Obama: End tax breaks to stop overseas hiring

[ProSense]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is renewing his call for Congress to close tax breaks that reward some U.S. companies with overseas subsidiaries, a proposal that has raised concerns among some lawmakers in the president's own party.

In his weekly radio and online address, Obama said the tax breaks encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries.

"There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas," Obama said. "Instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders."

At issue is a bill that stalled in the Senate last month that would end some tax credits and deferrals for U.S. companies for operations overseas.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_taxes_4

[polichick]

1. Good on him! It's amazing that such a practice was ever seen as good for the country...

But I guess it was just seen as good for companies, so screw the country.

imo there needs to be some in-your-face way of letting the people know exactly which Senators - both Dem and Republican - stand in the way of legislation. Maybe Robert could announce them every day.

[Starckers]

6. Overseas Jobs

My company hires people over seas all the time.  We sell
products that are made here and then are sold overseas.  We
have satellite plants overseas and a sales force.  You would
say we send jobs overseas.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. The key point is whether your company gets tax breaks for doing so.

Many American companies have operations overseas. That wouldn't change.

[SadieSunn]

124. Why punish companies that export?

We can't sell what Americans make unless a few people can be hired overseas.

[Populist_Prole]

19. Amazingly, a RW-er I know actually says so

He bought into the corporate media mantra that sending jobs abroad will make companies here healthier and be ultimately good for the US. I asked how he figures that. Says the more prosperous they are the more they will hire here. Hire here? I asked, they just fired people here! What's the good? He launched into the "business exists to make money for the stockholders not hire people....blah blah blah" I asked why wasn't that your original narrative when pushing the outsourcing is good talking point? It's like they're saying, "Trust us, trust, trust us"...then when it's pointed out why we have reasons we shouldn't trust them, they did their heels in and basically tell us we're scum. They're such blockhead ideologues that they don't even _notice_ the irony...let alone be troubled by it.

[defendandprotect]

31. Misplaced --

[truthisfreedom]

68. I'm a manufacturer. I make products here in the States and in Taiwan as well. I couldn't possibly

pay the wages I pay here (at least $20/hr) to my employees if I didn't manufacture cheaper copies of my products overseas and sell them to subsidize my manufacturing here.

I don't get any tax breaks for "hiring" people overseas. I don't get any tax breaks at all. I'm just saying that my US products cost so much more to sell that the share of them that I sell each year keeps dropping, and the Taiwanese (that's a Democratic country, btw) products I sell world-wide keep increasing in volume each year. My US production team is probably losing money at this point, but my 7 employees and many more independent contractors need work here so there's no way I'm shutting that part of my business down.

[JDPriestly]

92. Do you sell your products here?

If you do, seems to me that we should be charging import taxes on products made by cheaper labor in foreign countries.

The difference in labor costs is to a great extent due to the exchange rate on the dollar.

We do not live that much better than say Europeans. I don't know how our living standard compares to that of Taiwan, but I feel certain that they can live better on their wage there than they could here. That's because our currency is overvalued compared to theirs.

Of course, our currency valuation keeps gasoline costs as well as the costs of other imports low for us. It is gratifying to our desire to consume, consume, consume to be able to buy cheap imports. But -- we pay for those cheap imports and the currency valuation that permits them to be so cheap -- with our high unemployment rates.

The current situation cannot go on forever. That is because, unless Americans work and earn good incomes, our government cannot collect the taxes it needs to maintain our military. And for many of our allies overseas including Taiwan rely on our military for their security.

[golfguru]

120. I spent 2 weeks in Europe recently

specifically Spain, Portugal & Italy. From my observation,
Europeans have much inferior housing (almost all housing is
apartment/condo style), food is more than twice as expensive, gasoline is 3 times expensive, cars are smaller and lot more percentage of traffic is motor-cycles. I can't see how their living standards are same as ours.

[marketbreakaway]

22. These Good Intentions Are Mis-Guided

The USA is among the very few countries that tax domestic corporations for foreign earnings.

The USA is the ONLY country that taxes foreign earnings ONLY when those earnings are re-repatriated.

If we try to tax the un-repatriated foreign earnings of domestic corporations they will simply move their corporate headquarters to ANOTHER COUNTRY. Perhaps the Bahamas?

If you want to bring the $trillion dollars in foreign earnings home and put them to work then the solution is to REMOVE the tax completely. We will get the tax revenue back eventually through the increased domestic business investment that money would bring.

Sorry folks, I know that some of you who waive the "Obama is always right" flag are going to flame me for this one, but I simply do not see how anyone can believe his policy on this one. At least no one who thinks it out for themselves.

However, the president does have a very good point when he says that we need a plan for closing the deficit. Perhaps we could think about shrinking the military a bit? Perhaps bring our children home from wars? Perhaps it is time to re-think our entitlement programs?

[bitchkitty]

23. Entitlement programs?

Such as?

[marketbreakaway]

37. Glad you asked

You asked which entitlement programs might be re-evaluated.

Here are three ideas...

1. Federal benefits, including retirement, are extremely generous compared with the private sector. These need to be re-evaluated.

2. If Medicare were given to ALL citizens then a much more reasonable cost structure could be introduced such as payment for health instead of payment for procedures and real tort reform (after all, we'd be suing ourselves!). Also (and here comes Palin's death panels) we could step back and take a real look at a fair cost/benefit including weighing other factors such as overall health and age.

3. Finally, how about means testing social security? (Of course I know that SS is not part of the federal budget but, come on, making that distinction is like talking about the difference between left and right pockets).

Well, like them or don't, there are at least some ideas for controlling the overall federal spending. What are your ideas?

[SharksBreath]

41. First your original argument was false.

What we are talking about are companies like Bristol Myers that laid off over 20,000 workers in the last three years and sent those jobs to the Philippines and Brazil.

They hired these people and then got a tax break for doing so.

That's what we are talking about. Not companies that have offices and send American workers to those offices.

Ideas.

1. Stop corporate welfare. Corporate welfare costs us 3+ times more than welfare for the poor. This year Corporate welfare spending cost us 170 billion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9297759

2. Cut defense spending to 100 billion a year.
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.<1><2>

You cut those two and the deficit is gone in two years.

[marketbreakaway]

48. I like your ideas, but my premise was not false.

Obama wants to tax the overseas profits of US corporations. That is his main point. I am not wrong on this issue.

However, I have no truck with your other ideas about corporate welfare. However, I would include Fannie, Freddie, GM, Chrysler and all the giant Wall Street firms too.

