Please explain how Clinton is responsible for corporate outsourcing decisions. I'm ready to learn.Originally Posted by tydon
1. NAFTA, passed by Clinton. An example of this hurting the US is the lumber industry. Canada is able to be more competitive in alot of woods without protective tarrifs in place.
2. This article clearly shows Clinton supports outsourcing. http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/470384.cms
3. Clinton passed no laws stopping corporations from doing it.
It started heavily in Clintons terms, and continued into Bush's term. Yet, Bush gets the blame.
An interesting side note about Kerry on this. He claims that he will halt the outsourcing, yet, dont you find it odd that 57 of 79 of the heinz factories are located OUTSIDE the United States? I highly doubt Kerry will screw over his wifes company, which just shows us that Kerry will continue flip flopping once elected, and not follow through on his campaign promises.
How does that show us he'll flip-flop? Your assumption really says nothing, therefore it is a moot point.
Good day.
And Bush has done nothing to stop outsourcing, or to prevent companies from sending 17% (up from 10% in the Clinton years, my friend) of their profits to tax shelters overseas.
Do you have a point? Other than "Clinton was just as much of a free-marketer as Bush has turned out to be," that is?
You are completely ignoring why that is important. People are trying to blame Bush for these jobs lost, when the system was already set in place BY clinton. You cant just shut that down without severly damaging the corporations that utilized the allowance by Clinton to outsource.
Clinton started it, Bush knows you cant stop it, and agrees somewhat with it.
Let me ask you something, does a mudslide get bigger as it goes down a hill?
If someone started it with dynamite at the top, and someone else didnt stop it because it would kill them, who would you blame for it?
"How does that show us he'll flip-flop? Your assumption really says nothing, therefore it is a moot point.
Good day."
Fine, show me that a President that has enacted a law that will bankrupt him. Then I will concede.
Nice to see you can start off with some class. Lemme 'splain why there is no such thing as a zero-sum economy like you believe.
Lower taxes do result in less money coming in. From that particular source of cash-flow. Where it is made up from in greater numbers is actually quite simple if you care to udnerstand dynamic economics. It's really easy.
In a dynamic economy, the additional capital that is left from lower taxes is used for many things. It is commonly used to make companies more effecient.
Typically by purchasing newer and better equipment. To produce the newer equipment, first the raw materials have to be mined, pumped or othewise ripped from the Earth. It is them processed, manufactured, marketed and shipped to it's final destination. That new computer a company bought to allow them to run the newest business software took perhaps hudnreds of people to create. Now, with millions of businesses having additional capital to re-invest in their infrastructure means tens of thousands if not millions of people working to meet the demand.
But wait, there's more! You forget that there are more people entering the job market than leaving it. From people leaving school to immigrants coming in. Without the additional capital it is much harder to put those people to work. With the tax cuts, there was the capital availabel to employ those people. Those new workers are now paying income tax. At a lower rate, but there are more people paying those taxes.
Don't touch that dial yet! I haven't gotten into the investment market yet. You may not know this, but the "surplus" Pres. Clinton touted all the time was a projected surplus. It only existed on paper. And it was dependant upon cash-flow from the Capital Gains Tax and the booming stock market. Then came the dot bomb in 2000. Under Pres. Clinton's watch. The NASDAQ fell 3,000 points. The DOW fell nearly 2,500 points. Oops, there goes the projected surplus. Damned the bad luck.
Which leads me to 9-11-01. Remember the stories? A million jobs lost within 90 days. Most of them in the travel and recreation industry. Oops, fewer people paying taxes. Not to mention the massive hit the stock market took when it reopened. Oops, there goes more Capital Gains Tax revenue. The falling stock market caused people to stop spending their money. Oops, an accelerating recession.
Then the corporate scandals. Massive investor fear. Nobody willing to do anything but sit tight. And more people kept entering the job market all the time. Which meant an ever swelling ranks of the unemployed. More people on welfare.
Then what happened? Pres. Bush rammed through two tax cuts. And loe and behold! The stock market began to creep back up. Durable goods began to be purchased again. It took a few months to kick in. But think about it. Between the two tax cuts I kept an additional $29 a week. It takes time to save up that additional money. Now look at what is happening. A unemployment rate lower than it was in 1996. This with a couple million more people in the job market than in 1996. A surging stock market, back over 10,000. Commercial construction is on the rise. Durable goods manufacturing is up. The travel industry is back.
