Alan Spector, Republican US Senator for Pennsylvania, Switches to the Democrats

Of course we are speaking of the theory of the Laffer Curve. It was first proposed as a theory in 1974 by economist Arthur Laffer. It was used as one justification for the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. Of course that was dramatically different that the Bush tax cuts in this decade. I think, back then top marginal tax rates were at 70%. In fact that was way high. The Reagan tax cuts in fact spurred tax cuts around the world. There is merit to taking on taxes when they hit way way way high and are restrictive. Its not an endless cycle though.

But lets read from Arthur Laffer, who originated the theory back in 1974 with regard to an interview in 2007, wherein he had an opportunity to assess the tax cuts made by Bush at the beginning of this decade.....

so we have Mia's partisan commentary...and we have an analysis...from not an expert....THE EXPERT.

who you gonna believe?

This is just pure dumbness. Anyone ever take out a mortgage? Anyone ever have the government sitting in the room forcing you to take out the loan. What kind of idiocy is this?

I worked in the big world of commercial real estate for 2 decades. NEVER...and I mean NEVER did the government force anything on buyers and lenders during this run up in the late 1990's and and during this decade. And by the way...they were never present in the 1980's also. Bought, sold, and brokered a lot of deals. Never saw the government in the room.

BTW: I seem to recall there is something called Securitized mortgage loans. Mortage lenders bundled up there mortgages and resold them to other private investors. The lenders didn't give a r@t's @ss about the mortgages...because they were selling them to Private Investors. You remember....all those sorry @ss loans that are ruining banks portfolio's and losing value every day.

Seems to me the government had nothing to do with that either.

awww....more attack word bad mouthing.

Why don't you come up with substative responses? and next time you quote a theory....maybe you should speak with the guy who invented the theory...studied it, evaluated it....and ultimately acknowledged it didn't work.

Like I referenced earlier....these comments from the far right....they don't have substance. They are pure hot air.

I guess that is why the numbers of supporters of the far right have and are rapidly diminishing.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21677.html

The warnings are out there, heed them while you can.

 

Earlpearl, what part of my claim that Spector would have to pass through t he crucible of the Democratic primary do you disagree with? Did you think we would just rubber stamp your wannabe Democrat with his quasi liberal values? Perhaps you consider yourself a "moderate" Democrat, perhaps you are a Conservative posing as a Democrat, but let me tell you something. The 2008 presidential primaries sent a clear message. We are not looking for Clinton democrats. We are the party with a more progressive agenda and if a Clinton couldn't get through our primary process, I'll stand by my comment that a sellout Republican like Spector has an uphill battle ahead of him.

It also sickens me to see you quoting Arthur Laffer, father of supply side economics. Even those of the lowest IQ can look up the interview from which you posted an excerpt, and find that Mr. Laffer is a huge fan of the Bush Tax cuts!
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/07/talking_to_arthur_laffer_about/
Are you in the business of trying to convince people that renowned economists praise Bush economic policies? Another closet Bushie. You leave it to me to discredit this lunatic's recommendations.

Laffer is clearly out of his mind for one simple reason, and you can glean this from reading the interview. He alleges that the tax breaks for the rich are what actually drive the economy, and tax breaks for the poor are dead weight and a pure revenue loss. He claims the rich have the means to easily move their wealth into tax shelters that avoid taxes altogether, rather than invest it into the economy(jobs) if the tax climate is hostile. The poor, he claims, have no such option so raising taxes on the poor actually generates more revenue, and lowering taxes on the poor is a "dead weight" tax cut.

Sure he has a bunch of other nonsensical arguments for why lowering taxes on the rich actually fuels the economy, but any idiot can look at that argument alone a realize, this guy is out of his mind!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and buy into the idea you really are a liberal, mostly because of this quote.

I give you high marks on this one because it is
1) Unverifiable, and therefore indisputable.
2) Cleverly shifts the blame for the lack of regulation on the mortgage industry from the people who created it and defended it, whom I will not name, to the Bush admin who actually tried to do something about it.

