Those are the options. It does seem Obama is putting forward a few popular ideas to ramp up for 2012 election. But I believe people voted for those popular ideas in 2008, a huge one being repeal NAFTA, China PNTR, and redo trade agreements with U.S. jobs, sovereignty, worker rights, environmental standards first and foremost.
Beyond that, those trade agreements are just pure stupidity, "would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge" level of agreements, written by and for multinational corporations.
If you notice, DeFazio and Sanders literally put together a bill that was an often touted and repeated campaign promise from 2008. If Obama was serious, he would pick up that bill and push for it's passage.
It doesn't matter if crazy tea party and radical right, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell kiss the feat of Grover Norquist and worship the corporate manufactured religion of "no taxes" at all here. It's simple. You write up legislation based on what you promised during the campaign and lobby, use influence to pass it.
If you're got an insane blockhead block like the situation in Congress, you use the bully pulpit to point that out and make sure those blocking campaign promises are challenged and possibly lose their seats or lose power and so on.
It's like LBJ politickin' 101. You don't put Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and G.E., Goldman Sachs in the white house running your (cough) economic policy.
Oh, if only we had a "President for a day" rotation in here. I'll bet 50% of Americans could do a better job.
All of that said, Obama's grand hoodwink of the nation, look what's coming at you on the radical right. So it's another worse and worser situation.
how President Zero is going to do this and that. Zero's rich friends have nothing to worry about accept the proletariat. Zero's deeds are a betrayal of labor. Anyone who believes the erosion of the middle class is anything other than the plan is fooling themselves. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/146.
He's not saying across the board tariff. He is saying use a general tariff, by nation, to take up the difference between exchange rates, i.e. it's a leveler to negate the effect China's (and others) currency manipulation has on imports, trade.
That is absolutely not the same as an across the board tariffs on all imports.
China will still buy U.S. Treasuries mainly because if they stopped, not only would their own investments tank on their current holdings, but their inflation would shoot up like a rocket, way above any tariff calculated in.
As far as across the board tariffs, I've said many times on this site, that is absolutely a bad idea.
Why it's a bad idea is one needs certain imports for the U.S. economy to run and that's the way it is.
Obviously, it's one thing to put a tax on tire imports, when those tires are being dumped at below cost and killing off U.S. tire manufacturers because they simply cannot produce a tire at that price...
it's a whole other ball game to put a tariff on oil, energy imports. You want to see industrial production grind to a halt, the entire U.S. economy implode? Put a tax on oil, energy imports.
You're guaranteed to sink the U.S. economy.
So, Okeydokey, please stop posting that fiction. We're trying to be accurate here and that is one very bad idea.
Simpletons love it because it's a black/white answer, but it's absolutely an economic disaster to promote an across the board tariff.
The currency manipulation tariff on the other hand, is a whole other ball game. China manufactures so much that used to be made in the United States and such a tariff will cause U.S. manufacturers to return their offshore outsourced production here.
There are 1 million people making iphones in China. Think people won't buy iphones if there were $50 more per unit? Think again. Apple has such hype up and wonderful products, people would easily pay $250 more per unit and the demand would be just as high.
Now on terrible clothing that is poorly made, made of what and does not fit in the first place?
Also, this tariff is graduated. China and other currency pegs need to float.
Not the same at all as a general tariff.
Again, this site, myself do not recommend an across the board tariff for reasons we've stated many, many times.
This article is ridiculous. Of course the majority of tax loopholes, tax breaks are with households. There are thousands of businesses but millions of people. Hello. Also, the median wage is about $26k (2009), so of course the majority of tax breaks goes to households.
Yet another prime example of how to spin with numbers, of course the majority of tax breaks goes to households, they outnumber corporations/businesses 300 to 1 at least.
See the spin? They use aggregate numbers instead of individual's income, to try to promote more taxation on the back so the poor, middle class. Somehow Joe Blow with his $6.16/hr. job is now equal to G.E. pulling in mufti-billion yearly profits by using aggregate numbers.
Ridiculous to compare corporations as people (on wait, isn't that actually the law in the United States, corporations are people? Why, yes it is!)
For those wanting some information IRS AMT levels. The AMT is really low and not graduated, i.e. it's quite the mess.
But as we can see, it's quite complicated and Obama's tax idea is clearly to not allow hedge fund managers to pay glorified income taxes at a 15% year, the capital gains tax rate if one holds stocks, investments for over 1 year.
This article here does a great job in explaining AMT, especially with company stock options, a common place where people got hit with AMT even though their exercised options became worthless.
