Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Art Laffer: Obama Doesn't Get It 'Government Spending Destroys Jobs'
Money News ^ | Friday, 06 Apr 2012 07:43 AM | By Julie Crawshaw

Posted on 04/06/2012 1:08:45 PM PDT by robowombat

Art Laffer, an economist and former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, says President Barack Obama's recent criticism of the Republican budget plan misses the mark.

"What Obama is missing is that government spending doesn't create jobs, it destroys jobs," Laffer told CNBC.

"The tooth fairy doesn't work on the Treasury staff," he said. Editor's Note: Obama Donor Banned This Video But You Can Watch it Here

“When you cut government spending, you get a boom in the economy,” says Laffer.

“When you increase it, the economy collapses, and it’s exactly what happened under [President George W. Bush] and Obama. They were two peas in a pod.”

Former president Bill Clinton cut government spending as a share of GDP, Laffer notes. “Look at the boom that occurred under Clinton,” he says. “That’s what we’re talking about.”

The same thing happened after World War II, says Laffer, when a massive cut in government spending as a share of GDP sent the private economy "through the ceiling."

Moreover, to help ease the burden of entitlement spending Laffer thinks the age at which people can receive Social Security benefits should be extended “way out.”

“We’re living longer. We’re living much healthier,” Laffer says. “Let us be productive without being on Social Security.”

Read more: Art Laffer: Obama Doesn't Get It — 'Government Spending Destroys Jobs'

(Excerpt) Read more at moneynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 04/06/2012 1:08:54 PM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: robowombat
He gets it.

The goal is not to be a good US President.

The goal is to be a good Cloward-Piven ("overwhelm the system") Marxist revolutionary.

Mission accomplished!

2 posted on 04/06/2012 1:10:51 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Over half of U.S. murders are of black people, and 90% of them are committed by other black people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Donor request.

FReep athon!
Photobucket
Photobucket
To Donate: Push Here
Photobucket
Thank You!!!

Support Our Viking Kitties
Donate to Free Republic

*************************FR Rocks****************************

3 posted on 04/06/2012 1:13:56 PM PDT by moose07 (The truth will out, one day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Art - we appreciate your effort. But our President hasn't even mastered the concept of the "Laffer Curve" yet; you can't teach econ 401 to someone who hasn't gotten through econ 101 yet.

But we appreciate the effort ...

4 posted on 04/06/2012 1:13:56 PM PDT by In Maryland (Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I guess it’s fear of being marginalized as absurd,

but why else does our side keep accepting the premise that
the left/democrats even WANT a strong economy with good private sector jobs?

Why not just come out and say, as you did, that this is their goal all along, and tell Americans you can support this or oppose it?


5 posted on 04/06/2012 1:17:07 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Here are two sentences from Laffer:

“The same thing happened after World War II, says Laffer, when a massive cut in government spending as a share of GDP sent the private economy “through the ceiling.”

Moreover, to help ease the burden of entitlement spending Laffer thinks the age at which people can receive Social Security benefits should be extended “way out.”

So, Laffer is saying that the way to achieve a massive cut in “government spending” as a share of GDP is to cut Social Security benefits. Thanks, Art. That’s a winning political issue for republicans to adopt.


6 posted on 04/06/2012 1:21:55 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
..."What Obama is missing is that government spending doesn't create jobs, it destroys jobs,"...

That depends entirely on how the government spends the money. The "Space Race" provided jobs at high wages for many engineers and scientists. That was very good for America.

7 posted on 04/06/2012 1:26:40 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ngat

How about making huge cuts in government employee pension benefits?


8 posted on 04/06/2012 1:27:49 PM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

California is proof of the “Reverse Laffer Curve.” More and more gubmint spending and taxes create fewer jobs and less tax revenue.


9 posted on 04/06/2012 1:27:49 PM PDT by forgotten man (forgotten man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

California is proof of the “Reverse Laffer Curve.” More and more gubmint spending and taxes create fewer jobs and less tax revenue.


