Who said this?

[chuck34]

I ran across this quote today and thought it might be interesting to post here. So who said this and when?

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

[edv]

Sounds like Ronald Reagan in 1980.

But I suspect you are going to play a joke on us and reveal that somehow it was Obama!

[Tazio]

ailor: Bob Hope

[Rollo]

Sounds like Ronald Reagan in 1980.

But I suspect you are going to play a joke on us and reveal that somehow it was Obama!

Apparantly it was written by JFK in his Economic Report of the President, January 1963, however the article in which it has been referenced was written by Arthur Laffer in the Wall St Journal published August 2.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
It fits in nicely with a News Corporation newspaper who regularly publish heavily right leaning articles.

It should be noted though that Arthur Laffer was part of Reagan's "Economic Policy Advisory Board" which among other things created mass inequality among Americans and probably did it's bit to engineer the second biggest crash on economic markets of the 20th Century.

In practical terms, the theory is questionable and in practice doesn't work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html
The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

Whilst chuck34 may have come across a quote, it's one that might sound nice, but in practice doesn't work.

The cake IS a lie.

[janvanvurpa]

Apparantly it was written by JFK in his Economic Report of the President, January 1963, however the article in which it has been referenced was written by Arthur Laffer in the Wall St Journal published August 2.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
It fits in nicely with a News Corporation newspaper who regularly publish heavily right leaning articles.

It should be noted though that Arthur Laffer was part of Reagan's "Economic Policy Advisory Board" which among other things created mass inequality among Americans and probably did it's bit to engineer the second biggest crash on economic markets of the 20th Century.

In practical terms, the theory is questionable and in practice doesn't work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html
The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

Whilst chuck34 may have come across a quote, it's one that might sound nice, but in practice doesn't work.

The cake IS a lie.

OOooooooohhhh so obviously you're saying that you support the outlandish radical Communist program of Tax-and-spend, instead of the Republicans far more patriotic and profitable "barrow-and-spend-the-most-ever".(and pay the interest on the trillions in loans or bonds ot T notes sold, compounded for decades after decades and generations onward)

Well comrade Rollo your colors are clear....
Your attitude has been noted, comrade.

[Rollo]

It really doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you sit, whether being fatally communist (and having no brains) or fatally capitalist (and having no heart), the truth is that no matter what the basic stance of the economy, if you spend more than you collect, you either draw down on savings or start accumulating debt; you even admit so:

and pay the interest on the trillions in loans or bonds on T notes sold, compounded for decades after decades and generations onward

What is the national debt of the US standing at now?

[janvanvurpa]

It really doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you sit, whether being fatally communist (and having no brains) or fatally capitalist (and having no heart), the truth is that no matter what the basic stance of the economy, if you spend more than you collect, you either draw down on savings or start accumulating debt; you even admit so:



What is the national debt of the US standing at now?

Trillions! and there are many happy big Capitalists who know they'll make 200 to 400% pure profit on every dollar the paid for those loans they did.
All they have to do is sit and do nothing and let the magic of compound interest just ratchet up the bill and their profits....

[chuck34]

It should be noted though that Arthur Laffer was part of Reagan's "Economic Policy Advisory Board" which among other things created mass inequality among Americans and probably did it's bit to engineer the second biggest crash on economic markets of the 20th Century.

So Reagan "created mass inequality". Really? I didn't know that. So under Carter, everything was hunky-dory, and everyone was equal?

In practical terms, the theory is questionable and in practice doesn't work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html
The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

When the President doesn't exclusively control the purse strings, sometimes you'll have a Congress that spends too much. But that doesn't mean that Laffer's theory is invalid. Laffer NEVER said that we should cut taxes and then spend MORE than ever. No! His theory (proven by the tax cuts of the '60's, 80's, and 00's) is that if you cut taxes, to a point, you will bring more money into the government. The fact that the Congress then went on to spend more than even those increased revenues, does nothing to disprove his theory.

To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

There are waaaaaay more factors involved in the above statement than tax rates. To try and link the loss of manufacturing in the US to decreased tax burdens is laughable at best.

Whilst chuck34 may have come across a quote, it's one that might sound nice, but in practice doesn't work.

You have done nothing to disprove Laffer's theory of lower taxes, to a point, will increase income to the government. Show me where that has not been the case. Debt is a seperate issue from revenue. And it is revenue which is being discussed here. If you want to discuss the dangers of debt I'm all for it, but that's another discussion with many more facets to discuss.

[chuck34]

the Republicans far more patriotic and profitable "barrow-and-spend-the-most-ever.

What party does the President belong to that "borrowed-and-spent-the-most-ever"? Just curious.

[chuck34]

It really doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you sit, whether being fatally communist (and having no brains) or fatally capitalist (and having no heart), the truth is that no matter what the basic stance of the economy, if you spend more than you collect, you either draw down on savings or start accumulating debt; you even admit so:

I agree with that whole-heartily. But the quote, and theory, in question does not deal with the spending side of the equation. Can you honestly tell me that our current situation of spending more than we have will work out better if we raise taxes?