THE TWO SANTA CLAUS THEORY IS A REAL THING

[CC27]

4bonhoffer (302 posts)

THE TWO SANTA CLAUS THEORY IS A REAL THING

Republicans have been using this since 1980 ( Ronald Reagan ) AND it works for them. Basically it is whenever republicans are in power you run up the national debt as Fast and far as possible. ( spending on projects that benefit your donors. Cut taxes for the 1% , wars for the military industrial complex etc. ) . Then when you are out of power you SCREAM about the debt ( that you created) and demand that democrats cut social programs.

This is real thing. You can easily google it , and yet for some god#*%#* reason the democrats NEVER F’ing mention it.
The two Santa clause theory should be a well known meme by now. The first thing a democratic politician should say when republicans start talking about the debt is “ there they go again with their two Santa Claus bs “

The republicans have just run up our national debt to the highest level in history. Hardly a beep about it, but if we regain control of the government I guarantee that the republicans and corporate news will be screaming about it. For the love of god , democrats , please start talking about it. It’s been played against us since the 80’s. It caused Clinton to cut back on social programs and limited what Obama could do. Again , every democratic politician should have THE TWO SANTA CLAUS THEORY as a major talking point.

https://democraticunderground.com/100221448466

WTF are you talking about

[Ralph Wiggum]

Revisionist history, aka lies. The Democrats forced through goobermint spending via Tip O'Neill during the Reagan administration. Admittedly, the Republicans have been just as guilty with loose spending especially since the Chinese Wuhan Red Death.

However, tax cuts raise revenue, and do not reduce it. Conversely, tax raises bring in less revenue to the government. The often mocked Laffer curve is real and correct.

[CC27]

Revisionist history, aka lies. The Democrats forced through goobermint spending via Tip O'Neill during the Reagan administration. Admittedly, the Republicans have been just as guilty with loose spending especially since the Chinese Wuhan Red Death.

However, tax cuts raise revenue, and do not reduce it. Conversely, tax raises bring in less revenue to the government. The often mocked Laffer curve is real and correct.

Laffer is one of my favs

[SVPete]

I had not heard the term, but here's how W'pedia describes it, quite fifferently that 4bonhoffer, BTW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski#The_Two_Santa_Claus_Theory :

The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party. The theory states that in democratic elections, if members of the rival Democratic Party appeal to voters by proposing programs to help people, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democrats who promise programs to help the disadvantaged. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republicans must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but offering the option of cutting taxes.

According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector." Wanniski suggested this position, as left-liberal observer Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."

I've also never heard of Jude Wanniski.

His "Theory", carried out, would benefit the economy two ways: government takes less $$ out of the economy by force; people invest less conservatively - = safer low-tax investments - and instead invest in businesses, which are higher risk, higher profit, and, paradoxically, result in increased government revenue. Arthur Laffer, at least, apparently predicted that paradoxic outcome.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I had not heard the term, but here's how W'pedia describes it, quite fifferently that 4bonhoffer, BTW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski#The_Two_Santa_Claus_Theory :

I've also never heard of Jude Wanniski.

His "Theory", carried out, would benefit the economy two ways: government takes less $$ out of the economy by force; people invest less conservatively - = safer low-tax investments - and instead invest in businesses, which are higher risk, higher profit, and, paradoxically, result in increased government revenue. Arthur Laffer, at least, apparently predicted that paradoxic outcome.

Had never heard of this theory or dude either. Sounds like a "Nobel Prize in Economics" winner Paul Krugman, the former NY Slimes econ writer. Who has never met a prediction that didn't come true.

Minored in Economics in college by accident. Because of my core business school curriculum, had to take four Econ courses. Senior year, my faculty advisor suggested that I take one additional one, because that would enable me to get the 15 credit hours to graduate with a minor. Not that it has ever helped me attain a job, but back in the day it "looked good on a resume". But realistically, learning economics the proper way goes a hell of long way to understanding some complicated stuff.

It is mostly a dismal science, and surrounded and clouded by theory especially whether one falls on the supply or demand style economist scale. You can probably guess which one I trust and has been proven true.