What are your thoughts about the republican claim to a new job creating plan? I can't quote it verbatim but the points it seems to make are these. 1. Reduce corporate taxes. -A particular point of reducing corporate tax seem to be to allow big business to keep their earnings in US banks rather than in oversea banks. This will allow them to invest in US production more quickly. 2. Reduce federal regulations. - Perry has recently spoken on this and the main push (according to him) is about environmental regulations which impede exploration and harvesting of natural resources. 3. Promote global free trade.- To allow US workers to more fairly compete with overseas workers. Other than this the press releases digress into continued criticism of Obamas jobs plan.
The focus should be on SMEs. Effective corporate taxes in the US aren't high Deregulation to offer profit opportunities leads to two aspects. First, it encourages short terminsm. Second, it encourages overproduction of negative externalities. Regulations aren't the problem. The problem is an insufficient focus on innovation and reliance on skilled labour. And what is that supposed to mean? The US has an appalling record at hindering multilateral reform, reflecting its internal conservatism
Soooo to summarize: the GOP plan is to do exactly what they did that got us into the Bush Recession: cut taxes for billionaires, deregulate, and fail to allocate the burden of trade pacts fairly between capital and labor in this country. There's a name for doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes: insanity.
Of course, they earn their profits offshore. Of course, all government regulation the best that could ever be written, and stimulates the economy as much as possible, consistent with the safety of the public. Who would ever think anyone in government could be less than altruistic? ROTFL Progressive politicians are pure as the driven snow. They don't take any contributions from corporations....
You can't just blame influence cost. Note, for example, the ridiculous anti-trade ideas that the right wing on here will grunt. Conservative social welfare functions will lead to inefficient trade policy. Basic international political economy!
US corporations are sitting on $2Trillion in unspent profits in the US already, if they are not spending that on creating jobs there is no logical argument that allowing them to repatriate more profits at a low tax rate will cause them to create any jobs at all. The last time they promised jobs but used the money in share repurchases. The same day that HP repatriated $3.8Billion in profits it announced 30,000 layoffs. Is there any reason to believe them now? If this is to be allowed at the 5.6% proposed tax rate, corporations should be required to create one job for each $1million repatriated, failure to do so within two years would cause a tax liability of 40% for each $1million job not created. The carrot should not come without the stick for these miscreants.
I just do not understand American politics. The right emphasises that there is not enough petroleum for maintanence of the economy. Yet the very "freed trade" policies they support put severe strain on the use and availability of oil. All the foreign trade consumes much fuel in the transportation. Rail trains may be more expensive, but they consume much less petroleum/energy. What the American right simply does not understand is that free trade might be "cheaper", but much of the money that is spent goes to buying oil in other countries, rather than staying within the country. Restricting international trade might be a little more expensive, but it would also create far more job opportunity than the additional cost. Proponents of "free trade" should not forget to consider the fuel costs (meaning the money goes to oil producing countries instead of creating additional jobs) and pollution. All the trade with China sends money to China instead of the USA. Now that the Chinese have so much money they are buying much more oil, creating competition that is driving up the price of oil, thus hurting the American economy. And I have no idea why the American left supported free trade, one would think they would be concerned about deteriorating envirormental standards and worsening labor conditions from the competition. Competition from outside has been one of the main reasons for the decline of private sector labor unions. Another big problem is that the American system effectively is based on cheap labor and debt. Debt has become so normalised that the entire monetary system is based on it! And no one seems to question this logic. Why not base the monetary system on real assets rather than debt? The argument that one persons debts are another persons assets is another example of the fallacy of composition: such an argument simply cannot hold for a society as a whole. Imagine lending yourself money and writing yourself a receipt, then thinking that receipt constitutes your own personal savings! Both cheap labor and debt are in many ways like a pyramid scheme. It cannot go on forever, and a current failure to recognise what their future effects will be will eventually result in the systems crashing down. Politicians think they can get something for nothing. Not enough workers for to pay taxes to pay for retirement for the old? Apparently the "solution" is to bring in more workers. The economy not doing so well? Just issue and spend more money. The logic on both these