[Tansy_Gold]

50. "I have no truck with" -- you obviously don't know what this means

It means to refuse to become involved with, because one strongly disapproves of, as in "I will have no truck with racist pigs" or "I will have no truck with tea party idiots who would forcibly convert everyone to fundamental xtianity."


So, are you suggesting you will have no truck with the poster's ideas about corporate welfare, or you will have no truck with corporate welfare itself?


Words have meanings, you know.



Tansy Gold

[marketbreakaway]

52. Now you are playing games

You asked:

"So, are you suggesting you will have no truck with the poster's ideas about corporate welfare, or you will have no truck with corporate welfare itself?"


But this is what I said:

"I have no truck with your other ideas about corporate welfare"

You asked this question right after you said that I did not know the meaning of the words that I used.

Enough said here.

[Tansy_Gold]

55. No, I'm not playing games.

The poster expressed one view on corporate welfare and that was to do away with it. You wrote "However, I have no truck with your other ideas about corporate welfare." The poster had no OTHER ideas about corporate welfare, only the one about doing away with it.

Am I being pedantic here? Perhaps a bit. But considering that many of your comments have been remarkably similar to what we hear from the right wing -- lower taxes on business for the (never-before-observed but honored in theory) trickle down of properity, tort reform, etc., etc. -- I'm just making sure that I'm understanding what you're writing, and that you're writing what you intend to.

I believe it was Mark Twain who wrote, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning bug and lightning."


Tansy Gold, who likes word games but doesn't play games with words

[Maraya1969]

69. Every time I hear someone start to complain about entitlement programs

all my ears perk up. If a person automatically thinks helping the poor people of our country costs more than the help given to our big corporations is just out of touch and wants to have the poor person as the scapegoat rather than big business.

[marketbreakaway]

71. Neither.

It is not the poor nor big business. It is the environment. All things, EVERYTHING, adapts to the environment.

Obviously, I could go on with a thousand pages of support for the above statement. I will not this time. Maybe another. But I meant the "adaption" statement very literally and meant it to include both social and biological meanings.

So my point is, (anyone want to tell the others who originally said this?) : If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.

:)

I know it is not exactly Democratic flier material, but this Democrat still likes it!

[Tansy_Gold]

88. Actually, a lot of things don't adapt to the environment at all

Whether they can't adapt or won't adapt, the point is that they don't -- and then they generally die. Literally.

For example, a poor person suddenly loses their government benefits. Maybe they're able to adapt to a loss of income, or maybe they're not. If they don't somehow or other adapt, they die. They starve or they freeze to death in the winter with no money to pay their heating fuel bill.

Or maybe dying is what you call "adaption" (sic)?

(The correct word is "adaptation." Normally I don't pay a whole lot of attention to spelling and usage and keyboarding errors, since we all make them from time to time, but your posts seem to be rife with them. Know what I mean?)



TG, who also occasionally makes typos

[AlbertCat]

96. All things, EVERYTHING, adapts to the environment.

Uh... no.

The majority of species that have lived on Earth have died out and DIDN'T adapt to the changing environment.


And entire civilizations die out too. You think Rome adapted to the new environment? The American Indians?


And why can't taxing American corporations for NOT helping out their country be part of the adapting? The companies can adapt or fail.



Platitudes won't cut it.

[Alameda]

97. my ears perk up too.....

[Politicub]

54. Means testing for social security? Tort reform?

At least you came clean about what you believe. I couldn't disagree more with your positions, though.

[Patchuli]

60. Entitlement? WTF?

1. I am a school employee. I am earning my PERS and PERS will have a decent retirement for me because they invest the money well. The majority of our retirement nest egg comes from the results of good investments, NOT taxpayers' pockets. If you went to public school, if your children went to public school, then you do owe school employees for many years of service. I will not have a "generous" retirement but at least I can look forward to eating better than cat food.

2. Good idea that all citizens should get medicare, especially those of us who have been paying in since we were teenagers. I am now 55. Medicare has benefited from all my years of labor. I look forward to receiving back what I have put in. I am in good health and work hard at staying that way but things can still happen. What I have been paying for since 1972 needs to be there for me.

3. Ditto with Social Security. NEITHER SS or Medicare are "entitlements" but services owed to those of us who have been footing the bill for the past 40 or whatever years. SS has nothing to do with the Federal budget except for those unscrupulous politicians such as Ronnie Raygun and George Dumbya Bush who had their hands in the cookie jar. That money needs to come back in a form other than pieces of paper IOUs as Dumbya laughed about.

4. Definitely agree that the military is bloated and we need to stop waging empire wars. Perhaps we should seize the personal assets of those individuals who led us into these messes?

By the way, I don't know your political ideology, but not everyone agrees with what President O is doing, namely trying to make everyone happy. If I "flamed" you, it would be for different reasons than for President O.

[Tunkamerica]

98. I'm with you that if we paid in then it should be there for us.

Burr, in his debate the other night with Marshall, said : Let's be realistic, 30 year olds that are paying into SS right now aren't going to be getting anything back.

Well, then give me everything I put in right now with interest. That's the only way I'll even be close to being satisfied. If that's not feasible then all the programs that borrowed from SS need to pay it back. I'm 31 and haven't paid nearly as much as some of you undoubtedly have, but it's still a chunk of change and if senators are saying now that I'm throwing money down a rat hole I'd love to know now, as opposed to later.

[marketbreakaway]

105. Born in 1955

You not only did not flame, you had most reasonable and thoughtful comments.

Fifty Five years old? Me too. Was in private enterprise my whole career until 2005. Finally saw the light and got myself a position in local government. I'm afraid that I will be 70 years old before I can retire however.

However, the federal benefits that I was referring to were the federal employee benefits. I was not referring to your local contribution plan. My brother, a high ranking officer in the military, will retire on $70,000 per year plus medical for life before he turns our age.

Like you I have kept my health. But, perhaps unlike you, I resent paying Medicare for those who have squandered their own health. I don't know the solution but it flunks my fairness test that I exercise and diet pay out of pocket for vitamins and health club and need the doctor never and my overweight steak and potato eating couch potato neighbor now has 8 stents in his heart on the taxpayer's dime.

[Tansy_Gold]

106. Only those who "deserve" it should get it? That's RW talk too

Who will determine who "deserves" Social Security or Medicare or TANF? You? Don't make me laugh throw up.

