Why I’m Hoping for a Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan Ticket

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Your Romney/Ryan ticket creating a policy election assumes high information voters and discounts those who will be motivated by Obama's racial makeup, by personality, and by single-issue consideration (e.g. abortion), etc. The number who will understand the correlation between tax policy and government services will be very few. (Remember the guy who wanted to keep the government's hands off his Medicare.)

John Hansen of CA 9:00PM April 11, 2012

...and Friend Hedges, I wouldn't count on a Republican landslide in November. The poll numbers for House Pubs is dismal. I suspect this will be another wave election, another kick the bums out (no matter what party). The 2010 election was a wave election. It was a kick the bums out election, it was not an mandate for Far Right policies. Every time a Pub or Dem gets elected they claim "mandate" even if they win by one point. Ridiculous. Even Bush43 said he had a mandate and he lost the popular vote.

bing of AL 8:11PM April 11, 2012

When did "mandate" become a synonym for simple majority?
I think most of us expect the election to be close, in the popular vote, at least. You don't get to claim a mandate by winning 51% of a vote.
That's as ridiculous as when Obama claimed that the ACA passed by a "strong majority" of Congress. I support the ACA, but I don't remember any strong majority of Congress passing it. I remember a sharply divided Senate and a House reconciliation maneuver that squeezed by 219 to 212.
If either candidate wins the popular vote by 60% or more, then you can call it a mandate. Short of that, it's just an election victory based on each campaign's ability to persuade relatively uninformed and uninterested "independents" to go out and vote for them.

Aaron of WA 8:06PM April 11, 2012

Friend Hedges, 1) You mis-understood me. Government spending goes up during high unemployment. That's why the Pubs always whine about extending unemployment benefits. So, in times of high unemployment, the government gets less revenue and the government spends more.
2) So, If tax cuts for the rich are dropped to zero, then then we should see record revenues yes? No, diminishing returns when it's the rich? (A better argument is, as Paul Ryan says, tax increae will only raise $46 billion in ten years. He didn't mention that the tax cuts will increase revenue, just what it would cost.)
3) JFK, didn't see any mention of war. So no matter what, even during times of war, shouldn't raise taxes even as spending escalates? If I understand you then, when Pubs used to say, only in times of war should we raise taxes, they were wrong then.
4) So, Pubs wrong on this too. Tax cuts do not need corresponding spending cuts to pay for them?
5) ...and we agree we have no info on the impact of a GREAT RECESSION, high unemployment, and three wars on balancing the budget.
Friend Hedges, always cracks me up when you use Heritage Foundation for proof. Like that group doesn't have an agenda. I went to ask.com and asked, "Do tax cuts for the rich increase government revenue?...and wouldn't you know it...there are many statistics to prove yes and to prove no. For recent history, tax rates are at historic lows and government revenue is down.
http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
There are no straight lines of conclusions when it involves Economics (the dismal science).
Hope you're staying buckled up Friend Hedges. Be careful out there.

bing of AL 8:04PM April 11, 2012

bing of AL _ (out of space). Another Nov. 2, 2010 will get our way...
1. “when you have high uenmployment, spending goes up (because of unemployment insurance”.
No. Most people make more in their jobs than they do on unemployment. Many people with jobs will go conservative worrying they will lose their job so cut spending.
2. “Theoretically, if low taxes cause tax revenues to go up, then no taxes should be even better”
You are forgetting ONE DETAIL. Tax cuts for __RICH__ increase government revenue. Their is a curve of diminish return so “0” should not do as your theory suggest. So yes as I have said with the correction I agree.
3. “when the Pubs used to say the only time they would raise taxes was in times of war and/or economic distress?”
No. JFK said was time to reduce taxes:
“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.8”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax
4. “The Pubs have gone so far as to say, tax cuts don't pay for themselves anymore”
Done provided prof worked for Bush and the past 60 years.
5. About the Great Depression:
“Under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon during the Administrations of Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, tax rates were slashed from the confiscatory levels they had reached in World War I. The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent."
“Spurred in part by lower tax rates, the economy expanded dramatically. In real terms, the economy grew 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, and annual economic growth averaged more than 6 percent."
“Notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) the dramatic reduction in tax rates, personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, rising from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of no inflation).4“
“The share of the tax burden borne by the rich rose dramatically. As seen in Chart 5, taxes paid by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent of the total tax burden in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928“
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax

