Republicans shoot down BRING THE JOBS HOME ACT!!

Until we start looking at the demand side, rather than the supply side things will never get better.
Also with a Republican senate that refuses to even work with a President on any legislation
we are stuck in the mud!
I think all senate seats need to only have a 2 year max. That would stop all of this catering
to this never ending campaining even while already in congress on both sides of the isle.

Sounds like this bill is a good step in the right direction, but only one step.

The vote against cloture does not kill the bill. All it does is refuse to stop debate on it. I see several areas in it that need 'tweaking', one being that adding a single employee in the US can lead to massive tax breaks for closing a facility overseas... with no offset for opening an additional facility overseas in another country. That's one heck of a tax break just for one new job!

It speaks volumes that S.3364 bypassed the finance committee, despite the sponsor having a seat on that committee. Why not use the committee path to ensure that the bill will accomplish the stated goal? Could it be that someone wanted this bill passed quickly for some reason? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the US elections are a mere 3 months away?

Where is the advantage of doing something if in haste to do it major problems are left unresolved?

We need a bill like this, but we need one that does the job. Not one that is little more than an election-year talking point. Hopefully, future debate and consideration will allow this bill to be taken more seriously with hastily-considered sections remedied.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheCoolKids


Bastiat was proven wrong long ago, look at the Chinese and Japanese, and what their protectionism has done to the US economy. Moderation in all things.

Labor costs are being artificially deflated currently by allowing slave labor in third world countries, which is why the fed gov is supposed to conduct trade treaties representing the people and not the corporations.

Seventies stagflation was caused by artificial manipulations of the oil markets. Combined with the influence of oil companies, car manufacturers, and bankers to make the US completely dependent on oil.

Texas is a giant welfare state, and always has been. California is dragged down by illegal immigration.

Europe is doing far better than the US. All one has to look at is the massive recent increase in US debt created by the very free market policies you suport. China is a disaster in the making. Isolated city states like Hong Kong and Singapore's whole success rate is due to protectivist trade policies you claimed at the beginning do not work. Sorry, but you are sadly misinformed.

It is the free market that has always failed, while market economies with sound regulations are the proven models for success.

Originally posted by TheCoolKids
reply to post by AntiNWO

 

Even Krugman supports the principle of Free Trade, mercantilism doesn't work, the slowdown in the chinese economy is yet more evidence of it.

The slowdown in the Chinese economy is due to the collapse of the world economy, and nothing else. China is still doing better than many countries.

Originally posted by TheCoolKids
Pick up an econ textbook and understand what Ricardo and Bastiat figured out 150+ years ago.

Why read a textbook with an agenda when I know for a fact that our economy was many times stronger before NAFTA? America was the envy of the world before then, and now we're on the brink of economic collapse, in a big part because of NAFTA. We manufacture almost nothing now, so "buy American" has become a bad joke. You may think that reading a textbook makes you somewhat of an economic expert, however these facts are undeniable.

As I've said before, Washington WANTS the economy to collapse, which is why NAFTA was passed in the first place, and why it will never be repealed.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by AntiNWO

 

Your avatar shows your own bias loud and clear.

I'm guessing you're a tea partier?

Wrong on both counts, but I will qualify that...

I agreed with the Tea Party when it was a new, grassroots organization. As soon as Glenn Beck got involved I realized that it's been infiltrated by the Republican party, and although I still believe in small government, I have nothing to do with them.

My avatar would have a picture of Bush or Romney burning the Constitution were either one of them president, so the only bias I have is anti-anti-constitutional. Is that loud and clear enough for you?

reply to post by maxzen2004


Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would have eliminated that deduction, and created a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back to America.

