Video: The damage Obama’s international tax will do
posted at 10:54 am on May 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Our friend Dan Mitchell at the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has taken a look at Barack Obama’s plan to “close loopholes” on American business taxes from overseas profit, and concludes that this could be as damaging to the economy as anything this administration has yet done. He calls the existing taxes on foreign revenues a “discriminatory” tax, one that already puts American business on a poor competitive footing abroad. The new effort will make that exponentially worse:
Mitchell says that a principled taxation policy would limit itself to territorial taxation, ie, the nation where the income gets realized gets to collect the tax. After all, the income gets realized in that nation, and the rationale for business taxation is that one needs to repay the structure that allows businesses to operate within an enforced rule of law. The American government doesn’t provide that structure in Ireland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, or the Cayman Islands, the latter of which prefers to allow businesses to keep their revenue in return for providing jobs to its citizens.
Even beyond principle, however, the new policy means that American businesses will pay a high penalty for being American. Using Dan’s example, a business based in the US would pay more than three times as much tax on its international business than one on the Netherlands. It won’t take much more than a year or two of those kinds of losses before the business begins looking for Amsterdam offices instead of New York digs.
Even if they don’t, who pays for those taxes in the end? Not the businesses; businesses pass costs along to consumers and labor in higher prices and job reductions. As prices go up, the businesses become less competitive in the markets both here and abroad, and consumers make other choices that fit their budgets. Result: American businesses fold, and imports and trade deficits increase.
It’s basically a Smoot-Hawley for the era of globalization. We’re going to see capital flight out of the US, and some nation with sensible policies will become the next center of high finance. If the Brits won’t wise up, it could be Ireland or the Netherlands, but if this keeps up, it won’t be New York for much longer.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Smoot-Hawley?
There’s the problem right there. Nothing should be called Smoot-Hawley. Hawley-Davidson maybe, but not Smoot-Hawley.
Daggett on May 11, 2009 at 10:57 AM
No S***t. I own a small business and if I were in manufacturing faced with this crap I would be on the first Air Lingus flight to Ireleand looking for a plant location. They LIKE business there cause they HIRE workers.
faol on May 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM
He’s King of the World!!
JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM
idiots
jp on May 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I need to work on my brogue.
jbh45 on May 11, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Not quite. While it surely smacks of protectionism, protectionism is not equal to smoot-hawley. smoot-hawley was protectionism on steriods.
And lets not kid ourselves, if we really expect trade policy to stay exactly the same ignores the fact that all other major economies are enacting similar “protectionist in all but name” policies.
The real dangers are things like capital controls. Something like a smackdown to tax havens isnt quite as stark a reality as you paint it Ed, though I do agree its a troubling development.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:05 AM
One of many reasons (this, State pension underfunding, medicare liabilities, social security liabilities, etc.) that I do not want to put my money that is on the sidelines into the stock market. The impact of government on the economy is going to be huge, in a bad way, on the economy for at least the next decade.
WashJeff on May 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM
“If Barack Obama were Christopher Columbus, upon arriving at the Americas, he would’ve taxed the natives for local cocunuts”
- Z. Reagan
Mcguyver on May 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Just the latest in Obama’s war on prosperity. We’re so screwed.
flyfisher on May 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM
The only good news here is that if we survive the Obama regime, nobody will vote for a liberal again for 20 years. Or maybe I’m being too optimistic.
Daggett on May 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM
You make that statement like the situation exists in a vacuum. It doesn’t. This is yet another nail in the coffin of our nation and it’s economy by a man that is on a crusade to remake America in his own misbegotten image. The more anti-business policies that Obama makes, the more opportunity and business will abandon the US for better environments.
ManInBlack on May 11, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I disagree with you ernesto- I think that this is just an outrage. Worked for a major semiconductor manufacturer for years, and they have operations all over the globe. This is going kill them if it goes into effect. Deferment was a big deal to this company, it allowed for some price competitiveness in the cut throat electronics environment. Long range planning included opening up the Aisian and African markets, but closing this “loophole” with snuff out the needed profit margins …
catlady on May 11, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Insisting upon our doom will get tiring after a few years…i suggest you ration your gloom.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Unintended consequence thy name is Obama.
the_nile on May 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I say Tokyo.
Rocks on May 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Why that goose must be full of golden eggs!
Quick, bring me my hatchet!!!
gridlock2 on May 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I wonder how this affects the beef industry.
I would really like to see the govt enforce its anti-trust muscle in some of the concentrated industries like food.
