Jump to content

YOUR Administration - Business Friendly and Creating Jobs


Guest Bronco
 Share

Recommended Posts

To all you jabronis that have debated me in the past...look at what your business friendly administration is proposing.

 

1) If you close a plant and move it overseas, you can't deduct the costs of closing the US plant.

 

2) If you close a plant and move it overseas, the US government has the right to tax the profits on that new overseas plant, no matter what country it resides.  Keep in mind that no other country has this long arm of the law policy, taxing worldwide profits immediately. 

 

Instead of making America a competitive place to work - lower tax rates, less regulation - all the common sense measures - your government is trying to punish the effective and efficient flow of capital.

 

It is called protectionalism.  It is disturbing.  Now, to all you jabronis, defend this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps we should keep politics off the board. I think after a certain point it doesn't add much value, everyone is fairly entrenched, and we are all here to make money / expand our mental models.

 

With that said - your points seem to contradict each other, This would make businesses less likely to move plants thus saving more jobs. You can create jobs with carrots and sticks. Sounds like the stick is coming out, and you want the carrot. Fair enough. I think we need a mix of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myth - maybe you are right about talking politics, but I do find that this type of legistlation is relevant to investors.  No secret here that I favor a more business friendly environment - more jobs, better economy, wealth effect, and keeping the US competitive. 

 

IMO - more profits to the companies we invest in - better for investors.  This is certainly not good for investors, and I think people should be aware of that.

 

The jabroni comment isn't to be taken too seriously...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jabroni comment isn't to be taken too seriously...

 

Lol none taken, I thought I was watching the WWE.

 

I think politics is useful in terms of investing but think you have to look at it on an Industry / Company basis. This is too high level. Companies with US facilities win, companies looking to move abroad probably have to redo forecasts, and companies in the process of moving abroad are screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is written that anyone has the "divine right" to write off costs?  It is not a human right! The tax code is a political expression for good or ill, and I for one see no reason why a company should be able to expense that which is deemed to be a detriment to the country. By analogy, cigarettes are taxed relatively heavily in North America.  So too (tax) Depreciation schedules vary.  Is my writing off a plant and equipment a right.  I think not.

 

There is another argument about how the tax code distorts markets in unplanned ways, which is certainly true, but not your argument.

 

Your political perspective is that domestic tax payers should subsidize plant closing. (Yeah and it creates jobs, just not in the U.S.)  Okay, this is fine to believe, but that does not mean that to oppose this is per se business unfriendly, any more than say having any tax is unfriendly.  Taxes are the price you pay for civilization.

 

To echo Munger,  why the hell should the US be helping China grow and supplant us?  They seem to be able to do this quite nicely all by themselves!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

netnet - I think you got it wrong.

 

To your point on Munger - why the hell would any foreign corporation open a plant here in the U.S.?  That is the big problem with being protectionist and anit-business and decreasing incentives for capital allocation.

 

 

To my point on investors - say you own a pharma company.  Let's say it merges with another company.  One US plant closes and an Irish plant is expanded.  Do you feel the U.S. has the right to tax that Irish plant? 

 

Do you think this situation happens in the real world?  Do you like your investments getting punished?

 

On an investing board I would think investors would be pro-investment environments.  Guess I was wrong, and I guess I am the bad guy. 

 

To myth - I haven't watched any WWE stuff in over a decade, but it is still a classic line.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With that said - your points seem to contradict each other, This would make businesses less likely to move plants thus saving more jobs.

 

Thats what I thought also, the administration is openin' a can of wooop ass on the Jabronis who decide to leave! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smazz - dear god I hope you aren't serious.  

 

I have heard a reported $1 Trillion of U.S. shareholders profits and capital are trapped overseas under the same policy (law) that this nonsense falls under.

 

If you are an investor - that is a lot of cash that you won't be seeing in the form of a dividend by the way.  As a US citizen, that is a lot of capital that won't be used to create jobs, as it is trapped overseas.  

 

This stuff isn't insignicant to shareholders, taxpayers, and citizens.  It is very relevant.

 

Can anyone tell me of a foreign company setting up manufacturing in Japan, with its 40% tax rate?  I am sure there are some, but this isn't the norm.  China.  Singapore.  This is where manufacturing is taking place.  

