Scientific empirical evidence now available to prove that supply side

[Cleita]

economies are less prosperous than welfare states. Since the article copyright that appears in Scientific American doesn't allow me to copy any text, you can read it here:

Scientific American: Welfare States, beyond Ideology
Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in... more

Here are some highlights though. The article compares Scandanavian welfare state countries to Anglo-Saxon supply side economies like our and suprisingly find that they welfare economies are also more prosperous that the supply side, free market economies.

So now that the evidence is available, that conservatism doesn't work for the whole of society, why are Republicans still beating that old drum?

[Nikki Stone 1]

1. It was never about prosperity for society. It was a transfer of wealth

to the wealthy.

[ThomCat]

5. I agree. They don't have any concern for most people.

Neocons and their ilk seem to openly dismiss the welfare of large portions of society, squeezing every last penny of wealth and productivity out of them, and then blaming them for being poor. Their concern is only with the wealthy, preserving and maximizing that wealth.

When we say "society" we mean everyone. When they say "society" they mean only the rich, famous and powerful.
x(

[applegrove]

21. Vs. a transfer of wealth every generation..from the lucky to the unlucky.

It is the only thing that ever makes for a middle class. Duh!!!!!!!!

[Nikki Stone 1]

28. Precisely. They sold supply side by saying

that the wealthy would invest their added monies in factories, new companies, resulting in a lot more jobs. What a lot of those bastards did was use the money for corporate raiding, waging hostile takeovers of competitors, and destroying companies and jobs.

[indepat]

2. Just another Repug lie: the proof has always been in the pungent pudding

they've cooked for us.

[MrCoffee]

3. Why? Because idiots think it's got a good beat and they can dance to it.

and any excuse to steal from the poor to give to the rich is a good one, isn't it?

[hfojvt]

4. nobody talks about supply side anymore

they still are on the mantra, though, of 'tax cuts spur economic growth' which, of course, they do in the short run. Keynesian economics is based on deficit spending to spur the economy. There are two ways to get a deficit, either increase spending or reduce revenue. However, this inverse Keynesianism is not nearly as effective.

They are also big into monetarism, which makes them hypocrites and liars. They constantly invoke fear of tax increases, which supposedly would kill economic growth :scared: while at the same time, the FED is increasing interest rates in order to slow the growth of the economy.

[demwing]

7. Same thing, isn't it?

The theory that tax cuts spur economic growth is really just what supply-siders were saying, or am I wrong on that?

[hfojvt]

16. not exactly. Supply side theory said that tax cuts would spur economic

growth because of SUPPLY side effects. That more investment would create more jobs, etc. Bush and his gang have repeatedly stressed tax cuts as creating economic growth because of the DEMAND side. Examples from Bush speeches:

"My plan is pro-growth. It gives our economy a jump-start by leaving more money in the hands of those who have earned it." Feb 17, 2001

"The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately: 92 million Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money. A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 per year. (Applause.) Our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses." Jan. 28, 2003

"...the economy is getting stronger. Inflation is low; interest rates are low; manufacturing is up; home ownership is strong. The entrepreneurial spirit in America is alive and well, and one of the reasons why I think we're doing so good here in America is because of the tax relief we passed. It's because people have more money in their pockets. (Applause.) 4 Mar. 2004


"I look forward to signing the economic recovery bill soon. The principle of the bill is pretty simple, that we believe the more money people have in their pockets, the more likely it is somebody is going to be able to find work in America. In other words, the more money somebody has, it means somebody is more likely to demand a good or a service, which means somebody will produce a good or a service, which means somebody is likely to find work." May 22, 2003

[truedelphi]

18. Agree and here's a small rant

The first tax cut that Bush extended to Americans was not a tax cut but let you have a small amount (was it $750?) borrowed against your next 1040 income statement

So you basically had to pay for it a year later.

Media never mentioned the payback end of it, but like the Pres. kept saying "Tax Cut..."

[hfojvt]

26. no, it was $300 or $600 for a couple, but there was no payback

it was the Democrats idea to send the checks out early, for stimulus purposes. The $300 was based on the new rate of 10% on the first $6000 of taxable income. That rate used to be 15%. The tax cut bill passed in March of 2001 and the checks went out. Let's say you got $300. Then when you paid your taxes for 2001 the rate was still 15% so you paid $900 in taxes. However, because you already got a check in April of 2001, your net tax was $600, the same that you would have paid if the rate had been changed to 10%, which it was for the following year. The difference is that you got the $300 cut in April of 2001 instead of having to wait for your refund in 2002.