More support for wider discussion of tariffs as part of any path to economic recovery is at EP-linked Economy In Crisis. See, article by Craig Harrington, 'Why the U.S. Must reinstate Tariffs' (18 September 2011).
Tariffs are not a cure-all, but they are the easiest method of protecting domestic production. The United States has abandoned the concept because of the lack of understanding we have on tariffs regarding economic fundamentals. We ignore the fact that trade deficits make us weak because we believe they also make us appear wealthy. We have obligated ourselves to play by the rules of “free-trade” because we know that it does allow for some individuals to become extremely wealthy. We choose to ignore all the underlings who are left with nothing even when “We, the People of the United States of America” are the ones being left out.
If you guys would do the research and truly understand economics it makes no sense to do another AMT tax. We already have one that keeps getting bumped every year because it's a bad idea. A more broad based tax without deductions and eliminating or greatly lowering the corporate tax would make more sense. Review the proposal by Herman Cain on a 9-9-9 tax.
I suppose paying a little more tax is better than a bullet in the head which is probably coming if they continue to cheat the rest of us who made them rich. America has had enough crap from these idiots who don't mind exploiting the middle class proletariat. Looks just like the ancient Roman Empire, and we know how that ended!
Putting an across the board tarrif on China would be a economic disaster. Who do you think is financing a good portion of America's deficit? Yes, China is manipulating their currency and it costs US jobs, but put this tarrif on and China will have no reason to buy any more treasuries, and would certainly retaliate by selling what treasuries they have. This would result in sharp increase in interest rates as the government deparately tries to find buyers for its debt. But rising rates would cause interest payments on the $14 trillon debt to skyrocket causing obsene deficits.
To keep this from happening, the Fed would buy up all the bonds that China normally buys and print money to do so. This will cause massive inflation and just kill the average American's budget.
People think China needs the USA to buy its stuff, but the reality is that the USA needs China to finance its debt or it is game over USA.
AAA rating for this article by Robert Oak and underlying work of economist Robert E. Scott (EPI)!
One great point is implied only, namely this --
If the Obama administration can't do what needs to be done, the Romney administration can!
But what I really like about Scott's observations is the phrase "across-the-board tariff"! Quoting from Scott --
The mere threat of a large, across-the-board tariff on imports from China may be sufficient to persuade China that the time has come for a major revaluation that would benefit both countries.
And I don't think that I am alone in liking to hear this kind of talk. I believe that a solid majority of the American people agree!
Not that I am opposed to elimination of trade barriers! As an admirer of the original Henry Simons "Chicago School" of libertarian economics (economics for individual liberty), I am theoretically for elimination of trade barriers. However, I do not go along with the idea that when the facts show your theory to be inadequate, you are allowed to change the facts to fit your theory!
The charade carried on since the Uruguay Round (1994) can no longer be taken seriously as the Gospel according to Adam Smith.
The main idea of the Uruguay Round was that tariffs, beginning with agriculture, would be reduced to 15%. Then there would be an effort to eliminate trade barriers other than tariffs.
Instead, what we have seen is that tariffs have been eliminated, at least for the USA (except temporarily from time to time, pending enforcement action by the WTO). However, other trade barriers have blossomed into a kind of evolved military science in pursuit of survivalist neo-mercantilist agendas by every country except the USA.
It is now clear that elimination of trade barriers other than tariffs is --
(a) impossible for a trading unit such as the USA or China without effectively retaining some kind of substitute for a tariff vis-a-vis global trade;
(b) elimination of tariffs is only possible within a socially cohesive transnational union such as the EU; and,
(c) any such transnational union is politically problematic and globally unachievable, at least for the foreseeable future.
In short, the best way forward with elimination of barriers other than tariffs ... is ... an across-the-board tariff!
Obviously we've made mistakes so I would agree that we shouldn't be "all high and mighty."
But look, we loaned out money to them in 2008 and now again.
Do you think they'd stake their future on us to the tune of billions? Because backing them up at the current time is not without risk. What if 4-5 countries default in the dreaded chain reaction. Then what?
And let us not forget that these supposedly broke European governments are still giving their unemployed and have-nots money that our own people need, too, and yet aren't getting. As a person without healthcare for over a year and no income since last unemployment payment in 2010, this is an ever growing issue in my mind: What we do for other countries, what they do (or don't do) for us, and why we're spending money on people who live better than us.
You might make sure your images are smaller, all of these increase page load times.
Then you can show youtubes. Click the "embed media" and copy the "embed" code from the site. Alternatively you can click the URL in the flash button or in the plain text editor, paste the embed code directly.
