Obama's Jobs numbers game

[kootchman]

Here is a simple plan. It makes no distinctions on class, or class envy is not the center of the debate. Historically, when we hold government spending to 18% of GDP and taxation a point or two above, we have a thriving economy. The problem with his plan is… we have heard… “we not be raising the taxes for anyone making less than 250K… if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, I will cut the deficit by 1/2 during my first term, If congress approves my stimulus plan, unemployment will not rise above 8 per cent”…. and those are just off the top of my head… Nostradamus had less ambiguity and as much accuracy. So, why would you throw in again? Obvious to all his his “plans and projections” are hogwash. Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer.. have all said, NO.. one million is the new threshold before any tax increases… and that my friends.. is the 1%… as defined by income over 340K…. that is the 1%. They know there isn’t enough blood in that stone.

Share This

[JoB]

JV

i am still waiting for the retraction on the Forbes article.

they are pretty good about doing that when it is pointed out that their numbers or analysis is incorrect.

i haven’t seen it yet. have you?

Forbes is a well respected financial source.

Openmarket.org is

“OpenMarket.org is the staff blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty”

that was taken directly from their about page.

one of these sources is not like the other JV

Share This

[JoB]

redblack..

i am leaving the kootch rebuttal to you for a this one…

you and jammin are jammin

Share This

[kootchman]

Cutting taxes fro small businesses… like tax “credits” for his health care plan… that’s like saying you gave a canteen of sand to a thirsty hiker…. ” gave him a full canteen”.. get real. Low wage, low skill, unionized jobs went offshore. Romney sure didn’t send them… the migration out of country started long before he hung out his shingle. Democratic Presidents and congresses, Republicans too, all cheered at the prospects of selling off cheap labor jobs in exchange for export markets. No one signed more offshore legislation than the Clinton administration. You can still buy domestic, and hand made shoes.. but ya don’t generally. Ya head for K-Mart, Wal Mart, Target… because you want to pay $29 a pair. Your behavior as consumers determined what would be made in the USA or China. I remember when Sam Walton had a ”’buy America” policy… the 1 per cent didn’t change Wal Mart… we did. We insisted on a five pack of T shirts for $2.99 and .99 cent flip flops. GM went bankrupt because we bought better, less expensive, imports, and in the 70’s and 80’s the Japanese auto worker made MORE than the Detroit auto worker. But… their unit costs were cheaper, they were investing in robotics, in assembly and painting… better tools to make higher paid workers more productive. They invested in capital equipment, we invested in benefits packages that to this day exceed $5,000 per unit. You made the decision to offshore… as consumers. Now you will make the problem worse.. as voters. You can’t “force” or coerce capital to stay put.. it goes where investors send it, Spain would love to tax its way to prosperity… nothing left to tax.

Share This

[redblack]

Historically, when we hold government spending to 18% of GDP and taxation a point or two above, we have a thriving economy.

but since we have chronic deficits, shouldn’t we tweak those numbers higher for a while?

Low wage, low skill, unionized jobs went offshore. Romney sure didn’t send them… the migration out of country started long before he hung out his shingle.

i think you mean high-wage, high-skill manufacturing jobs. we still have the low-wage, low-skill service jobs.

but you’re right. the manufacturing flight really started gaining steam under reagan. romney is just one in a long line of opportunists, cashing in on slashing labor costs.

the 1 per cent didn’t change Wal Mart… we did. We insisted on a five pack of T shirts for $2.99 and .99 cent flip flops.

bullshit. and i have never insisted on cheap chinese plastic, cheap gas, cheap japanese cars, cheap pakistani textiles, or cheap fruit picked by migrant latinos. goods cost what they cost because of the price of labor and materials, right? so why don’t we protect our economy?

because the top 1% – you know, the people who own the businesses that off-shored jobs so that they could sell their crap in america for rock-bottom labor costs – insisted that the government that they bought knock down the trade barriers.

this free trade fantasy land wasn’t dreamed up by us pinko big-labor democrats, believe you me. if we make more of those consumer goods here, the cost will rise. but if we make them here, the people who make them will be getting paid better. and to protect those jobs and wages, you equalize the cost of the cheap foreign crap with tariffs. you know tariffs sustained government revenue for almost 200 years, right? but it was the voodoo economists here who insisted we bust them down so they could cut their labor costs.

no, people need wal-mart because their wages and benefits have been slashed. and as you loooove to point out, they ain’t paying any taxes.

so who took their money?

oh. right. those unionized government workers took it.

well, bust out the torches and pitchforks.

