States Consider Increasing Taxes for the Poor and Cutting Th

[NickJ]

A number of Republican-led states are considering tax changes that in many cases would have the effect of cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/upsho ... abg=0&_r=0

It raises a basic question: why do we as Americans, whatever state we live in, keep electing people who espouse these policies, since they don't benefit the vast majority of us (99%)?

[Ben Huh]

...consumption taxes aren't gonna work when consumption, aka consumerism, is down. This is where the modern GOP fails on economics IMO.

[Kane]

To answer the question in the OP:

Because we're retarded.

Outside of that, keep an eye on Jeb Bush guys. He's gonna be touted as a moderate and a man willing to compromise but all of his policies in Florida say otherwise. The guy is still a supplysider. Florida's unemployment rate ain't too hot.

I think the primary reason why the GOP continually fails in economics is irrevocably tied to its ideological prism: work hard, apply yourself, persevere, and you can achieve success in the US (If given more autonomy from the government). The government is the reason for our low pay, declining standard of living, etc. But it's really not...the GOP holds back our political and financial capital by restricting the state - the primary actor or intermediary in every other nation on the planet. Let's hold China up as a key example: growth rates that are astonishing. But it's on the back of SOEs. Europe? Heavy subsidization. Here? Obama bailed out our automakers and the GOP wanted to let it all burn.

It's either political opportunism or a fundamental misunderstanding of mixed market economies in 21st century capitalism.

[Ben Huh]

it is a bit of both. As politicians they'll always be opportunistic, but on the other side I agree that they do fail to understand the realities of having a mixed market capitalist economy. Too many in the GOP think we have an actual laissez-faire capitalist economy, when in actuality we don't and shouldn't, and I'm as big a capitalist as they come. Unregulated capitalism is bad, as is too heavily regulated capitalism. I tended to agree with Republican on the auto bailout, primarily because it was a huge and expensive form of corporate welfare that saved what in effect was a de facto monopoly in the car industry. If one single business in a market is so important to that market financially that the market crashes if that business crashes, you essentially have a monopoly. Being against a bailout that is unfortunately needed to save a dying business in a down market is a tough spot for capitalist republicans to be in.

[Kane]