• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's rise reveals Republican "low taxes" mantra isn't actually supported by base

shira

Diamond Member
The argument is simple: At the same time Trump has been spewing his anti-immigrant poison he's also been advocating that the rich pay higher taxes and saying that universal health care is a good thing. But when he's been attacked on those statements, his popularity hasn't suffered at all. Meanwhile, most of those Republican candidates mouthing the party mantras on taxes and healthcare have gotten exactly nowhere. One might conclude that the Republican base doesn't actually have a problem with Trump's statements. Paul Krugman certainly doesn't think so.

Mr. Bush, in particular, may pose as a reasonable, thoughtful type — credulous reporters even describe him as a policy wonk — but his actual economic platform, which relies on the magic of tax cuts to deliver a doubling of America’s growth rate, is pure supply-side voodoo.

And here’s what’s interesting: all indications are that Mr. Bush’s attacks on Mr. Trump are falling flat, because the Republican base doesn’t actually share the Republican establishment’s economic delusions.

The thing is, we didn’t really know that until Mr. Trump came along. The influence of big-money donors meant that nobody could make a serious play for the G.O.P. nomination without pledging allegiance to supply-side doctrine, and this allowed the establishment to imagine that ordinary voters shared its antipopulist creed. Indeed, Mr. Bush’s hapless attempt at a takedown suggests that his political team still doesn’t get it, and thinks that pointing out The Donald’s heresies will be enough to doom his campaign.

But Mr. Trump, who is self-financing, didn’t need to genuflect to the big money, and it turns out that the base doesn’t mind his heresies. This is a real revelation, which may have a lasting impact on our politics.

Again, I’m not making a case for Mr. Trump. There are lots of other politicians out there who also refuse to buy into right-wing economic nonsense, but who do so without proposing to scour the countryside in search of immigrants to deport, or to rip up our international economic agreements and start a trade war. The point, however, is that none of these reasonable politicians is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
 
If you're looking for objective, insightful political analysis...the last person you should turn to is Paul Krugman. lol

I mean, it's kinda true, if i had to guess, i bet there are a lot of 'european type' conservatives in the GOP whose number one issue is keeping immigrants down but don't mind welfare (as long as it's for whites only). There are a LOT of conservatives who like social services like social security/medicare (but don't want government to touch it 😀)
 
I think it just shows how the GOP order of importance falls. GOP voters obviously care more that their candidate it racist than they do that he believes in bad economic policies.
 
About the same number of times I've been quoted as an authority on a subject that's completely outside of my field. Paul Krugman is a hack....deal with it.

So you believe that speaking about supply side economics is outside of the field of a man who won a Nobel prize in economics ... I don't know how to respond to that.
 
Lack of full-throated support for tax cuts doesn't mean that anyone but the most rabid left-wing supports a "we are the 99% agenda." Start talking about expanding welfare programs or any of the progressive policy goals and see how far that gets you in the election.
 
Most people don't find a candidate who shares their views across the board anyway. If you're pro-gay-marriage, pro-abortion, pro-gun and anti-free-trade-agreements, there's no candidate on the National stage who agrees with 100% of your position. You have to compromise some of your beliefs based on your own personal hierarchy of what you deem most important. I'm sure there are people who support Trump in spite of his economic platform because he's saying other things they agree with and place more weight in than economics. So I don't think it's fair to say that the base doesn't share in the vision of supply side economics; maybe they just don't put as much weight on it as they do something like immigration.
 
As I said before, I am supporting Trumph, because only he can negotiate with China. That means that only he can make liberalism and reason look good to the insane. Only a rich madman who feeds on ego more than money can destroy the delusions spun by the elites to bleed the middle class.
 
About the same number of times I've been quoted as an authority on a subject that's completely outside of my field. Paul Krugman is a hack....deal with it.

How embarrassing for you then that this "hack" has been the single most consistently correct economic voice for the last 7 or so years, huh.

Looks like we need more hacks, huh?
 
^^haha good one^^

I'll be honest I've never voted Republican in a Presidential election. I'll also admit Kaisac(spelling?) and Trump seem to have balanced social views. I'm still not sure how Trump would gain consensus with representatives that don't support his views. I'd guess he'd bully them which is a way of gaining consensus and I'm ok with it.
 
How embarrassing for you then that this "hack" has been the single most consistently correct economic voice for the last 7 or so years, huh.

Looks like we need more hacks, huh?

