This House doesn’t trust Republicans with the economy

The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it[i].

[i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.

The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.

In terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.

It’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them[i].

[i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.

During the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats[i].

Republican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.

[i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21^st, 2010.

The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration[i].

Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.

[i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.

Quality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy.[i]

^[i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”

It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.

It is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.

It is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans[i].

The Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.

[i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com

The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.

What is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.

There is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.

As Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.

The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it[i].

[i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.

The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.

In terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.

It’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them[i].

[i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.

During the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats[i].

Republican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.

[i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21^st, 2010.

The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration[i].

Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.

[i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.

Quality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy.[i]

^[i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”

It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.

It is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.

It is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans[i].

The Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.

[i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com

The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.

What is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.

There is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.

As Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.

The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office.

These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation.[i]

[i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html

George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer  system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that[i].

[i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.

A free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work[i].

[i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.

The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.

Free markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.

In a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.

The Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%,[i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed.

[i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140137506/weekly-standard-obama-no-fdr-on-unemployment

The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.