Military pensions have ALWAYS been generous because it's a way of rewarding those who have served above and beyond the level of "duty" to one's country and risking one's life every day. I have friends who are retired military who then took the training and education they received FREE while in the military and entered the private sector so that they are now, in their mid to late 60s, receiving military pension, Social Security, AND private sector retirement benefits. One spent all but 14 months of his first 12 years of marriage away from his family, most of that time in high-risk or war zones. Essentially he gambled and won -- after 24 years in the military he came out with a college degree and all the training and experience to walk into a professional position in the civilian world. Three of the friends he enlisted with who went through the same program were killed in the line of duty.

My daughter-in-law works at a naval hospital and most of her patients are military dependents. She often remarks on some of the poor "lifestyle choices" they make -- poor diet, smoking, heavy alcohol consumption -- but she never suggests they shouldn't get care, and it's all on the taxpayer's dime. Many of them are children who don't have much choice in the diet they're fed or the fact that everyone around them smokes and they're subjected to second-hand smoke several hours a day from the time they're born.

Y'know, you're damn lucky that you've been able to afford to take such wonderful care of yourself. Not all of us have the opportunity to pay for gym or health club membership, or were fortunate enough not to be born into a family where the tendency to diabetes is inherited. You could be a little more generous in your opinions of others, but I can see that's not likely ever to happen.



Tansy Gold

[ProudDad]

77. Social Security is NOT generous...

But I'm with you on numbers 2 and 3...

Improved and Enhanced Medicare for All...

==============================

However, I like the old, even simpler Nixonian idea of a Guaranteed Annual Income; a livable wage for EVERYONE.

If you want to make more, fine but you won't be a slave to a fucking boss just to survive...

Hell, this country robs 25% of the Earths resource's for 4% of the population we could sure as hell afford a livable wage for everyone.

[defendandprotect]

32. "Shrink the military ... a bit" ... ?????? We could halve MIC budget + still be superpower...!!

[marketbreakaway]

38. Agreed!

[ProudDad]

79. I think we could find common ground on all of this...

:hi:

You are correct in that some taxes just aren't feasible...

We need more drastic remedies...

[Tansy_Gold]

39. Virtually everything you've written is pure RW ideology, with the minor

exception of ending the wars.

Everything else -- lower taxes on business, cutting entitlements, blah, blah, blah -- could have been scripted by John Boehner.

Just sayin'.




Tansy Gold

[marketbreakaway]

45. Right Wing Ideology

I am a DEMOCRAT and I do NOT believe in all things LEFT.

I do however believe in some things left, such as universal health, ending the wars, a govermental role in the economy and society. I also believe in some things right, such as a healthy business climate.

However, some of the things on the left are mindless drivel. One of those things is calling all things to your right evil. You and others on the far left are making MY Democratic party irrelevant. What you said about my reasonable and thoughtful ideas makes you the Democratic Glen Beck, all ideologue, no thought.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. I wrote nothing about you personally or your beliefs.

I was merely saying that much of what you wrote was right (pun intended) out of the GOP playbook.

Unlike you, I called no one an ideologue. The name-calling is all on your part.



Tansy Gold, who never apologizes for being on the far left.

[marketbreakaway]

51. Okay - I admit an error

I did call you an ideologue, and what is more I labeled you as a whole class of like minded people. I admit that was personal.

For an excuse I offer up the title of your post which did include the word ideology and, at least to me, strongly suggested that I am a right wing ideologue.

I do ask you to consider in the future that someone can be both pro-business and a true Democrat. That is, I can be an ally to you.

[kristopher]

74. You are a right wing ideologue.

When you argue for the right wing solutions you are suggesting that is a reasonable conclusion to draw, for they are not the only alternatives that economics give us. These you propose are economic solutions predicted on a well defined set of right wing values but there are others predicated on a different set of normative values. Your example of energy is a clear case in point.

[marketbreakaway]

103. The Democrats Need Help

I am considered most liberal by most I know.

I consider myself to be more Libertarian rather than liberal or conservative.

However when a social liberal Democrat like myself speaks up in support of promoting both social issues AND business issues, I am considered right wing.

We need to get our party back.

[Tansy_Gold]

107. The Democrats may need help, but they won't get it by moving

further to the economic right, which is precisely what you advocate.

There is a point at which right libertarian economic policies come into direct conflict with liberal "social" issues, but which I suspect you probably mean reproductive rights and gay rights. Those are usually the two issues on which libertarians and (for lack of a better term) socialists agree.

The problem with libertarian economic policies is that they entrench economic inequality. Absent a public policy that prevents it, the end result would be economic feudalism, which in many respects is the direction the US economy is currently headed. Economic inequality is pretty much incompatible with social equality, which is why it's difficult to reconcile right libertarian economic theory (Ayn Rand) with liberal social theory. What it comes down to is things like, "Oh, I have no problem with women having abortions, so long as they can pay for it themselves and it isn't coming out of my tax dollars." Social policy has economic costs, and it's very difficult to be on the left of one and the right of the other.

That's why you're being hammered here, and probably will continue to be hammered. Many of us don't see you as a true democrat. I make no secret that I'm pretty far on the socialist left, so you can take my criticisms with a grain of salt. But I can't speak for the others, including those who have come right out and called you a right wing ideologue.


Tansy Gold, NTY

[marketbreakaway]

111. Hey Tansy Gold

It has been fun debating with you. This subject is fading fast. I am sure that we will run across one another again on a new subject.

In all honesty, outside of discussions about investments on the Yahoo message boards, I do not often discuss politics and politics' twin economics. However I do believe that the democratic party has moved too far into the anti-business camp and needs to come back.

Allow me to spout my 'Libertarian' views:

1. Freedom is paramount. I will not willingly sacrifice more freedom than I absolutely have to in order to maintain a civil society.

2. Basic needs, including education, health and shelter are a right of citizenship. However, not an equal right. Those who are willing (and able) to put more of their own money into getting more education, health or shelter should be free to do so.

3. I do not care at all about the social issues such as gay rights or reproductive issues except to say see #1 above. I support everyone else's freedom too.

4. I strongly support the elimination of all laws which seek to protect people from themselves, especially the drug laws.

5. I believe that we should support a strong and healthy business environment, especially small business, but also large multi-nationals.

6. I believe that the education system in the USA is mostly broken. I don't know what to do to fix it but we must start with admitting what we have is not working.