Example done with the embed media button (made the size small for page load and fitting into a comment form):
"Dem's taken over by socialists want worldwide bankruptcy, economic collapse and public anger for a revolution that will let in a Marxist one-world government." -- 'JCamp'
Conspiracy theory is like that - you can't tell the real thing from the "camp" parody.
"Camp ... regards something as appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value."
Conspiracy theory! Isn't it wonderful in the absence of facts? -- or meaning? -- or context?
"Boykin's video" refers to a retired general officer who draws about $13,000 a month from taxpayer money, plus complete socialized medicine (for himself, if no one else) ... complaining about runaway government expenditures! It doesn't get any better than that!
Pardon me if thinking and criticism upset anyone who has made up their mind to non-think .... but here's a little common sense complete with a sense of humor ....
As some have already mentioned, this one isn't the first time a good deal of our tax money has bailed out the Euro-zone. Under TARP, Bush/Paulson ended up sending a good deal of our money over there. In all honesty, one reason (not the only one, of course) they are in trouble is because they believed us when our banksters bundled and sold them huge tranches of crappy paper and our rating agencies told them that it was all AAA. So their bankters were drinking the Kool Aid every bit as much as ours did.
Finally, it doesn't behoove us to get all high and mighty on the Europeans. After all, we're hoping that the Chinese bail out all of us, or at least don't unload all our paper on the market.
Dem's can't get enough money out of Congress; Republicans stop them so they just spend it in Europe?! Aren't people getting wise? (See "Marxism in America", Boykin's video). Dem's taken over by socialists want worldwide bankruptcy, economic collapse and public anger for a revolution that will let in a Marxist one-world government.
Below is the link to YouTube to view and listen to "Nice Work If You Can Get It" (George Gershwin), performed by Diana Dawn & Stan Pappas, singing a duet together in the style of Marilyn Monroe & Frank Sinatra, courtesy of The Spotlight TV Show... (NVTV-28)
Those are the options. It does seem Obama is putting forward a few popular ideas to ramp up for 2012 election. But I believe people voted for those popular ideas in 2008, a huge one being repeal NAFTA, China PNTR, and redo trade agreements with U.S. jobs, sovereignty, worker rights, environmental standards first and foremost.
Beyond that, those trade agreements are just pure stupidity, "would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge" level of agreements, written by and for multinational corporations.
If you notice, DeFazio and Sanders literally put together a bill that was an often touted and repeated campaign promise from 2008. If Obama was serious, he would pick up that bill and push for it's passage.
It doesn't matter if crazy tea party and radical right, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell kiss the feat of Grover Norquist and worship the corporate manufactured religion of "no taxes" at all here. It's simple. You write up legislation based on what you promised during the campaign and lobby, use influence to pass it.
If you're got an insane blockhead block like the situation in Congress, you use the bully pulpit to point that out and make sure those blocking campaign promises are challenged and possibly lose their seats or lose power and so on.
It's like LBJ politickin' 101. You don't put Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and G.E., Goldman Sachs in the white house running your (cough) economic policy.
Oh, if only we had a "President for a day" rotation in here. I'll bet 50% of Americans could do a better job.
All of that said, Obama's grand hoodwink of the nation, look what's coming at you on the radical right. So it's another worse and worser situation.
how President Zero is going to do this and that. Zero's rich friends have nothing to worry about accept the proletariat. Zero's deeds are a betrayal of labor. Anyone who believes the erosion of the middle class is anything other than the plan is fooling themselves. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/146.
He's not saying across the board tariff. He is saying use a general tariff, by nation, to take up the difference between exchange rates, i.e. it's a leveler to negate the effect China's (and others) currency manipulation has on imports, trade.
That is absolutely not the same as an across the board tariffs on all imports.
China will still buy U.S. Treasuries mainly because if they stopped, not only would their own investments tank on their current holdings, but their inflation would shoot up like a rocket, way above any tariff calculated in.
As far as across the board tariffs, I've said many times on this site, that is absolutely a bad idea.
Why it's a bad idea is one needs certain imports for the U.S. economy to run and that's the way it is.
Obviously, it's one thing to put a tax on tire imports, when those tires are being dumped at below cost and killing off U.S. tire manufacturers because they simply cannot produce a tire at that price...
it's a whole other ball game to put a tariff on oil, energy imports. You want to see industrial production grind to a halt, the entire U.S. economy implode? Put a tax on oil, energy imports.
You're guaranteed to sink the U.S. economy.
So, Okeydokey, please stop posting that fiction. We're trying to be accurate here and that is one very bad idea.
