George W. Bush Quotes

There are winners and there are losers. And as much as we would like to help the losers, if we do it in the way that directs the limited capital of the society to support the low-productivity parts of the economy, it means that the rest of the economy - our overall standard of living - will not rise as much as it could.

The ultimate purpose of economics, of course, is to understand and promote the enhancement of well-being.

It's not enough to have economic growth. You have to distribute wealth throughout all of society.

Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus.

Society’s willingness to provide for the poor among them increases when the standard of living is advancing.

It was once supposed that only the rich were entitled to luxury. Now we are beginning to see that participation in the benefits of the machine civilization must be as widespread as possible if any group is to have prosperity.

I know the Rich will oppose this; but the Richest Men are not always most beneficial to the Commonwealth, Men of Projecting Brains do most good to their Neighbours, for tho' they often hurt themselves by their Projects, yet others reap the benefit of them, and so the Publick is not hurt but helped by them, and I presume none will deny but that this Town hath been more advantaged by some Men now in it of mean Estates, then ever they were by the Richest Men in it

A highly efficient and profitable capitalist system would make possible a welfare state, redistribution of income and greater social opportunities for all..

In a good society, those in the middle and at the bottom ought to benefit significantly from economic growth. When the country prospers, everybody should prosper.

Our core attention is to bring prosperity in the life of common man, and all-out resources have been used for his facilitation.

Only a state with resources can deplete poverty.

In a sensibly organised society, if you improve productivity, there is room for everybody to benefit.

The liberal posture really requires a willingness to give to others, and that works, as I say, when you have an expanding pie. But if you don't have an expanding pie, everyone starts hunkering down.

The question is not whether we wish to see everybody as well off as possible. Among men of good will such an aim can be taken for granted. The real question concerns the proper means of achieving it. And in trying to answer this we must never lose sight of a few elementary truisms. We cannot distribute more wealth than is created. We cannot in the long run pay labor as a whole more than it produces.

If you take from the most wealthy and give to the least wealthy, it's good. It tries to balance out.

If everyone would take only according to his needs and would leave the surplus to the needy, no one would be rich, no one poor, no one in misery.

The existence of poverty in the US should not be accepted as a necessary evil or insoluble problem, but should be considered a crisis requiring emergency measures. It is a matter of will and priorities, not a matter of resources.

We have to focus on how do we ensure the economy works for everybody, and not just a few.

Just spreading the money around - that isn't what makes people better off; it's having more and better goods and services.

First problem. To produce wealth. Second problem. To distribute it.

I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society.

I am myself impressed by the great social advantages of increasing the stock of capital until it ceases to be scarce.

Someone will always be getting richer faster than you. This is not a tragedy.

The reason I like socialism is that it's kind of enforced Christianity. It's basically very Christian, in the sense of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." These people have nothing, so you have to share.

The superfluities of a rich nation furnish a better object of trade than the necessities of a poor one. It is the interest of the commercial world that wealth should be found everywhere.