But then again, I guess no one minds getting their food from other countries.
Badger40 on May 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
You are. Its the same mistake when the liberals around here dance around and declare that conservatism is dead, when they have no real perspective on the ebb and flow of American politics over time. His policies will fail, liberal policies always do, and conservatives will regain power, act in good faith and restore what they can, before they grow corrupt and blow it all again. It’s all a cyle..
ManInBlack on May 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Another thing…why has a group of smart CEOs bought Mexico yet? With Nafta it’s just like being here anyway.
Rocks on May 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Also, capital controls are an area of concern too, I definitely give you that, but deferment is not a trivial matter.
By the way, I thought the video was pretty good. It explained something that most people really don’t want to think about (it makes their brain hurt!) in a pretty straightforward manner. I would let my enginerd husband watch so he could get a summary level grasp of the effects of change in policy…
catlady on May 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
How many US companies will reorganize offshore?
flyfisher on May 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Well, first we are going to have to get passed the “oh but it would have been worse with out him” fallacy that gave the Democrats a free ride for half a century after FDR totaled the country.
Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Give Obama, thee most profitable Walmart, and he’d have it bankrupt inside of 6 months.
capejasmine on May 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
This may be true, but Ed made a very distinct observation…namely that the proposed legislation represents a “Smoot-Hawley” for globalization. I admitted that it’s a troubling development, but in my role as brakes for the HotAir conventional wisdom train, I had to insist that the comparison was faulty.
I in no way favor this policy development. It seems empty and counter-productive, but it will not single-handedly halt global trade in the same fashion Smoot-Hawley did.
As per IMF recommendations, non-tariff barriers are permitted. Many countries employ a multitude of non-tariff barriers, including subsidies for national industries. This is one of many currently implemented policies that act in similar ways. While I understand the gloom and doom to a point, I cannot sound the death knell of the American economy over this development.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Are you sure … that it would take that long?
Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Give Obama, thee most profitable Walmart, and he’d have it bankrupt inside of 6 months.
capejasmine on May 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
He would just let the unions in, and it would take three weeks….
catlady on May 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
The thing is that Obooboo cannot make the laws for the other countries(thank god), therefore, our companies will just move there lock,stock,and barrel instead of paying taxes there and in the U.S. The countries with the lowest corporate tax rates will prosper while we wither on the vine. The next step is that they try to bar any U.S. company from moving if they are already here once they hear yet another giant sucking sound.
But I think that is Obooboos plan, anyway.
quax1 on May 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM
ernesto, you miss the point. This is not comparable to Smoot-Hawley because it is “protectionist” – it is, in fact, the opposite of protectionism in many respects. It is comparable to Smoot-Hawley because it takes an economic situation that is bad, but survivable, and, under the name of helping with that, threatens to magnify the problem beyond all reasonable scope.
kiltedscotsman5 on May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM
He cares about American jobs but wants to reward the illegals already here and open the flood gates to millions more? There’s a lot of hidden agendas with this one.
TrickyDick on May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM
If the US is the first to mention capital controls i’ll join the chorus of gloom and doom here. That would be an astronomical economic development…i mean, really game changing.
Well, lets hope those running your company are keen enough to find a way to adapt. While I don’t encourage making the business community’s life harder…I don’t buy the idea that companies cannot adapt to changing regulatory climates. Surely there will be losses and closings, but by and large business as been through worse.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I think a 1.8 billion dollar budget deficit is enough of a death knell on its own, coupled with nationalizing of business and Obama’s continued war or business, the death knell is becoming hard to avoid.
ManInBlack on May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Emigrating back to Ireland isn’t so easy culturally, specifically given the century spent building America.
“You can never go back home.”
Do NOT relinquish an inch to Obama. He’s drawn the line to make us extinct. If we do not exist in our own existence, he wins. Do NOT allow Obama to pirate our Constitutional Government.
If you want “home” you must preserve it. We are alive and well, no thanks to this Potus obfuscating our obviation under his organized crime ring. We write. We call. We vote. We YET matter. And though we suffer, we will prevail with our Constitution. All of those expecting sumthin from the O-man will never be satisfied, not even with him.
maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Once again corporations owe their stock holders and employees to grow and make a profit, not the government.
I moved my company out of California for this reason. Now I may have to move out of the country.
