The political genius of supply-side economics

"Supply-side economics liberated conservatives from any need to insist on fiscal rectitude and balanced budgets. Supply-side economics said that one could cut taxes and balance budgets, because incentive effects would generate new activity and so higher revenue.

The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?"

I think this is a GREAT article that really shows how cynical Republicans are. It's amazing to me how many people, especially in the business and economic fields, really believe this garbage. The first thing I learned in my early econ classes is that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Since the Democrats are the ones who will wind up raising taxes to fix the mess, the Republicans can then blame us for "Tax and Spend" liberalism, conveniently leaving off the part about the Republicans doing the actual spending.

Yeah, it's a clever political idea that keeps on working for them.

Then Democrats can say that we are lowering taxes on most Americans. And keep it very simple.

That's how Clinton turned the economy around--by reversing Reaganomics.

Obama is promising to do that by letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire while renewing the cuts on lower and middle incomes. He's been too supply-sided for my complete happiness so far, so I hope he sticks to that.

The biggest problem with Democrats aren't the leaders, it's the voters. I get sick of hearing people who believe they are progressive, for instance, attacking Clinton as being a conservative. They don't bother learning the facts, they don't bother looking at the numbers and seeing that everything they claim they want, Clinton made headway in achieving. With voters like that, it's no wonder we don't get much of what we want. We vote for pretty faces and pretty words more than for accomplishments.

Not very progressive. Very neo-liberal, actually.

Actually "supported" should read in the present tense as the Clintons *still* support shipping off Americans' jobs.

When wages are depressed like this it doesn't matter if your taxes are lowered.

He passed NAFTA, which was a good progressive policy even if a bunch of protectionists who erroneously call themselves progressives don't get that. America's economic dominance was created by our unfair predatory international economic policies, and NAFTA reversed that. It's a good idea, it's the right idea, and it's a progressive idea because it calls for the equalizing of the world's economy.

The non-progressive part of NAFTA comes from the lack of progressive policies in our social structure. We do not have enough regulations on businesses here, we do not have a progressive tax structure here that would reclaim the wealth our corporations and individuals enriched by them gain from their predatory practices and spread it to the rest of the economy. Tax barriers to trade are fascist, imperialist, and predatory, and should be wiped out, and I don't consider anyone a progressive who opposes that. But a corporation that gets filthy rich off cheap labor in another country that tries to use that wealth in this country deserves to have its profits taxed more heavily and have those taxes used for job stimulation, job training, and quality of life issues like a real health care program. A country legitimately based in Mexico, run by Mexicans and operated with Mexican labor, should be able to sell their products here with a minimum of fuss (though standards of labor treatment should be required), and we should be able to sell there with the same fuss. That's what Clinton supported, and that helps everyone--it may drive our wages down a little for a generation as things equalize, but ultimately it's a fair consequence of our predatory imperialist polices, anyway.

The problem comes when our corporations use their labor to make our corporate profits, and then aren't taxed enough or don't pay enough back into our economy to pull their fair share. That's where a more progressive tax structure comes into play, and where Republicans are most guilty. The laws should be arranged so that a company's taxes are more connected to the amount of American labor they hire. No tarrifs and import taxes, but income taxes that are offset by domestic labor expenses. Give corporations much higher taxes, a higher write-off for domestic labor, and penalties for basing their offices somewhere other than here, and they will have more incentive to keep their labor forces here while still having the right to sell their products overseas.

NAFTA is a canard. If we eliminated NAFTA, we'd still have our core problems. If our voters understood the issues more instead of just jerking their knees everytime someone tapped them a NAFTA hammer, we'd get the leadership we want. Instead, as the great Chris Nolan says, we get the heroes we deserve, not the ones we need.

It's neo-liberal/neo-con policy and it was written to fail and depress wages as it has done. Pro-Wall Street/Anti-Main Street policy is NOT progressive policy and never has been.

Such trade agreements were long the fantasy of progressives, but when they were finally passed, some people convinced "progressives" they were bad, and unfortunately, rather than working to pass legislation to make them work better, progressives waste all their time in misguided opposition.

There's no question about this point--if NAFTA were repealed, corporations would still screw you. If NAFTA were left in place but other legislation were passed to control corporate greed, things would immediately improve. The problem has never been NAFTA, the problem has always been a lack of regulations on large corporations, especially multi-nationals. Republicans laugh every time we waste energy in NAFTA, because they knew it's a canard, and they know that by redirecting our anger, we'll ignore the real problem--lack of legitimate regulations.

Excuses about coming back and fixing them are lies since the same people that put them into place are preventing them from being changed. "Free" trade is working as intended.

I agree that we don't have enough regulation here. But the 3rd world has no regulation.

The rich play both sides / own the whole show..

used that a lot ...

if they every knew it.

administration and the Democrats to start a national converstation educating adults about fiscal policy,
what they get for investing in the country (with the government starting to lead and set the example) and
what harm a short-sighted and selfish reliance on supply-side tax cuts will cost us.