counts fail. Who is going to take care of the new workers? What about their children? Are they too going to be willing to do the low paying jobs we are not willing to do? If not, is there going to be enough decent paying jobs for everyone? In any case, many of these workers incomes are so low that they cannot afford to fully take care of themselves, even while they are working, let alone after they retire. The government may think they will be getting more taxes, but the expenses will rise even faster. Someone has to pay for the public education and additional strain on the legal and law enforcement system. In the case of issuing more money, that only increases the tax burdens in the future, while simultaneously reducing the value of the currency, since the collateral backing up the currency in the central bank becomes diluted with less valuable government debt. It is in many ways like a corporation issuing new stock to new investors below the market price. It just dilutes the value of the stock held by the previous investors. When the government decides it print more money through expanding government debt, it means that a larger portion of the money people already hold becomes backed by the debt, instead of the other assets held by the bank. Most the USA's problems result from the interaction of capitalism with outside changes- some of which are essentially irreversible. What many on the right fail to realise is that globalisation, outsourcing, and immigration are merely natural extenuations of capitalism. The problem is that these extenuations are not sustainable. A low income underclass descended from immigrants will inevitibly resist the system. Cheap immigrant labor cannot continue on forever. The future costs associated with such "cheap" labor are not cheap at all. Neither can globalisation, which is fundamentally based not on specialization of labor, but rather cheap labor and trade deficits.
WHAT THE F***! We need to raise taxes on the rich, create more essential jobs and less wall street control.
How did those cause the Democrat housing bust? When the Republicans were in control we had falling deficits and full employment. It went downhill when the Democrats took over and their housing scheme collapsed.
It is just one cog in the wheel, lower the tax rates here also, can Obamacare, a moratorium on new regulations, cut federal spending and borrowing, no more government speculating with taxpayer money, no more government picking winners and losers and get out of the way.
Not a good idea! The US economy is already structurally flawed, with too much focus on low wage labour. Standard free market rhetoric, such as huffing and puffing about labour market flexibility, will only make things worse
The government has no business messing around with job creation. The only jobs government can create are government jobs and we can't afford the ones we have now. All wealth is created in the private sector. The only jobs that create wealth are in the private sector. Government jobs only spend wealth. The economy is bad because our society has been sending its manufacturing, farming, jobs and wealth to other countries for the past 40 years. If you want the economy to recover, quit worrying about job creation - which is a business function - and figure out how to reverse the sending of our manufacturing, farming, jobs and wealth to other countrie. Looking to government for job creation and economic improvement is just simply nonsense.
Do the facts that American companies are already sitting on $2,000,000,000,000+ and the banks are buying treasuries rather than investing in production tell you that American business is too well-served as it is? It tells me that all Republican jobs plans are flat goofy.
You'd have a point if the market quickly delivered full employment. It doesn't. You therefore support the destruction of human capital and the loss of economic potential
Ok by taxing the rich who create jobs...where will all those new jobs come from? Simple question. Can you answer it? Wall Street Control? Of what?
It tells me that they hate the destructive Obama administration, and they especially hate Obamacare. Funny how that escapes you. All they need is 2012 to come tomorrow...they'll invest again, don't you worry.
Balance the budget by next year(without raising taxes), SS ends when last person born 1981 and earlier dies, pull the troops home/slash defense in 1/2, no corporate taxes, one tax rate for all over $5000 (income and capital gains - only deduction is charity), end the Fed, except for fraud/health/safety - government leaves economy (virtually) alone. There is your 'jobs bill'.
And expect economic disaster. The fake libertarian angle is just the result of a basic innocence of macroeconomic reality
Oh - and how do you balance the budget by next year? Other then a 50% cut in the military; you tell Congress to figure it out in 6 months or every department in the budget gets an equal % cut (except life essential aid to the poor) until budget is balanced. Would the idea fly? No chance...people are too ignorant and/or corrupt. But I'm not compromising what's right for the weak.
You don't. The very idea is based on an ideological approach that ignores the importance of fiscal policy and basic economic sense
Compared to the disasters the government creates when it tries to run the economy or control markets............the fake Keynesian angle is just the result of basic innocence and macroeconomic ignorance.
