Why does America's economy always suffer under the Republicans

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
This is an easy question. The Republicans think tax cuts for the wealthy and less restriction on industry will grow the economy. The Democrats think putting people to work and protecting industry will grow the economy. The Democrats are correct and the Republicans are wrong (in this regard).
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63


The U.S. economy rolled along through two world wars, the Korean war and the Viet Nam war and the debt went from almost nothing to a few hundred billion by the end of the war in Viet Nam. The debt really began to build under Nixon and Ford. Carter didn't slow it down but under Reagan and Bush senior the debt clinbed to over four trillion dollars. Clinton got a handle on the debt and had it almost leveled out and Bush junior sent it through the roof. I don't completely understand U.S. politics but GW Bush's actions seem almost criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DurkaDurka

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Scott Free, I can also think of another explanation. Republicans favor tax cuts, they are dogmatic about it, Democrats (or even Liberals here) do not hesitate to raise taxes whenever necessary.

Clinton raised taxes in the 1993 budget, that was one of the main reasons why he was able to balance the budget. As a result of that vote in the Congress (which was a virtually tie, the tax increase got a bare majority of one vote in a heavily Democratic House), Democrats lost the control of House and Senate in 1994. However, I think losing that control was well worth it for the wellbeing of the economy, the well ebbing of the country.

Similar thing happened here in Ontario. Before the election (the one before last), Conservatives were in power, they told everybody that the deficit was 2 billion $. Based upon that, McGuinty promised not to raise taxes. But when he came to power, it turned out the deficit was 6 billion $. McGuinty realized that the only way to balance the budget was to raise taxes and he promptly did so.

All Hell broke lose; everybody was yelling bloody murder, Conservatives louder than anybody. Liberals plummeted in opinion polls. However, McGuinty stood firm and was able to balance the budget. He risked losing an election, ruining his political career in order to try to fix Ontario’s economy.

He risked his political life to try to fix Ontario’s economy. He was able to balance the budget, and was rewarded by voters by even a bigger majority the last time around.

If fixing the economy meant losing an election, I think it was well worth it. Republicans however, want to cut taxes whether it is warranted or not. That leads to budget deficit. If they cut taxes, the only way to balance the budget would be to cut spending. But people don’t like that, if they cut spending, people will get mad and they will lose election.

Running a budget deficit is the easy way out. There is no short term fallout, it is like spending money using a credit card, everybody is happy in the short term. Republicans can deliver their tax cuts without cutting spending.

Of course, they pile up huge debt for their children to pay, but by then these politicians will be safely out of the office, leaving somebody else (usually a democrat) to sort out the mess.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia


The U.S. economy rolled along through two world wars, the Korean war and the Viet Nam war and the debt went from almost nothing to a few hundred billion by the end of the war in Viet Nam. The debt really began to build under Nixon and Ford. Carter didn't slow it down but under Reagan and Bush senior the debt clinbed to over four trillion dollars. Clinton got a handle on the debt and had it almost leveled out and Bush junior sent it through the roof. I don't completely understand U.S. politics but GW Bush's actions seem almost criminal.

That point of increase is coincidental with increased private sector borrowing to meet public needs a similar increase and shift to private banking took place here in Canada.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Republicans however, want to cut taxes whether it is warranted or not. That leads to budget deficit. If they cut taxes, the only way to balance the budget would be to cut spending. But people don’t like that, if they cut spending, people will get mad and they will lose election.

I see another problem too in that with corporate lobbying i,e,. bribery, the government becomes obliged to incur debt to pay back favours; for example the US military industrial complex played a huge role.

I don't really see people objecting to social cuts causing the debt. Canada has continued to cut programs to the point that 40% of the population is forced to fight over 2% of the wealth. Our standard of living, health, welfare, security, education etc, has suffered dramatically, yet the government continues to make cuts. I don't see any outcries from the general public. In fact we just keep electing the same bastards to power. Now the free trade agreement with Europe is going to make our lives even worse. Soon I expect it will be 60% fighting over 1% and even then we can expect more cuts!

In the case of the USA the Republicans didn't lose by much of the popular vote. I don't think the potential ire of the public is really preventing the government from anything in the USA either.

People are no longer the constituents in Canada or the USA. The political elite are more concerned with industry and lining their pockets. They seem to have found selling our liberties and raping the country is very lucrative.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
I see another problem too in that with corporate lobbying i,e,. bribery, the government becomes obliged to incur debt to pay back favours; for example the US military industrial complex played a huge role.

I don't really see people objecting to social cuts causing the debt. Canada has continued to cut programs to the point that 40% of the population is forced to fight over 2% of the wealth. Our standard of living, health, welfare, security, education etc, has suffered dramatically, yet the government continues to make cuts. I don't see any outcries from the general public. In fact we just keep electing the same bastards to power. Now the free trade agreement with Europe is going to make our lives even worse. Soon I expect it will be 60% fighting over 1% and even then we can expect more cuts!

In the case of the USA the Republicans didn't lose by much of the popular vote. I don't think the potential ire of the public is really preventing the government from anything in the USA either.

People are no longer the constituents in Canada or the USA. The political elite are more concerned with industry and lining their pockets. They seem to have found selling our liberties and raping the country is very lucrative.

G'Day to you S.F.,

Very good points.

scratch
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
You will notice that the Republicans always spend more than their revenues
and the Democrats rarely do. Carter had a lot more revenue than his spending, and
so did Clinton. Simple really.

 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
The USA economy is always better under the Democrats. The only reason why the Dems lost the 2000 and 2004 elections is because they refused to make an issue of this truth during the campaigns.

Victory is a matter of choice. And the Democrats will win only when they want it.