I do remember talk at the time of how that $300 was gonna have to be paid back when you did your taxes next year, but I think that talk was wrong.

I also remember the idiotic line that came from Limbaugh - 'since Democrats did not want this tax cut, they should send their checks back.' Uuuh, totally misses the point. It was not the $300 we were against. It was pairing the $300 for me with $300,000 for Dick Cheney that was the crock of shite.

[jwirr]

12. Working in the short run. I wonder if that is true anymore? Today

the rich are more likely to take that tax cut and invest overseas than in the US.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Supply Side economics goes back to Reagan.

The effect was pretty much the same, only not as severe under BushII. It's wishful thinking by big government welfare Republicans.

[FogerRox]

17. Supply side goes back to the Dutch in the late 1500's- early 1600's

The Dutch switched to S/S economics, trans national economic alliances, and poof, economic crash, ala the Tulip scandal of 1629. Same thing happened in the Roaring 20's, crash in 1929.
FDR created jobs.... CCC & WPA... those jobs were creating infrastructure, roads, bridges, - that helps the economy. and with decent jobs, people have money to spend. Coupled with a progressive tax system, 92% top per. rate.

Thats how you end up with a middle class. Supply side is designed to tear down the middle class. AS someone said upthread, its about the transfer of wealth, wealth moves to the rich.

Let them eat cake.....

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. Any economic system...

Thatt places all the funds in the hands of the few at the top of the economic pyramid is gonna fall over.

Pyramids are not successful structures when you rest them on their point.

[kiki]

11. Nice analogy.

I also like "Trickledown economics only works if the sponges at the top get squeeeeeezed..."

[truedelphi]

19. Wonderful analogy but I would add

The pyramid seems to hold up okay, as long as the mainstream media keeps holding on to it

(And they are willing to hold on to it until the measures are adopted - after all, the corporate giants taht form our media are benefitting from the supply side tax cuts just like all the
rest of the wealthy)

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Did anyone hear Lou Dobbs on Bill Maher: 10 US states that RAISED minimum

wage have better economies.

[Cleita]

13. Of course! It's the the theory that many people with extra money

in their pockets will spend more than a few people with a lot of money. This stimulates business and benefits and enriches the economy as a whole. This is what was at work during the Clinton years. Somebody described it as instead of a trickle down economy, it was a percolates up economy.

[Selatius]

15. I think it went something like this

Minimum wage raised --> workers getting raises --> increased consumer confidence --> increased demand for goods, especially necessities --> employers hire more workers to meet higher demand

A rising tide lifts us all. The rising tide statement applies if you also talk about income/wealth redistribution such as a progressive tax code coupled with social spending to put money in people's pockets who need the money.

[alfredo]

10. I just sent it out to my mailing list.

[Selatius]

14. This won't be accepted easily by DUers opposed to tax increases

I am pretty sure they hold those views regardless of the fact that they know Democrats would increase social spending.

[malaise]

20. Coming from Sachs who needs

more proof. He jumped off that Neoliberal model after he saw the destruction in the former Soviet Union as a result of his own policies. I give him credit for jumping very early.

[applegrove]

22. You also have to wonder if more middle class money stays

"home" instead of invested abroad. And if this helps reinforce the middle class better. Don't know much about these comparisons. But at least the numbers are coming in on globilization and economics.

[FogerRox]

25. The numbers have been in, on Globalism for 400+ yrs.

In the Netherlands it failed, circa 1600
In Spain it failed
In Portugal it failed
In France it failed
In England it failed circa 1900

ANd now in the Good ole USA........ its supposed to work?

[Cleita]

29. Yeah, stupid aren't they?

Why don't so-called intellectuals analyze historical data before they go with an ideology that probably has cause and effect data available?

[Swamp Rat]

23. Obrigado!

Muito bem! :hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. The fact that this is not considered a truism in the Anglo-Saxon

countries but, rather, the contrary, is testament to the power of our utterly and mendacious perjured media.

Before WWII broke, our newspapers in the UK lauded Hitler and Mussolini to the skies, and our monied people were largely more than happy about the situation. After the post-war interlude of decency and sanity, the sow has returned to its vomit.

[progressoid]

27. Sorry I can't give this another vote but thanks for the link.