But what does that all mean? It means more people paying taxes. More people buying durable goods. Which they pay taxes on. More people starting new businesses. Which is taxed. And it snowballs. As it did under Pres. Kennedy and Pres. Reagan when they cut taxes. But don't let history and the facts get in the way OK?
A fixed tax rate is the only fair tax. 15% across the board, no exception.Yes, the rich are paying more with their taxes, but it should be a % tax, as opposed to a %+fixed rate. The poor pay less because they have less, the rich are paying less because they have more.
Those numbers are pure BS. 3.1 millions jobs were lost after the dot bomb, 9-11 and the corporate scandles. Since then all but roughly 800,000 of them have been recovered. But those are jobs that the government lists. They don't count the guys that go out and start they own company. They're an employer, not an employee. So they don't get counted.During the Bush administration roughly 2.6 million jobs have been lost. I do realize it's part of the "Clinton Recession", but Bush isn't helping that much. One million jobs have been created, but most all of them are low paying. Have you heard what he wanted to do with some overtime pay? It's brutal...
For much of this year my wife has been self-employed and not counted. I'm quite capable of becoming entirely self-employed if I want to. I chose not to because my office job is so much fun. But were I to work for myself, I'm counted as being a lost job. Even though I'd likely double my income and pay far more tax than I do now.
And those so-called "low-paying" jobs? Prove it. Prove to me that high-tech companies like HP and Micron (two local companies) aren't hiring. They are. Hundreds of new jobs in the past year. Prove to me that the commercial construction industry is a low paying job. Prove to me that the truckers shipping the newly manufactured durable goods is a low paying job. Prove to me that the manufacturing of durable goods is a low paying job. The low paying jobs you speak of are those being taken by those newly entered into the job market. The teenagers out of high school, the new immigrant picking fruit.
[quote]Also, this "War on Terror" is plunging further into an economic slump, by reaping away at the surplus we had before it started.[/qutoe]
Did 9-11-01 not happen in your world? They attacked US. THEY started the war. In times of war you dont' worry about the cost. You worry about winning. Afterwards you tally up the cost. Because if you don't spend the money necessary to win, you wind up dead and the saved money is of no use to you anymore.
And yes, this is a WAR. It takes two for peace but only one to make a war.
You don't change your mind when you believe down to your core that what you are doing is right. You don't change your mind to go with the passing breeze as Kerry does.Bush has made some horrible decisions, and his inability to change his mind, not "flip-flop" is really hurting him in many people's eyes.
http://www.flipflopper.com/Flipflops.asp
http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm
Ah, now the source of the hate comes out. You HATE Pres. Bush. An easily and readily visible irrational hatred that has no basis in facts, only emotion.Now, I'm not a Democrat by any means, although I am very liberal. If I could vote in this upcoming election (damnable age 17), I would vote for Kerry for a couple reasons:
-Not Bush
-Actually has a chance at winning.
-Not Bush
-Not Bush
Tell me, since you're part of the Anybody But Bush crowd, would you vote for Hitler over Bush if it were possible? How about Pat Robertson? Or Pat Buchanan? Perhaps me? None of us are Pres. Bush. Since you're 17, thankfully you're going to have 4 more years to get over your irrational hate in time for the next election.
Proof? Seems to me the health programs around here are stronger than ever.
You know, this new DNS server is great! I can post here again! WHOO HOO!!! ~resumes reigning arch-conservative role again~
It's nice to have you back, Freemason, if only because you're one of about 2 people in here that doesn't make my head hurt when you talk about politics. I've pretty much lost my energy to argue anymore. Thanks for holding up our end of the fight.
-Oser
The Freemason approved method for liberal induced head trauma - as developed by Glenn Beck.It's nice to have you back, Freemason, if only because you're one of about 2 people in here that doesn't make my head hurt when you talk about politics. I've pretty much lost my energy to argue anymore. Thanks for holding up our end of the fight.
-Oser
Wrap your head tightly with duct tape. Then when your head explodes for the insanity the docs don't have to go searching for all the pieces to sew back together. It's the only method that works
I'm just wondering if being a conservative like you is the right path, why is the world slowly becoming more liberal?
Nay, the Valley of Hudson. But I still know a thing or two about taxes :innocent:
If I had bought a $200K house I couldn't afford 5 years ago, I'd be $60K richer today :clap:
And I reiterate the bit about outsourcing - it is something that neither candidate really plans to do f-all about, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. actually profits from outsourcing too. The only way to resolve issues of outsourcing is to make it beneficial to keep jobs in the U.S., whether by corporate patriotism or lowering the expenses of employers. We addressed this in PLF's thread, and y'all acted like I was smoking dope.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks