Republicans Only: What should our Party be?

[paul718]

I think people still like those tax cuts, my friend.

Our grandchildren will love them too, it will give them something to remember us by when they are slaving away in a Chinese-owned factory trying to pay off the debt we created.

I blame that on spending, rather than tax cuts. 

[paul718]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

[paul718]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes.

 

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.  (Edit:  I think I'm looking at this too simplistically.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know if you're joking with that, but if you're honestly implying that most social conservatives are racists, and are in favor of tax cuts purely so that black people don't get government assistance, I would have to disagree.  It might have more to do with their political affiliation than anything (i.e., social conservative --> votes Republican --> thinks tax cuts are good).  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you 100%.  My only issue with your initial post was when you said "tax cuts = handouts".  

[paul718]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

That's great.  But if the government doesn't take enough from you to pay the bills that you co-signed for by being a citizen of this country, then what do you think happens?

No, I know.  I think I might've taken Einzige too literally when he said "tax cuts are handouts". 

Einzige:  You're saying that tax cuts have the same effect as a welfare check, right?

[paul718]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in increases in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

[paul718]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

I thought that's what supply-side economics is.  Lower marginal rates, lower corporate and capital gains taxes,  remove barriers to trade --> reward production, increase foreign investment, increase consumer spending --> more GDP --> more revenue.  What cog in the wheel am I missing?

[paul718]

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.  I see your point now, and agree with it.