I'm pretty sure you're quoting the libertarians: "fiscal conservative, socially liberal"

At least that was their 2016 campaign. Honestly, kind supprised there are so few people supporting that stance, when literally your choices are spend like crazy on defense or spend like crazy on welfare.

I don't actually recall a time where the budget was better under Republicans. Often they will even blatently say "tax cuts" and / or "defense spending". I don't believe they claim it will be better either...

Because sex, drugs, and rock and roll is what sells.

Moderation does not.

You can engage people about polarising issues incredibly easily and more importantly, it takes seconds.

Engaging a population in thoughtful discussion about the merits of each side and arriving at a moderate stance is incredibly difficult and takes time.

Time our pocket super computers have taught us we don't have.

This is aggravated bu the fact that there are only 2 parties. Each is in the winner-takes-all game, where demonizing the opponent and polarizing as much as possible is the best strategy.

If there existed 10 parties, and coalition government were the norm, each party would have an incentive to take a moderate stance to pull an additional sliver of votes that could otherwise be had by another reasonably similar party.

In 2012, leagues of people DID support that stance, and Ron Paul was completely blackballed from media coverage and debates.

Hilariously, he was given the treatment that everyone bitched about Donald Trump receiving (even though he didn't, Trump's coverage was amazing, and constant, and will remain so).

What’s the point of government having a great budget if your own bottom line sucks?

Personal fiscal conservative. They're just putting that money in their own pockets.

And the pockets of their friends; probably some of their enemies as well, just for fun.

Yet their supporters cannot see the blatant hypocrisy.

They can see it, but they consider hypocrisy and corruption as just par for the course when it comes to government. Its the reason they are anti-government and want to "starve the beast". The democrats running people like hillary do nothing to dissuade them from this notion.

They also will put up with a lot to keep their white chrisitan pro-gun anti-abortion culture in control. But this is becoming less of an issue.

The democrats have a huge opportunity here to make their party inclusive of all the lower and middle class, abandon anti-gun and identity politics, and run candidates who are trustworthy. But the old guard democrats are still have a huge amount of power.

I’m not sure you can attribute that to some ‘old guard’ establishment wing of the party when perhaps the loudest proponents of the identity politics is the newer wave of Bernie supporters and coastal SJWs. Establishment democrats tend to be more flexible on the identity politics issues, but very conservative about preserving the old New Deal regime and resorting to industrial era pro-labor policies. There’s a strain of pragmatic centrists like Obama, but they tend to be not so great on civil liberties and hawkish on foreign policy.

I don’t see the Dem coalition being able to assemble a ‘best of’ from among its various competing visions that doesn’t get impeded by those differences.

To be fair, most Republicans think the tax bill will generate economic growth and revenue not captured by relatively static budget models. But there's no excuse on spending...there's actually little difference between GWB and Obama on spending outcomes.

They should ask Kansas how that worked out.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570387479/kansas-2012-tax-cut...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/politics/kansas-tried-...

Planet Money actually interviewed Arthur Laffer of the Laffer Curve in their episode about Kansas' experiment with lowering taxes:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/01/11/509378842/epis...

Tax cuts may have not generated more revenue in Kansas, but there is definitely something to the theory that lowering taxes can generate more revenue. As the Laffer Curve predicts, maximum government revenue exists at a tax rate above 0% (no taxes) and below 100% (no reason to work). Determining that maximizing rate is the trick. If your tax rate is below the maximizing rate, then raising taxes would generate more revenue. But if your tax rate is above the maximizing rate, then lowering taxes would actually generate more revenue for the government.

If memory serves, that maximizing rate was somewhere around 50% under Laffer's initial model, which is why the first Reagan tax cut reduced the top income bracket from 70% to 50%.

Now we're at 37%, and I guarantee you that's still considered too high by the Ryan types.

"but there is definitely something to the theory that lowering taxes can generate more revenue"

There isn't. There is something to the theory that changing(!!) tax rates can generate more revenue. I haven't seen any evidence that we are on the side of the maximizing rate where lowering taxes is necessary.

Yes, but is there any evidence to suggest we are moving the right way by lowering taxes?

There is no single tax rate in the US. There are at least three different granularities of jurisdiction (federal, state, local) and many different types of taxation schemes (income taxes, property taxes, transaction/sales taxes, fees, etc) most of which have exclusions, deductions, etc. and all of which distort the effects of taxation.

The Laffer Curve doesn't account for the massive complexity of taxes in the USA nor does it account for the game theory of moving revenues and/or profits to different jurisdictions or transactions moving into the black market.

I don't think there is anything to the theory. The Laffer Curve works great in theory, in practice it never does. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/lau...

"Not aware of any evidence in recent history where tax cuts actually raise revenue. Sorry, Laffer."

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, more than any other president. That's an average of about 1.2 trillion a year.

On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion.

It’s quite convenient to present those numbers without context.

In the context of prior performance and international circumstances, Obama brought the deficit down from the end of the Bush era as a recession began to recover, but the first few years required clear action. Trump, meanwhile, is going to drastically increase the deficit during an economic boom.

It should be obvious that Obama’s deficits were strategically necessarily while Trump’s coming deficit makes no financial sense.

You do realize that most of the deficit is due to massive dip in tax receipts during the Great Recession followed by automatic increase in spending triggered by dramatic rise in unemployment rates. Deficit actually was reduced significantly till Obama’s last year. US economy has been growing over the last 6 years and there is no reason for the deficit to explode in the last 2 years. We should have been looking to reduce deficit during good times so that we can respond to the most vulnerable when going gets tough. We all know there is a recession in the horizon. Imagine how crippled US response will be to the next recession

That's extremely misleading. For one, that includes interest accrued on the already existing debt. For two, that doesn't take into account that when Obama became president we were in a major recession, and combating that was why the deficit ballooned the first few years of his presidency. We're not in a major recession anymore.

For three, the deficit (which is approximately the $1 trillion number being talked about here) for 2017 when Obama left was $666 billion. He averaged around a 1 trillion deficit [0]. The Republican's have increased it from $666 billion (And the even lower projected value) to the $1 trillion talked about here.

[0] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.h...

(1) The president doesn't control "the purse", only Congress does (even when it delegates that power to The Executive).

(2) The economy and the federal government were already at all-time highs. Proportionately speaking[1]:

  * Reagan increased the debt by 186% in 8 years,
  * George HW Bush increased it by 54% in 4 years,
  * Clinton increased it 32% in 8 years,
  * George W Bush by 101% in 8 years, and
  * Obama by 68% in 7 years (article not updated to include his last year)

(3) Most federal spending is allocated towards non-discretionary expenses (Social Security and MediCare) and Obama can't any more than Trump can (which is to say they neither can nor will). The growth of health care costs has far outpaced inflation in the USA for 30+ years now

(4) The baby boomer generation began retiring during Obama's tenure, which no other president had to deal with

[1] https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-an...

He inherited the Great Recession

What have you heard more of in the past year from the Republican party:

1. Tax Cuts.

2. Fiscal Conservatism.

The focus of the GOP has shifted from fiscal responsibility to "starve the beast"

Instead of replying point by point I now post this:

https://www.quora.com/I-think-that-President-Obama-raised-th...