Here's why the republicans wanted to keep you in the dark about their healthcare plan:

Discussion in 'Current Events & Politics' started by Barbarian, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    I just showed you Brownback's attempt to do that was a disaster. His idea that cutting taxes would make the state richer is like the guy who quit his job, reasoning that he had a credit card to pay for things.

    You can't spend yourself rich. Accept it and go on.
     
  2. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,305
    Christian:
    Yes
  3. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    So did Jerry Brown in California. Bond rating went up; state economy grew faster than most other states. Supply side strategies, on the other hand, threw Kansas into a death spiral. Fortunately, even the republicans realized that they couldn't continue to try spending themselves rich, and intervened to end Brownback's social experiment.
     
  4. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,305
    Christian:
    Yes
    Florida ,florida

    Balenced budget ,it's not hard .

    If you read it balenced the budget and the Size of it went up ,and it wasn't in the red.sales taxes were temporary, and reduced as needed.

    You like spending by the Government, then vote fir a teacher raise of 300 per hour and any government employee half that.by your logic the money will be there as they will spend there.Kansas is not the discussion
     
  5. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    3,685
    You and your liberal buddies live and die by the tax and spend mantra always believing it will bring prosperity to everyone if we just tax and spend a little bit more; so far abject failure. Just accept the failure and move on; you and your liberal friends will have plenty more economic failures visiting you in the future so don't fret about it.
     
    jasonc likes this.
  6. Uncle Siggy

    Uncle Siggy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,349
    Location:
    OHIO
    [​IMG]
     
    jasonc, reba and civilwarbuff like this.
  7. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    29,305
    Christian:
    Yes
  8. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    Notice that Governor Brown turned California around by cutting spending, as well as by raising taxes. Doesn't cutting taxes increase government revenue?

    Well, no, most of the time, it doesn't:

    In 2012, Brownback and his Republican supporters began an "experiment" to cut taxes sharply. I put experiment in quotation marks because an experiment usually suggests some uncertainty around the outcome. To economists, there was never any uncertainty about what was going to happen: When the government cuts taxes, revenues fall.


    But for four decades, Republicans have been pretending to the contrary in the face of all evidence and analysis. Brownback argued that the Kansas tax cuts would attract new businesses and inspire Kansans to work harder – so much so that revenues would actually go up. This phenomenon is known as the "Laffer curve." To Republican ideologues, this is the rationale for massive tax cuts that pay for themselves. To economists, it is the equivalent of pretending you can lose weight by eating more ice cream. You cannot cut your taxes and have the revenue, too.

    ...

    Economists were not surprised by what happened after the Kansas tax cut "experiment." Revenues fell $700 million the first year. The state's bond rating was downgraded. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state's schools were being inadequately funded. With legislators facing a $900 million deficit this year, they finally decided to raise revenue the old-fashioned way: by raising taxes rather than cutting them.

    Brownback vetoed the legislature's tax increases. A bipartisan coalition overrode his veto. My hope is that this story is bigger than Kansas. Might it signal a dent in the Republican commitment to "faith-based economics" – the erroneous belief (resurrected once again by President Donald Trump) that cutting taxes can somehow raise government revenue? More broadly, might mainstream Republicans begin to believe that data and expertise can be constructive tools rather than annoyances?
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thom...from-governor-brownbacks-kansas-tax-cut-folly


    Here's the question conservatives almost always get wrong:

    Q: "If you pull back on the stick, what will the airplane do?"

    Supply-side Answer: "The airplane will rapidly gain altitude."

    Real-world Answer: "It depends on what the airplane is doing at the time."

    If this puzzles you, we've located the problem.

    Kansas republicans finally accepted the reality that supply-side policies were destroying Kansas. Only one thing they could do:

    Yep. They overrode Brownback's vetos and restored some fiscal sanity to the state.

    You and your conservative friends will have plenty more economic failures visiting you in the future so don't fret about it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  9. Mike S

    Mike S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    10,083
    Location:
    Connecticut
    You clearly don't understand what a Laffer curve is. There is NEVER an argument that lowering taxes ALWAYS results in increased tax revenue, only that it MAY. If the current tax rate is anywhere in the range from points Z to T on the chart below, lowering the tax rate WILL result in increased tax revenue.


    [​IMG]
     
  10. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    I have yet to see Artie Laffer find a tax rate that was on the left side of his curve. Somehow, as in Kansas, he always finds that they are on the right side. He was the advisor for Brownback; Kansas is his baby. And it turns out, that instead of being at C, as he diagnosed, Kansas was at B. So the drastic cut in taxes put them back at A, with drastically falling revenues.

    And that is the rest of the story.

    The fact that no tax/revenue curve is ever a nice smooth parabola is another issue. Here's a correction based on his theories:

    [​IMG]
    Some economists call it the Laugher Curve.
     
