In the Republican universe, where rhetoric often is substitute for reality, Republicans like to claim the mantle of being pro-business. The added benefit of their black and white view is to cast the left as anti-business. However, over the last 70 years, the markets, both stock and job, have grown faster under Democratic administrations. So let's look at the pro-business claim.
The US Chamber of Commerce generally supports Republican positions. Specifically, they support the anti-tax, anti-regulation positions of the party. The Chamber spends a lot of money arguing that regulations and taxes hinder growth. They rarely, if ever, can point to a specific regulation and demonstrate a negative effect, but that is not the point. It sounds reasonable. Complaining doesn't make it so. Complaining is what they do. My dog chews shoes. It's in the job description.
Follow me please:
After several cycles of financial booms and busts, the world economy collapsed in 1929. The collapse was largely caused by rampant abuse of an unregulated financial system. We responded with aggressive regulation, anti-poverty programs, and better support for labor rights. The result was nearly 50 years without a financial collapse, a booming middle class, and an economy that was the envy of the world.
The Reagan Era was the beginning of the end of all that. The Laffer (pronounced Laugher) curve was the theory behind Reagan's Supply-Side economic theory, which was also known as trickle-down economics. His primary opponent, George H. W. Bush called it Voodoo economics, because it was about as real. Today, however, this long ago discredited economic theory is treated as Gospel.
As a result of this, Republicans can talk about cutting the top tax rates at the same time they bemoan future potential deficits with a straight face. Democrats are only considered serious if they at least agree that Social Security must be cut. This is all accompanied by apocalyptic talk that if we increase taxes, wealthy people will take their ball and go home.
In the first place, they will not take their ball and go home. In the second place, let them. In the unlikely event that they took their ball and went home, what would the result be? They would be sitting at home with their ball, and we would play ring-o-levio, or capture the flag, a game that doesn't need a ball. Barring that, we'd go all socialist and discover that between us we have enough money for our own ball.
The wealthy do not make a decision whether or not to invest based on whether they'll owe taxes. They ask whether the investment will lead to more money at the end of the day. They may lobby for the tax break. They may claim they need it, but they just want it and because they are rich and contribute to lawmakers, they get heard.
After 30 years of evidence regarding the viability of trickle down economics, the rich have more than ever, and the rest of us have less. If it did trickle down at this point, that would be an improvement.
Mitt Romney was right. 47% of the people in this country are takers. They have sapped this country's economy of revenue it desperately needs. They also voted for Romney. Let's raise their taxes and dare them to take their ball and go home.