 

So now we will punish US companies for moving production overseas?  This is the solution we are now fond of?  We really think this is good for our citizens, shareholders, and our country?  I guess the protectionalist movement has teeth...and where we are headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smazz - dear god I hope you aren't serious.  

honestly,

I didnt get far beyond the Rasslin' reference;D.... big fan going back in the day.

 

Its (was) the only good scripted thing left on cable.....gone down hill though.

 

But really, like Obey said - he cant win.. protects business, the workers cry. Protect workers, buisness cries. Somewhere there has to be shangrala!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not applying the same policies to companies that Uncle Sam already applies to its citizens. The USA taxes you on the basis of citizenship not residency like most countries. If you are no longer a resident of the US you have to pay taxes on your income you earn outside of the country if you die you have taxes to pay even if you nor any of your decendents are US residents or citizens. Most countries tax  on the basis of residency not citizenship the US as a nation puts a pretty high value on its citizenship so perhaps this is fair the only way you can avoid this taxation policy as a citizen is to renounce ones citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

netnet - I think you got it wrong.

 

Well we clearly disagree here.

 

To your point on Munger - why the hell would any foreign corporation open a plant here in the U.S.?  That is the big problem with being protectionist and anit-business and decreasing incentives for capital allocation.

 

China quite regularly penalizes capital and capitalists, yet we, running dog fools, to quote from another era, are willing to give capital and even our IP (intellectual property) to open plants there.  Go figure.

 

 

To my point on investors - say you own a pharma company.  Let's say it merges with another company.  One US plant closes and an Irish plant is expanded.  Do you feel the U.S. has the right to tax that Irish plant?  

 

Near as I can tell you are forgetting the little matter of externalities, i.e. cost that accrue to the country and labor force.  Again, why should these be subsidized.  One can make a theoretical argument for subsidizing opening a plant (as opposed to the Chinese method of force) but to subsidize a closing????

 

Do you think this situation happens in the real world?  Do you like your investments getting punished?

 

I'm more concerned about people than capital frankly.  Taking out a dollar bill and shooting it kind of pales in comparison to taking Tibetans or even a capitalist who has made a minor transgression and shooting them, that would be China not Chicago!  Don't get me wrong I love to make money but I'm not going to go to the barricades and shout liberty and capital. (If I were the shouting type.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the law of unintended consequences.  What's to prevent a US company's closing a US plant and then outsourcing that production to a foreign company.  Then, the jobs are still "lost", and the US is increasingly dependent on outside suppliers.  

 

But, this is actually  what the current administration wants: an end to US neocolonialism whereby US companies set up subsidiaries outside the US to exploit the people in poor countries.

 

Put this policy in the same box with the bizarre situation of banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and trying to suppress US oil production in general while extending billions of dollars in US government financing for the government of Brazil to develop its deep water oil wells.

 

The dreams from the father are now being lived out in the son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know its a liberal rag   :)

 

http://www.economist.com/node/17095319

 

Barack Obama and business

 

WINSTON CHURCHILL once moaned about the long, dishonourable tradition in politics that sees commerce as a cow to be milked or a dangerous tiger to be shot. Businesses are the generators of the wealth on which incomes, taxation and all else depends; “the strong horse that pulls the whole cart”, as Churchill put it. No sane leader of a country would want businesspeople to think that he was against them, especially at a time when confidence is essential for the recovery.

 

From this perspective, Barack Obama already has a lot to answer for. A president who does so little to counter the idea that he dislikes business is, self-evidently, a worryingly negligent chief executive. No matter that other Western politicians have publicly played with populism more dangerously, from France’s “laissez-faire is dead” president, Nicolas Sarkozy, to Britain’s “capitalism kills competition” business secretary, Vince Cable (see article); no matter that talk on the American right about Mr Obama being a socialist is rot; no matter that Wall Street’s woes are largely of its own making. The evidence that American business thinks the president does not understand Main Street is mounting (see article).

 

A Bloomberg survey this week found that three-quarters of American investors believe he is against business. The bedrock of the tea-party movement is angry small-business owners. The Economist has lost count of the number of prominent chief executives, many of them Democrats, who complain privately that the president does not understand their trade—that he treats them merely as adornments at photocalls and uses teleprompters to talk to them; that he shows scant interest in their views on which tax cuts would persuade them to hire people; that his team is woefully short of anyone who has had to meet a payroll (there are fewer businesspeople in this White House than in any recent administration); and that regulatory uncertainty is hampering their willingness to invest.

