Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Both parties have the right to say "I told you so" a few years from now when it comes to the stimulus plan. The economists and pundits tell us that there are questionable parts of the stimulus bill while the Republicans tell us it’s a pork bloated waste of tax payer money. They say it’s better to give the money to the private sector and trust them to do what’s right for the unwashed masses.
Time will tell of course. I know virtually nothing about economics. I do know about human nature and won’t hold it against either party if they gloat over being right. George H. W. Bush first called Ronald Reagan’s supply-side economics "voodoo economics". He later embraced what came to be called Reaganomics.
I had to look it up. For those who like me don’t understand such things here’s what Wikipedia says:
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975…
Today, supply-side economics is often conflated with the politically rhetorical term "trickle-down economics." …
The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.
Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high incomes and capital investments who are deemed most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.
Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income earners, who are more likely to spend additional income.
Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase. Reference
From what I can tell Republican’s are still supply siders despite the past eight years of their president’s failed economic policy.
Time waits for no man unless he’s moving at the speed of light. Lacking a star ship’s hyperdrive, we’ll have to wait two or three years to see what time has to tell us.