2012 Republican Nomination

[Ben Kenobi]

All over the map, sure, but the Polairs star to which his compass always is to tax cuts for the most wealthy (the underlying assumption is that they will take their tax cuts and create jobs for the rest of us). So, the one constant is his kleidescope of positions is a economic theory that constantly fails to produce positive results for the vast majority of Americans.

What's wrong with that theory? The concerns have been his deviations not his devotion.

Soak the rich has been a failure everywhere, if you reduce incentives for people to work harder and keep more of their money, then they will do just that, work less, or hide more. Both result in fewer government revenues, and a worse economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't think you'll be able to blame Palin for McCain's loss. Rather, it's McCain's embracing Hoover's theory of Trickle-Down Economics.

Hopefully, we won't see it again for a long time.

Hoover's theory?

Me thinks your history is a bit rusty. Or it was just an ignorant hit & run:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Economy

In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[25] conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.

For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[26]

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[27] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

I think its about time to get off President Hoover's back.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think its about time to get off President Hoover's back.

No. Hoover's policies were disasterous. Like McCain and Bush, he believed that if the government would help corporations and producers enough that any problem could be solved. He was a shamefull supply-sider, when it was most obvious that the problem was lack of demand (income).

[conmcb25]

Sarah Palin since she will lose in 2012 anyway. The election will be good for some more laughs then

[Ben Kenobi]

No mention of Smoot-Hawley?

If you are going to get on Hoover's case you have to get on him for signing the tariff.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No mention of Smoot-Hawley?

If you are going to get on Hoover's case you have to get on him for signing the tariff.

While Smoot-Hawley was not a solution in itself, it didn't do much to contribute to the problem of oversupply. The problem, like the one we have today, was that the economy was out of balance.

So do you think Smoot-Hawley contributed to that imbalance or do you have some other theory about why it was so important?

[Ben Kenobi]

It killed off international trade. You don't solve oversupply by destroying half of your exports.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It killed off international trade. You don't solve oversupply by destroying half of your exports.

The issue is net exports. If the policy increased net exports then it would have raised prices in the US. That would have created jobs.

Net exports didn't change much, but they did decrease by a small amt.

Another issue is whether trading partners would have raised tariffs regardless of Smoot-Hawley. Britain surely would have raise tariffs regardless, however there is evidence that Canada actually retaliated against the US for raising tariffs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No. Hoover's policies were disasterous. Like McCain and Bush, he believed that if the government would help corporations and producers enough that any problem could be solved. He was a shamefull supply-sider, when it was most obvious that the problem was lack of demand (income).

We obviously didn't read the article about the vastly increased taxes he put on the rich, did we? Nor about one of Roosevelt's brain trust saying the New Deal was based off of what Hoover had started. And, of course, FDR slamming Hoover for deficit spending.

How many supply siders raise taxes on the rich and corporations during an economic downturn?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


We obviously didn't read the article about the vastly increased taxes he put on the rich, did we? Nor about one of Roosevelt's brain trust saying the New Deal was based off of what Hoover had started. And, of course, FDR slamming Hoover for deficit spending.

How many supply siders raise taxes on the rich and corporations during an economic downturn?

Raising taxes on the rich isn't actually demand-side economics. The rich spend money on consumer goods too. The reason why he was a supply-sider, was because he was religiously opposed to giving out what he considered aid in order to increase consumer spending. Also, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was based on supply-side theory, giving loans to businesses and other producers.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Raising taxes on the rich isn't actually demand-side economics.

How do you suggest demand-siders pump money into consumer demand without raising taxes to pay for it?

[Naked Gents Rut]

You can always borrow from foreigners. Some lefty blogs are currently proposing that the U.S. issue debt to pay for infrastructure investments that will push the country out of recession.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The issue is net exports. If the policy increased net exports then it would have raised prices in the US. That would have created jobs.

Net exports didn't change much, but they did decrease by a small amt.

Another issue is whether trading partners would have raised tariffs regardless of Smoot-Hawley. Britain surely would have raise tariffs regardless, however there is evidence that Canada actually retaliated against the US for raising tariffs.

Britain was still in the middel of a protectionist/free trade argument (it had been going for years) Smoot-Hawley certainly didn't help the free traders.

Britain going back on to Gold was probably more damaging than Smoot Hawley though

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
You can always borrow from foreigners. Some lefty blogs are currently proposing that the U.S. issue debt to pay for infrastructure investments that will push the country out of recession.

Of course, but that's based on the assumption that foreign creditors won't be every bit as crippled by the same financial crisis that supposedly necessitates deficit spending in the first place, and would be willing to spare those hundreds of billions while their own populations start getting starved and unstable. I'm not wild about staking national survival on that assumption, no matter how reliable of a reputation treasury bonds may have had in the past.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Also, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was based on supply-side theory, giving loans to businesses and other producers.

As well as distributing funds for public works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Relief_and_Construction_Act

It created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which released funds for public works projects across the country. The Brooklyn Navy Yard received an allotment of $880,000, marked for specific projects such as $215,000 for repairs and the maintenance of roofs, waterfront quays and docks, and Yard's railroad system. The biggest chunk, $855,000, was designated for a major overhaul of the power plant, to put in a new turbo generator, piping, boilers, and other engines. The Act was designed to be a temporary means of providing employment and all the positions created in the navy yard to service the projects were therefore classified as temporary. In another preview of New Deal spending, the government even authorized the Act funds to start building a number of destroyers in the navy yards.