Why do liberals and most Democrats constantly deny economic facts?

Question

Here is the scenario back in the 80’s Ireland was basically a third world nation they have completely turned it around now, they are a economic power in Europe how? In a nutshell they cut tariffs, cut corporate and personal income tax which attracted business and economic development.

Now Estonia a former Soviet republic is growing at 8.5% a year following basically the same formula, these are just a few ex of nations that has copied this formula, back in the Reagan era he cut tariffs, cut personal and corporate income tax and we saw the greatest economic boom in the US history, please no tired response about he increase the deficit, income to the US treasury actually doubled in that period the deficit was created by runaway spending mainly by a democratic congress.

Unfortunately this president has done the former but has not control spending and of course the democrats do what they do best, spend. Before anyone say Clinton balance the budget that was done after the republicans took over congress in 96 and controlled spending. Now here is the question for liberals and Democrats
If the formula has been shown to work very well here and in nations that have adopted it what is the logical reason for continually denying it? And why this insistence on wanting to
raise taxes even though it chokes economic growth.

got some good response except for TK who said that congress does not control spending huh? as for the rest I do realize our government need to cut spending and this past GOP was abysmal, but with the new democratic congress we might be going from the frying pan into the fire.

Answer 1

Want to know something funny, Kennedy did the same exact thing. It is funny how liberals miss this little fact. I guess that they fail to realize that this does in fact work. I think the problem is that democrats are more interested in a redistribution of wealth. It somehow does not seem fair that some people make more than others and they want to try and even things out. I always hate to see democrats in control because I am assured of 2 things. 1. My taxes will increase. 2. They will spend spend spend. TK please go take a civics class before you decide to spew more ignorant BS that you have little or no understanding of. It is the job of congress to decide on spending.

Answer 2

I don't have any problems with cutting taxes and tarrifs. IN fact I think it was one of the few good things that BUsh helped push through. That being said, there are many conservatives that think that simply cutting taxes will spur so much economic growth that it will generate more revenue than was lost by the tax cuts. This has never proven to be true. This last round of Bush tax cuts spurred enough growth to make up for roughly 9% of the cuts... So we do need to make other adjustments and control government spending for this to really work. Otherwise we are simply deficit spending and driving down the value of the US dollar in the process.
In short cutting taxes alone is not enough. We also need to retrain spending. That means making cuts somewhere. Lately any attempts to cut spending have met with serious opposition becuase no matter where you cut spending, someone is going to lose funding and someone is going to raise a stink.

I also think that it's unfair to say that Democrats are the only big spenders. They spend no more or less than the GOP, they just have different priorities and spend in different areas. As you said yourself, this past congress was spending money like it was going out of style and Bush approved every piece of spending that came across his desk.
So while I think your point is on, I think some of the conclusions you have come to are a little off base.

Answer 3

Could be because they are in denial.

The followers of the leaders are a pretty sick bunch of people, denying reality because it does not support their world view that socialism is great and conservatism is evil.

Likewise, the widespread belief on the political left that the Bush Administration and the US government is behind 9/11 and that they did it so that they did it because--- oh who the hell can possibly understand all the frivolous reasons they cite-- is also a DISTORTION, which comes from DENIAL of the facts; and represents a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION because many on the left want desperately to believe that their socialist ideology/religion stands for peace and that Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons are behind all the evil in the world, instead of their utopian fantasies, despite all the horrors their fantasies have produced in the real world.

Many people desperately need to cling to something--anthing, no matter how bizarre or psychotic-- that proves (at least in their own dysfunctional minds) that their beliefs about President Bush being a fascist dictator, another Hitler; about to implement a Christian theocracy are true. They believe this so deeply that it is impossible for facts to debunk such a religious fantasy. In their minds, if it is true, then they are not such losers for believing in an ideology that is responsible for the deaths and misery of millions around the world.

These people are so far gone, they have willingly abandoned the classical liberal values that once were part of the Democratic Party, and instead embraced a nihilistic culture of victimhood. In doing so, they now support all the losers, thugs and murderers of the world.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/search?q=irrational+hatred
a must read blog if you are curious why these people are so sick.

Answer 4

Someone with a rudimentary grasp of Economics can't be a Liberal. Being a Liberal requires one to think everything is linear, black and white, and that emotional considerations trump logic.

If Liberals really did understand Economics, they'd understand the Laffer Curve. If they understood that, the argument would be over whether or not the current tax rates had exceeded the Revenue Optimization Point, but that's not being discussed. All Liberals do is deny the validity of the Laffer Curve, and continue to assume that revenue increases in a linear fashion with tax increases, without limit.

If they can't understand that a 110% tax rate means zero revenue, how could they ever be expected to understand the effect a four trillion dollar national debt has on private home mortgage rates?

Answer 5

Although it seemed to work, the long term effects can be detrimental. Most of the effects of the Regan era did not come until 8 to 10 years later. Yes, cutting taxes increases spending which in turn CAN help the economy. But, there's a lot more to it than that. Taxes are one method of limiting demand elasticity, but that isn't always a bad thing. At times, it is much more product efficient to cut demand elasticity. This is, basically, the much more efficient use of limited resources. Take a look at the paper industry.

Answer 6

Wow, you are somewhat missing the point with both Ireland and Estonia. The main driver for their great surge was the fact that in the region they have stable governments combined with low cost labor. Yes, the public policies make it easy and profitable to do business in the countries, but NO one would be there if the labor was high.

In our country much has been accomplished in destroying the middle calss and tipping the scales towards supporting the wealthy and corporate interests. Our jobs go overseas aqnd the rich and corporatiuons get tax breaks far in excess of what is reasonable. The common man, middle class, has his wages eroded, his jobs shipped out and his safety nets torn away. This has been greatly accelerated by Bush and his policies.

You may be African American. Don't you realize that under Bush the unemployment rate in your community(assuming you consider the African American community yours) skyrocket as illegal immigrants willing to work at very low wages take jobs that had previously been the cornerstone of employment for this community of Americans.

Clinto made some errors, see Nafta and the world economy, that need to be adressed through equalization of labor via tarif to protect American jobs. Yet, he was completely neutral and productive compared to Bush and his corporate welfare mentality.

The congress does not control spending and Bush has wasted a trillion dollars on Iraq.

You in essence, are misunderstanding the basic equation here.......

Answer 7

I have asked similar questions multiple times.

Don't expect rational answers from too many fiscal liberals.

They worship Clinton as a God without realizing that he acted very Conservatively, after the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress that is.

Answer 8

What rights has Obama taken away? human beings can nevertheless purchase guns and attack guns like they did for the time of Bush's years. call some genuinely rights that are literally not costs from Fox information, proving that some rights are eliminating. The Bailouts began in December for the time of Bush's presidency and Obama is persevering with what Bush began. This tremendous debt began with the Iraq conflict. If the monetary agencies failed we may bypass right into a melancholy. Banks are tight because it truly is. If AIG, etc and who ever went less than the banks might want to personal loan 0 funds out to human beings. The stimulus to the states help them pay for Unemployment reward. It will pay for instructors salaries, newborn's healthcare, etc. he remains new to the presidency. Obama will make blunders. are you able to describe each and each of the blunders Bush has made his very last 4 years in workplace. He left the presidency with a approval score of below 20%.

Answer 9

I thought you were going to show us some economic facts to deny. Instead you just roll out the same half-baked tripe.