Why are cons ALWAYS on the wrong side of history?

Can any of you conservatives/GOPers explain WHY you have consistently been on the wrong side of history, and ALL you have are bullshit revisionist history or attacks on liberal/progressive policies that created America?








What it is with today's GOP is that the facts - whether scientific, historical, or just common sense - interfere with their ideological utopia.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $25+ trillion since then.

 

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, aliviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last forty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class


Republican reasoning: Bush tax cuts created jobs through trickle down economics, but raising the minimum wage will surely destroy the economy. You can't make this stuff up.


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP
https://www.businessinsider.com/correlation-tax-rates-gdp-2012-3


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonar...s-and-economic-growth-or-not/?sh=67182c631e2e


CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.

Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

 

Conservative economic policy's make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK THAT WAY.

 

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

“The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it." - P.J. O’rourke

 

The right has a history

 

• Jan 8, 2015

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

 

When you are a regressive, always trying to go backward to a time when your tribe was king and everyone else knew their place, you have no viable vision for the future.
The right wing temper tantrum began when they lost their preeminent place in society and minorities and women started asserting their rights.

 

Hope you're having a good time playing in the sandbox by yourself.

 

Posting memes and pages of propaganda to convince you that 9% inflation, historical gas prices, historical illegal immigration, and historical inflation is a good economy and the right side of history.
I think they have actual media training camps for them.

 

Your Jedi mind tricks are weak and watered down propaganda and cartoons...

Reality is their kryptonite

 

This is precisely the issue being proposed by the improperly elected UK prime minister...she wants to increase growth by cutting taxes on the assumption that this increases the amount of money in the economic system.
Except that the now richer rich puts their money into off shore accounts, shareholdings and education for their kids.
They don't buy more in the supermarket.
There is a real possibility that this PM will crash the UK economy, as the cost of fuel, food , housing and transport goes up with inflation and interest rates.

The general public does not increase growth in any appreciable amount. It is large international investment and employment that makes a difference. Reduce someone's tax by 5% is nothing. Give a person a new job at a higher wage makes a huge difference.

 

In the end, regressives always lose. Always. It's part of why they're permanently pissed off. Deep down, they know this, and it terrifies them.

This is a good thing...

 

This is nothing more than the discredited trickle down model of economics designed to pander to the rich.

 

And happiness declined for everyone, but especially women.

You know who had a vision of the future? Pol Pot. Lord, save us from the idealists!

 

So no you can't refute anything posted so you go to the false premises, distortions and lies the right wing relies on.

 

Such as?

 

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America donot appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.


This paragraph from the report says it all—


“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...mic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/#2839b7ac431b

 

Lol…still diving to the lowest common denominator, eh?
You know who also had visions for the future?
Mandela, Gorbachev, MLK, and millions of women and blacks who stopped being second class citizens.
Lord save us from ignorant partisans who prattle on about things they can’t grasp.

 

You mean like 9% inflation, historical gas prices, historical illegal immigration, and historical inflation.
And you think its all a false premise?
Well now we all know which machine you have been watching

 

How have all those visions worked out? South Africa is worse off than ever, MLK biggest contribution seems to have been the destruction of what were once fine US cities like Detroit, Newark and Baltimore. His legacy has continued with BLM who are working on destroying other cities. Progressives are destroying SF, LA, Portland and Seattle because they have a vision for the future.

Just what is your "vision" for the future? How is it working out?

 

We are so much on the wrong side of History that our new DEMOCRAT president has tanked the economy and made us dependent on other countries. Also, who bumps their own thread 5 times before waiting for anyone to reply? STRANGE

 

So no you can't refute anything I posited. Got it

 

Memes are great. Why think for ones self when it has already been done for you. I will join you in criticizing the GOP. If you are a Democrat, you are not pointing with clean hands. Results speak for themselves.

 

Hmm.. so you're attacking democrats then? It sure seems like it. I mean, we (republicans) did take away their slaves. I'd start there.