Why should peole believe in Conservatism?

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
This explains in a large part why I rejected the modern conservative movement and decided to become a Democrat.

The modern conservative movement can be broken down into two components.

Social conservatism and Fiscal conservatism.

Social conservatism can easily be rejected for what it is, a blend of religious extremism and racism.

Fiscal conservatism though is founded on the principle of supply side economics. Now I know, this isn't fair to the economist Laffer or the Laffer curve. The modern conservative movement really just co-opted the term to justify their rational for regressive tax cuts. It would be more fair to really call modern conservatives (Isn't that an oxymoron?) fiscal ideology "Reaganomics". However since Republicans have been successful at co-opting this term I'll continue to use it here (why not? conservatives do.).

Here's the problem with supply side economics. It's basic claim has never proven to work. Quite the contrary, the evidence proves that it doesn't work. This also explains why conservatives shrill screams of "socialism" are largely ignored by the general public whenever they get their panties in a wad about government regulations in the market place.

The fundamental principle of supply side economics (Reaganomics) as touted by conservatives think tanks is simple "Lower Tax Rates = More Robust Economy = More Federal Revenue"*

Now on the surface that appears reasonable. The problem for conservatives is that reality doesn't conform with their world view.

Let's look at the data on Federal revenue from the Department of Commerce and the Congressional Budget Office, since this data was compiled mostly under a Republican President with a Republican Congress so clearly this isn't data from the "liberal media". So let's look at data from the last two years of the Clinton administration and W's first term where two tax cuts occurred.

Federal Revenue (billions)**;
1999 - $1,827.5
2000 - $2,025.2
2001 - $1,991.2
2002 - $1,853.2
2003 - $1782.3
2004 - $1880.4

So every year W implemented a tax cut Federal Revenues shrank. "Of course!" I can hear the wingnuts yellings "The Economy shrank!". Well if the Economy didn't shrink in 2001, 2002 and 2003 there going to look pretty stupid aren't they?

US Economy (billions)***

1999 - $9,268.4
2000 - $9,817.0
2001 - $10,128.0
2002 - $10,487.0
2003 - $11,004.0
2004 - $11,728.0

Awww well shoot. It didn't work!

According to the data, after Clinton's modest tax increase, the economy grew by an annual average rate 3.7% and Federal Revenues increased by $850 billion dollars. However during 4 years of Bush's supply side economics (Reaganomics) the economy grew only by an annual average rate of 2.5% and there was a Federal revenue is down $145 billion!!!

So let's see, Clinton implements a modest tax cut, the economy does fine and Federal revenues go up so fast they outpace spending. Bush comes into office with huge regressive tax cuts for the wealthy, the economy grows, but at a slower rate but Federal Revenue declines and he plunges us back into deficit.

So that's about as solid evidence that you need that supply side economics (Reaganomics) doesn't work. That it is a failed economic policy.

So that goes back to the question why should people believe in a political party who's social agenda is based on racism and religious extremism combined with a failed economic policy that only benefits the people who don't need the help in the first place at the expense of the rest of the nation?

Why should people believe in conservatism given these facts?

* The Heritage Institute
** CBO
*** Dept. of Commerce
 
Last edited:
Mott, you didn't list anything about federal spending, a key component (I.E. the ONLY COMPONENT) of fiscal conservatism.
 
Lets be truthful here,....the reason you reject Conservatives is because you have a skewed, far left view of what it is, its motives, it goals and its values....simply put, you're a pinhead....your belief system is driven by mediamatters, the huffingtonpost, Chris Matthews and the chief Peckerhead, Sir Olbermann the Asshole....

You were probably raised by Democrats, and brainwashed by the liberal public school system, never generating an original political idea of you own....in a word, a lemming....a follower, waiting to be told what to think and what conclusions you should come to for your own good.....


You can't even use simple logic and reason why the economy did what it did in those early Bush years....probably never heard of 9/11 and can't fathom the strain it put on the US economy and how it affected us for years.....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Lets be truthful here,....the reason you reject Conservatives is because you have a skewed, far left view of what it is, its motives, it goals and its values....simply put, you're a pinhead....your belief system is driven by mediamatters, the huffingtonpost, Chris Matthews and the chief Peckerhead, Sir Olbermann the Asshole....

You were probably raised by Democrats, and brainwashed by the liberal public school system, never generating an original political idea of you own....in a word, a lemming....a follower, waiting to be told what to think and what conclusions you should come to for your own good.....
Click to expand...

Whereas your post is filled with juvenile name calling, invective and incessant ad homs...so yep, you really are a pretty run of the mill Conservative.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Whereas your post is filled with juvenile name calling, invective and incessant ad homs...so yep, you really are a pretty run of the mill Conservative.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to educate the dude...to try to overcome years of liberal ideas crammed into his skull....thats a useless endeavor....I'm just telling him why I believe he thinks the way the thinks...
He can't change, he won't change...he'll always be a liberal and always be a Democrat....thats just the way it is.....I know hundreds just like him.....
 