7. I strongly support the manned space program and consider what Obama has done to it a crime against humanity.

So, I think that by the above list you can see that I do not neatly fit into either the conservative or liberal camps. Certainly the conservatives don't like most of my ideas. And as you have pointed out, even my mostly liberal ideas are far too right for Democrats.

I hope that a few Democrats will at least consider some other ideas.

:)

[kristopher]

110. You aren't "promoting business issues"

You are promoting a world view based on values that are not "liberal". Where your confusion arises is when you think that all conclusions arrived at by those disparate values are exclusive - they are not. Often they overlap as in the case of some social issues where your life has been impacted by social injustice. But many other times they do not. For example, you support nuclear power because you trust the nuclear industry and the regulators over them. That trust exists because you value security from perceived immediate threats to country and family. Others hold different, more altruistic values which cause them to see that type thinking as being prone to self-interest induced logical fallacies.

The point is that the underpinning of the Democratic party is one that is founded on the altruistic side of the equation, not the self interested side of the equation. The self-interested side has totally screwed the pooch over the past 30 years and now they are like rats deserting a sinking ship - rushing to the property of others and trying to proclaim it "our party".

Horseshit.

If you want to support the Dems for the areas where we correct the small list of right wing idiocies you've managed to become aware of, that is great; but coming here and expecting people to embrace a world view based on selfishness - no fucking thank you.

[marketbreakaway]

112. Define Selfish Kristopher

Is it selfish for an Indian immigrant to use his family's life savings to buy a gas station and then to work 90 hours per week there trying to support them?

Is it selfish if he is a success and buys a second station, then a third and he becomes modestly wealthy?

Is it selfish if he wants to use his new found wealth to support his poor brothers and sisters back home?

Is it selfish if I ask you to allow me to chose my own charity instead of having one chosen by huge party bosses making back room political decisions and enforcing their decision with all the coercive power of government?

Do you see that when you call someone who favors private enterprise selfish for doing so, you are saying that instead of the economy being driven by individuals making their own decisions and voting with their dollars you wish for a great altruistic dictator to make great altruistic decisions that are all for the greater good (at least as you unselfishly see it).

Right?

[kristopher]

114. No, it isn't right.

Including the word "selfish" in an otherwise unrelated hypothetical doesn't mean you addressed my points. That was nothing more than a very weak exercise in sophistry having nothing to do with the meaning of what I wrote.

You have, in fact, descended into pure tripe with your "dictator" remarks. They highlight the values I spoke of where you instantly resort to a logical fallacy where you leap to the unsupported conclusion that my perspective must result in dictatorial control of society.

"Coercive power of government"?

Government, when it is unshackled from the moneyed interests you favor, is actually the voice of the people doing what you suggest they do with money - voting. There is nothing wrong with understanding the role of market signals and using market forces to find effective solutions to social issues that are amenable to such solutions, but when you begin to think that is better than "government" you are transferring sovereignty from the populace to an unaccountable, interlocked network of multinational corporations.

I will not be responding to you further, I don't come here to debate normative economics with poorly informed advocates for right wing values.

[marketbreakaway]

115. I get it

You believe in the collective will. I believe in individual freedom.

I believe that I am trying to save our Republic from men of good will who know not what they do. You believe that I am an uninformed right wing spouting non-sense.

We are way off topic here. That topic supposedly being the logic (or even honesty) of the President's proposal to tax foreign earnings. But since this thread is old now and since you said that you do not want to respond. I'll close with a quote which explains why I wish my fellow Democrats to reconsider their Keynesian/Altruistic/Overly-Liberal/Anti-Business views.

From Tytler in the 1700's:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

[compassion now]

66. Lower taxes?

Well, lower taxes might help a lot of people, with this bad economey (Thanx a lot Bush! >=()

[Tansy_Gold]

82. He only proposed lower taxes on business

I haven't seen any proposals for lower individual income tax rates.


TG

[Thor_MN]

44. We will get the tax revenue back eventually through the increased domestic business investment...

So it's going to Trickle Down to the IRS?

:rofl:

[marketbreakaway]

46. Exactly the Same as a Stimulus Package - Only Better

If $trillion was seduced back into the US economy by businesses, hell yes it would trickle down to the IRS. This is exactly the same logic as stimulating the economy with a government stimulus package except, in the end, it will make more money than it costs.

You know, being a Democrat and having liberal points of view about social issues does not mean that you have to be anti-business. That is a step too far. That step will not only kill the golden goose but will destroy our party.

[Thor_MN]

56. It's not Supply and Demand, it's Demand and Supply.

If you are making a product that no one cares about you will go bankrupt. Conservatives (fascists) love their wet dreams of building a better mousetrap and having the world beat a path to their door. They never get the point that if you build a better buggywhip, no one gives a damn.

Supply side economic have been proven time and again to be utter bullshit. We do not need to stimulate supply, we need to stimulate demand. Corporations have too much power now, it's long past time to step on them. Completely erase any company and if there is demand for the products they made, three companies will spring up in their place. Erase demand for a product and a segment of the economy gos uhder.

[marketbreakaway]

58. Okay - I'll give you an example of supply and demand - Energy

Energy. It is in never ending demand. Supply enough energy at cheap enough prices and demand will grow until it is all used. Always.

So, how about a government program to incite business to supply unlimited energy?

Coast to coast nuclear power plants producing enough ultra cheap energy to make everyone in the county want a fully electric car.

However if you believe that demand is all that is required, may I suggest the German model in the late 1930's. The German government created lots and lots of demand. It actually worked for a while...

[Thor_MN]

63. I never said Demand was all that was necessary.

You seem to imply that by stimulating supply, that Demand will magically appear. Give money to a company that has decreaseing demand because people can't afford it's products and your claim is that's going to increase demand and jobs. Supply side economics is bullshit, peddled by corporations, because it benefits them. We've been trying that crap since Reagan and the scomy has been in the shitter except for the Clinton years.

Good luck with trying to convince people that Right Wing/Fascist talking points are what the country needs...

[marketbreakaway]

70. All Right, Maybe the NAZI comparison was a bit much...

I confess, I started the anger mongering with the comparison to the 1930's Germans, but still, consider my point that the best we can do to help people will occur if businesses are rich and employment is full.

To that end I say that "YES" throughout history the "whores" have taken whatever they can, and "YES" in the past 20 years the "prostitutes" have taken even more, in fact pathologically more. However, I suggest that the answer is not the destruction of capitalism, but the enhancement of it. Enhance capitalism by BREAKING UP GIANT CORPS! No more "too big to fail". No more "thousands of jobs". No more "Donations". BREAK IT UP!

