Here is Rick Carroll, Republican candidate for the 4th District, being set up in the puppet chair, having his strings pulled… Dare you to try not blinking before he does…
http://www.delawarefirst.org/government_and_politics/gop-weekly-message-september-17-2010/
The word “response” in his video title, is a misnomer. There is no mention of Markell, and barely any mention of the able Democratic leadership that brought open government finally to Legislative Hall. There is only one line about…”Democrats in Washington.”
So let’s get their logic. We are going to send Rick Carroll to Dover to fix what Obama has undone for the wealthiest 1% of Americans!
Here is the message.
America is overtaxed, over regulated, and undermined… hmm…
Over taxed?
This link is the chart that proves every Republican platform that says cutting taxes is what we need…. is a lie… Cutting taxes is not what we need… CUTTING TAXES KILLS ECONOMIES…
Republican response… Blah, Blah, Blah…
kavipsian economist responds with a question… (One that should be asked in every town meeting by the way) … if what you say is true, why is it that when implemented, like in the 1920’s, the Bush 1 years, and this past Republican administration, we get terrible Depressions and Recessions, and when taxes and regulations are increased, as they were under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton, we get richer, we grow, we have jobs with raises, and we even lower the National Debt and get a budget surplus? What you are saying goes against what history tells us? If it didn’t work 3 times, why will it finally work the fourth?
(Where’s Eileen when you really need her….)
Republicans: “blah, blah, blah..”
kavipsian Economist: “show me where it’s true…”
Republican: We can’t show you because there is no evidence that it works yet. That is exactly why we need to keep trying. All our funding comes from the top 1% of Americans and if we say what you’re implying, they will cut of all our funding.
kavipsian Economist: ” So, you are agreeing it isn’t true?”
Republican: I can’t answer that question because of financial obligations but you can…. Is there any historical proof that cutting taxes grows the economy?
kavipsian Economist: “No.”
Republican: “There you go, you just answered the question by yourself; now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go drum up some more contributions. This recession has cut into our money supply…”
So why when you give the wealthy more money, does the economy falter? Because you don’t control how they spend it. Which is preferable: investing in America and getting a 3% return, or investing overseas and getting a 17% return? That’s why giving the wealthy more money hurts America.
Now why does heavier taxing grow the economy? Because you are controlling how they spend it. Which is preferable. Work hard, and pay the Federal Government 40% of all you make, or… invest most of that back in your business, lower reported profit, and pay 40% on the little bit of income you report, if you report any at all… This is what happened from the end of WWII up to the Kennedy Tax cut. And happened again, immediately after Bill Clinton took office….
It works like this. To keep my money out of the IRS, I expand my business. I pay people with money I would normally pay the IRS so it really doesn’t cost me to do so… Those people spend, requiring more businesses to hire just to accommodate that extra spending,
which continues as a domino effect causing jobs to open up, which of course sends money to the Federal government. What Clinton was so masterful at, and didn’t happen on any previous Democrats watch, was as more people got back to work, he cut back on Federal Spending . After all, you really don’t need it to stimulate the economy when the private sector is roaring.
As more people work, more people spend, requiring more workers, resulting in more people spending, requiring even more workers, resulting in even more spending… requiring… And eventually, the debt gets paid down. Those receiving the cash, now need to invest it somewhere…. which causes more jobs, which causes more spending.
In sound byte from. Republicans suck money out of the economy; Democrats pump it back in….
Who benefits from Rick Carrolls spouted philosophy? Only those people who have so much money, they’d rather invest in the 3rd world than put it back into America.
It’s happened 3 times already. They’re fools if they think we’ll let them do it to us again…. The funny thing is, we all remember the great Clinton years. Let’s do what he did, expire the tax cuts, raise the rate to 40% for the top 1%, and watch them scurry to invest that money back into our economy.
And Delaware? Since the Democrats wiped out the local Republican party, Delaware spends less per it’s GSP (Gross State Product) than any other US State…. You can’t cut spending any more… We are the best, and that is solely because we have a Democrat for a Governor, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House.
If one looks at this chart, they find that the heavily Democratic states spend much less per GSP than the heavily Republican ones …
If the media would do their job, and ask Republicans why,… what they are proposing ruins this nation each time it is implemented, … there would be no Republican Party. It’s all based on a lie…
No?
Prove it… Your history bets you can’t.
kavips 
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
September 30, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Duffy
America is overtaxed, over regulated, and undermined… hmm…
Over taxed?
This link is the chart that proves every Republican platform that says cutting taxes is what we need…. is a lie… Cutting taxes is not what we need… CUTTING TAXES KILLS ECONOMIES…
The chart you linked to shows marginal rates while germane is hardly comprehensive.
Taxes are a drag on economies. Always. By their very definition they are taking money out of the market economy at a determined rate. By your logic we should tax everyone 100% and we’d have a booming economy. That is nonsense on stilts.
kavipsian economist responds with a question… (One that should be asked in every town meeting by the way) … if what you say is true, why is it that when implemented, like in the 1920′s, the Bush 1 years, and this past Republican administration, we get terrible Depressions and Recessions, and when taxes and regulations are increased, as they were under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton, we get richer, we grow, we have jobs with raises, and we even lower the National Debt and get a budget surplus? What you are saying goes against what history tells us? If it didn’t work 3 times, why will it finally work the fourth?
You’re assuming that the job of government is to create a surplus. A budget surplus simply means they’ve overtaxed. They have collected more money than they needed to cover spending.
Each of the Presidents you cited were operating under very very different economic trends and business cycles. Lumping them together isn’t instructive nor accurate.
kavipsian Economist: “show me where it’s true…”
Sure. There are tons of studies about the Reagan years but you don’t want to hear about those. So there’s this about the 1920’s: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015
I’m sure you’ll deride this moron too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Republican: I can’t answer that question because of financial obligations but you can…. Is there any historical proof that cutting taxes grows the economy?
kavipsian Economist: “No.”