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom

When pressed about the harmful effects on the economy, proponents of highertaxes often fall back on what can be called the "Clinton defense." President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase through Congress in 1993, and, so the story goes, the economy boomed. How, then, can tax increases be so bad for the economy? The inference is even stronger: that highertaxes actually strengthened the economy.


The Clinton defense is superficially plausible, but it fails under closer scrutiny. Economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Lowtaxes are still a key to a strong economy.

The Clinton Tax Defense

A growing body of literature and experience indicates that highertaxes are associated with a smaller economy.[1] It is generally axiomatic that the more onetaxes something, the less there is of the item taxed.


There is surely no reluctance among proponents to argue that highertaxes on tobacco materially reduce tobacco consumption or that highertaxes on energy would appreciably reduce energy consumption. Yet, somehow, the argument persists that raisingtaxes on labor does not diminish the supply of labor or that raising taxes on capital does not appreciably reduce the amount of capital in the economy. In both cases, tax hikes weaken the economy and reduce the amount of income earned by American families.

The Clinton defense of highertaxes rests largely on a cursory review of the economic history of the 1990s. Whatever the theoretical debates, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: President Clinton raisedtaxes, yet the economy grew, and grew smartly in the latter half of the 1990s. Economists have occasionally been accused of seeing something work in practice and then proving that it cannot work in theory. However, this is not the case here.

History suggests that the economy performed reasonably well in the years immediately following the tax hike, but history is not causality, and history sometimes needs a more careful examination to tell its story faithfully. Following the tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut.

Contrasting the period immediately after the tax hike and the period immediately after the tax cut, the evidence strongly suggests that the tax hike likely slowed the economy as traditional theory suggests, and that it was the tax cut that gave the economy renewed vigor--and gave history the real 1990s boom. In other words, the Clinton defense of highertaxes does not hold up.

The Clinton Tax Hike

In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following:[2]

An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.
Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.
A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.
A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.

Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
According to the original Treasury Department estimates, the Clinton tax hike was to raise federal revenues by 0.36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in its first year and by 0.83 percent of GDP in its fourth year, when all provisions were in effect and timing differences associated with near-term taxpayer behaviors had sorted themselves out. In 2007, the fourth-year effect would be roughly equivalent to an increase in the federal tax burden of about $114 billion.

Background

The economic environment at the time of the tax hike is important in assessing its consequences. In January 1993, the economy was entering its eighth quarter of expansion after the 1990-1991 recession. The recession had been relatively mild by historical standards, with a net drop in output of 1.3 percent. Yet even at the start of 1993, the economy was operating below capacity. Capacity utilization in the nation's factories, mines, and utilities was running at about 81 percent, whereas it had been around 84 percent through much of 1988 and 1989. The unemployment rate in January 1993 was 7.3 percent but had averaged 5.3 percent as recently as 1989. At the time of the tax hikes, the economy was recovering but still far from healthy.

Tax policy aside, much in the context of the 1990s was conducive to prosperity. The end of the Cold War brought a new sense of hope and greater certainty to the global economy. The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping to about $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel compared to prices above $90 per barrel today. The Federal Reserve had finally succeeded in establishing a significant degree of price stability, with inflation averaging less than 2 percent during the Clinton Administration. And, of course, a tremendous set of new productivity-enhancing technologies involving information technologies and the World Wide Web burst on the scene.


Absent a major negative shock, one should have expected a period of unusually strong growth from 1993 onward as the economy more fully employed its available capital and labor resources. In the four years following the Clinton tax hike (from 1993 through 1996):

The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms;
Employment rose by 11.6 million jobs;[3]
Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour;[4] and
Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose 78 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.
These statistics indicate a solid, but not spectacular, performance in the overall economy. Job growth was strong, as one would expect coming out of recession. Real wage growth remained almost non-existent, and the stock market performed well. But the real question is this: Altogether, did the economy perform better, or worse, because of the tax hike? The data from the period do not provide a clear answer.

The year 1997 was a watershed for both tax policy and the economy. By 1997, the economy had entered into a sustained expansion. The unemployment rate was 5.3 percent, a level thought at the time to be roughly consistent with full employment. Similarly, capacity utilization rates hovered around 82.5 percent; again, roughly consistent with full employment of the nation's industrial capacity. With a mature expansion and the economy running at what was believed to be about full capacity, growth would normally be expected to ease back as the economy makes the transition from recovery to normal growth. It was not a moment when one would expect growth to accelerate.