I want Democrats to rethink their points. We have gone too far. It is one thing to believe that government can do things to help people to help themselves. It is another to believe that business is evil.

[scentopine]

57. Pure unadultered right wing bullshit - wall street bullshit...

This is such utter and complete nonsense its hard to know where to start. Over the last 30 years we've moved nearly 100% in the direction you and your right wing compatriots are espousing to no avail. The policies you cite are good for talking points but bear no semblance of reality - they employ the sort of logic global warming deniers trot out to offer "reasonable doubt".

Taxes have nothing to do with moving off shore. ZERO. NADA. NOTHING. Jobs are moved off shore to take advantage of unregulated and exploitative labor markets where standards of living are much lower than in USA. Period. I am in the middle of this nightmare every fucking day. I've watched the technology business fire well educated successful people here in US by 100,000s only to hire untrained substitutes in India and China. The MBA reasoning is that they can train these people for less than salary here in USA and never have to worry about sexual harassment or long hours without pay and if a foreign worker gets sick, you fire them. Meanwhile education costs are inflating - kids pay $100,000 for engineering degree and can't get a job. But they're told the only way to get a job is to spend $100,000 in college.

You told us busting up the unions would bring prosperity to America. It didn't. It made a few CEOs rich. It harmed America.

You told us outsourcing to Mexico would bring prosperity to America. It made a few CEOs more rich. It harmed America.

You told us tax breaks for the rich and tax breaks for off-shoring would bring prosperity to America. It made a few more CEOs rich. It harmed America.

You told us deregulating Wall Street would bring prosperity to America. It made a few more CEOs fich. It harmed America.

You told us off shore drilling was absolutely safe and would bring prosperity to America. It harmed America.

You told us medical services. education. housing are like food and water, simple commodities. The "free" market should be allowed to set their own price for these services so essential for a strong competitive nation. It made a few more CEOs rich and harmed America.

Here's the deal - we have the most right wing government in history. Democrats and republicans are defined by the common values they share more than their differences which only on a microscopic scale appear significant. Washington fights hard for right wing values regarding corporate influence over government and a belief that rich people should be allowed to accumulate wealth and means to wealth while the other 99% works in a modern version of servitude.

These policies are continuing to strangle everyone without the meams to buy a vote in Washington i.e. 99.9% of everyone in this nation.

You are only making things worse. The rich have achieved the critical mass necessary such that everything Washington does is for the rich EVERYTHING.

It will eventually catch up to you. Will we see Wall Street CEOS hanging from lamp posts? I would only be too delighted.

[marketbreakaway]

59. Sheesh! You sound most angry.

Solution to corporate CEO's stealing the company blind is for the justice department to do its job and BREAK UP THE GIANT CORPORATIONS!

Solution for globalization? None. We must adjust. I too long for my father's America. It is gone.

[ProudDad]

80. I would like to point out

that the "global economy" is floating on a sea of cheap fossil fuels...

This is no longer an option -- with peak oil threatening scarcity and catastrophic climate destabilization the inevitable result of burning fossil fuels, and NO adequate replacement in sight...

We're going to have to relocalize our economies, power down and think of ways to live better instead of "bigger and shinier"!

[scentopine]

84. Goddamn right I'm angry as hell - there should be riots - America is cowardly unless

its dropping predator bombs on an impoverished people. Then we open up a can of whoop ass. Fuck that. The terrorists are here, on wall street and hiding behind tea bags.

[scentopine]

85. "We must adjust" or what? You'll kill us? Fucking bullshit.

this will not end well. When disparity between rich and poor accelerate as it does is now there is only one inevitable end. History will repeat itself. It will not be pretty.

You are calculating that people are either too drugged up or too stupid to accept your flacid "we must accept the rape and pillage of our overlord" bullshit.

No we don't. We will fight you from all sides for what is right. "We must accepot..." That is the most fucking evil and bastardy thing I've heard recently. Even worse than "we must accept oil spills and pollution as the new normal" Goddamn all you fascist nut jobs to hell.

Fuck all the centrists and other right wingers for causing catastrophe after catastrophe and expecting the "little" people to pay for it with a smile on their faces.

I will fight against you and your "we must accept being treated like subservient slaves bullshit". Democrat or republican - you are destorying the planet with your fucking bullshit. Wars and pollution and exploitation and theft and fraud. We don't have to take this shit. Not for one goddamn second.

[Raksha]

91. I wish more people thought like you!

Re "I will fight against you and your "we must accept being treated like subservient slaves bullshit". Democrat or republican - you are destorying the planet with your fucking bullshit. Wars and pollution and exploitation and theft and fraud. We don't have to take this shit. Not for one goddamn second."

There are more of US than THEM, after all. How did we become a nation of servile, compliant wusses who "must accept" the fate decreed for us by our corporate overlords?

[scentopine]

109. Good question - here is how I think it happened

First, the oligarchy takes control of the media. Fox, Wall Street journal, newspapers, radio, religion, etc. Anything that has an audience you subvert into a propaganda arm of the corporate oligarchy.

Second, you call anyone who calls-out, investigates, recognizes the fraud and criminal activities of the rich an "angry socialist".

Then, as outrage grows over the rape and pillage and exploitation of the non-rich by the rich, you pump several trillion dollars into spying and intelligence operations against Americans, arresting peace activists and stepping up attacks against "those on the left". With corporations protected by the supreme court and local and federal police and defense departments, the rich are free to exploit us at their leisure. Ready access to media helps marginalize anyone who calls them out on this.

With the rule of law and justice completely blinded by millions of campaign dollars from corporations, as the final blow, you turn health care, housing, education, food, water, the environment, war into private sector commodities that are left to the "free market". People are now working so hard they are too exhausted to fight.

Its like bullying in school. Democrats and republicans hate liberals because that's what they are told to do. People are so afraid of being "different" they happily march along with the centrists and right wingers as they systematically destroy the planet.

The rich should pay for their bad behavior.

[HughBeaumont]

122. "Suburbia" over "Community".

Being sequestered in pre-fab outliers makes it a lot harder to have France 2010.

Plus, Americans have had fear of someone or something instilled in them by the rich and their propaganda machines since the 1800s.

What does this get you? An easily-fooled and relatively uneducated society guaranteed not to be on the same page about anything.

[kristopher]

73. +1000

[docvet]

99. +1000000 pts.