I didn't even include some of the points Krugman made earlier in the article:

During the campaign, Mr. Romney accused President Obama of favoring redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, and the truth is that Mr. Obama’s re-election did mean a significant move in that direction. Taxes on the top 1 percent went up substantially in 2013, both because some of the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire and because new taxes associated with Obamacare kicked in. And Obamacare itself, which provides a lot of aid to lower-income families, went into full effect at the beginning of 2014.

Conservatives were very clear about what would happen as a result. Raising taxes on “job creators,” they insisted, would destroy incentives. And they were absolutely certain that the Affordable Care Act would be a “job killer.”

So what actually happened? As of last month, the U.S. unemployment rate, which was 7.8 percent when Mr. Obama took office, had fallen to 5.1 percent. For the record, Mr. Romney promised during the campaign that he would get unemployment down to 6 percent by the end of 2016. Also for the record, the current unemployment rate is lower than it ever got under Ronald Reagan. And the main reason unemployment has fallen so much is job growth in the private sector, which has added more than seven million workers since the end of 2012.

I’m not saying that everything is great in the U.S. economy, because it isn’t. There’s good reason to believe that we’re still a substantial distance from full employment, and while the number of jobs has grown a lot, wages haven’t. But the economy has nonetheless done far better than should have been possible if conservative orthodoxy had any truth to it. And now Mr. Trump is being accused of heresy for not accepting that failed orthodoxy?

But clearly those conservative voices know the truth. I'm sure they have (yet another) excuse as to why liberal policies have done just fine. But Krugman "is a hack" for pointing out what's true.
 
So you believe that speaking about supply side economics is outside of the field of a man who won a Nobel prize in economics ... I don't know how to respond to that.

f5yiWCl.gif
 
There is no such thing as a nobel prize in economics. It's just a stupid nobel memorial prize, and it doesnt mean anything. Krugman is an establishment hack, whose job is to convince the poor that printing money and giving it to the rich is the only way to solve our economic problems. Even now after years of zero growth (GDP minus the printed money), too many people still believe this bullcrap. There will soon be a frickin QE4, everybody knows it. It's all about printing money and giving it to the rich. The establishment manufactures people like Krugman by the dozen.
 
So you believe that speaking about supply side economics is outside of the field of a man who won a Nobel prize in economics ... I don't know how to respond to that.

Liberals talk highly of nobel prizes in economics.

Until someone quotes Milton Friedman.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a nobel prize in economics. It's just a stupid nobel memorial prize, and it doesnt mean anything. Krugman is an establishment hack, whose job is to convince the poor that printing money and giving it to the rich is the only way to solve our economic problems. Even now after years of zero growth (GDP minus the printed money), too many people still believe this bullcrap. There will soon be a frickin QE4, everybody knows it. It's all about printing money and giving it to the rich. The establishment manufactures people like Krugman by the dozen.

Since the Nobel Prize in economics is - according to you - meaningless, that implies that economics itself is meaningless. Which also implies that you believe that right-wing economic "principles" - such as low taxes and small government - are meaningless, right?
 
How embarrassing for you then that this "hack" has been the single most consistently correct economic voice for the last 7 or so years, huh.

Looks like we need more hacks, huh?
Yeah, he really pegged that deflation disaster.

"But deflation is a huge risk — and getting out of a deflationary trap is very, very hard. We truly are flirting with disaster."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/about-that-deflation-risk/

"So we're really heading into Japanese-style deflation territory"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/smells-like-deflation/

"So tell me why we aren’t looking at a very large risk of getting into a deflationary trap, in which falling prices make consumers and businesses even less willing to spend." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/risks-of-deflation-wonkish-but-important/

"But the risk that America will turn into Japan — that we’ll face years of deflation and stagnation — seems, if anything, to be rising."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04krugman.html

"What I take from this is that deflation isn’t some distant possibility — it’s already here by some measures, not far off by others."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/trending-toward-deflation/

"Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&_r=0
 
If you're looking for objective, insightful political analysis...the last person you should turn to is Paul Krugman. lol
In a survey of American economics professors performed four years ago, Krugman was ranked - by far - their favorite living under-age-60 economist. (Open the PDF, then check page 138.)

Edit: Note also that those responding to the survey self-reported their political stance. Those who "were e admirers of Paul Krugman are the least
liberal
(and remarkably preponderantly Democratic)."
 
Last edited:
So you believe that speaking about supply side economics is outside of the field of a man who won a Nobel prize in economics ... I don't know how to respond to that.
I was talking specifically about his political analysis. I thought I was crystal clear on this point....apparently not so clear for some.
 
Back
Top