Just because something is time-tested doesn't mean the test wasn't a failure.
Just because something is time-tested doesn't mean the test wasn't a failure. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claims in her blog post that all tax cuts should be extended because conservatives have "articulated" that said cuts for the wealthiest of Americans have spurred economic growth. Is it a coincidence that I remember even conservatives "articulating" the very opposite?
It's easy to persuade that progressives, Democrats and liberals likely contemplate the possibility that Palin is a Stepford wife droid bot created in Matell's basement, however - conservative figures that Palin has before referenced have also admitted tax deductions don't boost revenues.
Palin was a guest speaker at this past RNC rally in Orlando, which I hesitantly attended to make these interviews. If I drank every time I heard her say, "Reagan" I would have probably ralphed on the nearest "LISTEN TO ME!" picket sign. She used the same "time-tested" argument for Reagan's trickle down economic policy as she does in her blog post - So, surely that means that Reagan's right hand men would agree, am I right?
As it turns out David Stockman, director of OMB for President Reagan says otherwise. Stockman explains in a recent NY Times Op-Ed:
"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts." Read more
In the same Orlando speech Palin tagged senate Republican candidate Marco Rubio as a maverick-y rogue character such as herself. In this ThinkProgress article Marco Rubio admits a similar but brief comment, saying that "The tax cuts don’t pay for themselves..." It's evidently too good to be true that they would.
TPM covered Republican House minority whip Eric Cantor on his reluctant statement following the support of the Bush tax cuts, who said:
"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators."
Democrats aren't entirely against tax cuts, they want everyone to pay proportionate taxes; Progressives and myself just don't find it economically viable to give the wealthiest two percent of Americans a tax break which they will indefinitely lob into their bank accounts. It seems that when this Moody's study came out (a must read), the US must have thought it was national opposite day; instead of noting objective data congress cut taxes and nixed unemployment extensions.
Haven't corporations reached their highest quarter of profits yet? The GOP are Jedi mind tricking the collective you to portray that giving CEO's more money, they will create jobs rather then add to their bottom line. Near the end of the post, Sarah Palin then went to label her view as "common sense."
More from leaflet here