  11. Mike S

    Mike S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    10,083
    Location:
    Connecticut

    I don't know what "economists" you [ay attention to, but, you are clearly wrong again. Illinois and Connecticut are finding out what raising taxes in already high-tax states does to economic activity. High income people, and businesses, leave the state.

    "HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH)–Connecticut’s state budget woes are compounding with collections from the state income tax collapsing, despite two high-end tax hikes in the past six years." - http://wtnh.com/2017/04/28/income-tax-revenue-collapses-malloy-says-taxing-the-rich-doesnt-work/
     
    jasonc likes this.
  12. Uncle Siggy

    Uncle Siggy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,349
    Location:
    OHIO
  13. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    Q: If you push forward on the stick, what will the airplane do?
    Simplistic answer: It will dive and increase speed.
    Realistic answer: It depends on what the airplane is doing at the time.

    What does this mean? It means that a "one-size-fits-all" approach like the Laffer curve won't work in the real world most of the time.

    Reagan and Roosevelt cut taxes and increased spending, and the economy in each case took off.

    For a while. Roosevelt, by 1940, was looking at ending most of the New Deal programs. Because Keynes had pointed out the important fact you can't go on forever like that. By his second term, Reagan had to massively increase taxes on the middle class to avoid disaster. And it wasn't enough. He just passed on some of the worst problems to George H.W. Bush. At some point, you have to get back to spending within your means.
     
  14. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    If a Republican bill cannot get through the Senate, McConnell is already talking about a bipartisan effort that would involve cooperation with the Democrats. And of course the Democrats will want to keep as much of Obamacare as they possibly can.


    So at the end of the day it looks like we are going to end up with either “Obamacare”, “Obamacare 2.0” or “a new and improved version of Obamacare”.


    Did we really spend all of that time, effort and energy getting Republicans elected for this?

    Yep. Unless you plan on disenfrachising about 60% of American voters.


    Rock and a hard place.

     
  15. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    Just 12% of Americans support the Senate Republican health care plan, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, amid a roiling debate over whether the GOP will deliver on its signature promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

    In the survey, taken Saturday through Tuesday, a 53% majority say Congress should either leave the law known as Obamacare alone or work to fix its problems while keeping its framework intact.

    But the dilemma for the GOP is this: Eight in 10 Republicans support repeal, and close to a third say the law should be repealed even if a replacement health care plan isn't ready yet. Just 11% of independents and 2% of Democrats feel that way.

    The divide between the demands of the GOP base and the skepticism of the broader electorate helps explain why Senate Republican leaders have been forced to delay a vote as they scramble for the 50 votes needed to pass a measure.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...care-trump-senate-health-care-plan/103249346/
     
  16. Mike S

    Mike S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    10,083
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Well, I'm glad you at least recognize the need to control spending, but that doesn't change the dynamic represented in a Laffer curve. I've just given you an example of that dynamic. There are others.
     
  17. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    Well, let's take a look...
    [​IMG]
    Here is a simple graph, showing tax rate on the x axis and state revenue on the y axis. Brownback found the state with revenue and rate at x,y. He reduced taxes to x1 and revenue went to y1. On which side oft the Laffer curve did he move? To the left, or to the right? And did cutting taxes raise revenues as he predicted?
     
  18. Mike S

    Mike S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    10,083
    Location:
    Connecticut

    LOL. :lol You're trying a little too hard on a subject I think you don'/t understand very well.
     
    civilwarbuff and jasonc like this.
  19. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    24,568
    Christian:
    Yes
    It wasn't that hard a question. Notice X,Y is where Kansas was when Brownback took office. He implemented Laffer's ideas, cutting taxes to help the economy, which would also raise revenue.

    His adjustment of X1 led to revenue of Y1.

    1. According to Laffer's idea, which side of the curve was Kansas on before the tax cut?
    2. Did cutting taxes raise revenue, as Laffer predicted?

    Edit: Follow-up question. Can you show us any case where Laffer found the government to be on the left side of his curve?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017
  20. Mike S

    Mike S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    10,083
    Location:
    Connecticut
    So, despite having been told several times that your constant responses bringing up Kansas aren' relevant to their comments, you can't let go of your one data point. You at least have finally moved on from your "laugher curve" nonsense enough to admit that there actually IS a point of diminishing returns to raising tax rate, even if Gov. Brownback didn't get it right. That's an improvement over your generalized nonsense of attacking the irrefutable economic dynamic of the Laffer curve. Maybe there's hope.


    BTW, a bit of information for you on red states vs blue states fiscal conditions:

    "According to the latest ranking of states by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the most fiscally sound states in the nation are all low-tax, GOP strongholds, while the 10 least-solvent states are almost all high-tax and heavily Democratic." - http://www.investors.com/politics/c...ican-worst-run-mostly-democratic-study-finds/

    Notice, Kansas is not among the mostly Democratic ten worst run states.


    [​IMG]
     
    jasonc likes this.

Share This Page