Thursday, October 04, 2012

Presidential Debate Obama / Romney: What President Obama Should Have Said

I am a firm believer that democratic ideas are the solution to the current economic problems. That democrats have the solution to economic problems is certainly not always the case. To articulate the democratic ideas on the economy, this is what President Obama should have said.

During the first debate session, Romney and Obama went back and forth on reducing taxes for businesses with Romney stating the 50% of American workers work for successful small companies whose taxes would go up under President Obama’s plan. These companies, Romney strongly asserted, are the job creators. Romney then re-iterated the Republican talking point that the Obama administration is penalizing success. To this line of reasoning Obama had no answer.
Here is the correct answer which the President could have made. I would have said the following:
The problem with Governor Ronmey's one size fits all, supply side solution is that he states what appears on the surface to be a valid point but is simply bad policy in the current economic environment. Today, corporations small and large are holding onto a record level of cash. To lower tax rates on these companies will give companies better after taxes cash on hand, and only add to the record cash on hand that companies are already not spending on growth and hiring. The problem is that companies are not spending because they do not have enough demand from consumers to grow their businesses by spending more money. The reason for this is because Republican policies over the last 30 years, supply side economics, have funneled money to the top income brackets and left the middle-class squeezed and buried. Therefore, in order to increase demand for goods and services and grow the economy from the middle out ALL tax decreases need to be focused on the middle-class. We are in a economic situation, caused by republican supply side blind-ideology, which has consistently reduced the buying power of the middle-class. Therefore, let me say this again 100%, ALL, tax relief in my proposal is focused on the middle class . Again, to grow the economy from the inside out, we must focus ALL our tax relief on the middle-class so that they can energize economic growth through increased consumption.


Anonymous said...

To which Romney should have replied, "Its true that the middle class will have a massive tax cut under your plan, Mr President. That's because by taxing businesses at higher rates - businesses that are already reluctant to hire because of your policies - the middle class unemployment would likely increase even further, and when you're unemployed, your tax burden is zero. So yes, except for the crushing gasoline bill, which has tripled under your administration, many in the middle class may very well pay far less tax - but for all the wrong reasons. If companies are holding on to their cash and aren't hiring, shouldn't we ask Why? Is it because you have created such an air of economic uncertainty that they're simply afraid to invest in new employees, especially given the crushing burden of Obamacare that they're facing? That's what families do, after all; they hold on to what they have when economic uncertainty is upon them. Why not do as I've said and give the middle class tax relief while also relieving their employers of the tax burden that gives them pause when making hiring and investment decisions? Why not agree to reign in the runaway spending, which you called "unpatriotic" when Bush spent a fraction of what you have? Why not prove that government can live within it's means and become more efficient before requiring - or as you say, "asking" - anyone to pay more? Shouldn't good stewardship over what you already have precede your requirement for more, Mr President? After the first two years of your administration, when you and an all-Democrat congress got everything they wanted, wouldn't you think that massive signs of recovery should have emerged? Wouldn't dropping the deficit in half, as you promised, have begun to take place? But it didn't turn out that way. It makes me wonder why four years of the same would create a different result, or why this year's promises should be believed more than the promises of four years ago." (Of course, if he said that, the moderator would have likely corrected Mr Romney for something he said, only to retract the correction a day later when nobody is listening. So who knows if this response would have worked.)

brad said...

Actually my response isn't entirely right becasue the president also is planning on cutting corporate tax rates from 35% to 28%.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.