Bill Aims to Punish Companies Offshoring U.S. Jobs

[Bowfinger]

Finally, a bill to deny corporate welfare to companies who offshore American jobs. From Datamation:

Bill Aims to Punish Companies Offshoring U.S. Jobs
March 4, 2004
By Sharon Gaudin

Looking to discourage U.S. companies from moving jobs offshore, a Vermont congressman has introduced a bill that would hit companies in the wallet for taking away American jobs.

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place. Just announced yesterday, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), already has gained 50 Democratic co-sponsors and three Republicans.

''It is absurd that the government continues to give these companies corporate welfare off the backs of the workers who are losing their jobs,'' says Joel Barkin, a spokesman for Sanders. ''This legislation says that if the Motorolas or GEs of the world want to offshore work to India, china and Mexico, they're not going to continue to get government handouts to do it.''

Barkin says Sanders has been concerned about the dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas for many years. The congressman has sponsored bills, most of which have failed, to challenge that trend. This new effort is sparked by the continued offshoring of manufacturing jobs and the rising loss of high-tech jobs, as well.

Offshoring is affecting Sanders' own constituents.

IBM is the largest private employer in Vermont. In 2001, IBM laid off 15,000 U.S. workers, while signing a deal to train 100,000 software specialists in China. That year, IBM received more than $20 million in what Barkin calls corporate welfare, or federal loans and grants from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Likewise, according to Sanders office, Motorola laid off 42,900 workers in 2001, and invested $33 billion in China, while receiving close to $200 million in corporate funds from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

''In my view, it is an insult to the middle class of this country, that American taxpayer dollars are being used to provide loans, loan guarantees, grants, tax breaks and subsidies to huge and profitable corporations who then say to the American people, 'Thanks for the welfare, chumps,'' Sanders said in a written statement. ''But we're closing your plant and taking your job to China.''

Today, U.S. companies that apply for federal grants, loans and loan guarantees are not required to report the number of U.S. and foreign workers that they employee and how those numbers have increased or decreased. This piece of legislation, if passed, would call for public disclosure of how many workers they have in the U.S., how many outside of the U.S. and a brief description of their wages.

If these companies lay off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than they do overseas, they would be prohibited from receiving future taxpayer assistance from the federal government until they went back to the same employment level that they had when they first applied for government assistance.

''American workers are helping to pay for their own outsourcing,'' says Barkin. ''We say if you want to get this money for government programs, then you have to release information about how many workers you're offshoring every year.''

Not everyone, however, thinks that federal legislation can turn the tide on offshoring.

''This sort of thing is a typical political reaction to people not liking an economic trend, and wanting the government to do something about it,'' says Gordon Haff, an analyst for Illuminata, a Nashua, N.H.-based industry analyst firm. ''When the government tries to pass laws to legislate economics, they usually end up doing more harm than good... You can artificially pass a bunch of does and don'ts but it doesn't change the fact that something is cheaper to produce elsewhere.''

Haff adds that increasing U.S. productivity is the answer to slowing offshoring, and that can't be changed with legislation.

Barkin counters that federal monies shouldn't be going to companies that are laying off the U.S. taxpayers feeding that pool of loans and grants.

Sanders was joined at Wednesday's press conference by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Conyers, (D-MI), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Ted Strickland (D-OH) and Major Owens (D-NY).

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

 

[Martin]

A very reasonable approach IMO.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Finally, a bill to deny corporate welfare to companies who offshore American jobs. From Datamation:

Bill Aims to Punish Companies Offshoring U.S. Jobs
March 4, 2004
By Sharon Gaudin

Looking to discourage U.S. companies from moving jobs offshore, a Vermont congressman has introduced a bill that would hit companies in the wallet for taking away American jobs.

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place. Just announced yesterday, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), already has gained 50 Democratic co-sponsors and three Republicans.

''It is absurd that the government continues to give these companies corporate welfare off the backs of the workers who are losing their jobs,'' says Joel Barkin, a spokesman for Sanders. ''This legislation says that if the Motorolas or GEs of the world want to offshore work to India, china and Mexico, they're not going to continue to get government handouts to do it.''

Barkin says Sanders has been concerned about the dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas for many years. The congressman has sponsored bills, most of which have failed, to challenge that trend. This new effort is sparked by the continued offshoring of manufacturing jobs and the rising loss of high-tech jobs, as well.

Offshoring is affecting Sanders' own constituents.

IBM is the largest private employer in Vermont. In 2001, IBM laid off 15,000 U.S. workers, while signing a deal to train 100,000 software specialists in China. That year, IBM received more than $20 million in what Barkin calls corporate welfare, or federal loans and grants from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Likewise, according to Sanders office, Motorola laid off 42,900 workers in 2001, and invested $33 billion in China, while receiving close to $200 million in corporate funds from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

''In my view, it is an insult to the middle class of this country, that American taxpayer dollars are being used to provide loans, loan guarantees, grants, tax breaks and subsidies to huge and profitable corporations who then say to the American people, 'Thanks for the welfare, chumps,'' Sanders said in a written statement. ''But we're closing your plant and taking your job to China.''