This will guarantee the economy will never recover to what it was before Obambi entered the White House.
sheriff246 on May 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I don’t believe this will be limited to American buisnesses. I believe this will apply to being an American citizen.
loudmouth883 on May 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM
While I understand the gloom and doom to a point, I cannot sound the death knell of the American economy over this development.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
You do have a valid point, but some of us old people are just so cynical that we see little to cheer about. I know alot of people who think that Obama can “hurt” us that badly given the slow grinding of government implementations of new policy, but I am not one. Obami has been fast, and quite ruthless thus far. The fact that so many CEOs are so cowed is just a continual source of amazement to me.
catlady on May 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I would address your observations more directly, but you’re obviously not analyzing this objectively. have fun!
Beyond all reasonable scope is a description the data does not necessarily support. While surely one could go through the thought exercise of incentives, the reality is always much more complicated.
Regulatory conditions change, it happens. Each change doesn’t necessarily represent the end of the business community, no matter how counter intuitive it seems initially.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM
follow the Obamabrick road, follow the Obamabrick road,
follow, follow, follow…..
izoneguy on May 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM
If Obama’s tax theory was employed by all nations, then global companies like Coke would get taxed over 200 times on every drink it sold. How long would any firm survive under that system?
Or is he willing to set up a system by which foreign companies doing business in the US pay no taxes? So Toyota and Honda wouldn’t have to pay US taxes?
hawksruleva on May 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM
That is entirely consistent with Obama’s whole outlook.
Alana on May 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Our economy might tank?
Yea, but we can have great community organizers fight for us when we are out of work and living in Rezko Towers!
Maybe this time The One can keep them from turnng into dirty, unheated shells in foreclosure!
But we’d better take notice that 60 Minutes never did an expose on that!
IlikedAUH2O on May 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
The president proves once more that stupid is as stupid does. Wake up, America!
cackcon on May 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Change happens. But change also leads to additional change as firms respond to the new regs. What do you see as the possible unintended consequences of double-taxing US firms?
hawksruleva on May 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Well should that death knell finally sound, ill buy you a beer :-)
Oh this is surely nothing to cheer about. But in my view this won’t make the kind of waves people are describing, especially given that the IMF hasn’t even begun the real work of restructuring global trade. It will be those moves, the ones that redesign the conventional wisdom on capital flows, currency markets, and international trade, that we should be looking at closely…not this sort of empty non-tariff game Obama’s playing.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM
True other countries are mentioning similar “crackdowns” in the search for cash for their governments, but this does start to tempt companies to shift corporate bases. Anyway, I switched industries, so I leave that headache to someone else, and will address others!
catlady on May 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
No foolin’!
That line needs flushing along with, “elections have consequences.” The idiot who says we couldn’t have had Reagan without Carter needs to eat his own words before regurgitating them on us ad nauseum. Dumb and dumber predestination as political dogma needs to RIP.
maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Surely this policy, in a broad theoretical sense, incentivizes evading the regulations…but there are surely other calculations to be made by the businesses you’re referring to. Nothing in a vacuum :-)
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Yeah, when that starts it really is going to suck (pardon my language).
catlady on May 11, 2009 at 11:31 AM
New Zealand is looking better and better…
sonofdy on May 11, 2009 at 11:31 AM
“It’s basically a Smoot-Hawley for the era of globalization”. And we know how well the original worked. Maybe the Democrats want their chance to start the GreatER Depression. It would be since we are not the agricultural/rural country we were in 1929. Can you imagine the long lines to feed the huddled masses in NYC? Move along; no lessons learned here.
amr on May 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Well, the state of Delaware (Joe Biden’s state) absolutely needs incorporation taxes to survive. Joe would have a hard time explaining this at home.
BigD on May 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM
When you add this to the crackdown on investors and more support for unions , there’s only less incentives to stay or come to US. And it doesn’t take much to brake this fragile economy , just a few percent of all company’s moving out and non moving in .
the_nile on May 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
That was a faulty comparison, don’t take it at face value.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I, too, am sick of this “misery will herald a new Reagan” crap. Misery may just entrench misery, and those who are benefiting from confiscation will not stop voting for it!
A great big thank you to those GOPers who thought this would “teach’em a lesson”!
FOOLS!
clnurnberg on May 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Well then, as far as im concerned, you underestimate the resiliency of the American economy, the largest in the world by a significant margin. While I can’t rule out the worst case scenario, it does not seem the most plausible.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I say we unilaterally disarm on corporate profits taxation. I’d say bust it down to some minimal level, but there would be no way to keep it small, and the paperwork involved wouldn’t be worth it. Tax personal income (like dividends going overseas), and leave the companies alone.
Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM
This is the second stage to the “Financial Wall” I have been writing about.
