Are liberals misinformed?

Question

I just posted a question regarding the effectiveness of raising tax rates, I received many misguided answers from uniformed liberals. I have two main points to counter before asking my question.

1) Bush's spending has increased our deficit to record levels.

Truth: Everything has to be viewed in relative terms. Our budget deficit is actually quite low historically. In 2006, it was 1.8% of GDP, and is expected to be .8% in 2007. Compare this to the past 40-year average of 2.4%.

2) Our government debt is ridiculous.

Truth: Again, everything is relative. Our debt as a % of GDP is trending downward, and is only 37% of our GDP. This compares pretty favorably to 52% in Germany, 43% in France, and 79% in Japan.

There is only so much tax money you can squeeze from the rich.

A balanced budget must come from spending restraint, not further hosing the rich.

Should we really be so quick to judge Supply-Side economics? Both major implementations were during times of war.

psycmikev- when will you anti-supply siders realize that the premise of the Laffer Curve is that there is an optimal tax rate, which will maximize revenues.

A budget deficit can still exist if the government decides to spend more, but this cannot be improved increasing taxes, only by decreasing spending. Increasing taxes in this case will simply decrease tax revenues.

leftist1234 -
1) Would you prefer to compare this year's deficit to a single year in history? Would that be more appropriate?

2) I am not advocating all aspects of Supply-side economics.
My point is that you can't always increase tax rates and expect a rise in revenues.
Can you tell me how much of their money the rich should get to keep?
And if these policies are failed, why is that both times they have been implemented, GDP growth and tax revenues have soared?

leftist1234- actually, as a % of GDP, our deficit is lower now than all but 8 of the years since 1975. Satisfied?

Answer 1

No, liberals are not misinformed.

The problem with your first "truth" is you're comparing two one-year figures to a 40-year average, which while interesting, doesn't shed much real light on anything. What was the figure, per year, for the previous 26 years? That might shed some light on the issue... comparing a single year to an average is essentially apples and oranges. There's just too much happening over the past 40 years and too many policies in effect to make conclusions from that figure.

A balanced budget does require spending restraint, I don't know a single liberal who would disagree with that statement. (This feels like you're erecting a straw man when you make this statement regarding spending restraint, I'd advise against that. The myth of the "tax and spend liberal" may stand up amongst fellow regressives, but it doesn't stand up to reality.) However, I wouldn't call the extreme tax breaks that our wealthiest citizens get "hosing the rich".

"Should we really be so quick to judge Supply-Side economics? Both major implementations were during times of war."

Absolutely! Supply side economics is founded on two flawed premises: 1) without the wealthy there would be no jobs, and 2) The rich got rich by giving their money to the poor.

The fact is that jobs and the economy exist because of the body of consumers willing to buy goods and services. While the wealthy finance large organizations to provide those services (to further their own profit - not demonizing them, it's just the truth) jobs aren't created because wealthy people have more money...

What would happen if 100% of the wealth was in the hands of 1% of the population? According to the most extreme conclusion of Supply-side economics the world should be overflowing with jobs... but it wouldn't be since consumers wouldn't have the funds to support a market.

And let's face it, if we're talking about efficiency, since when did those funds actually trickle down? They tend to trickle down in smaller numbers than they started in... trickle down economics simply isn't efficient.

The liberals aren't misinformed... it's the supply-siders living in a dream world where they happily suckle on the bossom of the upper class, whom they look up to with admiration and respect, like children... they wouldn't even think of biting because their "parents" were holding back.

Supply-side is a failed ideology. Stop clinging to it.

Edit: "when will you anti-supply siders realize that the premise of the Laffer Curve is that there is an optimal tax rate, which will maximize revenues."

The Laffer Curve also says that if you tax the rich too little, you're also going to have problems.

The Laffer Curve is also not perfect, it has its flaws, just like all data sets.

Edit2: "Would you prefer to compare this year's deficit to a single year in history? Would that be more appropriate?"

