Romney says on day one, he will impose a "new tax"

[The Rabbi]

I thought cons 'vow' not to raise taxes on Americans.

Seems as though both Obama and Romney want 'something' from China.

The tariff will raise the cost to the American shopper.

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Earnings for the 100-company measure are projected to reach a record high this year

Obviously that's not true. If it were we wouldn't have such high unemployment still.

 

[Big Fitz]

OK, people!

Who's who here?


Obama administration hits Chinese wind energy tower exports with new tariffs
The Commerce Department made a preliminary decision Wednesday to impose new tariffs on imports of wind energy towers from China, the latest volley in an escalating trade war between the two superpowers over expanding green technology markets.
The move by Commerce also reflects a show of strength by the Obama administration against China at a time when presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has criticized the administration for going soft.
Obama administration hits Chinese wind energy tower exports with new tariffs - The Hill's E2-Wire


The Republican also talked about his foreign policy philosophy, which includes more trade agreements and a tougher stance with China.
"It is good for us to be able to trade with other nations. It creates jobs here," Mr. Romney said.
China and European Union nations the past 3.5 years have negotiated 44 trade agreements with other countries while President Obama has negotiated zero, he said.
Mr. Romney said he wants China to "be on the same page as us" regarding trade and claimed that the country has a propensity for stealing intellectual property, counterfeiting U.S goods, stealing technology, and copying trademarks -- all of which cost American jobs.
"On Day One, I will label China a currency-manipulator and that will allow me to apply [tariffs] where they steal our intellectual property," Mr. Romney said
Romney vows policies to cut deficit, aid jobs - Toledo Blade



Mexico Getting Set To Impose High Tariffs On U.S. Chicken Legs - Seeking Alpha

It's the cons who vow not to raise taxes, and Willard went right for it.
I recommend increasing revenue, but I'm not a republican.

Forgetting about the Laffer Curve I see.

Taxation needs to find an equalibrium for maximum revenue generation at maximum prosperity.

An example of this in physical nature. To throw the ball the farthest, you do not throw right at the target. You throw at a 45 degree angle for max range and efficiency. Anything more or less, you fall short.

Economically, it has it's own variant. We are currently MASSIVELY overtaxed. The equalibrium IIRC is somewhere around a TOTAL tax burden (all taxes included) at around 19%. This means all income, consumption, industrial, tariffs should add up to around 19% for the optimum tax/prosperity ratio.

 

[Political Junky]

I thought cons 'vow' not to raise taxes on Americans.

Seems as though both Obama and Romney want 'something' from China.

The tariff will raise the cost to the American shopper.

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

Yes, I stated earlier that I am for increasing revenues, including tariffs.

 

[JoeNormal]

The tariff will raise the cost to the American shopper.

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

How do you figure that?

 

[Big Fitz]

The tariff will raise the cost to the American shopper.

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

Yes, I stated earlier that I am for increasing revenues, including tariffs.

If we increase tariffs, we must decrease internal taxation. Go back to pre-wilsonian tax models.

 

[Big Fitz]

The tariff will raise the cost to the American shopper.

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

See, I'm aware of that as well Rab. It's one of the things about tariffs I don't like. It's what caused the collapse of the steel industry in this nation when the tariffs were removed, their inefficient industry could not compete with new modern plants in Japan and Korea. I actually prefer 'staggered' free trade. You have free trade with similar laws and protections that you yourself have. So between the US, Australia, New, Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Israel, South Africa and other similar nations... I'd encourage free trade. To nations where there are no similar 'civilization costs' I'd encourage tariffs to be removed once they reach a similar level.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

How do you figure that?

That we get three jobs back? Because those are the stats.
I cant find the study but it is widely quoted.

People made the same arguments about automation in the 1960s and 1970s btw.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, and 're-shore' American wealth to American manufactuers as suddenly they become competative AND increase employment to companies not engaged in slave labor and rampant environmental destruction (in comparison to China).

It's a trade off. Who do you want to enrich? A foreign power or your neighbor?

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

See, I'm aware of that as well Rab. It's one of the things about tariffs I don't like. It's what caused the collapse of the steel industry in this nation when the tariffs were removed, their inefficient industry could not compete with new modern plants in Japan and Korea. I actually prefer 'staggered' free trade. You have free trade with similar laws and protections that you yourself have. So between the US, Australia, New, Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Israel, South Africa and other similar nations... I'd encourage free trade. To nations where there are no similar 'civilization costs' I'd encourage tariffs to be removed once they reach a similar level.