Carry on, but please, no more quotes from any economist who supports the "Stale Thinking" of fiscal conservatives. It is a beautiful new progressive world, and we cant allow anything to get in the way of that.

 

Abomination: I'm going to deal with your 2nd comment first.

you mean this quote don't you....

from abomination

I dunno. Does this make it unverifiable?

Hmmm....looks to me like the states were very united in deciding the Feds were removing regulatory powers.

Prior to this rule change state attorney generals were suing and winning in courts on predatory loans issued by mortgage companies. After this ruling they had no effective power. Any mortgage entity could issue any cr@ppy @ss mortgage to anyone. Then they could package and sell it to anyone else.

Where do you think this series of financial problems started? Ever hear of the sub prime mortgage problem?

......hence we saw an unbelievable volume of predatory loans.

And that my friends...is where the cookie started to crumble.


As to your first ramblings here.....

I'm going to take some quotes out of the 2007 interview w/ Arthur Laffer.

Laffer is an economist. He developed his theories in the 1970's. Evidentally he developed those theories from previous economic thinking.

The theories were popularized by journalists who started writing about it. It became a fundamental argument during the 1980's when Reagan made dramatic/drastic tax cuts. The conservative politicians screamed about this theory as "PROVING" that the tax cuts were going to pay for themselves.

They didn't. Actual, data following the years of the tax cuts showed that they didn't pay for themselves. Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP increased, absolute Federal debt increased, etc.

Laffer addressed some of this in the interview by speaking about Clinton's years in which he said (I paraphrase)...Clinton made a mistake in raising taxes...but he did everything else perfectly.

Taxes are not the only indicator of national prosperity. They are one simple element in a complex scheme. Of course during the Clinton years, the economy boomed in many ways. It was far more robust and created far more wealth than in the Bush years...and that isn't considering the horrendous impact of this recession that started in late 2007.

The economy booms and busts on many considerations...taxes being only one of them.

Current, extremist radical republicanism, supported by the Libertarian fringe continues to bellow about simplistic concepts. They are way simplistic, they aren't true, following them has led to a financial disaster, and yet...the same screamers continue to scream the same simplistic cr@p that doesn't work when....IT IS FOLLOWED to the extreme:

For example, as Mia claimed...lowering tax rates results in overall making more tax revenues.

1. An extraordinary study in the mid 2000's debunked that, vis a vis the Bush tax cuts.

2. Laffer himself does not acknowledge that. Cripes if he doesn't even know if it is true....how can the wild eyed screamers claim it as an absolute.

Laffer indicates it might result in more overall tax revenues...but it takes time. Hence lots of studies and analysis and time.

The absurdity of the absolutist claims by the Extremist Political Right is debunked by the actual theorist who devised the claim. Its not an absolutist statement....it has a partial truism to it...balanced by many other elements that may or may not make it more true or less true.

Take a different example of extremist Right Wing Political BS. --> NO GOVT involvement anywhere.

How stupid is that? The vast majority of Americans see it for its stupidity. Take a look at the combination real estate/financial world. Their excesses and lack of regulation created this massive US and world wide recession.

Its the extremes of the Right that need to be moderated.

Now getting back to the comments in the OP.

Spector moved from one party to the other dominant party. He immediately voted against the Obama budget. He showed his independence.

Meanwhile he left the GOP because he knew he couldn't win in what is amounting to a primary race for a rapidly diminishing population of GOP members in Pennsylvania who are ever more radicalized following flawed extremist claims that don't reflect reality.

Abomination: Your absurd name is another example of the usage of flawed concepts by the extremist Right that distorts the truth...and whose extremist policies have led to the largest financial disaster since the 1930's.

 

Now, I am not talking about a theory. I am talking about real numbers from the US Dept of the Treasury. Revenues to the Federal Government increased between 7% - 11% year after year under the Bush tax cuts.

No theory. Statement of fact.

 

They call that "integrity" kid.

As you grow older and mature you'll find that people that disagree with one another can still come to respect one another.

That's my reality.

 

Jesus Christ Earlpearl, you are proving yourself to be a run of the mill conservative. All over the board with inapplicable information and quotes, but never really answer the question. Let me post it for you again, maybe you can answer point by point.
Point 1:

Your Answer:

Of course the Republicans and independents are all radicals that deserve to be ignored. What does that have to do with Spector's ability or inability to win a Democratic Primary? If anything, your claim Spector is an independent backs my point and indicates he will not win. Again, what do you have to dispute this?


Point 2:

Your Answer:
A prolonged tirade about how the Bush tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.

The point you missed was that, in your effort to discredit supply side economics by claiming Laffer was against the Bush tax cuts, anyone who reads the article from which you quoted would find he was FOR the Bush tax cuts.

Not only is this guy for the Bush tax cuts, he's for tax cuts for the wealthiest in America because he claims that is what stimulates our economy! Now why would you link in an article that shows a renown economist praising Bush tax cuts? Just answer the question and drop the charade about being against supply side economics, since we already know that I am against them and you are for them.

Point 3:
I praised you for your dropping the financial mess on Bush's shoulders with a very general unverifiable and therefore indisputable accusation. You responded by providing details of a fight between the States and the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). Now why did you have to go and provide details? Now I have to take away the praise I gave you. Anyone with half a brain will probably look up the Wiki for the office of the Comptroller of Currency and find that the current Comptroller is John C. Dugan who has been there since 2005 under Bush. One more lookup in the Wiki provides you with the previous comptroller, John D. Hawke, who was the comptroller during this nasty little fight with the states during 2003. Unfortunately, the Wiki on this guy explains that he was made Comptroller during the Clinton admin. Are you trying to bash Clinton, a Democrat?

If you really are a liberal, and I suspect you aren't, you need to get some education on how to properly smear these right wing extremists. The less information you provide, the better. Unfortunately, I suspect your right wing extremist agenda includes the dissemination of this type of information which, in the words of our beloved president, simply isn't helpful.

By the way, nice subterfuge to cover your right wing tracks by bashing supply side economics.

 

Obama must be really excited about this one. Now he can rule the roost comfortably.

 

Barack Obama Bio... I like that:

Kinda reminds me of Obama when the prompter goes out.

 

Yeah I'm sure the head of the Iowa Christian Alliance is a very non-partisan cat, I really trust his opinion! Do you really think that these sparsely attended "tea party rallies" have anything on the anti war rallies of the Bush years? I mean... come on. The right wing nutters can keep yelling in the echo chamber but that doesn't mean there's actually more of them than there are. They are dwindling in ranks, not growing. All that's happening is these people are throwing a childish tantrum because they can't deal with democracy. They wanted King George for life. Sorry, that's not how America works.

---

RE: Spector. I am hopeful that if Spector is beat in a Dem. primary regardless of any deal he worked out with Obama. That'd actually be a good lesson to the Democratic leadership. Their deals don't decide who we vote for. We want real liberals in the Senate not a Republican with a D by his name for political reasons.

I mean that's fine for now - but it's not going to be good enough in 2010. It's obvious a Democrat was going to win in 2010 if it wasn't for this stunt Spector has pulled.

 

Thanks Zibblu. You have once again proven to be a true blood liberal, not one of these watered down wannabes, and of course I agree with you... again.

 

Going back to the 1976 Presidential Election, the South was democratic and the North was Republican. More or less the democrats were a coalition of Southerners, big labor unions and the left.

After the 1976 elections the democrats help 58 Senate seats. The democrtas were actually able to keep control of the house until 1994.

Both parties are horse traders. You are never going to get 100% of what you want.

At one point before WW2 the Republicans were the isolationist party. The anti-war party always seems to pick up steam.

Retool Detroit to make electric cars and natural gas trucks.

Build new heavy military equipment used up in the Gulf Wars and Afganistain. Tanks and APCs have a 40 year life span.

Build medical schools and train more doctors and nurses. More medical, engineering and computers.

Rebuild ports, Missisippi infrastructure to increase exports for manufacturing and grain.

How about a water project to pipe pure Alaska water to California and Arizona?