I dont know what to think anymore...

do not need to bring anything back, just make 1 simple law, no person in any company can make less than 15-20% of the CEO , president,CFO, owner, or what ever words you would like to use to mean boss/owner and or personal higher wage/contract or which ever equals greater, this is the real problem in my eyes, there are execs making 400k + to millions to sit behind a desk why some schmuck lifts 5000lbs a day to make 8 bucks an hour and that doesn't include x Xmas bonus,stock options ect ect now we don't have to worry where the jobs are, you want Corp, headquarters protected by the big bombs, then you start paying the people! end of story

or we can try getting rid of federal bank
fbi cia nsa and all the other 3 letter corps that did nothing on any terrorist act yet in this country that they didn't set up themselves
tri lateral com
lobbyist
corrupt politicians
heh i think mine would be easier /shrug

I think there are 2 parts to this, if the politicians are in the pockets of the corporations it may be because the corporations are agreeing to help the politicians by keeping jobs scarce to force people to join the military.

Thats just my 2 cents.

The Repubs do care about American taxpayer coffers.... right. Possibly just to fund the outsourcing of labor and American companies to other countries.
thatsmycongress - 9-29-2010
Any way you look at it, that's not what I would call conservativism. It's anything but.

The companies that go- sometimes come back later. GE and Boeing are two of them.
GE Link
Boeing Link

my opinion: Companies in the US are finding that the Puritan Work Ethic in America is just better.

reply to post by poopadoopoulis


I have thought that for a while now. It makes perfect sense that if there is no career to look forward to, the military is the only "secure" job out there.

I've known people all my life who have joined because they had no marketable skills. Now people are joining because their degree no longer helps them get a long-term job.

reply to post by MarkJS


And for the record.... not enthralled with the Dems either.

p.s. AntiNWO- sorry for sandwiching you in...

I have been hearing some disturbing rumors that if obammy gets re-elected, that he is going to make everyone surgically accept the micro chip, or have them killed on the spot.
And that the film 2016 is going to be a real eye opener.
But if it is true (and i have no faith in republican scum either), then i think i'll want to move to Europe.

reply to post by maxzen2004

It would remove encentives to U.S. companies

incentives



Touché Monsieur Pussycat!

reply to post by poopadoopoulis


Yea I heard that too. And Obama's mother is a porn star and his father was an extremist Muslim anarchist.

Sheesh.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Even if they did lower corporate tax rates in the U.S., manufactured products from the U.S. still couldn't compete. The gap between hourly rates compared to China and the U.S. is to such an extreme, U.S. manufacturer's still wouldn't have a chance in hell to compete.

The cost of Chinese factory labor is a paltry 64 cents an hour. Although that figure is rough, since it's pieced together from sketchy statistics, it's still the most thorough estimate ever compiled. It includes both wages and employer contributions for benefits and social insurance. And it covers not just city factory workers, who get the most attention, but the more numerous rural and suburban factory workers as well. For comparison, hourly factory compensation in the U.S. in 2002 was $21.11, and an average of $14.22 in the 30 foreign countries covered by the existing BLS report.

The U.S. needs to tax imports accordingly so U.S. manufacturer's will have a level playing field and overseas manufacturing would be less attractive. Corporations don't want it because they're sitting on record profits by taking advantage of paltry hourly rates. Politicians are simply in the pockets of corporations.

The tax you propose is called a Tariff. It used to work rather efficiently in keeping wages and product prices balanced world wide. It started to slip away with NAFTA and then we hit the slippery slope. It has advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages is that it does what it is supposed to do. It's disadvantages is that it has the tendency to hurt some countries with lower quality products (which no one wants to buy when the price is near to the quality product) and can piss people off. I recall back in the late 70's or early 80's the French got highly pissed when a proposal came up to increase tariffs on imported wine so that American wineries would be more attractive to consumers. The French were burning flags and marching in the streets.

Originally posted by maxzen2004
It would remove encentives to U.S. companies to ship jobs overseas and give them tax breaks to bring the jobs home. Republicans voted against it, it only took 10 days for them to kill it.


www.govtrack.us...

So first the rep. make it possible for U.S. companies to ship jobs overseas and now USA is suppose to pay the same companies US tax money to bring the jobs back? Sounds real stupid.

Why not just order them?
Or even better - start new government owned ones to compete with these quitters?