No. If you're going to compare years, you need to compare multiple years over a span of time and isolate other variables.

"I am not advocating all aspects of Supply-side economics."

Then you admit that it's a flawed ideology. That's a step in the right direction.

"My point is that you can't always increase tax rates and expect a rise in revenues."

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

"Can you tell me how much of their money the rich should get to keep?"

I'm not concerned with the rich... their state in society remains as strong as it ever was.

"And if these policies are failed, why is that both times they have been implemented, GDP growth and tax revenues have soared?"

Because, assuming that your premise here is correct (and I don't have the figures on-hand to say either way at the moment) those aren't the only measures of economic health. As you yourself said, everything is relative.

"actually, as a % of GDP, our deficit is lower now than all but 8 of the years since 1975. Satisfied?"

No. Which 8 years? Since 1975, during only roughly 13 of those years have the administrations in power not been supply-side administrations, and further we were in an economic rut from 1975-1980 coming out of the Vietnam war and dealing with an oil "shortage". Please provide your source of information here, so that we can look at the same numbers.

Edit3: I found some numbers and my instincts, according to the Congressional Budget Office, were correct, most of those 8 years were when Clinton was President or when the effects of his budget were still in effect.

Gotta love those thumbs down... the truth hurts.

Answer 2

When has supply side economics ever worked. Maybe it is time the conservatives opened their eyes. When Reagan ran in 1980 he called the deficit outrageous, when he left it was 20 times worse. Yes, the democrats controlled both houses, but he never vetoed even one budget. Clinton had republicans in charge, and turned a deficit into a surplus, which, surprise, supply side economics destroyed. Yes, you can only get so much out of the rich, but why must you continue to give tax cut after tax cut to them while cutting education, energy research, etc. Spending has gone up the most under republican conservative administrations, even the conservatives say economically we were better under Clinton.

Answer 3

The Tea Party was started when George Bush was still in office because he became a liberal Republican by increased spending and bigger government .People who compare the Tea Party to the KKK don't know much about the KKK. They haven't lynched anyone or burned any crosses in someones yard. Both the Democrat and Republican parties are run by a lot of older white males. It seems that anyone or anything that the Democrats does not like gets labeled racist.

Answer 4

When Congress voted in '94 to raise taxes, the budget was balanced for the next 4 years. Since you submit that only spending causes debt, you could not possibly have voted for George Bush in '04, since he did not veto one spending bill in his first term, Say It Ain't So!

Answer 5

I have found many liberals are misinformed but I have also found lots of conservatives to be just as misinformed on many topics. I was going to make a scientific study of this to find out the differences but my 4 year old just informed that both belong to the exact same species with the same brain... go figure.

Answer 6

Everyone is misinformed,the liberals just managed to play their cards better,that is one advantage liberals have over conservatives,a red flag goes up as soon as liberals match the rich against the poor,it escapes everyone's mind that most of your liberals in Washington and Hollywood are very rich people themselves,but they exempt themselves as not included as rich,some making their fortune in very dubious ways.it is this same liberals that hollered at the top of their lungs for the poor but won't put anything from their own,it's always somebody else's hard earned money they want to give away.

Answer 7

Yes, liberals are misinformed. I've seen other questions regarding deficit and debt where the person stated that Clinton had a budget surplus, and the misinformed seemed to think that that meant the US had no debt during the Clinton administration. My retort is that anyone can balance the budget by cutting essential services, now we have 9/11 because Clinton cut intelligence/military spending.

See psycmikev's answer below for confusion regarding budgets (which apply to one year) and debt which is a cumulative total of all budget deficits (minus any budget surpluses)

Answer 8

I think that there could possibly be many benefits of various economic "idealogies", "methods" and "systems". Conversely, most have negative impacts as well.

However, speaking on a bit of a more philosophic basis, I look to the moral basis upon which any economic system is based. And before we can go much further, it would be revealing to consider just what is meant by the term "moral".

