Who Said This And Why Won't It Work

[AquaAthena]

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."​

 

[Dragon]

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%.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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%.

The rich are the consumers. The rich hire me every month. The poor spend peanuts compared to the rich.

 

[Katzndogz]

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%.

The rich are the consumers. The rich hire me every month. The poor spend peanuts compared to the rich.

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.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

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.

 

[Dragon]

The rich are the consumers. The rich hire me every month. The poor spend peanuts compared to the rich.

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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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"

 

[AquaAthena]

The rich are the consumers. The rich hire me every month. The poor spend peanuts compared to the rich.

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.

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

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The rich are the consumers. The rich hire me every month. The poor spend peanuts compared to the rich.

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.

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.

 

[skipper]

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.

And, those consumer needs help to create competing businesses.

 

[SniperFire]

while demand-side economics was tried from 1940 to 1980

Please. That the entire industrialized world other than us was laid waste by WW2 was tried during that period.

 

[Ravage]

DEMAND creates jobs...not wealth.
Does a factory manager hire more people because the tax rates go down or because DEMAND has gone up?


That conservatives REFUSE to believe this simple fact astounds me to no end.

Riddle me this asstards, the RICH have done better than ANYONE else in the recession. So why aren't there more jobs?

If tax cuts create jobs, then the Bush tax cuts should have created a lot of them.
And the Clinton tax increases should have hurt jobs.
Find those trends in actual data and you're halfway home!
But you won't because it doesn't exist, because raising taxes on the rich doesn't affect demand. They still have a lot of money to spend on worthless shit like car elevators for their mansion which has it's own lobbyist.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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."​

It will work....

Right now the private sector is under attack by Obama and the progressives.

Their intent is to have every US citizen (and some illegals) completely dependent on government for their livelihood... That way they can control every aspect of our lives.

They're control freaks and they want to dictate outcomes..

 

[SniperFire]

DEMAND creates jobs...not wealth.

I don't want to spook you, but both are necessary components.

Stop being such a tool.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ravage=Chris?

Or


Ravage=Rderp?




Can't see much difference.

 

[8537]

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.

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.

You seem to be mixing Keynes with Says.

Are you denying the basic economic premise that the act of producing creates demand equal to the value of the item produced?

 

[Mr.Nick]

DEMAND creates jobs...not wealth.

I don't want to spook you, but both are necessary components.

Stop being such a tool.

Demand creates jobs and wealth comes with demand.

You think the wealthy will just hire people for the fuck of it???

 

[Jackson]

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."​

George W.Bush.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

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.

You seem to be mixing Keynes with Says.

Educating Libtards is why I come here.

No charge, this time.