Related items

 

Ignorant but not antagonistic

 

That Mr Obama has let it reach this stage is a worry. But negligence is not the same as opposition. True, he has some rhetorical form as an anti-business figure—unlike the previous Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton, who could comfortably talk the talk of business. Mr Obama’s life story, as depicted in his autobiography and on the campaign, was one of a man once mired in the sinful private sector (at a company subsequently bought by The Economist), who redeemed himself only by becoming a community organiser; his wife had a similar trajectory. There are the endless digs at Wall Street and Big Pharma, not to mention the beating up of BP. He remains a supporter of “card check”, which would dispense with the need for secret ballots in establishing a trade union. His legislative agenda has centred on helping poorer individuals (the health-care bill, part of the stimulus bill) or reining in banks (the financial-reform bill). The only businesses he has rescued are the huge union-dominated General Motors and Chrysler.

 

Against this, it could have been much worse, especially given the opprobrium that now dogs Wall Street. A president who truly wanted to wage war on business would have hung onto GM, not rushed to return it to the private sector. Card check has not been pushed. The finance bill, though bureaucratic, is not a Wall Street killer. With the exception of a China-bashing tyre tariff and a retreat on Mexican trucks, Mr Obama has eschewed protectionism. A lot of government cash has flowed to businesses, not least through the stimulus package. And above all his policies have helped pull the economy out of recession.

 

So what should he do? The same leftist advisers who have led Mr Obama into his “anti-business” hole are doubtless telling him that it is just a matter of public relations: have a few tycoons to stay in the Lincoln bedroom; celebrate Main Street’s successes, rather than just whining about bonuses; perhaps invite a chief executive to replace Larry Summers, the academic who announced this week that he was standing down as the president’s main economic adviser. Well, maybe. But once again this is advice from people who have never run a business. The main thing that is hurting business is uncertainty.

 

Mr Obama was right to tackle big subjects like health care and Wall Street, but too often the details were left to others. Why, for instance, should a small American firm hire more people when it still does not know the regulations on health care, especially when going above 50 workers will make it liable to insurance premiums or fines? Fiscal policy is even more uncertain, thanks to Mr Obama’s refusal to produce a credible plan to rein in the deficit. Why should any entrepreneur plough money into a new factory when he has no idea what taxes he will eventually be asked to pay? These are questions that business needs answering in a businesslike way—and so does America. Otherwise the horse will not pull the cart.

 

 

----

 

 

Barack Obama and corporate America

No love lost

Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder

 

Sep 23rd 2010 | NEW YORK

 

SPECULATION that Barack Obama will appoint a businessman to a senior job in his administration reached fever pitch this week, after the White House announced that Larry Summers, the president’s principal economic adviser, will soon step down. It is hard to find an American boss nowadays with a good word to say about the current administration, and the absence of anyone with a business background in Mr Obama’s inner circle is invariably mentioned as a reason why. The perception in corporate America that the president is actively anti-business, or at the very least doesn’t “get it”, has started to “have a psychological effect on how firms invest”, notes one well-informed insider, who used to see this as a “seven out of ten problem” but now rates it as a ten.

 

Discontent that started as mostly private grumbling not long after Mr Obama entered the White House has recently gone public. Ivan Seidenberg, the chief executive of Verizon, a telecoms giant, used a recent speech in Washington, DC, to accuse the president of creating an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation”, claiming that the administration’s regulatory expansion into “every sector of economic life” is making it “harder to raise capital and create new businesses.” Jeff Immelt, the boss of GE, has said that the administration is not in sync with entrepreneurs. The US Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby, has complained that the Obama administration has “vilified industries”.

 

And so it goes on. The Business Roundtable, another influential trade association, has published a 49-page list of current policies which, it claims, inhibit economic growth. Last month Dan Loeb, a hedge-fund manager who is famous for writing intemperate letters to company bosses, circulated a letter accusing Mr Obama of, in effect, undermining free-market capitalism and the rule of law. What stings most is that Mr Loeb is a former classmate of the president’s and was a big donor to his election campaign.