Simpletons love it because it's a black/white answer, but it's absolutely an economic disaster to promote an across the board tariff.
The currency manipulation tariff on the other hand, is a whole other ball game. China manufactures so much that used to be made in the United States and such a tariff will cause U.S. manufacturers to return their offshore outsourced production here.
There are 1 million people making iphones in China. Think people won't buy iphones if there were $50 more per unit? Think again. Apple has such hype up and wonderful products, people would easily pay $250 more per unit and the demand would be just as high.
Now on terrible clothing that is poorly made, made of what and does not fit in the first place?
Also, this tariff is graduated. China and other currency pegs need to float.
Not the same at all as a general tariff.
Again, this site, myself do not recommend an across the board tariff for reasons we've stated many, many times.
This article is ridiculous. Of course the majority of tax loopholes, tax breaks are with households. There are thousands of businesses but millions of people. Hello. Also, the median wage is about $26k (2009), so of course the majority of tax breaks goes to households.
Yet another prime example of how to spin with numbers, of course the majority of tax breaks goes to households, they outnumber corporations/businesses 300 to 1 at least.
See the spin? They use aggregate numbers instead of individual's income, to try to promote more taxation on the back so the poor, middle class. Somehow Joe Blow with his $6.16/hr. job is now equal to G.E. pulling in mufti-billion yearly profits by using aggregate numbers.
Ridiculous to compare corporations as people (on wait, isn't that actually the law in the United States, corporations are people? Why, yes it is!)
For those wanting some information IRS AMT levels. The AMT is really low and not graduated, i.e. it's quite the mess.
But as we can see, it's quite complicated and Obama's tax idea is clearly to not allow hedge fund managers to pay glorified income taxes at a 15% year, the capital gains tax rate if one holds stocks, investments for over 1 year.
This article here does a great job in explaining AMT, especially with company stock options, a common place where people got hit with AMT even though their exercised options became worthless.
You might read the rest of the site. There were not any details on this tax yet, so the conjecture it's probably another AMT is a guess.
Yes, we know about AMT and it catching people with options and it should not plus the adjustments
But Herman Cain wants to really go regressive, tax the poor, let the rich run free with a glorified national sales tax, highly regressive.
The only one of these that is useful is a VAT, for trade reasons, but you must offset such a tax with Progressive taxation and credits after the fact.
Bottom line, tax cuts and not taxing the rich does not create jobs and is another major contributor to wealth inequality in the U.S.
More support for wider discussion of tariffs as part of any path to economic recovery is at EP-linked Economy In Crisis. See, article by Craig Harrington, 'Why the U.S. Must reinstate Tariffs' (18 September 2011).
If you guys would do the research and truly understand economics it makes no sense to do another AMT tax. We already have one that keeps getting bumped every year because it's a bad idea. A more broad based tax without deductions and eliminating or greatly lowering the corporate tax would make more sense. Review the proposal by Herman Cain on a 9-9-9 tax.
I suppose paying a little more tax is better than a bullet in the head which is probably coming if they continue to cheat the rest of us who made them rich. America has had enough crap from these idiots who don't mind exploiting the middle class proletariat. Looks just like the ancient Roman Empire, and we know how that ended!
Putting an across the board tarrif on China would be a economic disaster. Who do you think is financing a good portion of America's deficit? Yes, China is manipulating their currency and it costs US jobs, but put this tarrif on and China will have no reason to buy any more treasuries, and would certainly retaliate by selling what treasuries they have. This would result in sharp increase in interest rates as the government deparately tries to find buyers for its debt. But rising rates would cause interest payments on the $14 trillon debt to skyrocket causing obsene deficits.
To keep this from happening, the Fed would buy up all the bonds that China normally buys and print money to do so. This will cause massive inflation and just kill the average American's budget.
People think China needs the USA to buy its stuff, but the reality is that the USA needs China to finance its debt or it is game over USA.
Personally, I'm tired of seeing schools, libraries and parks shut down. Tax the rich because it's practical to tax those who actually have the money.
AAA rating for this article by Robert Oak and underlying work of economist Robert E. Scott (EPI)!
One great point is implied only, namely this --
If the Obama administration can't do what needs to be done, the Romney administration can!
But what I really like about Scott's observations is the phrase "across-the-board tariff"! Quoting from Scott --
And I don't think that I am alone in liking to hear this kind of talk. I believe that a solid majority of the American people agree!
Not that I am opposed to elimination of trade barriers! As an admirer of the original Henry Simons "Chicago School" of libertarian economics (economics for individual liberty), I am theoretically for elimination of trade barriers. However, I do not go along with the idea that when the facts show your theory to be inadequate, you are allowed to change the facts to fit your theory!
