Who Said This And Why Won't It Work

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AquaAthena, Apr 11, 2012.

  1. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342
    Highlights:

    "We believe that in order to solve the balance sheet, first and foremost you gotta grow the private sector. The focus ought to be on private sector growth. And that private sector growth will yield increased revenues. The pie grows. The debt relative to the pie shrinks. And with fiscal discipline you can better solve your current account defecits.​
    Later:

    "When you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you're really raising taxes on the job creators. And if the goal is private sector growth, you've gotta recognize that the best way to achieve that growth is to leave capital in the treasuries of the job creators."​
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    I'm going to guess that it was Laffer who said that. If not, it was someone using his ideas.

    The second one won't work because the rich are not "job creators," consumers are.

    The first will work in theory, but only when you have the numbers right. Turns out the true Laffer point, where increasing taxes results in lost revenue, is about 71%.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342
    Well, "thank you" and as a fan of Art Laffer, I do listen to him often, as did Ronald Reagan.

    Your second point strikes me as being erroneous, as I see the consumers as the demand instrument for the job creators to expand their businesses and employ more people to serve the consumers needs.
     
  4. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,715
    Thanks Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,972
    The rich are the consumers. The rich hire me every month. The poor spend peanuts compared to the rich.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,338
    The myth is, if the government took the money from the rich and gave it to the poor, the poor would be hiring you every month, as opposed to getting lap dances and supporting the neighborhood drug dealer. That's the myth.

    The reality is, the government would take money from the rich and give it to their rich friends who promise to give a kickback to the political party that gave them the money in the first place. If you look at all the millionaires and billionaires who support obama's tax the rich program, you will see and it's pretty plain, that these rich people expect to get their money back and more by the patronage to various programs the government intends to support. Programs like Solyandra, LightSquared, 123 Batteries, all very expensive failures whose CEOS support tax the rich programs.

    obama likes to compare himself to FDR's government programs. The difference is, we really did get a bridge, a dam, a highway, a building. The entire stimulus has only produced one failure after another. By design! None of these programs was intended to be successful, they were all intended to fail. It's like "The Producers", get investors to invest in a play designed to be so bad that it was forced to close after opening night and run off with the money. obama has run off with the money and thinks taxpayers are too stupid to stop buying tickets.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223

    The Left continues to pretend the global economy is some sort of stupid Keynesian fishbowl marketplace played out as a zero sum game - where Pelosi can create all of the jobs we need with foodstamps in our closed system.

    It isn't.

    A simple illustration lies in the fact billions of people around the world make products they could never hope to afford.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Interesting that you can think only in terms of rich and poor. Perhaps because that's the type of economy you're aiming for?

    The rich spend a smaller percentage of their income than anyone else. The more widely-distributed wealth is, the higher consumer spending becomes, and the better the economy performs. That's easy to demonstrate historically. Supply-side economics was tried from 1900-1940, and again from 1980 to the present, while demand-side economics was tried from 1940 to 1980, and outperformed both the earlier and later periods of economic history by more than two to one.
     
  8. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,715
    Thanks Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,972
    Were these quotes taken from a speech given yesterday? Sounds like a speech I heard. I'll give you one more....

    " I wish these tax cuts weren't named after me. Then they wouldn't be such a target"
     
  9. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342

    Here is how a winner president created 21 million jobs. He also loved America in his heart and was a perfectly, imperfect, president:

    "And, of course, there was the decontrol of oil markets. Price controls at gas stations were lifted in January 1981, as were well-head price controls for domestic oil producers. Domestic output increased and prices fell. President Carter's excess profits tax on oil companies was repealed in 1988.

    "The results of the Reagan era? From December 1982 to June 1990, Reaganomics created over 21 million jobs—more jobs than have been added since.

    Union membership and man-hours lost due to strikes tumbled. The stock market went through the roof. From July 1982 through August 2000, the S&P 500 stock price index grew at an average annual real rate of over 12%. The unfunded liabilities of the Social Security system declined as a share of GDP, and the "misery index" fell to under 10%.

    Even Reagan's first Democratic successor, Bill Clinton, followed in his footsteps. The negotiations for what would become the North American Free Trade Agreement began in Reagan's second term, but it was President Clinton who pushed the agreement through Congress in 1993 over the objections of the unions and many in his own party.

    more: Arthur B. Laffer: Reaganomics: What We Learned - WSJ.com
     
  10. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,715
    Thanks Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,972
    You're taking my words out of context. I'm responding to the rich vs poor mantra of the left. The simple truth is that the rich do produce and the poor are poor because they don't strive to be rich. That is their problem, not mine.
     

Share This Page