Originally posted by kirksey957I said acknowledgemennt followed by some steps in the right direction. What good is achknowledgement if you don't then take steps in the right direction?
If all you are asking for is an acknowledgment of the crisis at hand, he has done that numerous times.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahttp://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10452
Taxing the rich more is definately a step in the right direction.
“A wave of energy companies has, in the last few months, announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama’s tax-seeking administration.”
Guido Jud, head of Zug's tax office, said about 1,200 companies had set up shop there in 2008 including these four major energy companies.
Noble Corporation - a leading offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.
Transocean – the world's largest offshore drilling company.
Weatherfield International - one of the largest global providers of advanced products and services that span the drilling, evaluation, completion, production and intervention cycles of oil and natural gas wells.
Foster Wheeler - a global engineering and construction and power equipment supplier.
Could it be a tax rise in a bad economy not only costs that country existing corporate tax revenue but also applies additional destruction to economy due to jobs lost with associated income tax, as companies flee threat to their well being?
Answer is: Certainly.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou may think it a step in the right direction, and that is debatable, however, is it the right time? It's like FDR after Pearl Harbor incorporating tax hikes and pork packages intermingled with his declaration of war against Japan. We need focus not distractions and certainly not policies that are counterproductive to fighting the crisis off.
Taxing the rich more is definately a step in the right direction.
Originally posted by kirksey957So what do you expect out of the man the first 60 days as he took office during an economic melt down, the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression? Tax hikes perhaps?
You all ask a lot for a mere 60 days in office.
it's probably not a good idea to impose higher taxes at this time -- because right now, the idea is to stimulate the economy -- whether via tax cuts, higher spending, looser monetary policy, etc
BUT -- once we're out of this economic mess -- we're going to have MAJOR budget issues. Even before the current crisis, we were already facing major budget issues because of deficits, rising healthcare costs, and the upcoming wave of retiring baby boomers.
the problem I have with most conservatives is that they never get around to proposing any meaningful spending cuts. Under Bush, we got a lot of additional spending on stuff like defense (which I expected) and Medicare (which I did not expect). But when it comes to specifying what they'd cut, the best you get is vague promises to cut waste or perhaps a crusade against earmarks. The reality is that real spending cuts must come from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense/Security because that's what what makes up the great majority of the Federal budget.
As a result, I don't want to hear the whining about all the harm this or that tax is doing to the economy. If we're going to spend the money, we need to raise the revenue to pay for it. Hard choices need to be made between raising taxes or cutting popular programs. And until the budget is back in balance AND a good chunk of the current debt is being paid off, I don't want to hear about tax cuts (beyond very short-term cuts as part a stimulus)
As for Obama and Co -- I wish that the stimulus spending was more focused on temporary stuff that will disappear from the budget by itself after a couple years. And it should have been extremely focused on getting money into the economy as fast as possible. It really bothers me to hear about how "we can't let a good crisis go to waste".
Originally posted by MacSwainTaxing the rich and taxing corporations are two different things. I don't know how high corporate profit taxes are in the US and how serious those threats of moving abroad are; of course corporations will lobby for lower taxes for them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10452
“A wave of energy companies has, in the last few months, announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach ted income tax, as companies flee threat to their well being?
Answer is: [b]Certainly.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeySure, it's better to wait a few months.
You may think it a step in the right direction, and that is debatable, however, is it the right time? It's like FDR after Pearl Harbor incorporating tax hikes and pork packages intermingled with his declaration of war against Japan. We need focus not distractions and certainly not policies that are counterproductive to fighting the crisis off.
Originally posted by whodeyMy take is simply this: there's basically nothing that Obama (or anyone else in government) can do to fix the economy (especially not in 60 days! Or even a year).
I know what he can do, he can reduce the capital gains tax that he just increased. What is this guy thinking in the midst of a Wall Street melt down? Is he daft or just in over his head?
Of course, those on the left would give some song and dance about a much needed redistribution of wealth, but the fact is that the average Joe is effected just as much a g from a President over seeing the one of the, if not the worst, economic crisis in US history.
That said, Obama has to appear to do something. You can't just sit on your behind and tell people that the real economy has to sort itself out. Most people are angry at Bush as well as Republicans in part because of a perceived indifference to their economic problems.
Unfortunately, it all comes down to most people (especially Wall Street types) have a Keynesian view of policy (spend during recessions and tax during expansions).
I'm very skeptical that any tax proposal from the set of politically feasible ones (i.e., policies that either a majority of Republicans or Democrats would support) are going to do much of anything to speed the recovery.
BTW, whodey, I believe most people's wealth is in their house not the stock market.
Oh yeah, one final thing for us all to remember: the stock market does not equal the economy.
Originally posted by telerionIsn't an increase in government spending required now with consumer spending collapsed? Given that the Fed has no room to lower interest rates?
My take is simply this: there's basically nothing that Obama (or anyone else in government) can do to fix the economy (especially not in 60 days! Or even a year).
That said, Obama has to appear to do something. You can't just sit on your behind and tell people that the real economy has to sort itself out. Most people are angry at Bush as well as Repu ...[text shortened]... ry.
BTW, whodey, I believe most people's wealth is in their house not the stock market.
Or I suppose we could just ride out the recession and hope it doesn't turn into a depression. Is that the consensus of the economics profession these days?
Generally the estimated multiplier on income from govt spending is quite small. After all people are only going to consume a fraction of any transfer they receive. In these times especially, and given the nature of the fiscal policy (i.e. a transfer today implies tax hikes in the future), it seems unlikely that government spending is going to do a whole lot to aggregate consumption.
Edit: And to answer your last question, I'll go back to what I said earlier. It seems unlikely that there is much of anything Obama can do other than appear to be trying. We may go into a depression either way.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe consumer spending bubble is just releasing some air. People were spending more than they had, this created the illusion that the US economy was doing better than it actually was.
Isn't an increase in government spending required now with consumer spending collapsed? Given that the Fed has no room to lower interest rates?
Or I suppose we could just ride out the recession and hope it doesn't turn into a depression. Is that the consensus of the economics profession these days?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWorker income in the US has been stagnant for about three decades due in no small part to the destructive effect of the "free trade" you so dearly love on the ability of Americans to get or maintain good paying jobs. Of course, the only way to increase consumer spending was heightened borrowing and debt. And of course, eventually the piper had to be paid.
The consumer spending bubble is just releasing some air. People were spending more than they had, this created the illusion that the US economy was doing better than it actually was.
Originally posted by no1marauderReagan and his laughably poor economic policy is to blame for that, not free trade. Worker income in Holland has increased significantly over the past three decades.
Worker income in the US has been stagnant for about three decades due in no small part to the destructive effect of the "free trade" you so dearly love on the ability of Americans to get or maintain good paying jobs. Of course, the only way to increase consumer spending was heightened borrowing and debt. And of course, eventually the piper had to be paid.