Excellent post!

[jmowreader]

67. Two huge problems with this

First problem: Companies move their corporate charters to the Bahamas and Bermuda all the time, and the taxation of unrepatriated foreign earnings doesn't enter into it.

Second problem: By getting rid of this tax completely, all the "business investment" would be overseas.

[marketbreakaway]

72. Please re-consider

You said that an elimination of the tax then all "business investment" would be overseas.

I think that the facts have been skewed.

Here is the tax issue:

1. US corporations do not pay tax on foreign income until that income is brought back to the USA.
2. Most modern nations do not charge tax on foreign earned income, ever.
3. If tax is charged on foreign income even if NOT re-repatriated to the USA then corporations will re-corporate outside of the USA. (Think Bahamas)

Sorry, but this one is a no-brainier.

Multiple times on this thread alone I have been called "right wing" over this issue. Is it "right wing" to state the truth? Perhaps the non "right wing" people will create the beautiful world where all corporations work for social justice?

[ProudDad]

78. I'd like to see a beautiful world

where corporations are NOT considered "people"...

Where their charters are only issued for 5 years and have to be fully reviewed after that time...

And part of their REAL requirement would be to provide a socially useful service or good...

And if they aren't, or a preponderance of their business is anti-social, their charter would be revoked...

And I GET TO HELP DECIDE WHAT'S "SOCIALLY USEFUL"...:)

(hint: napalm, jet fighters, coal-fired power, etc. are NOT socially useful)

[jmowreader]

83. Corporations are reincorporating outside the US now

They're not waiting for tax to be charged on unrepatriated foreign income. The Bahamas and Bermuda are both serious offshore tax havens.

The problem with your position is, it's not the truth--if we allow corporations to bring foreign-earned income into the country tax-free, they'll do their damndest to make sure ALL of their income is tax-free.

[joeglow3]

89. Problem is, he is correct.

I am a CPA and work in the tax department of a Fortune 500 company. The US has the second highest Corporate tax rate in the world (second to only Japan). If we pass this, we will be the ONLY country in the world to implement this kind of tax policy. Thus, why do you think companies would not move their headquarters to ANY OTHER country in the world (not just "tax havens")?

[jmowreader]

118. Problem is, you're not seeing what I'm saying

Corporations have been moving their headquarters to "any other country" (but you KNOW they'll move to the tax havens, especially since they're so darn convenient--it would be far easier to recharter in the Bahamas than anywhere in Europe) for many, many years.

His point was, if we completely eliminate all tax on repatriated income, business will create jobs in the US. That's total right-wing bullshit: corporations do NOT create jobs just because they got a tax cut. If they did, Bush would have created more jobs than Clinton, not more than Hoover. If you were to eliminate all taxation on repatriated income, corporations would figure out a way to make all their income repatriated by closing their last US factories and outsourcing their distribution systems.

[joeglow3]

121. That does not make any sense

Under today's system, if a company were headquartered and had all their production in, say, Europe, then the ONLY US taxes they would pay would be on the products sold into the US. This is usually done through a transfer pricing study. What this means is the company that produces the product would sell the product to a US company that only sold products (did not produce anything). Thus, a chunk of the total profit would be recognized in the foreign country and the remainder would be recognized in the US. For instance, if there was $100 in total profit, the producing company in Europe would recognized $50-70 of income and the remainder would be recognized in the US.

So, under this scenario, lets say the company is in the UK. Assuming $50 was earned in both countries under the transfer pricing study, the company would pay $14 in tax in the UK. They would pay $17.50 in the US and would be able to repatriate the earnings to the UK without any additional taxes. The net result would be taxes of $31.50.

If the company did everything in the US (produced and sold in the US), they would pay $35 in total taxes.

Finally, lets assume the reverse of scenario one was true. The producing company would pay $17.50 in taxes in the US. The selling company would then pay $14 in UK tax. Once the earnings were repatriated, the US would assess a tax of $17.50 and grant a foreign tax credit of $14 (net tax of $3.50). The net result is taxes of $35, or $3.50 more than scenario 1.

Now, if this bill is passed, scenario 3 would no longer exist and all profits would fall under scenario 2 - $35 in total taxes paid today.

So, in response to your post, I don't know if it would create jobs - it WOULD allow companies to repatriate earnings they currently have "permanently reinvested." However, if the bill is passed, I can all but guarantee it WILL cost jobs as some companies WILL move their entire operations overseas.

[ProudDad]

76. "Perhaps it is time to re-think our entitlement programs?"

You had me until there...

That bullshit right-wing, anti-communitarian talking point lost it for me...

We need to entirely reform the economic system in this country.

"If we try to tax the un-repatriated foreign earnings of domestic corporations they will simply move their corporate headquarters to ANOTHER COUNTRY. Perhaps the Bahamas?"

Fine, then we'll revoke their citizenship and deport them to whatever country their fucking money is living in.

If they want to exploit the Earth then let 'em but we don't want 'em around here!

[marketbreakaway]

102. Come On! Self Defeating!

Hey Proud Dad,

You had some good ideas earlier. Here they are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4577250&mesg_id=4577687

"Kick them out" does not fix anything but it does hurt domestic jobs and domestic tax revenue collection.

HOWEVER! I do say "BREAK THEM UP!"

Too big to fail, is just too damn big.

JMHO

[scentopine]

86. People read this above post carefully - this is the rich saying we

must accept that we are less than human, that we do not have the same rights to work here in USA and the rich have the right to send work to unregulated labor markets where people live in poverty with few human rights.

This is the same logic that lead to our civil war - these sons of bitches want us in slavery.

Farther down you'll read this same person say "we must adjust". Fuck that.

We don't have to accept that a class of people is required to be exploited so that the lazy rich, unable to provide for their own means, can keep people in slavery because it is "legal".

Don't accept this from a democrat or republican. Especially not a right winger who is spreading bullshit about "taxes" being too high.

Get angry, fight back. There is a time to fight and it is long past that time. We need to fight the rich. Make them pay.

[docvet]

100. The people have had enough of the plutocracy!

True. So goddamned true it's infuriating.

[marketbreakaway]

104. Think! Scentopine - You are being used.

I recognize that you are angry and resent the rich. I for one am also angry but envy the rich. I most certainly am not one of them.

However, the issue here is not whether or not we should soak the rich. Nor is the topic whether or not corporations are taking jobs off shore for cheap labor. The issue is whether or not the President is playing games and trying to dupe the public into thinking that corporations are getting away with a big tax loop hole because their overseas profits are not taxed until repatriated.