The 1997 Tax Cut: The economy Unleashed

In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 2007 bill:

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
Created a new $500 child tax credit;
Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
Established education IRAs;
Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.
According to Treasury's original estimates, the 1997 tax cut was relatively modest, amounting to just 0.11 percent of GDP in its first year and 0.22 percent of GDP by its fourth year. In 2007, the fourth-year effect would be roughly equivalent to a reduction in the overall tax burden of about $30 billion.


Despite its modest size, tax cut advocates had high expectations for the tax cut's effects on the economy because the reduction in the capital gains tax rate was expected to unleash a torrent of entrepreneurial and venture capital activity. They were not disappointed.

In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested.[5] Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

The explosion in venture capital activity cannot be credited entirely to the cut in capital gains tax rates, as the cut fortuitously coincided with technological developments that gave rise to the Internet-based "New Economy." However, the rapid development and application of these new technologies could not have occurred at such a rapid clip absent the enormous investment flows made possible largely by the reduction in the capital gains tax rate. This experience demonstrated yet again the truth of the axiom: The less you tax of something--in this case, venture capital investment--the more you get of it.

Comparing the Periods

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.
 
I talk with people every day that

hate paying so much money in income tax
in school tax
high gas prices
don't tolerate illegals
politicans giving themselves exorbitant salaries
exorbitant pensions
etc...I could go on and on.....
common people that are conservative in so many, many ways

but in the end these very same folks vote Demorcrat and just can't see the conflict of values......
 
bravo said:
I talk with people every day that

hate paying so much money in income tax
in school tax
high gas prices
don't tolerate illegals
politicans giving themselves exorbitant salaries
exorbitant pensions
etc...I could go on and on.....
common people that are conservative in so many, many ways

but in the end these very same folks vote Demorcrat and just can't see the conflict of values......
Click to expand...

on the other hand, conservatives used to be pro american. Now they consider giving jobs to americans to be socialism.
 
bravo said:
I talk with people every day that

hate paying so much money in income tax
in school tax
high gas prices
don't tolerate illegals
politicans giving themselves exorbitant salaries
exorbitant pensions
etc...I could go on and on.....
common people that are conservative in so many, many ways

but in the end these very same folks vote Demorcrat and just can't see the conflict of values......
Click to expand...

Well I got a simple solution...anyone who thinks he's paying too much in taxes is more than welcome to get the hell out of the good ol USA!

I got NO BEEF with how much I'm paying...which is in the 25% range.
 
AssHatZombie said:
on the other hand, conservatives used to be pro american. Now they consider giving jobs to americans to be socialism.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Well I got a simple solution...anyone who thinks he's paying too much in taxes is more than welcome to get the hell out of the good ol USA!

I got NO BEEF with how much I'm paying...which is in the 25% range.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll be damn, what a small world.....

all you pinheads went to the same school....don't tell my your all related too...
 
AssHatZombie said:
on the other hand, conservatives used to be pro american. Now they consider giving jobs to americans to be socialism.
Click to expand...

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061805630.html

The U.S. government is snapping up Russian-made helicopters to form the core of Afghanistan's fledgling air force, a strategy that is drawing flak from members of Congress who want to force the Afghans to fly American choppers instead.

This is the kind of liberal shit that is giving Russian workers jobs instead of American workers.....Obamanomics...

You need to be better informed...
 
bravo said:
Well, I'll be damn, what a small world.....

all you pinheads went to the same school....don't tell my your all related too...
Click to expand...

You know how we can tell when you got nothing?

Whenever we see a post with your name on it.

Thx for responding to my point btw.
 
Caboose said:
Mott, you didn't list anything about federal spending, a key component (I.E. the ONLY COMPONENT) of fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but you either haven't been paying attention or you were in a coma during the Bush years. Republicans have talked about government spending but what they mostly have done is borrow and spend because their basic fundamental policy, i.e. supply side economics/Reaganomics simply doesn't work. The only difference between conservative fiscal policy and far left liberal fiscal policy is what they spend the money on. Not how much they spend.
 
Some 50,000+ people worked in the World Trade Center, New York, while another 200,000 visited or passed through each day. The complex had its own zip code, 10048.
The WTC was one of most important business and banking centers in the world...an integral part of the US economy....

May 2001, unemployment rate at 4.1%
The aftermath of 9/11 effectively froze the nation's economy. And President Bush enacted his first round of tax cuts.

In spite of this devastating terrorist attack, SEVEN out of the eight Bush years enjoyed an awesome economy....exceptionally low unemployment and lower taxes FOR EVERYONE, rich and poor alike....

And thats just the way is was...its FACT, undeniable FACT......(Note...a Democrats took over Congress in the last year of Bush, 2008)

Gross National Income in PPP dollars (Gross National Income, expressed in purchasing power parity dollars to adjust for price level differences across countries) rose from 10 trillion in 2001 to almost 15 trillion in 2008....
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gnp_mktp_pp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gnp
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top