10 posted on 04/06/2012 1:30:26 PM PDT by forgotten man (forgotten man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
True about the Space Race but how about gommint spending on the infamous war on poverty. How did that work out for you?
11 posted on 04/06/2012 1:39:39 PM PDT by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
"What Obama is missing is that government spending doesn't create jobs, it destroys jobs,"

For government to spend money it must first suck it out of the economy. You can stimulate a specific sector of the economy with government money but you can never stimulate the economy as a whole.

Furthermore, massive government spending massively reduces liberty; when O spends a trillion of your money, he has substituted his vision for yours. And paid for it with your money.

Government's only function is to provide and protect the basic infrastructure the economy depends upon, which is to say, roads and police to protect people and commerce. Once they start investing in enterprises they suffocate the overall economy because they use money stripped from other enterprises, and substitute their will for the will of the people.

12 posted on 04/06/2012 1:44:04 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ngat
" the age at which people can receive Social Security benefits should be extended “way out.”"

Great idea but industry is set up to forcibly retire people at 65. Will they continue to employ people until they reach the new retirement age?

13 posted on 04/06/2012 1:44:04 PM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Actually Art Laffer doesn’t GET IT...

Obama knows exactly what he is doing and does it on purpose..
Laffer is so bending over backwards for Obama so far, he might just be a bitchy democrat..

Nobody can make all of Zeros mistakes in a complete opposite direction to positive...
UNLESS ITS ON PURPOSE...

** Note: Laffer must be totally ignorant of “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.. Obamas ideological mentor.. Obama is so treasonous he makes Benedict Arnold look like a mis-guided patriot..


14 posted on 04/06/2012 1:46:04 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

“The “Space Race” provided jobs at high wages for many engineers and scientists. That was very good for America.”

Why is it that so many, even here on FR, don’t get the most basic of economic truths?

The Space Race created INNOVATION, it did not create wealth. In fact, it had a NEGATIVE effect on wealth creation, by taking capitalistic dollars out of the economy.

For every gub’ment job created, there is a burden that costs the private sector, THAT PAYS FOR IT, jobs.

Monetary valuation doesn’t grow on trees, no matter how much of it you print.


15 posted on 04/06/2012 1:50:48 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Election 2012: THE RAPTURE OF THE DEMOCRATS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

Yeah, great idea. For a professor who never has to break a sweat to perform his occupation.


16 posted on 04/06/2012 1:51:56 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: forgotten man

Strictly speaking, it’s not a “Reverse Laffer Curve” — it’s just the downward-sloping side of the Laffer Curve. (Government revenues go up, until taxes get too high. Then they go down.)


17 posted on 04/06/2012 1:59:08 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Here, in Canada, our Conservative government is increasing the retirement age (for collecting benefits) from 65 to 67. The change will be eased in, starting in 2023. It’s a good move. (Better to get benefits two years later, than to have nothing but the hollow promise of benefits that cannot be sustained.)


18 posted on 04/06/2012 2:04:49 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
For government to spend money it must first suck it out of the economy.

Laffer was in town this past Tuesday and I got to go see him. In his remarks, he pointed out that the traditional Keynesian theory goes something like: if the government gives money to someone they will likely spend more than they otherwise would have. Their spending goes to businesses that would not otherwise have received it and they, in turn, spend more. And on and on.

Laffer pointed out that this is true, but it leaves out the other half of the equation. That is that the same thing happens in reverse from the person from whom the mone was taken. They will likely spend less than they otherwise would have. Their spending DOES NOT go to a business that would have otherwise received it and they, in turn DO NOT have the money to spend. And on and on.

The whole exercise makes a grand total of zero difference in economic stimulus.

Charging it on the national credit card doesn't help this equation because it merely delays the taking (while adding to the amount to be taken). Cranking up the printing presses doesn't help either since that merely divides the existing wealth into more pieces of paper representing that wealth.

19 posted on 04/06/2012 2:17:35 PM PDT by r-q-tek86 ("It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't stop and think" - Dr. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ngat
So, Laffer is saying that the way to achieve a massive cut in “government spending” as a share of GDP is to cut Social Security benefits.

Do you disagree with that or do you have another magic plan to save Social Security? Other than higher taxes (not exactly a crowd-pleaser, either,) I can't imagine what it would be.

20 posted on 04/06/2012 2:31:48 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
...there is a burden that costs the private sector...

All of the NASA contractors were in the private sector. Those were boom years. I lived through them; and, there hasn't been a better time economically or in the level of day-to-day excitement.

21 posted on 04/06/2012 2:43:16 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

I was fired at 61 because I made too much money and was considered too old(although that was never said out loud)and they could hire someone younger who knew a lot less but they could pay him/her a lot less also. I filed a law suit and won but never held another job until I retired at age 63. Raise the retirement age to 70 and you are looking at a bunch of old folks out of jobs before retirement. The only fair way to do it, is to phase out SS altogether, gradually eliminating it over a period of time while working people learn to provide for their own retirement. Either that or start separate retirement accounts for each person, accounts that can’t be touched by the government.


22 posted on 04/06/2012 3:20:47 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Perfect.

BUMP!


23 posted on 04/06/2012 3:26:13 PM PDT by upchuck (Need is not an acceptable lifestyle choice; dependent is not a career. ~ Dr. Tim Nerenz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ngat
So, Laffer is saying that the way to achieve a massive cut in “government spending” as a share of GDP is to cut Social Security benefits. Thanks, Art. That’s a winning political issue for republicans to adopt.

He's right about that. But then, so are you.

Which means it will never get implemented even though it's absolutely necessary to help salvage this nation's economy. So let's just sit back and recognize that we're all Greeks, now ... and maybe we'll recognize our national idiocy when this country is filled with Mexicans and Muslims.

24 posted on 04/06/2012 3:33:09 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: calex59

‘accounts that can’t be touched by the government.’
You should include a warning with such ridiculous statements. You owe me a new keyboard!


25 posted on 04/07/2012 4:42:47 AM PDT by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

“So, Laffer is saying that the way to achieve a massive cut in “government spending” as a share of GDP is to cut Social Security benefits.”

“Do you disagree with that or do you have another magic plan to save Social Security? Other than higher taxes (not exactly a crowd-pleaser, either,) I can’t imagine what it would be.”

1. Yes, I do disagree with that.
2. Yes, I do have a plan to achieve a massive cut in “government spending” as a share of GDP other than cutting social security benefits.
3.Yes, cutting the amount spent by the Federal Government in ways other than by cutting social security benefits is beyond the imagination of most people, especially those that are benefitting from the Federal Government through Federal Government spending on programs other than social security.


26 posted on 04/07/2012 9:39:20 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf
How did that work out for you?

I've never lived an impoverished life style. You need to ask someone else.

27 posted on 04/07/2012 7:20:28 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Yes, cutting the amount spent by the Federal Government in ways other than by cutting social security benefits

I certainly agree that cutting Federal spending in other areas is crucial, but I cannot see how current Social Security benefits can be maintained. We are already spending more on S.S. each year than is collected in taxes. The difference is coming out of the general fund. That will only become worse.

28 posted on 04/09/2012 3:07:19 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Here’s an idea. Stop cutting the payroll tax which directly funds social security payments. Oh, I forgot - that is a bipartisan “tax cut”.


29 posted on 04/09/2012 6:58:26 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Stop cutting the payroll tax which directly funds social security payments.

Yes! The GOP never should have allowed this to be called the "payroll tax cut." From day one, it should have been labeled the "Social Security Tax Cut." The significance would have escaped many, of course, but its true meaning would have come through.

30 posted on 04/10/2012 5:06:17 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Stop cutting the payroll tax which directly funds social security payments.

Well, of course. That should go without saying. But, you're right, it doesn't.

31 posted on 04/10/2012 5:08:28 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson