|
Donate to Free Republic
Posted on 04/06/2012 1:08:45 PM PDT by robowombat
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!
|
But we appreciate the effort ...
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?
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.
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.
How about making huge cuts in government employee pension benefits?
California is proof of the “Reverse Laffer Curve.” More and more gubmint spending and taxes create fewer jobs and less tax revenue.
California is proof of the “Reverse Laffer Curve.” More and more gubmint spending and taxes create fewer jobs and less tax revenue.
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.
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?
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..
“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.
Yeah, great idea. For a professor who never has to break a sweat to perform his occupation.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.