It was GOP tax breaks and subsidies that moved millions of jobs to China. Not trade agreements.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It was GOP tax breaks and subsidies that moved millions of jobs to China. Not trade agreements..

Nope, it was NAFTA, passed by your party, troll.

nafta was by partisan. Started by elder bush.

Bipartisan, and yes, I agree, but it was passed by a Democratic controlled Congress and a Democratic president and by the troll's own standards, that means his party owns it.

 

[leftwinger]

What's a companies "income" ? How do you measure that ?

Sales revenue? Accountants keep track? If you don't sell? you don't make money, you must be at loss?

 

[Timmy]

What's a companies "income" ? How do you measure that ?

Sales revenue? Accountants keep track? If you don't sell? you don't make money, you must be at loss?

Yeah but our current system allows for all kinds of write offs . Flat tax gets rid of that . So a business now doesn't get any credit for say, reinvesting profits?

 

[leftwinger]

Yeah but our current system allows for all kinds of write offs . Flat tax gets rid of that . So a business now doesn't get any credit for say, reinvesting profits?

Thats' OK. Flat tax is at a lower rate to keep from having all those "special favors". All Even Steven.

 

[Andylusion]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

Whatever the reason, a flat tax would eliminate all the tax hocus pocus.

How so?

Can't a company just move somewhere else and not even file their flat tax postcard ?

Yes but either way they should be charged a huge prohibitive fee to make their offshore enterprise worthless until they moved back to the U.S.

There is absolutely no fee, no cost, and no tax rate, that would be high enough to make offshore enterprise worthless.

Apple Computer today, makes more money from international sales, than it does domestic sales. If you prevent those imports, they would be better off to re-incorporate in Europe, and simply lose the US market.

If you had money to invest, and create only one manufacturing plant, and you had two options..... One, you can make for the US market by building your plant in the US, or Two, you can make for the world market by building a plant outside the US.... which do you do?

A market of 300 million people in the US? Or a market of 7 Billion people across the world?

Which will make you the most money? Fact is, the international market is now the larger market. Fact is, you'll make more money selling to more people in the world market.

So if you start charging prohibitive fees, companies will start leaving the US. We used to be the biggest market in world, with the rest of the world combined. That's no longer the case, and we need to stop thinking like it hasn't changed.

 

[MisterBeale]

It was GOP tax breaks and subsidies that moved millions of jobs to China. Not trade agreements..

Nope, it was NAFTA, passed by your party, troll.

nafta was by partisan. Started by elder bush.

You mean BI-partisan.

The only folks that knew it was going to be a disaster were non-CFR politicians and businessmen that gave the establishment a headache. . . folks like Trump?

 

[Iceweasel]

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

I can remember another billionaire talking about it at the time when Ross Perot said that giant sucking sound we hear will be jobs leaving the US.

 

[leftwinger]

Mistake: not Flat tax on total sales revenue, tax only on bottom line profit (PFO)? I meant minus costs of good sold (COGS). If you don't make profit you don't pay tax. If you make $1mil profit, you pay $100K.

 

[rdean]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

Any minimal amount of research shows that PolitiFart (run by the Liberal Tampa Bay Times) is extremely biased....

So what's next??? An "opinion" by Moron.org????

I try to add at least three links to posts where I add links.
You are not proving otherwise.
Were there subsidies and tax breaks or not?

 

[rdean]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

 

[Obiwan]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

Any minimal amount of research shows that PolitiFart (run by the Liberal Tampa Bay Times) is extremely biased....

So what's next??? An "opinion" by Moron.org????

I try to add at least three links to posts where I add links.
You are not proving otherwise.
Were there subsidies and tax breaks or not?

Gee, I used a link to HuffPo......

I assumed you would accept that, since it's a LIBERAL source!!!!

Or are you maintaining that Liberal sources habitually lie to us, and can't be trusted?????