As long as you ignore Ireland, Hong Kong, Dubai, India, Hungary, Latvia, Costa Rica, China and the US.
So why when you give the wealthy more money, does the economy falter?
It doesn’t. Provide evidence that it does.
Because you don’t control how they spend it.
That’s the rub for the Left. They can’t control how you spend your money.
Which is preferable: investing in America and getting a 3% return, or investing overseas and getting a 17% return?
If you know of any place you’re getting 17% on your money you’re likely incurring huge risk or you’re operating in a stable, low tax, low regulation environment. You can’t have all three.
That’s why giving the wealthy more money hurts America.
No, it hurts government spending. Those people keeping their own money are Americans. If they have more money than last year, they are better off and that helps America. You seem to think that the choice is simply binary. That either I keep my money here and it will be used for good or I put it somewhere else and that is not good. The economy went global a few years ago when you were out or something. It’s created a big interconnected smear where butterfly effects are magnified by government regulations that are not agile enough to respond to market forces.
Now why does heavier taxing grow the economy? Because you are controlling how they spend it.
See? We’re back to control. That’s what this is all about. You want the state to control me and how I spend my money. (not me of course but “rich” people. they’re the bad guys) I want people to have more control over their lives.
Which is preferable. Work hard, and pay the Federal Government 40% of all you make, or… invest most of that back in your business, lower reported profit, and pay 40% on the little bit of income you report, if you report any at all… This is what happened from the end of WWII up to the Kennedy Tax cut. And happened again, immediately after Bill Clinton took office….
That makes no sense. Most people in this country work for someone else so they don’t have the choice to invest it back into their business. Investing back in your business is not a tax avoidance strategy either. It may work for 1099 people or Sub S people but that’s a complicated matter and one that a large majority of America doesn’t have as an option.
It works like this. To keep my money out of the IRS, I expand my business. I pay people with money I would normally pay the IRS so it really doesn’t cost me to do so
You’re ignoring opportunity cost and margins. I have to pay my bills so I have to have a certain income. If you raise my tax rate, I have to take more money out of my business to pay the same bills. That means I have to either increase my margin or my volume. Also, business never pay taxes no matter what the rate. They just build it into the cost of their goods or services. The consumer pays the taxes in the form of price elacticity.
… Those people spend, requiring more businesses to hire just to accommodate that extra spending,
which continues as a domino effect causing jobs to open up, which of course sends money to the Federal government.
You have this exactly backwards. You put more money into the hands of the taxpayers and they have more disposable income to either spend or save. Either one stimulates the economy.
What Clinton was so masterful at, and didn’t happen on any previous Democrats watch, was as more people got back to work, he cut back on Federal Spending .
Why would he do that? If taxes are an economic engine why not tax and spend more? You’re contradicting yourself.
Clinton enjoyed a great business cycle and had a Republican Congress that constrained his spending (until they went ‘nanners under Bush)
As more people work, more people spend, requiring more workers, resulting in more people spending, requiring even more workers, resulting in even more spending… requiring… And eventually, the debt gets paid down.
one would hope but usually they just spend more on useless pet projects, cronyism and vote buying schemes. See: Byrd, Robert C.
Those receiving the cash, now need to invest it somewhere…. which causes more jobs, which causes more spending.
Except for evil rich people who hide it overseas or something. Wait! Won’t your model create more rich people? Oh noes! How do we keep them from being rich?
In sound byte from. Republicans suck money out of the economy; Democrats pump it back in….
Correction: Government sucks money out of the economy. Government cannot create wealth. They do not have any money they take yours. If they make their own it create inflation which devalues the money you have. See: Zimbabwe
Who benefits from Rick Carrolls spouted philosophy? Only those people who have so much money, they’d rather invest in the 3rd world than put it back into America.
Nobody invests in the third world. Given the choice between high risk/high reward and low risk/low reward most people choose to put about 70-80% on the latter. The main reason rich people move money offshore is to protect their money from seizure by the taxman. Create a climate of low taxation and you’ll draw those dollars back home and you’ll have more of them to tax. Lower margin but higher volume. Likewise you reduce the cheat rate. When it’s more costly to cheat or move it off shore than it is to just pay it, people will just pay it.
It’s happened 3 times already. They’re fools if they think we’ll let them do it to us again…. The funny thing is, we all remember the great Clinton years. Let’s do what he did, expire the tax cuts, raise the rate to 40% for the top 1%, and watch them scurry to invest that money back into our economy.
Again, no. They have accountants and lawyers to help them avoid taxes. They will vote with their feet. Maryland tried to raise taxes on millionaires and all they got was fewer millionaires and less in their coffers.
And Delaware? Since the Democrats wiped out the local Republican party, Delaware spends less per it’s GSP (Gross State Product) than any other US State….
Not true. We’re actually #4 per capita
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/287.html
Also, that chart you linked to is labeled “guesstimate” which means “pipe dream”
You can’t cut spending any more… We are the best, and that is solely because we have a Democrat for a Governor, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House.
That assumes that all spending is at 100% efficiency and that there are no unnecessary government jobs/programs or projects. Even you know that’s not true. Also, if you’re in a state run top to bottom by Democrats and a Federal government that controls the White House and Congress and has the most fawning, servile press in modern history why are things not booming? I’ll save you the trouble: Bush, Iraq war, blah blah blah.
If one looks at this chart, they find that the heavily Democratic states spend much less per GSP than the heavily Republican ones …
Wrong again. #1 is Alaska (R), 2. is Wyoming (D), 3. is Vermont (R), 4 is Delaware (D), 5. is NY (D), 6. is Hawaii (D)