Today, U.S. companies that apply for federal grants, loans and loan guarantees are not required to report the number of U.S. and foreign workers that they employee and how those numbers have increased or decreased. This piece of legislation, if passed, would call for public disclosure of how many workers they have in the U.S., how many outside of the U.S. and a brief description of their wages.

If these companies lay off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than they do overseas, they would be prohibited from receiving future taxpayer assistance from the federal government until they went back to the same employment level that they had when they first applied for government assistance.

''American workers are helping to pay for their own outsourcing,'' says Barkin. ''We say if you want to get this money for government programs, then you have to release information about how many workers you're offshoring every year.''

Not everyone, however, thinks that federal legislation can turn the tide on offshoring.

''This sort of thing is a typical political reaction to people not liking an economic trend, and wanting the government to do something about it,'' says Gordon Haff, an analyst for Illuminata, a Nashua, N.H.-based industry analyst firm. ''When the government tries to pass laws to legislate economics, they usually end up doing more harm than good... You can artificially pass a bunch of does and don'ts but it doesn't change the fact that something is cheaper to produce elsewhere.''

Haff adds that increasing U.S. productivity is the answer to slowing offshoring, and that can't be changed with legislation.

Barkin counters that federal monies shouldn't be going to companies that are laying off the U.S. taxpayers feeding that pool of loans and grants.

Sanders was joined at Wednesday's press conference by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Conyers, (D-MI), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Ted Strickland (D-OH) and Major Owens (D-NY).

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

It is going to have the opposite effect as desired. Companies will go were they get a better deal. If the deal is less sweet here, they will go somewhere else. If we want the jobs here, we have to make the deal sweeter than it would be elsewhere.

 

[dmcowen674]

I am eager to hear CAD & Co's incredibly inane spin on this, the very heart of the problem. They are perfectly fine with draining this Country dry for the benefit of their fellow Foreign Rich. It's taking Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous to a whole new level while it lasts. Only so much blood in the cow.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I am eager to hear CAD & Co's incredibly inane spin on this, the very heart of the problem. They are perfectly fine with draining this Country dry for the benefit of their fellow Foreign Rich. It's taking Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous to a whole new level while it lasts. Only so much blood in the cow.

I am for making a more conducive environment for US business to prosper in the world economy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place.

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

Huh? Sounds like those that stayed here instead of offshoring to be more profitable will be given MORE corporate welfare.

CkG

 

[UltraQuiet]

It won't overcome the 70% labor savings these companies are realizing by off-shoring. If you make it more expensive to do business here do you think that will create jobs or lose them? Knee jerk reactionism isn't going to bring a single job back from India. Sorry.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place.

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

Huh? Sounds like those that stayed here instead of offshoring to be more profitable will be given MORE corporate welfare.

CkG

Hmmmm. We stop paying corporate welfare to companies that offshore ... therefore, we are giving companies more corporate welfare. Allllrighty, then.

Less is more. Wrong is right. Down is up. Got it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It won't overcome the 70% labor savings these companies are realizing by off-shoring. If you make it more expensive to do business here do you think that will create jobs or lose them? Knee jerk reactionism isn't going to bring a single job back from India. Sorry.

I'm sure that's true in many cases, but why should we continue paying those companies corporate welfare? This bill still saves money for taxpayers, and if it preserves a few American jobs in the process, so much the better. Why should American taxpayers subsidize companies who won't hire American taxpayers?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Finally, a bill to deny corporate welfare to companies who offshore American jobs. From Datamation:

Bill Aims to Punish Companies Offshoring U.S. Jobs
March 4, 2004
By Sharon Gaudin

Looking to discourage U.S. companies from moving jobs offshore, a Vermont congressman has introduced a bill that would hit companies in the wallet for taking away American jobs.

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place. Just announced yesterday, the bill, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), already has gained 50 Democratic co-sponsors and three Republicans.

''It is absurd that the government continues to give these companies corporate welfare off the backs of the workers who are losing their jobs,'' says Joel Barkin, a spokesman for Sanders. ''This legislation says that if the Motorolas or GEs of the world want to offshore work to India, china and Mexico, they're not going to continue to get government handouts to do it.''

Barkin says Sanders has been concerned about the dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas for many years. The congressman has sponsored bills, most of which have failed, to challenge that trend. This new effort is sparked by the continued offshoring of manufacturing jobs and the rising loss of high-tech jobs, as well.

Offshoring is affecting Sanders' own constituents.

IBM is the largest private employer in Vermont. In 2001, IBM laid off 15,000 U.S. workers, while signing a deal to train 100,000 software specialists in China. That year, IBM received more than $20 million in what Barkin calls corporate welfare, or federal loans and grants from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Likewise, according to Sanders office, Motorola laid off 42,900 workers in 2001, and invested $33 billion in China, while receiving close to $200 million in corporate funds from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

''In my view, it is an insult to the middle class of this country, that American taxpayer dollars are being used to provide loans, loan guarantees, grants, tax breaks and subsidies to huge and profitable corporations who then say to the American people, 'Thanks for the welfare, chumps,'' Sanders said in a written statement. ''But we're closing your plant and taking your job to China.''

