AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

You did not post the source on your original post.

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary interests. From the time of the industrial revolution through the Great Depression liberalism in America saw its first ideological challenges. By the time of the Great Depression, liberalism in America had changed its definition to describe its former opposition, for example in the opinion of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:

". . . when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."

In Europe, especially, except on the British Isles, liberalism had been fairly weak and unpopular relative to its opposition, like socialism, and therefore no change in meaning occurred.

By the 1970s, however, lagging economic growth and increased levels of taxation and debt spurred a revival of a new classical liberalism. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman argued against government intervention in fiscal policy and their ideas were embraced by conservative political parties in the US and the United Kingdom beginning in the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan credited Bastiat, von Mises, and Hayek as influences.

At the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post, is a prescription: "Nurture voluntary associations. Limit the size, and more importantly, the scope of government. So long as the state provides a basic rule of law that steers people away from destructive or parasitic ways of life and in the direction of productive ways of life, society runs itself. If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

And now, the dems seem to want to do the same thing with their "stimulus plan".
According to a report I heard on NPR, the plan calls for more spending then most countries have in their total bidget.
According to NPR, only 23 countries have a budget larger then the plan Obama and the dems are pushing.
Isnt that also shifting this deficit onto our children and grandchildren?

The Democrats are shifting a deficits to American children because they think the economy is falling off a cliff now, that a stimulus program is the only chance to prevent the fall or at least cushion it, and that tax hikes now would counteract the stimulus program.

The important difference is not about passing deficits to American children and grandchildren. Both parties do that. The difference is that the Democrats are right in their assumptions about what the deficit buys them, while the Republicans were mostly wrong. (Right about the war in Afghanistan, wrong about the war in Iraq, wrong about not paying for the wars with taxes.)

Quote:

And now, the dems seem to want to do the same thing with their "stimulus plan".
According to a report I heard on NPR, the plan calls for more spending then most countries have in their total bidget.
According to NPR, only 23 countries have a budget larger then the plan Obama and the dems are pushing.
Isnt that also shifting this deficit onto our children and grandchildren?

It is. And no, nobody, Republican or Democrat, wants to shift deficits unto children and grandchildren. In both cases, it's the price people are willing to pay for something more urgent or important.

The Republicans shifted a deficit to American children because they thought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth fighting, and that they shouldn't be paid for with increased taxes.

The Democrats are shifting a deficits to American children because they think the economy is falling off a cliff now, that a stimulus program is the only chance to prevent the fall or at least cushion it, and that tax hikes now would counteract the stimulus program.

The important difference is not about passing deficits to American children and grandchildren. Both parties do that. The difference is that the Democrats are right in their assumptions about what the deficit buys them, while the Republicans were mostly wrong. (Right about the war in Afghanistan, wrong about the war in Iraq, wrong about not paying for the wars with taxes.)

I'm not arguing that.
If they are so sure they are doing the right thing, why are they insisting the repubs vote with them on this bill?

If its so good, they should be willing to act on it and take all the credit.
The fact that they arent willing to do that makes me wonder about the bill and what their ulterior motives are.

I'm not arguing that.
If they are so sure they are doing the right thing, why are they insisting the repubs vote with them on this bill?

If its so good, they should be willing to act on it and take all the credit.
The fact that they arent willing to do that makes me wonder about the bill and what their ulterior motives are.

SUMMING UP CONTENT OF LINKS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED

CARTER
Unemployment increased from 7.1% in 1977, to 7.6% in 1981.
Income tax rates constant 14% min to 70% max in 1977 thru 1981.
Revenues increased from 355,559 million in 1977, to 599,272 million in 1981.

REAGAN
Unemployment decreased from 9.7% in 1982, to 5.6% in 1990.
Income tax rates decreased from 12% min and 50% max in 1982, to 15% min and 33% max in 1990.
Revenues increased from 617,766 million in 1982, to 1,032,094 million in 1990.

BUSH 43
Unemployment decreased from 6.0% in 2003, to 4.6% in 2006.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min and 39.1% max in 2001, to 10% min and 35% max in 2006.
Revenues increased from 1,991,426 million in 2001, to 2,407,254 million in 2006.

January 17, 2008, 7:03 pm
Reagan and revenue

Ah - commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:

Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.

Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period " better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom " declarations that you see in highly respectable places " are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here " revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

You should also try correcting for inflation and population growth with your numbers; it gives a more accurate picture of growth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007

Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913
...

CARTER INAUGURATED 1977

1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS

REAGAN INAUGURATED 1981 & 1985

1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS

BUSH 41 INAUGURATED 1989

1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS

CLINTON INAUGURATED 1993 & 1997

1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS

BUSH 43 INAUGURATED 2001 & 2005

2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2007 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS