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 ...
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.
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.
Perfect.
BUMP!
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.
‘accounts that can’t be touched by the government.’
You should include a warning with such ridiculous statements. You owe me a new keyboard!
“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.
I've never lived an impoverished life style. You need to ask someone else.
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.
Here’s an idea. Stop cutting the payroll tax which directly funds social security payments. Oh, I forgot - that is a bipartisan “tax cut”.
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.
Well, of course. That should go without saying. But, you're right, it doesn't.
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.