EPTOn July 24 2012 14:08 Lightwip wrote:
Fear not, the US has enough influence to pass on its economic troubles to the entire world.
Fear not, the US has enough influence to pass on its economic troubles to the entire world.
Hoooooo .... raaaaay?
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 203
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Hoooooo .... raaaaay? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:01 Ryuu314 wrote: Really? Obama rolled out the stimulus plan, which faced heavy opposition from both parties. He also chose to bail out the banks and other big industries even though that was a very unpopular decision. If those aren't touch decisions what are? Obama wants to raise taxes, while Romney wants to cut taxes, but only for the rich. Romney, as a Republican, also wants to increase spending in the military while cutting funding for stuff like education. Romney also has a potential connection to the out-sourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Republicans also want to gut the healthcare bill, which is projected, by both liberal and neutral think tanks, to reduce spending in the country by billions, if not trillions. Pray tell, what and how exactly is Romney more competent or better on the economic front? Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/a-cruel-republican-budget.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-29/house-republican-budget-ryan/53855786/1 The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
I agree with a lot of Mitt Romney's economic policies. Cutting corporate taxes is a good thing as it allows for more growth amongst businesses, who provide jobs. He also wants to raise the retirement age which is another needed change in the United States that increases the likelihood that Social Security will still be around when you retire. What it boils down to is this: on your current path you are headed for bankruptcy and Obama isn't changing anything. If I were in your position I would gamble on Romney. While he may have really medieval social policies and abysmal foreign policy, the main concern is the economy and I see no real improvement in that area from the democratic party. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote:who provide jobs. What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:53 sam!zdat wrote: What kind of jobs do you envision being provided? When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. | ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:39 Blurry wrote: I think one of the huge issues in the United States is how few people pay taxes. 46% of households did not have to pay federal income tax in the united states which is ridiculous. If you impose an income tax on the lower and lower-middle class the market will adjust prices accordingly so it won't actually put much financial burden on them, thats the entire point of a percentage tax. As people have less money, demand drops, which means prices drop. I agree with a lot of Mitt Romney's economic policies. Cutting corporate taxes is a good thing as it allows for more growth amongst businesses, who provide jobs. He also wants to raise the retirement age which is another needed change in the United States that increases the likelihood that Social Security will still be around when you retire. What it boils down to is this: on your current path you are headed for bankruptcy and Obama isn't changing anything. If I were in your position I would gamble on Romney. While he may have really medieval social policies and abysmal foreign policy, the main concern is the economy and I see no real improvement in that area from the democratic party. im sorry, is your plan really tax the poor more and tax the rich less? i might be oversimplifying this but that's what i read from your post. Please give more information on why you think this would be good | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote: When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Pretend like I'm smart and I understand this concept The question is about what sectors you see taking up the currently unemployed, and what those jobs will be like | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:04 Deathmanbob wrote: im sorry, is your plan really tax the poor more and tax the rich less? i might be oversimplifying this but that's what i read from your post. Please give more information on why you think this would be good Reducing corporate taxes does not mean tax the rich less, not directly anyway. Private companies owners will see more money, perhaps, but any publicly traded company will use the extra money for expansion or pay it out in dividends, which are still taxed. I fail to see the problem with promoting company growth. Taxing the poor means its a percentage. If you make 18,000 dollars a year, and you have to pay 5% thats only 900 dollars. Prices will change to reflect that people earning that much will be 900 dollars poorer. Housing costs will go down as the demand falls and thus, while a poor person may in the end have less money, it will still buy around the same amount. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote: When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Bush tax cuts on the rich did not see an increase in jobs. You live in a fantasy world if you think when the rich get tax cuts they create jobs. It doesn't actually work that way. Like it says above - Fact Check. | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:04 Deathmanbob wrote: im sorry, is your plan really tax the poor more and tax the rich less? i might be oversimplifying this but that's what i read from your post. Please give more information on why you think this would be good As far as I can tell, his argument is more-or-less pure trickle-down economics, with the added claim that reducing customer demand will strengthen the US economy. | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:08 sam!zdat wrote: Pretend like I'm smart and I understand this concept The question is about what sectors you see taking up the currently unemployed, and what those jobs will be