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.
8 comments:
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.)
Actually my response isn't entirely right becasue the president also is planning on cutting corporate tax rates from 35% to 28%.
thank for good sharing,....
โกลเด้นสล็อต
goldenslot
golden slot
ทางเข้า goldenslot
goldenslot online
Incidentally, Warcaster never replies to threads.
หวยชุดมาเล
Thanks for your sharing, it helps me a lot and I think I'll watch your post more.
…………………….
slotxo
สล็อตxo
ทางเข้า slotxo
สล็อตออนไลน์ที่ดีที่สุดในโลก
live22 ฟรีเครดิตแสนสนุก
https://www.slotxd.com/live22
pgslot โบนัส100 slot online เกมสล็อตออนไลน์เครดิตฟรี
https://slotspin.webs.com
Post a Comment