New York metro area needs a fast commuter/subway system similiar to what they have in Germany. I studied in Munich and the system was excellent. The trains were called S-Bahn. In the city they traveled underground and outside the city on the surface. The trains were subway style with ample room for standing and fast entry/exit.

New York has the old M&m rail lines run by the Port Authority which called the PATH trains. PATH is similiar to the S-BAHN but they run on old tracks and tunnels. The tunnels I believe were opened in 1912. The PATH only runs to Hoboken, Jersey City and Newark.

A good use of stimulus money would be to build a few additional lines into places like Elizabeth-South Plainsfield-Woodbridge-New Brunswick, Hoboken-Secaucaus-Hackensack-Paterson and Jersey City, Newark, West Orange-Verona, Cadwell.

 

the rest of the country is sick and tired of these people[the base].including a lot of republicans

 

path train is new jersey not NY and jersey is not NY metro area. we need the second ave line in NY.
i do not think the chinese are going to give us money to buildup the military that easy and republicansare the ones that helped killing the electric car in the first place. and now they are doing the same t5hing to other neded changes by opposingb the carbon tax. they are in 6the pocket of the big buissness and oil is the biggest

 

@ Mia:

Federal Income revenues did not increase by 7-11% during Bush years as you claimed. It seems to have averaged about 6% during Bush years, w/ a high year to year change of 14.6% and two negative years from 2002-2003 and last year. We will probably have another negative year in fed receipts through the end of this fiscal year...thereby further reducing fed receipts.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls.

You should use facts rather than just blurting out untruths.

Of interest in 7 years under Bush, fed govt expenses increased by 60.1%. In 8 years under Clinton fed govt expenses increased by 32.2%.

OMG...the GOP--ULTRA BIG SPENDORS!!!!!!

@Abomination:

1. I never stated that Laffer was against the Bush tax cuts. He said he was for him. I cited him. He specifically said that nobody knows if and when tax cuts pay for themselves. He was extremely specific about that.

2. Spector is now a Democrat. He was a Republican. He might have an independent streak, but he is clear about which party he joins.

Again you misquoted me.

3. Your comments about the OCC are absurd. Who gives a rat's @ss about who appointed whom. The Bush administration changed the rules. Do you think under the tight control of the Bush administration anyone had any authority to do anything within the administration...especially something as significant as changing those rules and creating such controversy and opposition including that of GOP state governors, Attorney Generals and Banking officials. Of course, deregulating state officials was a Bush administraiton move.

Fellas:

The Bush administration screwed up royally.

@Bogart:

Nice ideas.

I believe Gates in the Pentagon killed traditional military vehicles (not including tanks) but is going for more MRAP's. Probably a very smart move. The bad guys around the world are going to use more IED's and the MRAP's seemed to save a lot of lives.

High speed transit is incredibly expensive to build. After I left the commercial real estate world I was recruited and joined an architectural/engineering govt contractor firm in a sub group that dealt with mass transit and the impact of real estate on the development. (govt contracting is not my bag--damn wasteful IMHO).

I can't comment on the specifics of NY city and regional transit needs other than to say that it is the one part of the nation where transit is a necessity versus something nice or something important.

Mass transit always runs at a loss. High speed mass transit is uber expensive to build. Uber uber. There are some alternatives such as Rapid Bus Transit, etc.

NYC and the region needs help, though, no doubt.

 

Wow. Out of the closet we come. Look, more than half the country now finds the word conservative objectionable, so why do you go accusing Clinton of being a fiscal conservative, while promoting Bush as a Liberal? Are you trying to say Fiscal conservatism is good? Are you mad? With Obama's massive increase in the size of government in less than 100days, are you trying to imply he is the worst president since Bush, with Clinton being better than both? Why don;t you clarify where you really stand.

So you quoted a so called "Expert" who likes the Bush tax cuts. You say you quoted him because he said nobody knows if the tax cuts pay for themselves, but in your earlier quote, you quoted him because he said the inframarginal (tax cuts for the poor) Bush tax cuts lost revenue. I glean two points from that.
1) You are quoting an "Expert" who is against tax cuts for the poor, what Obama just put in place.
2) You now claim your reason for quoting was because he said nobody knows if the Bush tax cuts for the rich created more revenue, but a simple read through of the interview seems to indicate that he feels they do.
How are we not to assume you are a total Bushie, and therefore a traitor to your nation, from that?