like Sorry, I did not mean to be condescending in tone. Its hard to give specific examples but it would mainly be more jobs related to production and distribution of luxury goods, products that are not necessities. As companies expand their revenues continue to increase and the shareholders become more wealthy as well as new jobs in management and distribution fields (manufacturing is too often outsourced). On average people will be wealthier then, and will want nicer things such as a new TV or a nicer car. Any company involved in the production of these products will then benefit. I do however believe that unless the product is hard to transport (cars) that there won't be very many unskilled manufacturing jobs opening up. Retail jobs will however increase as more products will be sold. | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:13 Silidons wrote: Bush tax cuts on the rich did not see an increase in jobs. You live in a fantasy world if you think when the rich get tax cuts they create jobs. It doesn't actually work that way. Like it says above - Fact Check. Corporate taxes =/= tax cuts for the rich. Bush tax cuts =/= corporate tax cuts. Like it says above - Fact Check On July 24 2012 15:19 Jumbled wrote: As far as I can tell, his argument is more-or-less pure trickle-down economics, with the added claim that reducing customer demand will strengthen the US economy. I do not think that the reduction of consumer demand will strengthen the US economy, but rather that it is needed to combat the budget deficit. The issue is you are fighting two battles. First, the economic recession, and second, the massive debt your government has accumulated. As it is now, the US government either needs to cut spending on its social programs and defense, which won't happen, or increase their revenue, which is done by increasing taxes. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote: When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. I think that's generally true but not the best solution to the current recession. Right now businesses are plenty profitable. The problem is that they're scared so they aren't expanding. Offering clarity regarding government spending, taxes, regulation and deficit reduction over the next decade would go a long way to remedy that. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote: When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. Unless the business owners are misers and just hoard the money under their bed the money will go back into the economy in some fashion, whether it is through business expansion or just buying more yachts. Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:27 Blurry wrote: Sorry, I did not mean to be condescending in tone. No, my bad, I was rude... sorry I've been drinking Its hard to give specific examples but it would mainly be more jobs related to production and distribution of luxury goods, products that are not necessities. As companies expand their revenues continue to increase and the shareholders become more wealthy as well as new jobs in management and distribution fields (manufacturing is too often outsourced). On average people will be wealthier then, and will want nicer things such as a new TV or a nicer car. Any company involved in the production of these products will then benefit. I do however believe that unless the product is hard to transport (cars) that there won't be very many unskilled manufacturing jobs opening up. Retail jobs will however increase as more products will be sold. Oh good, more retail jobs. edit: not only is that a horrible job, the retail model is obsolescent, so no lasting career even in that wretched sector | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
HOWEVER, Romney is not just advocating corporate tax cuts. He's also advocating income tax cuts for the wealthy only. His, and the Republican Party's, philosophy is essentially trickle down economics as you described here: On July 24 2012 15:02 Blurry wrote: When corporate taxes are cut, companies have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the company is more likely to use that money to expand. When you expand, you hire more people. When you hire more people, more people have money to spend. When more people have more money to spend, they buy more products from companies. And the cycle repeats itself. So, in short, job increases across the board. However, the real world simply doesn't work this way. The United States has been trying this economic philosophy for the past 30 years. It simply doesn't work. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence that an increase of taxes will reduce corporate and industrial growth. Under Clinton, tax rates increased and were followed by an growth in jobs along with the reduction of the national debt. The United States enjoyed a budget surplus for the first time in many many years. Trickle down economics don't work and increasing tax rates =/= mean less economic growth. On July 24 2012 15:13 Blurry wrote: Taxing the poor means its a percentage. If you make 18,000 dollars a year, and you have to pay 5% thats only 900 dollars. Prices will change to reflect that people earning that much will be 900 dollars poorer. Housing costs will go down as the demand falls and thus, while a poor person may in the end have less money, it will still buy around the same amount. This is simply false. If you look at any and all statistics, you will see that price inflation has far outpaced that of income inflation. Prices have not changed to account for people making the same (or less) amount of money. Prices have actually increased. On July 24 2012 15:33 Blurry wrote: I do not think that the reduction of consumer demand will strengthen the US economy, but rather that it is needed to combat the budget deficit. The issue is you are fighting two battles. First, the economic recession, and second, the massive debt your government has accumulated. As it is now, the US government either needs to cut spending on its social programs and defense, which won't happen, or increase their revenue, which is done by increasing