Obama's Repeal Of The Bush Tax Cuts

SS109 wrote:

archer wrote:

Joe wrote:
Instead of being a leader and supporting complete tax reform with lower rates and deductions (like his deficit commission advised, and Repubs support), he has initiated a full-blown class warfare debate for the 2012 campaign! Good job.

Carry on.

I think we are all well aware of the fact that whatever Obama does, if it isn't what Republicans support, is bad. That doesn't leave a lot of room for actually discussing the merits of his approach.

The Republicans actually are looking at the Obama plan like a buffet, we like this, pass on this, modify this. So that goes against the Dem talking point that anything Obama wants the Republicans shoot down.

Just last week, the Republicans and Dems got a new highway transportation bill passed. But you keep believing that Obama can't get anything past these Tea Party obstructionists.

He can't, not if it involves increased revenue.

PrintSmith wrote: Are you trying to make the case that we should raise the cost of Kias and Hyundais, which many people are currently buying because they are less expensive than their domestically produced counterparts, and make it harder for those people to afford a car at all?

Damn straight I am. I want the cost of imported televisions to go up too. I think there is something dramatically wrong with a company being able to "literally build it, ship it to a port, sail it across the Pacific Ocean, unload it and ship it to a store for less money than you can build it domestically" because they are essentially taking advantage of slave labor in another country and not supporting the very consumer that will purchase their product.

It is wholly unfair that in order to compete with the labor markets in the countries the corporations outsource their labor to, the American worker would have to be willing to work for literally pennies on the dollar, well below the national minimum wage (which isn't even a decent living wage - btw). It's time for a new Buy American. Made In The USA campaign to bring our commerce back to the United States. And if it means making things more expensive and more difficult to obtain, that just means that maybe we'll finally recognize the vast gaping discrepancy between the uber wealthy in this nation and everyone else.

Interesting...that might put the word luxury back in "luxury items"...people might hold onto their cars and TVs longer reducing waste, and our disposable society might think twice about replacing perfectly good stuff....just to have new stuff. Maybe even create some manufacturing jobs in the process.

Which Obama should we listen to archer?

If you follow the Twitters, the bulk of the Republican pushback to President Obama’s deficit plan has centered on a quote Obama gave in August 2009. “The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession,” he said, “because that would just...take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.” As the National Review’s Jim Geraghty put it, “The most effective critic of Obama’s 2011 tax hike proposal is the Barack Obama from 2009.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

Just curious which Obama is right.

archer wrote: He can't, not if it involves increased revenue.

I think tax reform would be designed to be revenue neutral initially, hopefully resulting in better GDP growth and better future revenue growth due to overall lower marginal rates and broader tax base. Its all in theory of course.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

So maybe someone could explain to the ignorant, unwashed like me, why the wealthy aren't creating new jobs and innovative businesses that will save our economy right now? With a decade of tax cuts and bailouts it seems we should be able to easily see the benefits to our economy. I'm tired of hearing the excuses and that the increase in taxing the wealthy won't solve all our economic problems. It doesn't have to solve ALL the problems and I don't buy the agrument that more jobs will leave the country for cheaper labor in some other country. What's left to mnove??

Investors will wait with their money until they see an opportunity for profit. They are not going to create jobs for the sake of jobs, they create jobs by investing in opportunity. Obama and the Democrats have the opportunity valves shut off.

They will wait as long as it takes. Raising their taxes will not provide any incentive for them to invest. The job creators are under attack by this government and they know it.

What's left to move- plenty. If I had the time I could start listing the companies that will be laying off more people - the "summer of recovery" is over.

So are you saying that investors have not seen any oportunities the past ten years? There are no opportunites for profit right now? Still sounds like an excuse and an argument to intimidate people that an increase in taxes is for the super rich will be the end of our country (or something like that). I'm also confused; I read somewhere that there are hugh opportunities in developing alternative energy. I don't believe the government is attacking anyone in that area.

archer wrote: Interesting...that might put the word luxury back in "luxury items"...people might hold onto their cars and TVs longer reducing waste, and our disposable society might think twice about replacing perfectly good stuff....just to have new stuff. Maybe even create some manufacturing jobs in the process.

Or repair shops might make economic sense again. :thumbsup:

mittra303 wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Are you trying to make the case that we should raise the cost of Kias and Hyundais, which many people are currently buying because they are less expensive than their domestically produced counterparts, and make it harder for those people to afford a car at all?

Damn straight I am. I want the cost of imported televisions to go up too. I think there is something dramatically wrong with a company being able to "literally build it, ship it to a port, sail it across the Pacific Ocean, unload it and ship it to a store for less money than you can build it domestically" because they are essentially taking advantage of slave labor in another country and not supporting the very consumer that will purchase their product.

So what you are in essence saying is that you are wanting to make it more expensive for that single working mother trying to raise her kids to afford the transportation she needs to get to and from work each day. It is worth it to take an additional $3K away from feeding, clothing and housing herself and her children, effectively lowering her already lowered standard of living even further and making it even more likely that she will need to be subsidized by federal charity programs. If the purpose is to increase the dependency of the citizens of the states on the benevolence of the federal government, it would certainly forward that purpose, that is for certain.

Making it more expensive to purchase a television in the United States that is manufactured elsewhere is not going to raise the cost of manufacturing and selling that television to anyone except a citizen of this nation. The Germans, Italians, Brits, Japanese, Chinese, Burmese, Indian, Pakistani, Israelis and everyone else across the globe are still going to have access to that lower cost television. The only person who will see their standard of living go down as a result of those tariffs are your fellow citizens. It is their welfare, and only their welfare, which will be harmed by such an action for they are the only ones who will have to divert more of their resources away from other areas to purchase that product.

SS109 wrote:

archer wrote: Interesting...that might put the word luxury back in "luxury items"...people might hold onto their cars and TVs longer reducing waste, and our disposable society might think twice about replacing perfectly good stuff....just to have new stuff. Maybe even create some manufacturing jobs in the process.

Or repair shops might make economic sense again. :thumbsup:

Try looking for a place to fix your tv or stereo. They are getting harder to find...

I love it...no way PS will ever agree with a liberal...so he finds himself arguing for the welfare mom.