And once again, I agree. What does that have go do with him deserving to or being able to win the Democratic Primary in is state?

You see, I'm convinced you put one of these lines into every one of your posts to throw people off the scent, to imply you are at true liberal. If you could just make the rest of your posts pure pro-Democrat unverifiable conjecture like this, I'd be willing to agree with you. I could proudly say the Bush administration micro managed every one of its offices to create anti-states rights litigation which governors from his own party fought against. I'm down with that!

 

Its worth noting that your facts are skewed. Revenue collected by the fed did in fact INCREASE as I said. In reality the Executive Branch expenses under Bush also decreased by about 7% over each of those same years.

However, CONGRESS lead by Dumbocrats did in fact increase its expenditures, spending, and its own salaries over a portion of that period.

I know its hard for people used to living off the system to understand how on earth lowering taxes can lead to increased revenue. Frankly I don't have the time to explain it again, and to tell you the truth, I doubt it would matter or make sense given the dependency driven mindset of todays modern liberal.

 

The Port of Authority has plenty of money. You may not realize it but the Port Authority runs the New York metro infrastructure like the George Washington Bridge, Lincoln Tunnel, JFK Airport, etc

A good portion of the money raised by the Port of Authority for infrastructure gets grabbed by local governments to cover their general expenses.

Carbon tax is a tax grab.

 

Getting back to Spector; I saw something in the Washington post that referenced that in the last few years about 2 or 300,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania had switched parties to become registered Democrats.

I tried to find specifics on that and couldn't but I did find this recent article from April this year....

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/04/gap_narrows_between_pennsylvan.html

The article reflects most recent voter registration records within the state.

While the headline states....Gap narrows between Pennsylvania Democrats and Republicans....that doesn't get to the whole story by a long shot.

From the article...

So in the year before the November election dems added a heap load of registered voters...cripes about 15% of their total. Meanwhile the GOP lost a small number of registered voters. 600,000 added in one year though is 1/2 of the total difference between Dems and Repubs. That is a big big number.

It just seems to me though that the smaller GOP number...and a shrinking one at that, reflects a stagnant and narrow perspective. Probably one that Spector realized was moving strongly against his maverick, independent and primarily moderate perspectives.

Then I came across this study that surveyed Pennsylvanians that actually changed from GOP registration to Dem Registration in the last few years.....http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/documents/pachanger.finalversion.doc

Very interesting. It was a survey of 400 voters who switched reg from GOP to Dems. It supplied statistical analysis, incorporating a margin of error....but it is very revealing.

You should read the report yourself, but picking some information from the report major reasons and interesting facts behind the switch in party registration.

While the report stated that its major findings included the following:

1. most switchers had been in the GOP for 20 years or more
2. most switchers identified themselves as moderate or liberal
3. switchers identified the war in Iraq and the Bush presidency as major reasons for leaving the party
4. switchers stated that changes came because of the party having changed...not themselves
5. switchers claimed that they didn't see themselves switching parties again in the next 5 years.

Of additional interest, the folks that switched were primarily pro choice as opposed to pro life. I also found extremely interesting and surprisingly not highlighted in "the major findings" that many of them felt that the Republican party was too extreme. In fact marginally more of them responded that way than responded that the Bush presidency pushed them out.

I'm surprised the study didn't emphasize the extremism issue in its major findings, especially since more of them actually responded to that issue than reacted to the Bush presidency, which was highlighted.

I think they should have rewritten this somewhat.


It appears to me...that not only was Spector looking at a republican primary that reflected a relatively smaller number of people...but he was looking at a republican primary that had lost a large number of moderate voters that might have sided with him in the past.

What is left is a smaller, narrower party with very restrictive views.

 

THe majority of Americans are center right. If anything the Republican party needs to move right. Bush moved the party center left. I was really scratching my head about Harriet Miers and whether she would turn out to be another David Souter.