 

Scary stuff. Yet does Mr Obama really have a case to answer? Certainly, some of the wilder allegations by some businesspeople should never have left the 19th hole. Mr Obama has consistently made it clear he favours a mixed capitalist economy. The big incursion of the state into finance took place on his Republican predecessor’s watch. And although he doubtless went further than a McCain administration would have done to help GM and Chrysler survive, he has stuck to his pledge to return them quickly to private ownership. He used this year’s state-of-the-union message to commit himself to helping corporate America double its exports, and has appointed a council to propose ideas for promoting more innovation (though, says one member, “The administration is doing more talking than listening, and several of us are already worried we’ve been suckered into a PR exercise.”)

 

Moreover, the main reason so many American bosses are down in the dumps is the sluggish economy. Mr Obama inherited the recession from his predecessor, and the economy has recovered, somewhat, since then. Besides, it was corporate America, in the shape of the Wall Street banks, that was largely to blame for the depth of the recession. It might have helped Mr Obama’s relationship with business if he had gone on less about “shameful bonuses” on Wall Street; but some shame was surely in order.

 

Even a Republican administration would have been obliged to reform financial regulation, and, though there is a lot to quibble with in the Dodd-Frank act, the administration responded to requests from Wall Street to kill some of the more alarming reform proposals from Democrats in Congress. One way it did this was to punt the proposals on to regulators for their consideration—which is why business is now able to complain about its “uncertainty” over what the full impact of Dodd-Frank will be. Mr Obama might reply that uncertainty is preferable to the alternatives that were considered by Congress.

 

Uncertainty is a common charge from complaining businesspeople. According to one senior White House official, it is “shorthand for ‘We don’t like health-care reform, don’t like Dodd-Frank, don’t want our taxes to go up’.” On taxes, the administration points out that even allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire would return tax rates only to what they were under Bill Clinton, which was hardly a terrible time for business. There is also a nasty, mostly inherited, fiscal problem which business leaders agree needs solving. It will require deep spending cuts, but may also necessitate somewhat higher taxes.

 

As for health-care reform, many business leaders favoured the idea, complaining that the current system is increasingly a drag on the competitiveness of corporate America. But the bosses do have a point; it is hard to imagine that a president who really understood the depth of America’s economic problems would have pushed ahead with such a huge, disruptive reform at that particular moment. And it is also true that many of the details of the bill remain to be worked out.

 

Uncertainty also hangs over energy prices, despite the apparent failure of cap-and-trade legislation. Many big firms, including electric utilities and others with long investment horizons, believe that a price on carbon is inevitable sooner or later, perhaps through regulation, since the Environmental Protection Agency is empowered to treat carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. They would prefer certainty to the current confusion.

 

So it would be tempting to conclude that Mr Obama’s business critics protest too much, especially as their failure to create jobs in America coincides with earning huge profits and sitting on record amounts of cash. Better to point the finger of blame at the White House, they might well think, lest it be pointed at them.

 

Except that, as a person with first-hand experience of Mr Obama’s decision-making points out, the “atmospherics really do matter”. The mere perception that the administration is anti-business is “starting to make the bosses of Fortune 500 companies more risk-averse,” says a billionaire who used to run one of America’s leading internet firms.

 

Another valid criticism is the absence of any former business executive in the cabinet, meaning that there is no “go to” person for corporate America. “Surely he could have given us commerce secretary. Who has even heard of the current guy?”, wails one veteran boss. (The current commerce secretary, by the way, is Gary Locke, a professional Democratic politician and former governor.) For all their attempts to reach out to business, Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, and Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser charged with “public engagement”, haven’t cut the mustard (Mr Emanuel is almost certainly on the way out as well). After all, notes the veteran, just like his boss they have “never had to make payroll”.

 

As for Mr Obama, when he meets businesspeople at fund-raisers and the like, he too often shakes hands and moves on, leaving them feeling he was more interested in a photo-op than a conversation. He caused offence and disbelief a while back by turning up for a meeting with a group of prominent chief executives and then reading to them from a teleprompter.

 

The absence of a former business executive in the White House has hurt Mr Obama in other ways, too, reckons the former official. For instance, there has been no one to cast an eye over speeches to root out words that might inflame business sensibilities. Nor anyone to point out that there might be economic costs to shutting down all offshore oil exploration in response to the gulf oil spill, or that railroading BP into stumping up $20 billion for clean-up efforts might strike many business leaders as playing fast and loose with the rule of law.

