"Simply cutting the taxes for America's wealthiest families is clearly not creating the needed new jobs, and that strategy is unlikely to succeed in the future"
About this Quote
There is a quiet double move here: Tim Johnson isn’t just arguing about tax policy, he’s indicting an entire political story that’s been sold as common sense. By saying “simply cutting the taxes,” he frames the opposing approach as lazy and reductive, a one-note prescription for a complex labor market. “America’s wealthiest families” sharpens the target and carries moral freight: this isn’t a dispute over marginal rates, it’s about who government chooses to prioritize.
The line “clearly not creating the needed new jobs” is doing two kinds of work. On the surface, it claims empirical authority, inviting the listener to treat the evidence as settled. Underneath, it taps a more emotional register: the phrase “needed” implies an urgency that tax cuts have failed to meet, positioning job creation as the primary metric ordinary voters care about. Johnson’s syntax nudges the audience to connect inequality to economic underperformance, not just unfairness.
Then comes the political jujitsu: “unlikely to succeed in the future.” That’s a preemptive strike against the familiar rebuttal that the benefits take time to “trickle down.” He’s closing the escape hatch of patience, arguing that the theory isn’t merely slow; it’s structurally wrong. In context, this kind of statement typically surfaces when Democrats (and some centrists) are trying to redirect the economic debate from abstract growth to distribution and outcomes, challenging the Reagan-era assumption that what helps capital automatically helps labor.
The line “clearly not creating the needed new jobs” is doing two kinds of work. On the surface, it claims empirical authority, inviting the listener to treat the evidence as settled. Underneath, it taps a more emotional register: the phrase “needed” implies an urgency that tax cuts have failed to meet, positioning job creation as the primary metric ordinary voters care about. Johnson’s syntax nudges the audience to connect inequality to economic underperformance, not just unfairness.
Then comes the political jujitsu: “unlikely to succeed in the future.” That’s a preemptive strike against the familiar rebuttal that the benefits take time to “trickle down.” He’s closing the escape hatch of patience, arguing that the theory isn’t merely slow; it’s structurally wrong. In context, this kind of statement typically surfaces when Democrats (and some centrists) are trying to redirect the economic debate from abstract growth to distribution and outcomes, challenging the Reagan-era assumption that what helps capital automatically helps labor.
Quote Details
| Topic | Wealth |
|---|
More Quotes by Tim
Add to List