The first stage was extending the ability to search foreign banks for Capital held by Americans, the excuse being that they are “Tax Evaders”. Ironic, huh? This gives the U.S. the power to invade privacy internationally right down to the individual. (And the Liberals were screaming about wiretaps!). To defend yourself from this, of course, you would have to display you personal and Corporate financial holdings in tax court.
So manufacturing items outsourced to other countries will only have the advantage of Labor Costs, not labor and taxation. But labor is not all it’s cracked up to be, as shipping becomes an additional cost. And what about the lost revenue to the host country? Probably some sort of fee for operating within the host country will be levied, so increasing Total costs.
Many firms will either “go Galt” or close.
I wonder what the next piece will be? He has to know that there is going to be Brain Drain and Capital flight?
MR. OBAMA! TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!
GunRunner on May 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM
You would almost think P.BO had read “Atlas Shrugged” and decided it was a great example of how a government should be run.
Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM
What good or bad outcomes would you, personally, expect as a result of this change in the tax regs?
I know businesses have a strong incentive to increase stockholder equity. Where I work, that’s part of the company mission statement. What incentives do firms they have to increase their tax payout?
hawksruleva on May 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I here that the Eastern European countries are not too fond of socialism. It might be time to move.
cobrakai99 on May 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
***
President Obama (PBUH) does not care about saving or protecting the American economy. He has made it clear that he wants to punish successful companies for making their wealth by stealing it from workers and customers.
***
He feels that the government will do a much better job running all our businesses for our benefit.
***
The end justifies the means for the Messiah. He wants us all to live like draftee privates in Basic Training in his new U.S.S.A.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on May 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Don’t worry – SOME countries will see Obama’s assault on American business as the opening they need. Business is business – if moving some people & furniture offshore means your survival then it will happen. America represents a fraction of the worlds buying power. I would just as soon have openings to sell products in China & India than America…..Most Americans will be broke anyway…
so not only will Obama kill the goose that layed the golden eggs he is killing the nests and habitats as well.
izoneguy on May 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
My Uncle was going to get foreign investors to help him but at the last minute 2 weeks ago they said no. This is probally the big reason why they said no. This tax is already hurting big business.
BroncosRock on May 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Its not that these policies won’t have a negative impact, they most certainly will. What matters is whether, considering other obligations, they determine that the costs outweigh whatever benefits there are to existing as a business in the united states. granted, though i go to business school im not a business major, so i’m making assumptions here…but it seems reasonable to assume there are some cost-benefit analyses going on that even in light of new regulations would still find it beneficial to exist here.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 11:47 AM
The idea is that they will pull up stakes entirely in the US, so that we have no claim on their profits, and set themselves up elsewhere, permanently.
Yeah, this is a prescription for killing the world economy, particularly if everyone follows suit. All companies will divide themselves up into single country units to avoid double taxation, and there will be a gaping hole where production used to be.
Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Economic clear-cutting.
Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Well, if Obooboo isn’t going to, why should I?
quax1 on May 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Recently, Peter Schiff was criticized for overly focusing on macro-economics, and getting today’s investment advice wrong. I think you overly focus on today, and give too little attention to tomorrow, not to mention a disregard for motive in your commentary. Editorialize a bit professor. You risk missing the forest for the trees. JMHO.
JiangxiDad on May 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM
OF COURSE Obama knows that. This has happened a hundred times before, in a hundred different countries.
The only real difference is that America’s economy is the most highly developed the world has ever known. Slave labor could salvage more than half the GDP in economies based on the agrarian, factory or mining economies that comprised previous Socialist transitions.
America’s collapse is going to be a LOT harder than previoius Socialist transition ever was.
logis on May 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Who cares? He’s just so darned likeable! I really don’t care if America goes bankrupt, just as long as Obama is President forever.
marklmail on May 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM
+10. Spot on.
iurockhead on May 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Insisting upon our doom will get tiring after a few years…i suggest you ration your gloom.
ernesto
Nobody is “insisting” upon our doom. You obfuscate like Obama.
The fact is that it’s easy to read the tea lives with that worthless POS and there’s plenty of gloom to go around with him. No need to ration it. It won’t run out.