We still have a steel industry in this country. So obviously the destruction was selective. When Bush tried reimposing tarriffs the results were awful, economically and politically.
I dont understand your rationale on trade. What difference does it make who we trade with? When you go to buy a consumer good do you consider how much money the owner has in his bank account?

 

[Big Fitz]

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

See, I'm aware of that as well Rab. It's one of the things about tariffs I don't like. It's what caused the collapse of the steel industry in this nation when the tariffs were removed, their inefficient industry could not compete with new modern plants in Japan and Korea. I actually prefer 'staggered' free trade. You have free trade with similar laws and protections that you yourself have. So between the US, Australia, New, Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Israel, South Africa and other similar nations... I'd encourage free trade. To nations where there are no similar 'civilization costs' I'd encourage tariffs to be removed once they reach a similar level.

We still have a steel industry in this country. So obviously the destruction was selective. When Bush tried reimposing tarriffs the results were awful, economically and politically.
I dont understand your rationale on trade. What difference does it make who we trade with? When you go to buy a consumer good do you consider how much money the owner has in his bank account?

Yes, I know the steel companies in the US that survived are the ones able to modernize fast enough and limp on through.

What I'm getting at are societal costs from nation to nation. It's obvious that China is manipulating currency, has a silly environmental record as well as a long history of child and slave labor usage. The government props up what should be a failed industry in order to keep drawing work out of the US. This is economic warfare. How do we fight this? Tariffs are one way. I'm really open to other was to fight what is in essence an assault on the US economy by a foreign power capable of matching and exceeding our own capabilities.

 

[JoeNormal]

It actually wont. It will protect inefficient industries and raise costs overall. Tariffs are very bad economically.
For every job offshored the US gets 3 jobs here. That is comparative advantage.

How do you figure that?

That we get three jobs back? Because those are the stats.
I cant find the study but it is widely quoted.

People made the same arguments about automation in the 1960s and 1970s btw.

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Maybe you get three shit jobs for every decent one exported. Something like that.

 

[Big Fitz]

How do you figure that?

That we get three jobs back? Because those are the stats.
I cant find the study but it is widely quoted.

People made the same arguments about automation in the 1960s and 1970s btw.

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Maybe you get three shit jobs for every decent one exported. Something like that.

Automation gave us 3 technical jobs for every 1 manufacturing job lost.

That is true. What he may be thinking is that with a foreign job sending product back to the US you still have related industry here that still prospers because the product is coming back.

 

[The Rabbi]

See, I'm aware of that as well Rab. It's one of the things about tariffs I don't like. It's what caused the collapse of the steel industry in this nation when the tariffs were removed, their inefficient industry could not compete with new modern plants in Japan and Korea. I actually prefer 'staggered' free trade. You have free trade with similar laws and protections that you yourself have. So between the US, Australia, New, Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Israel, South Africa and other similar nations... I'd encourage free trade. To nations where there are no similar 'civilization costs' I'd encourage tariffs to be removed once they reach a similar level.

We still have a steel industry in this country. So obviously the destruction was selective. When Bush tried reimposing tarriffs the results were awful, economically and politically.
I dont understand your rationale on trade. What difference does it make who we trade with? When you go to buy a consumer good do you consider how much money the owner has in his bank account?

Yes, I know the steel companies in the US that survived are the ones able to modernize fast enough and limp on through.

What I'm getting at are societal costs from nation to nation. It's obvious that China is manipulating currency, has a silly environmental record as well as a long history of child and slave labor usage. The government props up what should be a failed industry in order to keep drawing work out of the US. This is economic warfare. How do we fight this? Tariffs are one way. I'm really open to other was to fight what is in essence an assault on the US economy by a foreign power capable of matching and exceeding our own capabilities.

If every sale the Chinese make to us costs them money then our strategy should be to buy as much as we can until they go bankrupt.
Frankly I doubt that's the case.
But even so, the USSR did all those things and eventually collapsed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

impose new trade tariffs on China, (hello, tariffs are taxes, Mitt will be taxing the American people)

Still, the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index of the biggest U.S. companies rose 5.5 percent in 2012 through yesterday, beating a version of the S&P 500 that strips out weightings for market value by the most since 1999. Earnings for the 100-company measure are projected to reach a record high this year, according to analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
The S&P 500 Index (SPX) has risen 4.6 percent so far this year.