Bill Hedges of MO 2:36AM April 11, 2012

I Would Have Liked...
A Gingrich-Ryan ticket. But that's a lost cause - always has been.
But it would have been historic to see Gingrich gut the glib, facile Empty "O" Man in open debate.
Unfortunately, Romney polls well behind our Green-Socialist prez, and he hasn't a chance against BHO in a debate. Mitt just doesn't have the intellectual fire power to crush BHO and the Huckster in Chief will just tap-dance around him.
So, all this debate is just so much wasted time... unless we get 5 dollar gas and 10% unemployment. Then maybe, just maybe, a sizable portion of the 92% of blacks, 75% of Hispanics and 60% of women "might" vote for someone else.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 10:05PM April 10, 2012

To the unnamed poster.to have to resort to childish name calling is the sign of an desperate person.and one who can not win an arguement on it;s merits.
you still need that candle to see the sun.
Sports update=
newt's $500 check to get on the utah ballot bounced.he's tap city!
source= USA today.

bruce b of NV 9:40PM April 10, 2012

Friend Hedges, the problem with your statistics is they have no correlaton to today. No, the tax cuts did not have anything to do with the home mortgage crisis, but the crisis (the GREAT RECESSION) did result in high unemployment. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when you have high unemployment, tax revenues go down, when you have high uenmployment, spending goes up (because of unemployment insurance).
Theoretically, if low taxes cause tax revenues to go up, then no taxes should be even better! Even you would have to admit at some point there is a point of diminishing returns. That's just logic.
The problem with my Pub friends is they think low taxes are the panacea for every economic problem. Remember Friend Hedges when the Pubs used to say the only time they would raise taxes was in times of war and/or economic distress? They don't say that anymore. Were they wrong then or are they wrong now? The Pubs have gone so far as to say, tax cuts don't pay for themselves anymore! Now they say for tax cuts for the Middle Class, there needs to be corresponing spending cuts. So, were they wrong before or are they wrong now?
Here's the problem with your historical tax revenue stats, 1) They don't take in to account something called The GREAT RECESSION 2) They don't take in to account 3 wars (I include war on terror) 3) They don't take in to account high unemployment. 4) and they don't take in to account 3 wars, a GREAT RECESSION and high unemployment all happening at the same time! Historical economic data proves nothing when all the parameters have changed. All those tax cuts you mentioned did not happen during a great recession, during 3 wars, and during high unemployment.
What will be interesting is stats from the last couple of years, when tax rates are at historical lows. If you're correct, despite high unemployment, two wars (unpaid for) and the GREAT RECESSION, tax revenues will still increase. Sorry friend Hedges, under those circumstances, I'm highly skeptical.
The other problem my Pub friends have is this, they think they are in the majority and whatever they say should be the rule. I deal in political reality. Cry and whine all you want, you will never get the Dems to just cut all that spending (radical spending cuts) without raising any taxes, Not going to happen. So instead of crying about how everything should be your way and your way only, a little compromise would be a better policy. With compromise you might actually get something done. So go ahead and be obstinate if you want, but to do so means the debt is just going to keep on rising. I'm not one of the my way or the highway crowd, I'm part of the crowd that says, let's get something done!!

bing of AL 9:28PM April 10, 2012

Ps Part 2 protanomalous of MA _ "Wrong Bill" ??? You didn't prove...
Is interesting I say tax cuts for rich increase government revenue then you say “Tax Revenue as percentage of GDP fell from 19% to 16%.” What does what you said HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I said ? I talk $$$ and you talk %%%. Not discussing GDP but revenue to government. Not gross domestic product. GDP goes down leading to recessions.
My numbers by each year under Bush increased government revenue. Has for past 60 years...

Bill Hedges of MO 9:25PM April 10, 2012

protanomalous of MA _ Try providing links for your numbers. Is normal thing to do to verify. Democrats were pushing for those wars long before Bush:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
You show sure signs of not reading my link. Reason for recession discussed.
___
brucetee
Like protanomalous of MA you can’t read the link either.
Last balanced budget & reduction in debt occurred under Newt with tax cuts for rich and reduced spending by government.
You blab “if under your theory lower tax rates generated all this reveune.the government under george bush"s plan would have been in the black ”. I gave the numbers tax cuts did increase revenue. Red comes from OVERSPENDING AS ALWAYS. Have said that so many times must consider you a dunce...

Bill Hedges of MO 7:02PM April 10, 2012