SKYFOX on May 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I gotcha. And I agree completely. Working on the premise that this change will have a negative impact on U.S. businesses, do you find it more likely that the change will lead to increased tax revenues? Will this change speed up or slow down an economic recovery? Just asking for your opinion, not an official crystal-ball level prediction ;-)
hawksruleva on May 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Ask yourself this. Why does Obama have to hide his plans with double talk and polled wording? That says to me that he knows his REAL agenda isn’t popular. So, is he so arrogant that HE knows what’s better for Americans than Americans do? It doesn’t make sense that he hides his real plan, does it? So, what’s the big picture? Long-term power? An Obama global power position? None of it ads up, and it can’t ONLY be “I know what’s better for you than you do”. Can it?
marklmail on May 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Ive intentionally disregarded motive, as assumptions to that end seem to require more faith than i’m willing to give at this point…and regardless, we’ve seen where unreasonable attempts at assuming motive got us. They politicized national security policy, for when Bush’s motives were considered far too many people made assumptions, both pro and con, that were far fetched to say the least.
And i have editorialized, in repeatedly calling this policy misguided and unnecessary.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Well the clearest data set in coming to a conclusion to your question would be the income rate/revenue analysis, that does suggest lower rates leads to increased revenue due to increased profit incentive. Business are different animals, so although the tendency may be to draw parallels…i find the differences too great to make direct comparison.
That said, it is conceivable that the change in climate could lead to a decrease in output and overall activity, leading to a smaller pool from which to draw tax revenue. In fact i’d go so far as to say its the more plausible conclusion. But an increase in overall revenue is not this policy’s intent, to take JianxiDad’s advice by gleaning motive. This policy is designed to promote “fairness”. A useless policy. Economy shattering? I still don’t think so.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Exactly. He knows better than I do? I know better than to play God with peoples lives. This includes the babies, we’re forced to abort thru our federal tax dollars. This includes the elderly, who will essentially be denied care, and meds under this universal health care. This includes everyone, who may very well be denied a necessary medical procedure, or medication, because it’s not feasible.
I pray for the women in the UK who have paid into the system with their tax dollars, only to be told, they won’t cover cancer meds, for breast cancer.
Be prepared for those same slaps in the faces, soon.
capejasmine on May 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM
They’ll find some way to claim this is racist.
JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To be fair, all political plans (both liberal and conservative) are shrouded in doublespeak and polled wording. Karl Rove would concur, as is the nature of politics in America.
What one realizes though, when they look objectively at such things, is that so much of both parties’ message is empty wording. Read H.G. Wells on style and empty words. Though it may offend you to know that using “freedom” as a political slogan is as empty as Obama’s sloganeering.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I think you are. Bambi is going to get re-elected in a landslide regardless of the economy. Here are the talking points for the next few years:
1. It’s not Obama’s fault, he inherited the bad economy and the deficit from Bush
2. Obama can’t fix things overnight
3. Things are getting better (really)
4. Things haven’t improved much, but Obama has given us hope and made us proud to be Americans again and that’s more important
5. We are just going have to adapt to the “new economic reality” of scarcity, high unemployment, and slow growth.
And Obama-cultists (and the MSM) will mouth every single talking point w/out embarrassment.
PackerBronco on May 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Add to this we are going to spend more and go further into debt each month. Apparently we are going to borrow 50 cents for every dollar spent on this insane government programs. And the cherry on the top is the threats made to CA if they do not give the SEIU their money. SEIU= Union for those that do not know. Obama has told CA if they do not give the SEIU their money then he will take back ALL of the CA tarp monies. Chicago politics on parade.
As to the moving of businesses to other countries, the only positive side of this is maybe these countries will experience more capitalism. Who would not love to see Germany, France, Great Britain and others have a much more “lovin’ feelin” towards capitalism? The peoples of these countries need an object lesson enema in the worst way on how much better life will be for them under capitalism! And so do those in America who do not get it that big business is not all evil, and is a necessary component to capitalism and the survival of this nation. Dittos to small businesses! When Americans see the jobs going overseas, perhaps then they will realize Obama is not for the little guys, or for Americans being able to provide for their families. It is sad to think we will have to sink so far down in order for the zombies to snap out of the Kool-Aid induced stupor they are in.
freeus on May 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
It’s not so much that Obama “hides” his plans, as he simply enacts them without debate. George Bush gave far more advance notice to Saddam Hussein of his intention to attack than Barak Obama has given for any of his multi-trillion dollar confiscations of American property.
logis on May 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
? And that reminds me of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
izoneguy on May 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I disagree. Obama’s rhetoric masks his true plans. People want lower taxes and less government. The guy basically ran in the middle. His true agenda is WAY to the far left. So, is it his arrogance that he knows better for us than we do? OR is there a long-term seizure of power in his plans, or something else? He and Axelrod KNOW from polling data that a vast majority don’t agree with their agenda, so what’s really in play?
marklmail on May 11, 2009 at 12:41 PM
While both parties shroud their agenda with empty words, it’s still true that the end goal of the Republican party is more individual freedom while the end goal of the Democrat party is less freedom. Freedom is the most important thing for which we fight.