The answer must be obvious by now. It is "of course this is but a election season big of hyperbole". If we become the only country on the planet to tax foreign earnings then the corporations will relocate offshore and we will destroy jobs as well as our tax base.

The president knows this. He is merely trying to fire up the people like you who are angry.

Did it work? Are you fired up?

[scentopine]

108. Many of the wall street rich are lazy and unproductive, they steal and cheat and lie -

many are born into wealth obtained by dishonest means, they are predators behaving like gilded robber barons. Nothing to envy here - they should be objects of disgust like a common criminal. The mafia has more ethics and morals then the spineless centrists and neo-lib/neo-con democrats who believe the rich should be worshiped.

Like I said the rich have been writing the rules for themselves at the expense of the non-rich. They exploit the transportation system, federal police agencies, fire, DoD, and all the services essential to a strong nation - highways, aviation, and a well educated labor force, NONE OF WHICH IS POSSIBLE without taxes.

Here's a solution, CEOs, owners and executive staff who off-shore to China and India and other places with sub-human living conditions should be forced to move off shore. Problem solved.

We need this solution instead of more of the same old shit that goes "yes, we showered the rich with bailouts, tax breaks and tax credits, the reason things got worse for the non-rich when we did this is because we didn't give them enough tax breaks and tax credits such that the magnificence of the rich wasn't able to trickle down upon the non-rich.

Stop worshiping the rich. Ayn Rand wrote fantasy books for right wingers who never made it out of puberty.

[JDPriestly]

93. What do you mean by "entitlement programs"?

If you mean Social Security, think again. That is an "entitlement" because people paid into it in reliance on the promise of the government that they would receive Social Security when they were 65 and over.

The "entitlements" are the huge tax breaks for businesses.

I would like to see a return to import taxes. I would like to see some of our income taxes replaced by import taxes. Personally, I do not think that "free trade" is a viable option for the US. Our Founding Fathers intended for our country to obtain taxes on imports. It is important to our national security that we maintain our manufacturing base and our research and development capacity. Forget the wars and Al Qaeda. If we cannot make the socks and shoes that our soldiers wear, how can we claim to be a strong nation?

[AlbertCat]

95. the solution is to REMOVE the tax completely.

OK.... only when you hire (at least some) here though and put your earnings into American communities.


How about a tax based on the ration of foreign to domestic employees....taking into account also the TYPE of jobs as well.

[marketbreakaway]

101. You Know - That is a pretty good idea

I said that the solution is to remove the tax but you said only if it is invested.

I actually LOVE that idea.

So, lets propose a dollar for dollar tax credit for every dollar repatriated and invested in a domestic business.

There you go folks, a person can be a democrat and still be pro business.

[AlbertCat]

94. Good on him!

Yay! Words! Good words!


Now... let's see some action. Obama's good with words. Action..... not so much....

And no, he's not the same a Bush. Not at all. But between Obama and Harry Reid, there isn't even one testicle.

And no, Dems do not need to be in lock step and unreasonable unto absurdity like the Repugs, but a little discipline, a little solidarity, with flexibility would be nice.

[harun]

2. They should have taken care of this already, instead of bringing it up only at election time.

[ProSense]

3. The point:

GOP, U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Beat Back Bill To Combat Outsourcing

[Lasher]

9. Roll Call Vote

Murkowski (R) and Lincoln (D) did not vote.

Every single voting Republican voted nay.

All voting Democrats voted yea except Baucus, Nelson, Tester, and Warner.

Sanders (I) voted yea. Lieberman (I) voted nay.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-242

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242

[ProSense]

15. "Every single voting Republican voted nay."

The President is correct in in saying that Republicans blocked the bill.

The bill needed 60 votes to overcome closure.

[Andy823]

18. Yes...

It won't be an easy job to pass this bill, but that is why we need to get out and vote, put pressure on our members of congress, and make them do the right thing. If republicans take over one or both houses, this bill is as good as dead! Of course if they are in control and kill this bill they will have a lot to explain to the country about WHY they killed it. It will be tough no matter who is in control, but we have a better chance if the democrats are in charge, not the republicans!

[crazyjoe]

10. +1000

[Haole Girl]

13. My thoughts exactly. nt

[emilyg]

26. Yes.

[RedCloud]

4. Yes stop that insanity and then jail those who bribe government!

[Nancy Waterman]

5. This is why the onslaught of $$$ against Democrats

This issue should be really pushed and connected with the
global corporate cash trying to skew the election.

[lonestarnot]

7. Yeah and fuck you Chamber of Commerce!

[orbitalman]

8. Is this process NEGATIVE or what??

#1 "...to close tax breaks... ...a proposal that has raised concerns among some lawmakers in the president's own party."

#2 "...a bill that stalled in the Senate..."

Why would closing overseas tax breaks be a concern to dems???
Who did the stalling and why???
:shrug: :mad:

[Lasher]

12. See roll call vote results upthread to learn who did the stalling.

This link will take you there.

Why did they do it? These five Democrats, all Republicans, and Lieberman are neoliberals (new liberals). This is economic liberalism, distinctly different from the political liberalism most of us Democrats endorse. As such they believe in putting business interests first, including social policy. These are the enemies of the disappearing US middle class (and everyone below for that matter), on display as plain as day in this roll call vote.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[otohara]

11. Bout Time - Chamber Will Flip Out

and pour money into GOP'ers to stop this.

[L0oniX]

20. +1000

[avaistheone1]

16. Progressives have been raising this issue for some time.

Glad to see the President has gotten on board.

k&r

[Booster]

17. I hope he adds that none of these companies will get any

government contracts also. These companies should be punished, not rewarded.

[grahamhgreen]

21. That's positive

[RepublicanElephant]

24. why isn't this mentioned in more democratic campaign ads? nt

[madrchsod]

25. nice idea but it will never happen

the house and senate has been bought by the corporations and the oligarchy.

[Overseas]

27. K&R! Yes Please !!

It's about time that these Republican outsourcing tax breaks be ended. All Democratic legislators should get behind this.

