1. An Introduction To, And A Basic Overview Of, The Fake Economics Republicans Push
2. Ronald Reagan's Policies Began The Destruction Of The Middle Class & The Constitution
3. BREAKING... The Misunderstood Economy: What Counts and How to Count It OR Real Economics VS Fake Economics: How The Kochs Are Destroying America By Attacking Its Societal Structures In Favor Of Social Darwinism Or "Survival Of The Fittest"
4. Supply Side Economics: Do Tax Rate Cuts Increase Growth and Revenues and Reduce Budget Deficits ? Or Is It Voodoo Economics All Over Again?
Trump's economic strategy (tax plan) is the same package of lies and misinformation the GOP and Fox News ALWAYS push, i.e. they say "this is a new economic plan that will help the country" and then push the same bull that they have used to destroy the economy in the past (as Jon Stewart explained before). This post updates and summarizes the GOP's lies on economics.
TRUMP PERFORMS A TAX MIRACLE (ALLEGEDLY) 9/28/2017Even though President Trump claims his tax plan would help the middle class, Trevor finds out that the president and corporations would be the real beneficiaries.
Update of economic debunking of ongoing GOP lies & economic treason;
How the Republican Party Has Conned America for Over 30 Years Tax cuts initiate bubble economies, not true growth.
The Republican Party has been running a long con on the American people, and Trump’s new tax cut proposals are just the latest iteration on it. This con involves getting Democrats to shoot Santa Claus (Clinton cutting welfare/Obama proposing the chained CPI cut to Social Security) and using tax policy to put a jolly old Saint Nick outfit on the Republicans.
As Bruce Bartlett – one of the architects and major salespeople for Reagan’s tax cuts in the ‘80s – wrote in USA Today this week: “Virtually everything Republicans say about taxes today is a lie. Tax cuts and tax rate reductions will not pay for themselves; they never have. Republicans don’t even believe they will, they are just excuses to slash spending for the poor when revenues collapse and deficits rise. There is no evidence that tax reform raises growth, although it may improve fairness and tax administration.”
So how do Republicans get away with this lie, and why does the press let them get away with it? It’s a fascinating story.
Odds are you've never heard of Jude Wanniski, but without him Reagan never would have become a "successful" president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and George Bush never would have become president. Ditto for Trump.
When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the 28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people's bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover's economic worldview.
In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.
Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."
Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."
The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making the very richest even richer. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.
Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on multimillionaires of 91 percent. As he explained to his right-wing brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:
"[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government."Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Goldwater, however, rejected the "liberalism" of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and other "moderates" within his own party. Extremism in defense of liberty was no vice, he famously told the 1964 nominating convention, and moderation was no virtue. And it doomed him and his party.
And so after Goldwater's defeat, the Republicans were again lost in the wilderness just as after Hoover's disastrous presidency. Even four years later when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Nixon wasn't willing to embrace the economic conservatism of Goldwater and the economic true believers in the Republican Party. And Jerry Ford wasn't, in their opinions, much better. If Nixon and Ford believed in economic conservatism, they were afraid to practice it for fear of dooming their party to another 40 years in the electoral wilderness.
By 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 schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers and driving economic growth. Democrats kept high taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which worked out just fine for working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and made the Democrats 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.
At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!
Neither concept made any sense—and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies—but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories to make more stuff, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow.
In the 1980 GOP primary, George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
The nation of Greece may be the cradle of democracy but these days it's getting a harsh lesson in its limitations. Right now, streets are filled with protesters but there are no lines at ATMs because the banks are all closed. Everyone is waiting to see what's going to happen when the people vote this week-end on a referendum that will decide, essentially, if the country is going to remain in the Euro and accept the ongoing edicts of "the troika" or if it's going to "Grexit. 9≥ " (The troika is the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund which has been lending the the country money for the past five years on the condition that it engage in the metaphorical human sacrifice of its citizens.)
MSNBC’s Velshi and Ruhle: Neither “legitimate economists” nor “recent history” back up ideas behind Trump’s tax plan Ali Velshi: "We have to note that this tax cutting is based on an unsupported assumption that doing so will somehow speed up the economy at such a rate that there will not be any increase to the deficit"
Robert Reich: Donald Trump & Jeb Bush Plans Would Slash Taxes for the 1 Percent
On the campaign trail, Republican candidates are proposing massive new tax cuts for the rich despite growing economic inequality across the country. On Monday, Donald Trump unveiled a plan to lower the income tax rate to the lowest level since 1931, cut corporate taxes and abolish the estate tax. Meanwhile, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has proposed broad tax cuts for individuals and corporations as part of his economic plan. Under the plan, Bush himself would save millions of dollars in taxes. We speak to Robert Reich. He served as labor secretary under President Clinton and is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His newest book is “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few.”
Fox News does its propaganda marketing to push the lies (lying to push thier leaders agenda, no matter what it is, seems to be the Fox News mandate)...
Fox & Friends casts Trump as "Robin Hood" amid reports he may refresh tax agenda Stuart Varney: Rumored Trump tax proposal "a complete reversal of everything you have ever thought about from the Republican Party"
Charles Gasparino: The middle class doesn't pay a lot of tax, so we should cut taxes for the richGasparino: "It sounds good to say let's do a middle class tax cut" but "they don't pay a lot of the taxes"
Fox host: Democrats are afraid of tax reform because the economy will grow so much that they won’t win any elections Brian Kilmeade: "Do you think there might be on some level a fear among Democrats that if tax reform is passed for America, the economy will grow at such a rate it will be impossible for them to win an election?"
MSNBC cuts from Trump's speech on tax reform to remind viewers he's a hypocrite Stephanie Ruhle: "I have to say they're stunning to hear the president talk about the honor and beauty of American-made craftsmanship where we have to remind you, both the president and his daughter ... do not make any of their products in the United States"
MSNBC hosts offer a perfect cable news template for covering Trump’s tax cut charade Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle dismantle arguments that Trump plan will benefit the economy
The hosts then brought in CNBC correspondent John Harwood to discuss the tax plan, where he, too, stressed that the Trump plan “is simply not a tax proposal that is geared toward the middle class” and reminded viewers that Trump’s strategy resembles the failed tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush. Obama administration press secretary Josh Earnest joined the conversation, concluding the segment by noting that none of Trump’s rally goers are motivated by reduced taxes for the rich and corporations:
After thoroughly dismantling the Trump administration’s tax agenda, the program turned to conservative policy analyst Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who also noted that the plan, as it stands today, would be unlikely to fulfill Trump’s promises of increased economic growth and would end up adding to federal budget deficits. At the end of the segment, Earnest once again noted the “internal inconsistency” at play when Trump, after recently arguing the rich don’t need a tax cut, proposes a plan that gives them one:
Even Fox’s Chris Wallace is pointing out “there is no evidence tax cuts pay for themselves”
On MSNBC, economist Jared Bernstein dismantles Trump administration excuses for ending DACA Bernstein: AG Jeff Sessions' economic arguments for destroying DACA "veered from misleading into lie"
Economist Jeffrey Sachs slams Trump's "unbelievable" and "shambolic" tax agenda Sachs: "This is Donald Trump trying to end the estate tax so he can pass along his wealth to his children"
Taxes are higher than ever! Whites face discrimination! How do we combat alternative reality?Conservatives’ false beliefs about race and economics are related — understanding how is crucial to defeating them