“There’s something called the Fiscal Cliff approaching, and we must do something about it or we will go over the a cliff which if you wanna fix and do something about going over a cliff you have to know what is the Fiscal Cliff. Well, the Fiscal Cliff apparently has taxes going up, so it must be a bad thing if your taxes go up.

People have said “Well, it’s kind of like having people drowning, and people are drowning. What was I thinking that’s a bad thing.” So what are they telling us? Let’s save 98 out of 100 of them. Well, that sounds pretty good. I’m for saving as many as we can, but that sort of implies that our policy is that drowning is a good thing. That were gonna let 2% drown.

That raising taxes is bad if it happens to everyone. It’s a cliff, but it’s ok if it happens to 1 or 2 people. Maybe you don’t know them, and maybe there rich people and we don’t care.

Does anybody work for rich people? Anybody know somebody who works at a car lot selling expensive cars, but that person only makes $40,000 a year, but he sells cars that are purchased by rich people? Anybody ever remember the yacht tax? We were gonna go get those rich people.

Had a special tax on yacht’s. Guess who lost their jobs? The working guy who made $50-60,000 a year making the yacht’s because the rich people went to the Bahama’s to buy their yacht’s. This isn’t about getting rich people. This is about what it will do to the economy. What it’s going to do to the average middle-class person who works for a rich person.

But you have to understand what the fiscal cliff is. You have to understand that the President is telling you that it’s a cliff and that everybody on television thinks it’s terrible to go over the cliff, but what is the cliff? Taxes going up. But if it’s bad for taxes to go up for a bunch of people, why is it good for taxes to go up on a small portion of people? They say that they rich, they can afford it.
Here’s the problem: the rich pay most of the taxes in our country. The top 2% pay half the taxes. So what you’re saying is they’re rich and they can absorb it, but that’s half of the nations income will have increased taxes.

You will take money from the productive sector, which is the private sector, and you will put it in the non-productive sector which is Washington. So if you want ditches to be dug, and then filled up again, send more money to Washington. But if you want jobs to be created, if you the economy to thrive, you should want to leave that money in your community. It shouldn’t matter to you who’s money it is, or who has it. If you want that money, in my case, we want that money in Kentucky.

We don’t want to send it to Washington because there is no objective evidence that the money will be well spent up here. There is no objective evidence that we are good with money up here, so we should not send more money up here. We should leave more money in the private sector.

Now Milton Freidman recognized this when he said “Nobody spends someone else’s money as wisely as your own.” That in a nutshell, that in a sentence, explains to you why the private sector is more efficient that the public sector. The public sector; it’s not our money, it’s not their money. So, those of us who here will spend it, that’s why they spend a trillion dollars more than they have each year. That’s why they break their own budgetary rules. That’s why there’s no budget. That’s why we live in an era of runaway spending. That’s why your government is insolvent, your government is bankrupt, and guess what, when you raise taxes on 2% of the people, there’s a chance you don’t get anymore tax revenue’s. Because when you raise tax rates, you sometimes get less revenue. And the converse is true.

Sometimes you lower rates, and you actually get more revenue.In the 1920′s, we lowered tax rates, we got more revenue and guess what, the rich paid a higher percentage of the revenue when we lowered rates.

We did it again in the 1960′s, under Kennedy. We did it again under Reagan. We grew at 7% one year under Reagan because we lowered rates, and unleashed an economic boom. That’s what you want.

Do you want government just as envious and jealous who wants to punish the people? Or would you want government as sane and rational policies that allow the government to grow? That’s what happened in the 1980′s. We had 7% growth one year. We had millions of jobs created.

Mark my words, you will raise tax rates, and you will feel good cause you went after and you got those rich people, and you said you were. You campaigned against rich people, and you got enough envy whipped up in the country and you’re gonna get ‘em. Your gonna stick it to those rich people.

But guess what, you may not get anymore revenue. You may not get anymore economic growth, but you can say “I stuck it to the rich people.” That’s what we’re talking about and some of you may say “Well, we’re gonna do this, but maybe we’ll do something about spending.

The one thing they have taken off the table is spending restraint. There will be no spending restraint! In fact, whatever deal comes out of here will increase spending. That’s part of the deal. We’re gonna raise taxes and we’re gonna raise spending . Tell me what’s good about that.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s