What's the differences the Republicans and the Democrats regarding the budgeting?

Congress is responsible for spending. Educate yourself before you make ignorant threads.

 

Said this in another thread, and it continues to boggle my mind that conservatives who claim to be "pro-business" still haven't learned one of the fundamental rules of marketing -- this is Business School 101:

You can't succeed in today's business world by making products and then trying to find buyers for them. You succeed by finding out what buyers want, then making what they want and selling it to them at the price that they want it.

That, in a nutshell, is why supply-side/trickle down/tax cuts for job creators/whatever you want to call it is a complete joke. It is the reason why you will never balance a budget by slashing programs and cutting taxes, and it is the reason why "austerity" programs will never work -- Europe obstinately refuses to wake up to this reality and unfortunately may not do so until one of their own gives up the ghost (Greece).

The PROBLEM is that the people of Wall Street have figured out that it is easier to create wealth for themselves out of derivatives and speculation than it is to actually create wealth by investing in manufacturing of goods/services. So they lobby as hard as they can against anything that diminishes the wealth they create through this avenue (read: low taxes, lower regulation). They brainwash the uneducated masses by telling them that they need low taxes and lower regulation to incentivize them to create jobs, but the truth is that they need those policies to maximize the money they bank through rampant financial speculation. Real output will never increase as a result of tax cuts for the "job creators" because there is only one thing that can stimulate production in a real economy: INCREASED DEMAND.

When you slash and burn, you destroy demand and then pray it will increase. It is utter stupidity. This is simple logic. Why don't people get it? If you want recovery, you give poor/middle class people money to buy things. When they buy things, the "job creators" are forced to create jobs so that they can make more profits off the things they sell. The people the job creators hire spend their money buying more things, and you create organic growth. Then you withdraw the stimulus and balance your books through well-thought out tax and fiscal policy.

On the other hand, you give a rich man tax cuts, he's not going to go spend it to buy things. He's not going to invest it in production either because there is no demand for that production. He's going to do one of two things: speculate with it, or stash it in the bank if he's scared.

The problem with the "we have too much debt/deficit is too high" message is that the idea that it can be reduced in the long term by just slashing and burning is utter STUPIDITY. You balance a budget by raising taxes where they can be raised without damaging the economy, and generating economic growth so that revenue receipts can return to a level where your books are balanced again. Raising taxes on the wealthy does not damage economic growth because it does not negatively impact demand, and it does not negatively impact supply either because a reasonable tax rate is NEVER going to stop a provider of goods and services from making a profit where the demand exists.

Creative destruction is an utter fantasy. The difference between Republicans and Democrats on budgeting is that one party lives in a fantasy land where everything gets destroyed and the "confidence fairy" flies around and creates happy economic butterflies for everyone, and the other party lives in the real world where growth is driven by demand at the retail end.

There's your education on what the issue with budgeting/fiscal policy is.

 

End welfare....


....for the rich and for big corps

 

Republicans spend and cut taxes. Democrats Spend and raise taxes.

 

Except for the last 22 years, democratic presidents have actually dropped tax rates, even at the high end. I guess that will end if we reach a grand bargain though, at least for the top 1-2% of earners.

To the title question, and not the completely different question in the OP: the difference boils down to whether or not you need to increase or decrease revenue when you are trying to balance your budget. One side wants to decrease revenue (modestly, if they are serious about closing loopholes), and one side is proposing increasing revenue (modestly.)

 

except ronald reagan rasied taxes 3 times to help cut into the debt

 

Last time I looked Sherwood forest was a fairytale.

 

That has nothing to do with his post, which is historically accurate, and economically sound.

 

What are you talking about?

His post says very plainly that they way to fix things is to give money to the poor and middle class and to tax the wealthy. Sounds like Sherwood Forest to me.

 

Not as much of a fairlytale as supply side economics that you necessarily endorse here.

 

Yes, and his post has a history of working.

Though not really just giving money, but giving jobs. That's right, the government just created and handed out jobs during the depression. It worked.

 

A tax I might endorse would be one where the tax dollars are actually ear marked for the deficit. I would endorse it right after the government ballanced the budget.

I have a problem with overspend then tax. I would prefer that some fiscal responsibility were shown before asking for more money.

 

Then you should be angry at the Republicans who turned down a deal where for every dollar in tax revenue increase there would be $10 in spending cuts.

They could have had that, but blew it.

 

So you'd prefer the government remove money from the private sector and just hoard it? You do realize that's basically just destroying money.

Like you, I'm no fan of wasteful or unproductive spending, but there's a reason why Wynne Godley (who incidentally was a veritable macro-economic genius) said that a government cannot sustain endless budget surpluses without significantly harming the private sector.

 

What is the name of this deal and when was it proposed in congress?

 

The offer was made during the presidential debates and they all said they wouldn't do such a deal.

Bowles Simpson made approximately a 3-1 deal of cuts vs. tax revenue increase.

 

Ah, so I should be angry with Republicans for not agreeing to a deal in a debate that wasn't real and was never proposed in any form that would have any affect on anything.

Ok, I'm mad as HELL!!!

 

If it shows where the party's priorities are, then yes.

 

If you didn't endorse it until after the government balanced the budget, then you couldn't earmark a tax increase to the deficit because in a balanced budget, there is no deficit.

Did you mean to earmark the tax increase for debt?

Despite what you have been told, spending increases haven't been that big lately unless you are looking at the combination of spending increases and revenue decreases at the beginning of the Bush Presidency.