Try catching up on the debate between Aristotle and the sophists. Good stuff.
JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
and don’t forget the most important one…
Obama CARES more than you evilracistsexistbigotedhomophobic conservatives…
right4life on May 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM
If you want to see the infantile, idiotic support for this move by team Barry, you should check out Balloon Juice. Cole actually said something on the order of “Let’s see the wingnuts try to spin and support opposition to this move.” Normally I would merely have laughed and moved on. Political opponents wearing red noses and big floppy shoes are, after all, good for the comedy gold that the exhibit on a minute by minute basis. But this counts for cogent analysis by the left. They truly believe that increasing the cost of doing business can’t possibly have a negative impact and that any move that possibly increases the taxes garnered is a positive one. What they simply cannot grasp is that businesses do not exist solely to provide tax revenue to the government. They exist to make a good or service and to sell said item for a profit. If you make it harder to compete on a cost basis with competitors, these businesses will either move out of country entirely or shutter their doors. Both of those moves would drastically affect that amount of tax revenue that the government would receive. However, I guess the left receive some sense of satisfaction out of screwing the big guy. Unfortunately, this also means screwing everyone else, but hey, omelet, eggs, stuff like that.
Physics Geek on May 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM
If this were the only “regulatory” change that Barry was talking about, then you would have a point.
However, this is just the latest in a string of changes that are going to hurt business, with no end of these changes in site.
The whole demonization of profitable business schtick that Barry and the Democrats have perfected in the last few decades, and have started to implement in the last few months is enough to scare any rational CEO.
MarkTheGreat on May 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM
With the deficit so large, Barry needs all the revenue he can get to carry it.
This move will not increase revenue, but will decrease it as firms lower their US presence in order to decrease their US taxes.
This means that over all, business taxes will at best stay the same, and will probably decrease.
Then when you add in the peripheral costs.
Individuals no longer employed, loss of tax dollars, increase in welfare dollars.
Supporting companies losing business. Loss of tax dollars, another loss in employment.
Then you add in all of the other taxes Barry wants to raise and the other deductions he has already pledged to get rid of …
MarkTheGreat on May 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Then the question is, will it scare them enough to leave the united states. many here will say yes, and will do so without actually considering the circumstances. i’m not so sure.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Unfortunately we are going to have 4 years of misguided ideology that will financial destroy this country for years to come.
The worst part is he will not change his ideology even if it means destruction of the US. That is the scariest part but, as one poster said it will be the destruction of the democrat party for years to come. Just remember history when Nixon went out and the dems wanted change they gave it to us in the form of Jimmy Carter and were out of power for years. Next time learn from history and don;t let them have power again! When you put republicans back in it is the responsibility for We The People to make them accountable so this liberal destruction doesn’t happen again.
It is our responsibility to keep the politicians in line not the politicians to keep themselves in line.
xler8bmw on May 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM
You are correct. The only hope at this point, is for democrats in congress, to see the light, stand up to Obama, and vote this crap down from here on out. The likelyhood of that happening? Slim to none!
capejasmine on May 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM
By itself, no. However, most business people spend their lives observing and predicting trends. Depending on the business that you are in, building new plants, or creating a new product can take years. So you have to forecast what business conditions are going to be like years in advance.
The trends in this country are ominous, and there is no sign that they will change any time soon.
MarkTheGreat on May 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Indeed. I still feel that those forcasts will be more effected by new directions from the IMF on things like capital flows, currency markets, and international trade than by Obama’s musings on the economy. A side effect of our globalized system is the sort of hamstrung position it puts domestic policy in.
ernesto on May 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM
We can only hope that in 2010 the whole House is up for re-election and if we can get the majority again Obamageddon will become an irrelavant president just as Jimmy Carter became!
xler8bmw on May 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
This is where the “kool-aid drinkers” term came from. And the Obama-cultists are gulping it down.
Christian Conservative on May 11, 2009 at 1:39 PM
It would be nice, but I’m afraid that’s wishful thinking. The huge number of Americans ignorant about how the economy works (and history) will continue to vote for the Papa Dems with their hands out for whatever they can get.
Just. Like. Europe.
Common Sense on May 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »