should be able to spend what they earn the way they choose.

Instead the government takes it and spends it how they want.

And minimum wage? Since when has price fixing ever worked. All that will do is raise the cost of everything proportionally.

Brownie:

I know you believe what you're saying. You made some good arguments that fall in line with the contemporary way of thinking.

BUT... I'm asking you (and many others who see things as you do) to watch the vid I just posted. Dude makes some compelling arguments for changes that should at least be considered.


Hey... I get my paycheck by making long sideways stokes on a hollow box with a stick in my right hand, while my left hand fingers move up & down on another hard wooden stick. What the hell do I know about money and national macroeconomics? But I do have a brain that has been taught to listen... and think. And much of what this dude said made real sense to me.

I think we should all give him a chance.

He changed the way I looked at a few things.

Maybe he'll give others something to think about, as well...

This reminds me of the bailout...

When the government thought it was a great idea to bail out all these companies that made bad decisions, I argued it might make more sense to give that money, or at least a good chunk of it, to the people. I don't remember what the total bailout worked out to per person, but it was a lot.

Most people would have spent it, hell, even a lot of them would have spent it on a new car.

Would it have been a great idea? Who knows? But I don't think the bailouts were that great of an idea either...

Giving money to corporations is how things work in a plutocracy. Keep those in power in power; let everyone else suffer the consequences of shoddy business practices. No politician will take any action. Their career depends on enacting legislation that helps the corporate shadow government. To muster any sort of opposition to current economic policy spells career suicide.

The Bible says th borrower is slave to the lender. If they A: would've given the people an equal share of the bailout money instead of the banks or B: made the banks keep the adjustable rates at an affordable level (thereby admitting their error) that dynamic would've altered their fufures and ours dramatically.

Wish I was 'too big to fail'.

Finally got a chance to watch that. Thanks for posting it. I certainly can't disagree with what he is saying, it does make sense, I'm just not sure how well it translates to the USA as a whole.

I'll start off my saying that i'm a Ron Paul guy. What I have read from him makes more sense then all the crap you hear from the gov't now. I really have no faith that either party can ever fix this. I think they try and make it worse, or help out their friends.

I certainly agree with what he is saying, especially what he said about Henry Ford. That was a great idea, and it worked. The problem is that every business owner isn't like Henry Ford, or this guy. He obviously respects what workers do, and rewards them.

There is no doubt that when people have more money, that they spend more money. I like his analogy about pants and haircuts. The problem lies in 'what is money?' To me it is something that you receive for doing something. Its a commodity.

Let's say you double the wages of someone that works minimum wage, working at a store stocking shelves or something. If its a private owner, a guy like Henry Ford then you are good. But what about a corporation that answers to shareholders? Maybe profits drop, or maybe they don't if what this guy says is true. But i'll guarantee someone will be complaining.

And what about the guy that was say pumping crap out of portable toilets that was working for we'll say 15 dollars an hour like he used. Pump crap or stock shelves. I know what i'll do.
This causes the toilet guy to raise wages to keep the guy, and if the market will support it, he's raising prices to make up for it. Or he sells the company because its no longer profitable.

To me it always comes down to what someone will pay. What if the orchestra doubled its ticket prices, and still sold out? Should they raise them more? When do you stop? Do you want more money because of that? Are they going to give it to you? Maybe because you have a special skill, but maybe not. And now you have people wanting start their own orchestra, because its profitable. Now he needs players. Since there are less available he will have to pay them more. Now you're thinking I could be working over there for more. So your boss raises prices if he can to make up for it. This will go on until the market is saturated. Prices are now so high that now the 15 dollar an hour guy can't go. Now he's clamoring for more so he can go, and on top of that now all the seats aren't full. So owners start lowering prices or cutting back workers.

If you go to a store, do you look for a deal? What if they told you they would give you 10% off...30, or 50? Wouldn't you want to pay as little as possible?

People want more...they want what they do to have more value, they want to be safe, and secure. The minute you plop more money on the table then people will fight for it.

When people can afford more then companies charge more. Why wouldn't they? Look at the Browns. What's a beer cost? I don't drink, but man to they have a racket going. Crappy product...people drink more beer in hopes of passing out. (lol couldn't help it) What if nobody bought it? It is WAY overpriced. What would happen if the entire stadium said piss off. Beer prices would drop until people started buying again.

It was certainly a good video, like you said it makes you think. I just see all of these companies lowering workers hours to get around health-care. I see health-care so expensive that some will just pay the tax. I can see companies ending their health-care because the tax is cheaper than providing it.

If everyone was agreeing with him then i'm curious to the effect it would have. I'm just not sure what the actual result would be.