You can’t “force” or coerce capital to stay put.

no, but i can make it hurt worse to take it off-shore rather than invest it back in our economy. kind of like teaching a two-year-old not to touch a hot burner.

Share This

[redblack]

Share This

[redblack]

you know tariffs sustained government revenue for almost 200 years, right? but it was the voodoo economists here who insisted we bust them down so they could cut their labor costs.

hey, and what do you know? “we” – 1% of us, anyway – got rid of trade tariffs, and domestic and foreign debts soared!

go capitalism! america! [expletive deleted] yeah!

Share This

[kootchman]

well no redblack you can’t make it painful … two year olds are not Singapore bankers. Two year olds don’t know all their options. Tariffs were abandoned to pay for war debts. Let’s be candid here.. tariffs were used to protect against foreign competition…once we got our rail system together, Carnegie got those furnaces roaring, and Henry Ford got to cookin… we went around the world lowering tariffs… you drop your manufactured goods tariffs,.. we will buy your commodities… but capital was welcomed with open arms. We flirted briefly with tariffs again in the great depression… and it was a disaster. we had dueling tariffs.. achieving pretty much nothing, but stalling imports and exports. worsening the depression.

See redblack… when there is no income… there is no tax. You can’t tax what isn’t. Let’s say… I own a Singapore company… it putts along nicely making profits throughout the world. The corporate taxes in Singapore are this year.. 17%. I don’t want any dividend income. I don’t want to pay income taxes on it. So there it sits.. retained earnings in a Singapore bank. Being invested by that bank in Viet Nam, Malaysia, Australia, … you get the picture. No income, no taxes. Now, what are you going to do? Send in the Marines to the DBS bank and grab the money? How are you going to “burn my hands” for a non taxable event?

Now you could be smarter… do some tax reform, drop the corporate tax rate to be competitive and shucks… I could invest in a USA company… some are very profitable. But not when those retained earnings are cut in half by a corporate tax.

I will agree with you on this… statement.. and so has the entire republican party… including Paul Ryan. “but since we have chronic deficits, shouldn’t we tweak those numbers higher for a while?” Yes… I will support a higher marginal tax rate. IF it was used to reduce the defecit.. not add more government workers and government overhead. Obama had the answer in his hand… it was Simpson Bowles… no one liked all of it… but it was a plan we could live with. Who killed it? Barack Obama did… it required some government and federal downsizing …. some reform. OK then.. gridlock it is. He actually for a brief moment in time looked bi partisan and able to compromise.. but it wasn’t the road he took. He took the road to 5 trillion more in defecits, and a monstrous health care entitlement because in the words of Nancy Pelosi.. “we don’t have to compromise”…we are the majority. well, for two years they were. Now.. the republicans are saying.. “we are the majority and we don’t have to compromise”. I would bet you any amount of money… if Barack Obama walked out to his teleprompter tomorrow and said… we are not going to implement the Obamacare taxes until we have eliminated the deficits and are fiscally sound again, and we are going to follow Simpson Bowles… he wins hands down, .. we all win hands down. Now DPB… that is a compromise. we can work on a healthcare reform plan that includes both sides of the aisle getting something … or .. we can shout Bain, Bain, Bain,.. who in the scope of investment banking, while successful, was not the big tier player..was it? If he said.. yes, after four years, I have decided to compromise and seek national consensus.. his four previous years could actually be viewed as a little OJT that he learned from. Meanwhile… the Atlantic fleet moves closer to an international nightmare…. one that will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like small stuff. A confrontation with two Soviet client states, Syria and Iraq, and a major oil supplier to China… how many fronts will this include? How many continents? we will have full employment again.. that’s for sure. Any ya know what… he is actually doing a good job IMO…. managing the Iranian issue… tempered, measured, … but we are in a dangerous place and shit happens… Ms. Clinton is going to go down as a hell of a Sec of State… Romney should ask her to stay on.

Share This

[Author]

Posts