But the multinational division of the American Chamber of Commerce is pouring millions into backing Republicans this campaign season. And Republican Judicial Activists appointed to our Supreme Court have allowed corporations (including multinationals)to be granted the same free speech rights as individual natural persons. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

It takes millions to repackage Republican failures as viable candidates. They needed to stimulate groups of desperate angry people into Tea Parties so the incumbents would look reasonable by comparison. The GOP crashed the economy so they needed to create a massive contrast. Quite an intense move, though, to whip up such right wing frenzy at such a critical time in our history. It has been a dangerous way to grab back political power after crashing the economy 2yrs ago.

We Democrats want to get on with the economic clean up for the 21st century. We have a lot of good government to restore-- including our very infrastructure which was allowed to decay under Republican administrations. They prioritized expensive privatized wars, tax cuts and gorging on oil.

D -- Drive -- we need to get on with the clean up. We need many more Democrats in office, not fewer. We need to get going on a lot of exciting projects-- building our nation's longer term viability in a new global economy with a more efficient mix of energy sources in use, and more humane social service budgets and priorities in these desperate times. Public works projects are wonderful job training, so they serve two purposes with every dollar. After school arts programs are a great use of our tax dollars too-- helping students, parents and part-time teachers too.

The GOP hates stimulus spending, except in their own districts. They don't get it and I hope a great majority of our fellow citizens are done with their cruel lies and hypocrisy. They crashed the economy so they need to step aside. Crashed economy = lost credibility. I hope the GOP tactic of stirring up "Crazier Than Us" contrast groups and candidates will be more broadly repudiated.

We need many more Democrats (and some Greens) working together to get our country back in the game, in the 21st Century. GOP crashed it. We Democrats need get on with the rebuilding. And there are millions of Americans ready to do those jobs, regardless of party affiliation.

[Courtesy Flush]

28. +1

[defendandprotect]

29. Great move .... Democrats should follow thru on this one ... !!!

:) :)

[Enthusiast]

30. K&R!

Hallelujah!

[butterfly77]

33. Kick,kick,kick &recommended!

:kick:

[shanti]

34. it's about damn time!

this is one of the main reasons i voted for him.

[JohnWxy]

35. tax CREDITS!???!!! JESUS CHRIST. Why should the Government be subsidizing exporting of jobs?

recommended!!

[LaPera]

36. The lying republicans want all to believe tax cuts for the rich produce jobs - Truth is....

the rich sit on their money in off-shore and overseas account and if they do invest it out sourcing of American jobs where the rich prefer to invest their money.....They certainly don't invest it here with their huge tax 10 year deficit raising Bush & the republicans tax cuts for the wealthy have produced NO jobs in ten years.

Now the republican led US Chamber of Commerce is spending 75 million dollars to defeat democrats in November using US corporate & Foreign corporate money - so the rich can keep the their huge deficit raising tax cuts while out-sourcing even more American jobs.

The corporate republican head of the US Chamber of Commerce stated this week (Tom Donahue) that the out sourcing of jobs is good for business and corporations - This is the republican way.....Lies greedy & hate - The Republican Way!

ALLOW the tax cuts for the rich to EXPIRE!

[jtuck004]

40. That's not the BIG problem. The big problem is the tax and profit incentives

which allow whole industries and their jobs to be moved overseas - that is far more serious and destructive.
It's not that it is a non-issue, but

pushing an effort to focus on foreign workers keeps people from asking the questions about the bigger issues.

People working here at least pay sales and property taxes.

[Dave From Canada]

42. This doesn't make any sense. Companies create jobs overseas because it saves money on labour, not

because they get some tax credit. It's fine if Obama wants to end those types of credits. But it's not gonna stop jobs from going overseas. Especially if companies see their costs rise because of this. It could end up having the opposite effect. Companies may look to overseas labour even more than now, to compensate for this proposal. It may sound like a good thing. But it's economically stupid.

[DesertFlower]

43. wonder how far he'll get with it.

we need to not only stop the tax breaks but put heavy fines on the companies who are outsourcing.

[The Uncola]

49. Less talk, more do. n/t

[Scurrilous]

53. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Hekate]

61. Why that damned corporatist... What?

"At issue is a bill that STALLED IN THE SENATE last month that would end some tax credits and deferrals for U.S. companies for operations overseas."

Once again, a bill Obama wants and Pelosi got passed went to die in the Senate.

The Senate is the problem, specifically GOP senators. Keep the Blue Dogs -- get rid of the Repubs.

Hekate

[Turbineguy]

62. Putting Americans out of work

gives them more time to shop, silly!

[onestep]

64. Cut the tax break and.....

Maybe, something like a percentage of how much of the product is from and made in America? Instead of this horse shit distributed by in tiny letters and manufactured by in even tinnier letters crap! Let the little teapartiers wrap their grey matter around that fact.

[onestep]

65. HOLY SHIT!

Better yet, percentage of how much labor was paid on U.S. soil. (or both)?

[ProudDad]

75. Of course, there's not a damn thing he can DO about it...

This is run-up-to-election bloviating...

Not worth the hot air used up to say...

[sulphurdunn]

81. Exactly.

A phrase like "a proposal that has raised concerns among some lawmakers in the president's own party" (Blue Dogs) is a dead giveaway that the Republicans won't even have to threaten a filibuster to render it still born.

[flamingdem]

87. People this is NOT a problem! We simply move to India for US corporate jobs, easy! nt

[Haole Girl]

113. You may be joking. But some Engineers have even tried to. India keeps "their" jobs, though

Do you think they'd let an American have a visa to work there? Only if it involves giving away knowledge and skills-- to help Indian workers down the road.

Once our jobs are gone, they are gone.

Once there are no more consumers to drive that consumerism wheel, we will be officially in a depression.

Only then, maybe, will the corporate fat cats feel the pinch. No amount of bribery and lobbying will help their lavish lifestyles then.

[Imagevision]

117. @Haole Girl - dial 411 (information) and you'll get a person from India for information...

[Zambero]

90. Correction: Proposal has raised concerns among DINO's

Why even consider rewarding companies who are doing whatever it takes to keep unemployment at double digit levels?

[Imagevision]

116. End tax breaks to stop overseas hiring? - Obama said this campaigning in 2008

[golfguru]

119. Would some one please explain how exactly

some companies get tax breaks for running foreign subsidies?

[hollowdweller]

123. TIRED of hearing about this issue

It was brought up in the presidential election of 2004 and 2008.

The dems have had congress since 2006, The White House 2009.

If they were serious about doing this it would be done.

I mean what a great issue that even a lot of Republicans and Independants would agree with. Voters not politicians that is.

The dems don't want to vote on this so I'm tired of them using it as an issue. They could do something with it if they wanted to.