 

And there is something about having run a big firm that gives a cabinet member the ability and clout to speak truth to the president about the need to address a particular problem “right now”, says a former official. This would have been a particularly valuable counterweight to the influential but rather ivory-tower academics in the current White House.

 

Who might Mr Obama recruit from business to the cabinet? Jamie Dimon, the boss of JPMorgan Chase, would be an interesting choice as treasury secretary, but Wall Street is probably still too toxic a source of candidates for high office and, besides, Mr Dimon’s recent criticisms of the administration have done him no favours. More plausible, and certainly less controversial, choices in the rumour mill include Anne Mulcahy, the former boss of Xerox, Eric Schmidt of Google (who resisted Mr Obama’s earlier solicitations, but may now be asked again) and Roger Ferguson, a black former Federal Reserve governor who now runs TIAA-CREF, a big fund-management firm.

 

Recruiting the right corporate executive, or even two, might make the world of difference to commerce’s perceptions of the president, especially on the heels of some recent pro-business measures, including tax incentives for investment and research and development. It looks as though the time has come for Mr Obama to stop attacking the fat cats of business and try stroking them instead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put this policy in the same box with the bizarre situation of banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and trying to suppress US oil production in general while extending billions in US government financing for Brazil to develop its deep water oil wells.

 

Humm, Selective facts.

 

Wasnt he pro offshore drilling prior to being against?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?_r=1

 

Wasnt the ban in relation to a small spill in the gulf, which is the largest leak of Hydrocarbons in the history of the US? Wasnt the ban enacted once the spill became known as Obama's Katrina? But, no you are right forget Occums Razor, this is all related to Kenyan roots, and Anti-colonialism.

 

Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

 

I know - thats a liberal rag with an Anti-colonialism bent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put this policy in the same box with the bizarre situation of banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and trying to suppress US oil production in general while extending billions in US government financing for Brazil to develop its deep water oil wells.

 

Humm, Selective facts.

 

Wasnt he pro offshore drilling prior to being against?

 

I suppose so, kind of like Kerry was for the war before he was against it.  :)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?_r=1

 

Wasnt the ban in relation to a small spill in the gulf, which is the largest leak of Hydrocarbons in the history of the US? Wasnt the ban enacted once the spill became known as Obama's Katrina? But, no you are right forget Occums Razor, this is all related to Kenyan roots, and Anti-colonialism.

 

I have to admit that Obama's opening up a new area for drilling just before the big blow out doesn't sound .like anticolonialism.  However, if the Bishop of Occam did some serious shaving of the circumstances, he might conclude that the parsimonious explanation was that BP was the biggest corporate donor to his campaign and that BP seemed, in the spirit of Chicago politics, to have gotten a free pass for whatever they wanted to do before the blowout.  They even got their US government regulator to approve their risky premature removal of driller's mud from the Deep Horizon well within a few minutes of making their request.  :)

 

Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

 

Looks like Dinesh hit a nerve  :)

 

I know - thats a liberal rag with an Anti-colonialism bent.

 

Dinesh D'sousa isn't a cocktail party kibitzer.  He's a serious scholar, the president of a small college.  He 's spent a lot of time studying this subject, and his recent article ( google  How Obama Thinks  then click on the Forbes dot com link ) is just a sample of his book on that subject that may be published next month.

 

Dinesh grew up in Mumbai in the 1960's and witnessed the same anticolonial attitudes among his relatives that he sees so clearly in you know who.

 

But one doesn't have to take Dinesh's word for it : take a close look at Dreams From My Father, Obama's autobiography, especially the last two or three pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dinesh D'sousa isn't a cocktail party kibitzer.

 

He is precisely a cocktail party type.  I grew up in D.C. and those psuedo intellectual members of the chattering class are a dime a dozen.  I will leave you with some of his better comments:

 

  • When he was at Dartmouth he outed some closeted gays
  • Later he claimed that American Bishops were being unknowingly being manipulated by leftists and they were being snookered into not supporting wars and and militarism.
  • He has claimed that slaves in America were treated well because they were property.
  • That Abu Ghraib was the fault of liberalism
  • That liberals were responsible for 9/11
  • and on and on...