taxes. Here's the thing. Republicans (Romney) want to DECREASE taxes, while INCREASING spending in some areas like defense and military, while decreasing spending in areas like commerce, education, housing and urban development, and energy. Democrats want to INCREASE taxes, while DECREASING spending in some areas like defense and military (although this will never happen lol) and increasing spending in areas like education, medical care, welfare, etc... | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:52 Probulous wrote: Given the amount of money companies like Apple are sitting on, what makes you so sure this won't happen? I mean we know that corporate profits are recovering much faster than the job market, why? Nothing stops people from hoarding, but one has to remember that not all corporations are large entities. There are small-medium sized companies that will greatly benefit from this. I think apple is an exception because they are incredibly profitable. They can charge prices that don't reflect the cost of development due to fashionable consumerism and they have to be very careful when choosing which areas to expand in. I'm more thinking of smaller scale companies where 5% lower taxes would allow them to open up a new branch somewhere or develop a new product. One of the reasons why the job market is lagging behind is that US labor is not competitive within the global market. The US has some of the most intelligent people in the world, but it also has a lot of uneducated labor. I do not think we will see a large increase in manufacturing as the Chinese Yuan being pegged to the dollar makes their labor far too competitive in comparison to US labor. I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. This is simply false. If you look at any and all statistics, you will see that price inflation has far outpaced that of income inflation. Prices have not changed to account for people making the same (or less) amount of money. Prices have actually increased. Purchasing power will indeed decrease and people wont be able to afford fewer luxury goods such as TVs but the necessities to survive will see a drop in price, particularly in housing which is one of the main expenditures of low income households. If I own a flat in the Bronx that I rent out for lets say 300 dollars a month. If tenants can no longer afford this I will have to lower the price or have the place be left vacant. I do not know enough about the food market to comment on how this would affect it but I expect a similar decrease in price. Americans will take quality of living hits across the board but this is unavoidable. I also don't agree with all of Romney's ideas, such as an increase in defense spending, but some social programs do need to be scaled back a bit. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 24 2012 16:04 Blurry wrote: Nothing stops people from hoarding, but one has to remember that not all corporations are large entities. There are small-medium sized companies that will greatly benefit from this. I think apple is an exception because they are incredibly profitable. They can charge prices that don't reflect the cost of development due to fashionable consumerism and they have to be very careful when choosing which areas to expand in. I'm more thinking of smaller scale companies where 5% lower taxes would allow them to open up a new branch somewhere or develop a new product. Does this suggest that we should treat these entities differently in tax law? Do we? I think people will need to learn skills that can't be outsourced. How many specialized skills can there really be? Do you feel there is an arbitrary amount of work to be done? | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The bank bail outs were enacted by Bush. The auto bailouts (Obama) were handled poorly. I'd like to see a source on Obamacare reducing spending by "billions, if not trillions." BTW Romney's platform is different from what house Republicans are pushing. I did some more research on Obamacare. Opinions are really divided on whether or not it'll reduce spending. Proponents say it will reduce a ton, opponents say it will increase a ton. I'm no economist so I'll just have to take a neutral stand on this until I know more. Sorry for the extravagant claim. Romney's platform may appear to be different from what house Republicans are pushing, but that's mostly because he's campaigning and is trying to get votes. If he gets into office, he will very very likely do what the Republican Party wants him to do. It's how politics tend to work. If anything, we can trust that Romney to do things that will be beneficial to him and his ilk, which is basically what house Republicans want. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 24 2012 15:53 sam!zdat wrote: No, my bad, I was rude... sorry I've been drinking Oh good, more retail jobs. edit: not only is that a horrible job, the retail model is obsolescent, so no lasting career even in that wretched sector You rais an interesting point ... The reality is, technology has progressed very rapidly over the past ten years, and transformed the marketplace in ways that couldn't have been predicted. It's not a cliche to say the way to do business is entirely different than it was five years ago. Retail is in its death throes. Manufacturing ... there is a reason that China is dominating, and it's not just the cost of labour. They're BETTER at it. Console game developers are dropping left right and center because of mobile app development has is so much more efficient/profitable. I mean, how can you credit -- or blame -- Bush or Obama for the state of the economy? Is it really anyone's fault that retail is eventually going to go obsolete? Or that a Chinese network of manufacturers can redesign their entire assembly process in 48 hours and fabricate 10,000 new iPhone components in a couple of weeks? Are less taxes or more social welfare really going to change these two realities? I'm actually curious. I wonder if there is a way to calculate how much the economy has simply been impacted by 'times-a-chang'n'. | ||
| ||
