He's not saying across the board tariff. He is saying use a general tariff, by nation, to take up the difference between exchange rates, i.e. it's a leveler to negate the effect China's (and others) currency manipulation has on imports, trade.

That is absolutely not the same as an across the board tariffs on all imports.

This article is ridiculous. Of course the majority of tax loopholes, tax breaks are with households. There are thousands of businesses but millions of people. Hello. Also, the median wage is about $26k (2009), so of course the majority of tax breaks goes to households.

Yet another prime example of how to spin with numbers, of course the majority of tax breaks goes to households, they outnumber corporations/businesses 300 to 1 at least.

See the spin? They use aggregate numbers instead of individual's income, to try to promote more taxation on the back so the poor, middle class. Somehow Joe Blow with his $6.16/hr. job is now equal to G.E. pulling in mufti-billion yearly profits by using aggregate numbers.

Ridiculous to compare corporations as people (on wait, isn't that actually the law in the United States, corporations are people? Why, yes it is!)

You might read the rest of the site. There were not any details on this tax yet, so the conjecture it's probably another AMT is a guess.

Yes, we know about AMT and it catching people with options and it should not plus the adjustments

But Herman Cain wants to really go regressive, tax the poor, let the rich run free with a glorified national sales tax, highly regressive.

The only one of these that is useful is a VAT, for trade reasons, but you must offset such a tax with Progressive taxation and credits after the fact.

Bottom line, tax cuts and not taxing the rich does not create jobs and is another major contributor to wealth inequality in the U.S.

If you guys would do the research and truly understand economics it makes no sense to do another AMT tax. We already have one that keeps getting bumped every year because it's a bad idea. A more broad based tax without deductions and eliminating or greatly lowering the corporate tax would make more sense. Review the proposal by Herman Cain on a 9-9-9 tax.

Putting an across the board tarrif on China would be a economic disaster. Who do you think is financing a good portion of America's deficit? Yes, China is manipulating their currency and it costs US jobs, but put this tarrif on and China will have no reason to buy any more treasuries, and would certainly retaliate by selling what treasuries they have. This would result in sharp increase in interest rates as the government deparately tries to find buyers for its debt. But rising rates would cause interest payments on the $14 trillon debt to skyrocket causing obsene deficits.
To keep this from happening, the Fed would buy up all the bonds that China normally buys and print money to do so. This will cause massive inflation and just kill the average American's budget.
People think China needs the USA to buy its stuff, but the reality is that the USA needs China to finance its debt or it is game over USA.
 

AAA rating for this article by Robert Oak and underlying work of economist Robert E. Scott (EPI)!

One great point is implied only, namely this --

If the Obama administration can't do what needs to be done, the Romney administration can!

But what I really like about Scott's observations is the phrase "across-the-board tariff"! Quoting from Scott --

The mere threat of a large, across-the-board tariff on imports from China may be sufficient to persuade China that the time has come for a major revaluation that would benefit both countries.

And I don't think that I am alone in liking to hear this kind of talk. I believe that a solid majority of the American people agree!

Not that I am opposed to elimination of trade barriers! As an admirer of the original Henry Simons "Chicago School" of libertarian economics (economics for individual liberty), I am theoretically for elimination of trade barriers. However, I do not go along with the idea that when the facts show your theory to be inadequate, you are allowed to change the facts to fit your theory!

The charade carried on since the Uruguay Round (1994) can no longer be taken seriously as the Gospel according to Adam Smith.

The main idea of the Uruguay Round was that tariffs, beginning with agriculture, would be reduced to 15%. Then there would be an effort to eliminate trade barriers other than tariffs.

Instead, what we have seen is that tariffs have been eliminated, at least for the USA (except temporarily from time to time, pending enforcement action by the WTO). However, other trade barriers have blossomed into a kind of evolved military science in pursuit of survivalist neo-mercantilist agendas by every country except the USA.

It is now clear that elimination of trade barriers other than tariffs is --

(a) impossible for a trading unit such as the USA or China without effectively retaining some kind of substitute for a tariff vis-a-vis global trade;

(b) elimination of tariffs is only possible within a socially cohesive transnational union such as the EU; and,

(c) any such transnational union is politically problematic and globally unachievable, at least for the foreseeable future.

In short, the best way forward with elimination of barriers other than tariffs ... is ... an across-the-board tariff!

Obviously we've made mistakes so I would agree that we shouldn't be "all high and mighty."

But look, we loaned out money to them in 2008 and now again.

Do you think they'd stake their future on us to the tune of billions? Because backing them up at the current time is not without risk. What if 4-5 countries default in the dreaded chain reaction. Then what?

And let us not forget that these supposedly broke European governments are still giving their unemployed and have-nots money that our own people need, too, and yet aren't getting. As a person without healthcare for over a year and no income since last unemployment payment in 2010, this is an ever growing issue in my mind: What we do for other countries, what they do (or don't do) for us, and why we're spending money on people who live better than us.

Where is our Uncle? We need help ourselves.

"Dem's taken over by socialists want worldwide bankruptcy, economic collapse and public anger for a revolution that will let in a Marxist one-world government." -- 'JCamp'

Conspiracy theory is like that - you can't tell the real thing from the "camp" parody.

"Camp ... regards something as appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value."

--  from Wiki article on "Camp (style)"

Conspiracy theory! Isn't it wonderful in the absence of facts? -- or meaning? -- or context?

"Boykin's video" refers to a retired general officer who draws about $13,000 a month from taxpayer money, plus complete socialized medicine (for himself, if no one else) ... complaining about runaway government expenditures! It doesn't get any better than that!

Pardon me if thinking and criticism upset anyone who has made up their mind to non-think .... but here's a little common sense complete with a sense of humor ....

Left (below) versus Right (right) ?

ABOVE: Right (left) versus Left (right)?

Check out hilarious video at YouTube --

Leaders with Facial Hair are a Bad Sign II

...  and other videos in the "Leaders with Facial Hair are a Bad Sign" series.

[All images are from Leaders with Facial Hair are a Bad Sign II, available at YouTube.]

Meanwhile, "Be all you can be!"

Dem's can't get enough money out of Congress; Republicans stop them so they just spend it in Europe?! Aren't people getting wise? (See "Marxism in America", Boykin's video). Dem's taken over by socialists want worldwide bankruptcy, economic collapse and public anger for a revolution that will let in a Marxist one-world government.