 

I'm not making this up.  He is one of those Munger talks about being blinded by ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dinesh D'sousa isn't a cocktail party kibitzer.

 

He is precisely a cocktail party type.  I grew up in D.C. and those psuedo intellectual members of the chattering class are a dime a dozen.  I will leave you with some of his better comments:

 

  • When he was at Dartmouth he outed some closeted gays
  • Later he claimed that American Bishops were being unknowingly being manipulated by leftists and they were being snookered into not supporting wars and and militarism.
  • He has claimed that slaves in America were treated well because they were property.
  • That Abu Ghraib was the fault of liberalism
  • That liberals were responsible for 9/11
  • and on and on...

 

I'm not making this up.  He is one of those Munger talks about being blinded by ideology.

 

 

Oh.  My!  he's not a global warming denier, is he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know about global warming, D'souza is also an intelligent designer as well. (From your tone I suspect you doubt those are his views,  well just read him.  Now, all of this is not to say he is not a really smart guy, he just happens to believe in a lot of hogwash as most ideologues on the left and right do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I again point you to John chambers, who acknowledges our unfriendly global tax policies are responsible for less capital in the united states.  If he could bring it back, he would hire more people.

 

I take it most people that are debating me have never dealt with us multinationals, corporate finance, sourcing of product, or global supply chains.  I think familiarity with these topics would shift your views dramatically.

 

I bring these points out simply because I want what's best for us shareholders, workers and citizens.  I fear deeply that John chambers gets it and the administration doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know about global warming, D'souza is also an intelligent designer as well. (From your tone I suspect you doubt those are his views,  well just read him.  Now, all of this is not to say he is not a really smart guy, he just happens to believe in a lot of hogwash as most ideologues on the left and right do.

 

These are ad hominem arguments that don't address the substance of what D'sousa has discovered. The arguments go something like this:  Dinesh allegedly believes: A,B,C,D.  Therefore, his model that he claims will explain: F must be of no account, and we should dismiss it without even looking at what he says.

 

 None of these emotional attacks is a logical refutation of his model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you design a policy which deters companies from setting up a business in the US? Suppose you were planning to set up a new business say electric cars. Would you do it in the US where you now won't have flexibility to move say an engine plant to restore competativeness? An engine plant might become uncompetative in US but competative elsewehere because of changes in currency or relative pricing. Didn't Iscar set up plants in China to gain access to cheaper tungsten? They might as well call it the "Act to encourage Asian Investment". Years ago Europeans set up a similar "Act to encourage US Investment" when they made it difficult to fire workers.

 

Since Obama is not stupid and the policy is so obviously stupid there must be another reason for the policy.  He probably thinks that democratic voters are not very good at basic economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Policy has not yet passed and I can't blame Obama b/c it is a Senate Bill.  Obama is not stupid, but he is an idealist and a politician and a populist.  He isn't a businessman.

 

Either way, the policy is stupid.  No doubt.  As I mentioned in the past, and as was echoed by John Chambers, a simple solution is to create a toll (5% perhaps) on all repatriated earnings to a US parent.  This would bring cash in to the US, increase tax revenue, create more of a wealth effect, allow capital to be spent in the US for equipment, jobs, and dividends to owners (shareholders).  Those that don't agree with this live with blinders on in my opinion. 

 

For those unaware, most US companies, on their financial statements, elect a provision that certifies their foreign earnings will stay PERMANENTLY reinvested.  I don't care how clever you think you are, this is bad man.  That means less cash coming home.  I don't know what some board members here like to get paid in, but I like cash.  And we incentive companies, quite dramatically in fact, to NOT bring it back.

 

Perhaps the jabronis on the board can provide me with some examples of US multinationals that are consistently bringing back cash from overseas, and reinvesting in American jobs/returning cash to owners.  Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There they go again...

 

 

Dems try to deflect voter anger toward Wall StreetBy CURT WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Curt Woodward, Associated Press Writer

2 hrs 45 mins ago

 

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Patty Murray was stuck. Down in the polls for months and facing a well-known Republican challenger, the three-term Democrat was finding a difficult market for her hard-working-senator sales pitch.

 

Then she started bashing Wall Street and saying her opponent is in the pockets of bankers who want to repeal financial regulations.

 

Now, less than a month before ballots are distributed in Washington's vote-by-mail election, Murray is apparently benefiting from some old-fashioned class warfare. She has gone from essentially being tied with challenger Dino Rossi to leading in the latest round of polls, proving that the 2010 Democratic campaign theme of linking the GOP to Wall Street greed can resonate with voters.

 

Murray started running anti-Wall Street TV ads shortly before the August primary, criticizing Rossi's advocacy of repealing new Wall Street regulations. She began airing another anti-Wall Street commercial this month, followed 10 days later by an ad that pledged support for middle-class tax breaks over favors for big business.

 

One of the ads declares that Rossi is "not on our side" for his stance on Wall Street regulations.

 

Voters in several competitive Senate races are hearing similar arguments.

 

Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and Republican candidate Pat Toomey have sparred over allegiance to the financial sector — Sestak supported the federal bank bailouts, while Toomey once worked in investment banking.

 

In Missouri, Democrat Robin Carnahan has criticized Republican Rep. Roy Blunt for helping to negotiate bank bailouts and then opposing Democrats' new Wall Street regulations.

 

And in a debate earlier this month, California Sen. Barbara Boxer tore into the $21 million severance package that Republican challenger Carly Fiorina received after she was let go as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Co.

 

"I don't think we need those Wall Street values right now," Boxer said.

 

There's good reason for Democrats to try a blame-Wall-Street message as they scramble to avoid thumping losses on the campaign trail — the financial sector might be more unpopular than they are.

 

The latest AP-GfK poll, conducted in mid-September, showed that Americans lay heavy blame for the Great Recession on the financial industry and lax regulation of banks. Bankers and financiers also ranked last in August's AP-National Constitution Center poll that tested public confidence in national institutions.

 

Tapping into the anger, Democrats from President Barack Obama on down have been trotting out the blame-the-banks banks mantra as they fight to maintain control of Congress and deflect voter irritation with party. Democrats need Murray to win to keep the Senate, especially if they surrender seats elsewhere as expected.

 

With several weeks left in an already bruising campaign, it's unclear whether Murray's blame-Wall-Street strategy will provide lasting help.

 

But Murray's campaign appears to have rebounded at least temporarily from a difficult summer of ratings below 50 percent — very dangerous territory for any incumbent, especially when insider credentials and Washington clout are no longer strong selling points. A series of polls in recent weeks has put her above 50 percent.

 

Rossi's campaign has a large fundraising disadvantage, crimping its ability to counter Murray's multimillion-dollar ad buying power. But Rossi also took too long to respond, said Seattle-area Republican consultant Chris Vance.

 

"Politics 101: When you're punched, you punch back. And they chose to run soft ads at first," said Vance, who is not working on the Senate race.

 

Rossi has since replied more forcefully, with a TV ad citing Murray's Wall Street bailout vote as part of "an 18-year record of taxing, spending and growing government that's indefensible."

 

Rossi's campaign also points out that Murray has collected plenty of campaign checks from Wall Street donors and other big-business supporters.

 

"If Sen. Murray is as disgusted with Wall Street money as her ads imply, she should return the nearly $555,000 she has received from the securities and investment industry" over her career, Rossi spokeswoman Jennifer Morris said.

 

Murray and Rossi have both taken Wall Street donations, albeit on very different scales.

 

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows Murray has raised nearly $200,000 from securities and investment employees, their spouses, and industry political action committees during this campaign cycle.

 

That's about 1.7 percent of Murray's total campaign haul of nearly $11.8 million. The totals come from federal reports through late July.

 

Rossi's campaign has raised only about $97,000 from financial-industry sources. That's about 4.8 percent of his total raised, nearly $2 million through late July's reports to the Federal Election Commission.

 

___

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

twacowfca - I have responded to bits of his article (Drilling) and believe that he is just another flame thrower (Glenn Beck with a PHD). With regard to his beliefs, I believe they speak for themselves. Im slightly biased, as a Black male, his views on slavery are asinine.

 

Bronco - this is the weirdest thing. We disagree so much on the analysis and rhetoric but your suggestions are pretty easy to accept. Again I think that's a good idea. I dont think we should subsidize plant closures but it doesn't make sense to trap capital abroad (MSFT, WDC). I like carrots and sticks though.

 

The Dems in my opinion have dropped the ball. How do you lose business support (after bailing them out) and the populist angle (The Tea Party has that market) is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...