The charade carried on since the Uruguay Round (1994) can no longer be taken seriously as the Gospel according to Adam Smith.
The main idea of the Uruguay Round was that tariffs, beginning with agriculture, would be reduced to 15%. Then there would be an effort to eliminate trade barriers other than tariffs.
Instead, what we have seen is that tariffs have been eliminated, at least for the USA (except temporarily from time to time, pending enforcement action by the WTO). However, other trade barriers have blossomed into a kind of evolved military science in pursuit of survivalist neo-mercantilist agendas by every country except the USA.
It is now clear that elimination of trade barriers other than tariffs is --
(a) impossible for a trading unit such as the USA or China without effectively retaining some kind of substitute for a tariff vis-a-vis global trade;
(b) elimination of tariffs is only possible within a socially cohesive transnational union such as the EU; and,
(c) any such transnational union is politically problematic and globally unachievable, at least for the foreseeable future.
In short, the best way forward with elimination of barriers other than tariffs ... is ... an across-the-board tariff!
Thanks, that's a good idea. I'm running out of space for images anyway, and I think I should be working more on the concise thing, brief comments.
Obviously we've made mistakes so I would agree that we shouldn't be "all high and mighty."
But look, we loaned out money to them in 2008 and now again.
Do you think they'd stake their future on us to the tune of billions? Because backing them up at the current time is not without risk. What if 4-5 countries default in the dreaded chain reaction. Then what?
And let us not forget that these supposedly broke European governments are still giving their unemployed and have-nots money that our own people need, too, and yet aren't getting. As a person without healthcare for over a year and no income since last unemployment payment in 2010, this is an ever growing issue in my mind: What we do for other countries, what they do (or don't do) for us, and why we're spending money on people who live better than us.
Where is our Uncle? We need help ourselves.
You might make sure your images are smaller, all of these increase page load times.
Then you can show youtubes. Click the "embed media" and copy the "embed" code from the site. Alternatively you can click the URL in the flash button or in the plain text editor, paste the embed code directly.
Example done with the embed media button (made the size small for page load and fitting into a comment form):
"Dem's taken over by socialists want worldwide bankruptcy, economic collapse and public anger for a revolution that will let in a Marxist one-world government." -- 'JCamp'
Conspiracy theory is like that - you can't tell the real thing from the "camp" parody.
"Camp ... regards something as appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value."
-- from Wiki article on "Camp (style)"
Conspiracy theory! Isn't it wonderful in the absence of facts? -- or meaning? -- or context?
"Boykin's video" refers to a retired general officer who draws about $13,000 a month from taxpayer money, plus complete socialized medicine (for himself, if no one else) ... complaining about runaway government expenditures! It doesn't get any better than that!
Pardon me if thinking and criticism upset anyone who has made up their mind to non-think .... but here's a little common sense complete with a sense of humor ....
Left (below) versus Right (right) ?
ABOVE: Right (left) versus Left (right)?
Check out hilarious video at YouTube --
Leaders with Facial Hair are a Bad Sign II
... and other videos in the "Leaders with Facial Hair are a Bad Sign" series.
[All images are from Leaders with Facial Hair are a Bad Sign II, available at YouTube.]
Meanwhile, "Be all you can be!"
As some have already mentioned, this one isn't the first time a good deal of our tax money has bailed out the Euro-zone. Under TARP, Bush/Paulson ended up sending a good deal of our money over there. In all honesty, one reason (not the only one, of course) they are in trouble is because they believed us when our banksters bundled and sold them huge tranches of crappy paper and our rating agencies told them that it was all AAA. So their bankters were drinking the Kool Aid every bit as much as ours did.
Finally, it doesn't behoove us to get all high and mighty on the Europeans. After all, we're hoping that the Chinese bail out all of us, or at least don't unload all our paper on the market.
Dem's can't get enough money out of Congress; Republicans stop them so they just spend it in Europe?! Aren't people getting wise? (See "Marxism in America", Boykin's video). Dem's taken over by socialists want worldwide bankruptcy, economic collapse and public anger for a revolution that will let in a Marxist one-world government.
"Nice Work If You Can Get It" by George Gershwin
Below is the link to YouTube to view and listen to "Nice Work If You Can Get It" (George Gershwin), performed by Diana Dawn & Stan Pappas, singing a duet together in the style of Marilyn Monroe & Frank Sinatra, courtesy of The Spotlight TV Show... (NVTV-28)
Link to YouTube
Pages