To begin, lets say what "moral" isn't. It isn't a blind faith and religious based code of conduct. I think that allowing the term to be "kept" primarily within the confines of religion is and has been a tragedy for the sane interaction of mankind for thousands of years. I won't do your homework for you but you can track the amount of human suffering in this world almost directly to the various "hues" that different religions have given as to what is "moral" and what isn't.

Yet, to say that someone or something is "moral" is indeed saying something. But what?

Can you judge moral behavior (or whether or not a policy or system is "moral" or not) by the degree that one places the needs (or wants) of others above those of himself? If I do say so myself, that is a question that is worthy of forum input all by itself, but I digress. In other words, if a person or system judges anothers need and then assigns responsibility to resolve that need on others, is that moral? Can a person or system assign values to segments of the larger group based upon need?

I think you get the idea though. Can the term "morals" be exchaged with the concept of "provision for the needy"? I do not believe so. Mainly because I believe that every act, every decision and every behavior of every INDIVIDUAL can be judged on whether or not they reach an objective reality where survival is most likely to succeed.

If a person works hard, studies hard, gets a job based on work ethic and ability, produces (for himself or the company he works for) more that it costs to employ him, and then continues in that vein by advancing his abilities and experience so that he increases his value and therefore is able to demand more....can there be a reasonable expectation that this person will succeed in life and that he will rarely, if ever be in "need" of another's benevolence? I think most would agree that there would be only a small chance that this person would ever be "poor". Perhaps not "wealthy", but certainly able to care for himself and his family.

Conversely, if you have someone that does not follow the path of the gentleman described above...untrained, poor work ethic, can't get and keep a job etc, would you consider this person as likely to succeed in life and be a contributing member of society? Probably not. Much better than even chances he would be part of that group that are so often categorized as the "NEEDY" or the "Less Fortunate". When in fact, the person is having the exact life that he deserves, based upon his own decisions.

When one looks at the microcosm of the above examples, can one look at them objectively and say that it would be MORAL to tax the first man so that the second man's NEED could be met?

While there could be found exceptions to the two types of men described above, I think that for the sake of discussion we can safely say that all of mankind could be put into these two categories (yes it would also apply to the mechanics of tribal societies as the same dynamics can be seen there also).

Consequently then, when one is considering the merits (or demerits) of various economic systems (which afect large segments of the world population) one must consider the moral value of the system. Does the system reward those in the first category or penalize them with taxes to support those in the second category? That is how I decide as to what economic system I would be in favor of.

Please do not tag me with ever so ready labels as an uncaring neo-con or hard hearted republican. I actually am very conscious of those in my area that have come on hard times and need a hand up. I donate, within my financial abilities to help them as much as I can. But that is an individual choice and not one forced by a governement upon a single citizen.

I consider that the best hope of a flourishing society that affords all citizens with the best chance of success is one that leaves the free markets as free of government intrusion (regulation) as is possible, and that "supply side economics" is really just a facet of the overall free market.

I do not support a progressive taxing system of any kind because it is immoral in that it is used to take a higher percentage of the wealth created by some and gives it to those that neither earned nor asked them for it. Additionally, I do not support any system of governance that assumes that the wealth of a country is "owned" by the government as does socialism, fascism and communism. Whenever I see our American system of government (and economic policies) supporting those immoral systems I know that our fundamental freedoms are soon to come under their scrutiny (sp?) to usurp as well.

If you love our freedom, then educate youself in the philosopy of morality. Which I simply define as the objective exercise of reason and logic in life.

Let us be moral in our lives and demand morality (as defined here) of our elected representatives and to be complete, demand that the laws enacted pass the test of morality also. I think then we could feel much more secure in our freedoms and liberties. Right now, I am not too confident, but am trying to win people over, one at a time.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this topic.

Answer 9

Generalizing about liberals when they represent about half of the U.S. voting population reeks of being misguided and misinformed.

Answer 10

They choose to be misinformed. The biggest difference between the left and the right is that the right wants to provide a hand up to those who deserve it and the left wants to provide a handout to those who will sell their votes.