 

[Obiwan]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

 

[Wilbur Right]

A market of 300 million people in the US? Or a market of 7 Billion people across the world?

Which will make you the most money? Fact is, the international market is now the larger market. Fact is, you'll make more money selling to more people in the world market.

We in the USA are number 5 or so in per capita income. And 315 million. All the top median wage countries were EU or N American. And Australia. All with fewer people than us.

All those other billions of people in the ME and Africa, they won't be out spending the American consumer for a long time.

I think the manufacturers will view us as their number one market for a while yet.

 

[rdean]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

 

[Obiwan]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

I pointed out where the TRADE AGREEMENTS are the problem, Dumbass...

And even the LIBERAL Huffington Post agrees!!!

So once again, your thread fails due to you posting a bunch of bull crap that I can call you on using LIBERAL sources....

 

[rdean]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

I pointed out where the TRADE AGREEMENTS are the problem, Dumbass...

And even the LIBERAL Huffington Post agrees!!!

So once again, your thread fails due to you posting a bunch of bull crap that I can call you on using LIBERAL sources....

View attachment 66186

Many articles in magazines, even liberal one, are opinion pieces.
The truth is that without tax breaks and subsidies and seminars to teach business to move, so many might not have left. Remember, millions of jobs moved to China when Republicans controlled both houses and Bush was president. Republicans were able to use reconcilliation again and again. And yet, even with proven GOP inaction, it's the fault of the Democrats????
How can that be? Republicans take no responsibility even when no one can stop them.

 

[Andylusion]

A market of 300 million people in the US? Or a market of 7 Billion people across the world?

Which will make you the most money? Fact is, the international market is now the larger market. Fact is, you'll make more money selling to more people in the world market.

We in the USA are number 5 or so in per capita income. And 315 million. All the top median wage countries were EU or N American. And Australia. All with fewer people than us.

All those other billions of people in the ME and Africa, they won't be out spending the American consumer for a long time.

I think the manufacturers will view us as their number one market for a while yet.

Of course. If you consider each market separately, we are still the most profitable single market.

But... if you consider things in a global sense, placing a system which forces a manufacturer to choose either the US market, or the world.... which is the claim.... the world is more profitable.

GM makes more money world wide, than in the US. If you tell manufactures that if they want to sell cars in the US, then they have to only have manufacturing in the US, or we're going to penalize them.... So it's either sell in the US, or sell to the rest of the entire planet, the rest of the planet is more profitable than the US today.... and it's going to be more so in the future, with India, China, both becoming more and more consumer driven.

And while per-capita income is important..... People seem to take that statistic out of context, and claim it's somehow it's the defacto standard for determining where to invest.

That's not true. Investment isn't determined by per capita income. What determines investment, is profit.

Say you sell cars, and you can choose one of two models to sell. One model is $50,000, with a $10,000 profit, and the other is $20,000 with a $3,000 profit. Which do you sell? Obviously the more expensive car, with the larger profit......

Except you will likely sell 2 of the expensive model, making $20,000 profit, while you are likely to sell 100 of the cheaper car, making $300,000 profit.

Which do you sell? The cheaper car, to the lower income people.

Ford is selling the Ford Figo for $6,400. The profit margin on this car is larger that of the average Ford Sedan. The difference is volume. Which is why here is still their main market. Point being just because our per capita income is higher, doesn't mean we're the most profitable investment. That exactly why all these companies are investing over seas.

But here's what you got to grasp... If you ban imports, all of those Ford Sedans in America are going to go up in price, and the profit margins are going to go down. And as the price goes up, the sales are going to go down.

Pretty soon it we won't be the key market. Our per capita income won't mean jack, if they can't make a profit.

If the per capita income was a million dollars, but the cost to you the car maker was so high, you couldn't make a profit on the car... doesn't matter how much money the public has. If I can't make a worth while profit from selling you a car, it doesn't matter how much money you have, I'm not going to spend my time selling something I can't make money on.

 

[Obiwan]

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

I pointed out where the TRADE AGREEMENTS are the problem, Dumbass...

And even the LIBERAL Huffington Post agrees!!!

So once again, your thread fails due to you posting a bunch of bull crap that I can call you on using LIBERAL sources....

View attachment 66186

Many articles in magazines, even liberal one, are opinion pieces.
The truth is that without tax breaks and subsidies and seminars to teach business to move, so many might not have left. Remember, millions of jobs moved to China when Republicans controlled both houses and Bush was president. Republicans were able to use reconcilliation again and again. And yet, even with proven GOP inaction, it's the fault of the Democrats????
How can that be? Republicans take no responsibility even when no one can stop them.

And why don't Democrats take responsibility for the very agreements that make it easy for companies to move their operations overseas, and still import their goods without having any restrictions????

A CEO would have to be an incompetent boob to not take advantage of a deal like that.....

As a matter of fact, Obungles gave the Carrier plant in Indianapolis $5.1 million in stimulus money, and they took advantage of NAFTA and laid off 1,400 employ from good-paying jobs when they decided to move to MEXICO ....
Carrier Received $5.1 Million in Obama-Stimulus Cash Before Move To Mexico - Breitbart

Face it....

The sweetheart deal they got from NAFTA made it all possible.....

 

[Andylusion]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
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.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

We didn't point them out, because they were not relevant to the point.

Companies are not subsidized to move over seas. That's simply a lie. If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to look up the Federal budget and show me where there is expenditure to corporations for moving jobs over seas.

You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

There are tax breaks. Small, irrelevant tax breaks.

Companies do not move jobs over seas, because they get a one time, reduction of $1,000 on their taxes. They move jobs over seas, because they can make a profit doing so.

A company that is going to outsource, is going to do so with... or without... a tax break. Because making $2 billion in profit, is worth it, regardless of if you get a tax deduction.

No amount of tax deduction, is going to cause a company to outsource if there isn't billions in profits to be made. No lack of tax deduction is going to stop a company from outsourcing, if there is billions in profits to be made.

Fact is.... free trade has more to do with outsourcing, than any tiny tax deduction.

 

[rdean]

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

I pointed out where the TRADE AGREEMENTS are the problem, Dumbass...

And even the LIBERAL Huffington Post agrees!!!

So once again, your thread fails due to you posting a bunch of bull crap that I can call you on using LIBERAL sources....

View attachment 66186

Many articles in magazines, even liberal one, are opinion pieces.
The truth is that without tax breaks and subsidies and seminars to teach business to move, so many might not have left. Remember, millions of jobs moved to China when Republicans controlled both houses and Bush was president. Republicans were able to use reconcilliation again and again. And yet, even with proven GOP inaction, it's the fault of the Democrats????
How can that be? Republicans take no responsibility even when no one can stop them.

And why don't Democrats take responsibility for the very agreements that make it easy for companies to move their operations overseas, and still import their goods without having any restrictions????

A CEO would have to be an incompetent boob to not take advantage of a deal like that.....

As a matter of fact, Obungles gave the Carrier plant in Indianapolis $5.1 million in stimulus money, and they took advantage of NAFTA and laid off 1,400 employ from good-paying jobs when they decided to move to MEXICO ....
Carrier Received $5.1 Million in Obama-Stimulus Cash Before Move To Mexico - Breitbart

Face it....

The sweetheart deal they got from NAFTA made it all possible.....

It's not the agreements. It's the tax credits and subsidies.

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/uschamberofoutsourcing.pdf

With China only paying a monthly salary of $172, China was always going to take some jobs. But when Republicans offered subsidies and tax breaks, suddenly, they had the means to move the companies.

The above is an invitation to a seminar that taught how to move jobs to China. The PDF outlines their goals.

No agreement anywhere. But tax breaks and subsidies galore.