Obama Duels With Romney Over Economic Ideology in Ohio - Bloomberg

Look at that. Corporations are doing fantastic. Mitt thinks we need more help for corporations and less police, firefighters and teachers.

Duh! What does that tell you?

So he's got your vote? higher taxes is what you want.

 

[Big Fitz]

We still have a steel industry in this country. So obviously the destruction was selective. When Bush tried reimposing tarriffs the results were awful, economically and politically.
I dont understand your rationale on trade. What difference does it make who we trade with? When you go to buy a consumer good do you consider how much money the owner has in his bank account?

Yes, I know the steel companies in the US that survived are the ones able to modernize fast enough and limp on through.

What I'm getting at are societal costs from nation to nation. It's obvious that China is manipulating currency, has a silly environmental record as well as a long history of child and slave labor usage. The government props up what should be a failed industry in order to keep drawing work out of the US. This is economic warfare. How do we fight this? Tariffs are one way. I'm really open to other was to fight what is in essence an assault on the US economy by a foreign power capable of matching and exceeding our own capabilities.

If every sale the Chinese make to us costs them money then our strategy should be to buy as much as we can until they go bankrupt.
Frankly I doubt that's the case.
But even so, the USSR did all those things and eventually collapsed.

True, but China has 4-5 times our population and the ability to expand. Russia did not, and their plans often led to mass starvation.

I suppose I shouldn't consider them to be making correct choices with expansion.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

impose new trade tariffs on China, (hello, tariffs are taxes, Mitt will be taxing the American people)

Still, the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index of the biggest U.S. companies rose 5.5 percent in 2012 through yesterday, beating a version of the S&P 500 that strips out weightings for market value by the most since 1999. Earnings for the 100-company measure are projected to reach a record high this year, according to analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
The S&P 500 Index (SPX) has risen 4.6 percent so far this year.

Obama Duels With Romney Over Economic Ideology in Ohio - Bloomberg

Look at that. Corporations are doing fantastic. Mitt thinks we need more help for corporations and less police, firefighters and teachers.

Duh! What does that tell you?

I agree with Mitt,

Tax the hell out of all imports.... or add a tariff..... whatever it takes

Let's go back to buying "Made in America"

I don't care if my "widget" costs more because it is made in America, in the long run "Made in America" products will drop in price because of demand, more Americans will be back at work...... even the teachers you always harp about rdean

.

 

[The Rabbi]

That we get three jobs back? Because those are the stats.
I cant find the study but it is widely quoted.

People made the same arguments about automation in the 1960s and 1970s btw.

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Maybe you get three shit jobs for every decent one exported. Something like that.

Automation gave us 3 technical jobs for every 1 manufacturing job lost.

That is true. What he may be thinking is that with a foreign job sending product back to the US you still have related industry here that still prospers because the product is coming back.

Yes. You get increased port activity, sales, service, etc etc.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, I know the steel companies in the US that survived are the ones able to modernize fast enough and limp on through.

What I'm getting at are societal costs from nation to nation. It's obvious that China is manipulating currency, has a silly environmental record as well as a long history of child and slave labor usage. The government props up what should be a failed industry in order to keep drawing work out of the US. This is economic warfare. How do we fight this? Tariffs are one way. I'm really open to other was to fight what is in essence an assault on the US economy by a foreign power capable of matching and exceeding our own capabilities.

If every sale the Chinese make to us costs them money then our strategy should be to buy as much as we can until they go bankrupt.
Frankly I doubt that's the case.
But even so, the USSR did all those things and eventually collapsed.

True, but China has 4-5 times our population and the ability to expand. Russia did not, and their plans often led to mass starvation.

I suppose I shouldn't consider them to be making correct choices with expansion.

Russia also had a larger population and the ability to expand. And China also experiences mass starvation. I think that is irrelevant.

 

[Truthmatters]

Boy is robmoney going to be buzy on day one.

he keeps fucking saying it

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Boy is robmoney going to be buzy on day one.

he keeps fucking saying it

He'll do more in one day than Obama has done in 3 years.