I'm not as dumb as I look, you know. Also, when and why did governments start confusing taxpayers with ATMs?
Chief among Obama’s many flaws: he has no idea how to be a leader of people. Strike one. And you can’t fake it. Strike two. Which could still work if he knew what he was doing. Which he does not. Strike three. Yer Out!
President Obama’s post-Labor Day policy speech on job creation will include “some reasonable ideas that can have a tangible impact,” his spokesman says.
Those ideas and others are being considered by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, whose leaders — General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault — spoke by phone with the president Wednesday.
“There will be some ideas that the president will lay out in this speech … new ideas,” Earnest said. At the same time, he said, Obama is not “backing away” from proposals he has pushed in the past, such as a public-private infrastructure bank to jump-start highway projects, and free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.
The spokesman said Obama is constantly “dismayed” by Republicans’ charges that his economic proposals are intended for political consumption.
And this is the second time it has been downgraded.
Raising Taxes Will NOT Help the Deficit
Tax revenues are mainly a function of GDP, and almost independent of tax rates (with conditions, e.g., existing rates are not uber-low). If somebody has evidence that proves that statement wrong, I’d like to see it.
So assuming that premise is factual why do people who should know better, like David Stockman, continue to confuse the public about this issue? I.e, since higher tax rates WILL hurt economic growth, how is it a good idea to raise tax rates in order to achieve the goal of lowering deficits by increasing government revenue? How can that possibly work?
You must grow the economy to increase government revenues and therefore help with deficits. Raising taxes will NOT grow the economy. The way to grow the economy is to CUT tax rates.
Again, if somebody has evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it. I’m open to discussion on this point, but the reading I’ve done points to this conclusion.
We need to understand what are, and what are not, the relevant factors in a complicated system like this, so that we change the right ones and make it better instead of worse. This is rule #2 of problem solving, right after defining the problem itself.