Today, U.S. companies that apply for federal grants, loans and loan guarantees are not required to report the number of U.S. and foreign workers that they employee and how those numbers have increased or decreased. This piece of legislation, if passed, would call for public disclosure of how many workers they have in the U.S., how many outside of the U.S. and a brief description of their wages.

If these companies lay off a greater percentage of U.S. workers than they do overseas, they would be prohibited from receiving future taxpayer assistance from the federal government until they went back to the same employment level that they had when they first applied for government assistance.

''American workers are helping to pay for their own outsourcing,'' says Barkin. ''We say if you want to get this money for government programs, then you have to release information about how many workers you're offshoring every year.''

Not everyone, however, thinks that federal legislation can turn the tide on offshoring.

''This sort of thing is a typical political reaction to people not liking an economic trend, and wanting the government to do something about it,'' says Gordon Haff, an analyst for Illuminata, a Nashua, N.H.-based industry analyst firm. ''When the government tries to pass laws to legislate economics, they usually end up doing more harm than good... You can artificially pass a bunch of does and don'ts but it doesn't change the fact that something is cheaper to produce elsewhere.''

Haff adds that increasing U.S. productivity is the answer to slowing offshoring, and that can't be changed with legislation.

Barkin counters that federal monies shouldn't be going to companies that are laying off the U.S. taxpayers feeding that pool of loans and grants.

Sanders was joined at Wednesday's press conference by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Conyers, (D-MI), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Ted Strickland (D-OH) and Major Owens (D-NY).

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

It is going to have the opposite effect as desired. Companies will go were they get a better deal. If the deal is less sweet here, they will go somewhere else. If we want the jobs here, we have to make the deal sweeter than it would be elsewhere.

That's fine, if Motorola or anyone else is going to be a Foriegn Company then no longer have a Headquarters here and certainly no longer receive any American Tax Dollars.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place.

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

Huh? Sounds like those that stayed here instead of offshoring to be more profitable will be given MORE corporate welfare.

CkG

Hmmmm. We stop paying corporate welfare to companies that offshore ... therefore, we are giving companies more corporate welfare. Allllrighty, then.

Less is more. Wrong is right. Down is up. Got it.

I know you are confused That's what I was pointing out. You said that you like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S. - but that is exactly what will happen if you cut off funds to those who off-shore. Those who stay here because of the "money" from the gov't will suckle from our gov't teet because they will say the gov't is preventing them from outsourcing - so we'll pay...and pay ...and pay. I don't see how this fits into your "anti-corporate welfare" position.

CkG

Edit - yes it addresses your anti-outsourcing welfare stance but it doesn't "fix" corporate welfare at home - it'll just enable them to receive more.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I am eager to hear CAD & Co's incredibly inane spin on this, the very heart of the problem. They are perfectly fine with draining this Country dry for the benefit of their fellow Foreign Rich. It's taking Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous to a whole new level while it lasts. Only so much blood in the cow.

I am for making a more conducive environment for US business to prosper in the world economy.

Conducive as in letting them continue to bleed the General Public pockets dry to fund their Foreign operations??? :|

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I am eager to hear CAD & Co's incredibly inane spin on this, the very heart of the problem. They are perfectly fine with draining this Country dry for the benefit of their fellow Foreign Rich. It's taking Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous to a whole new level while it lasts. Only so much blood in the cow.

I am for making a more conducive environment for US business to prosper in the world economy.

Conducive as in letting them continue to bleed the General Public pockets dry to fund their Foreign operations??? :|

Why do they have foreign operations?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It won't overcome the 70% labor savings these companies are realizing by off-shoring. If you make it more expensive to do business here do you think that will create jobs or lose them? Knee jerk reactionism isn't going to bring a single job back from India. Sorry.

Then the hell with them. Let them go to India. Once all the scum has left and no longer draining out Tax dollars to fund their India operations then real American Entrepenuers could start up, take their place and do it right and not by corruption.

Get a whole new Fortune 500. The old isn't worth 2 cents, it's worth whatever that India currency is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

A Euroweenie viewpoint.

Take it for what it's worth, but I though some here wanted us to become more like the Europeans.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place.

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

Huh? Sounds like those that stayed here instead of offshoring to be more profitable will be given MORE corporate welfare.

CkG

Hmmmm. We stop paying corporate welfare to companies that offshore ... therefore, we are giving companies more corporate welfare. Allllrighty, then.

Less is more. Wrong is right. Down is up. Got it.

He's starting to sound more like Moonie used to sound.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place.

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

Huh? Sounds like those that stayed here instead of offshoring to be more profitable will be given MORE corporate welfare.

CkG

Hmmmm. We stop paying corporate welfare to companies that offshore ... therefore, we are giving companies more corporate welfare. Allllrighty, then.

Less is more. Wrong is right. Down is up. Got it.

I know you are confused That's what I was pointing out. You said that you like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S. - but that is exactly what will happen if you cut off funds to those who off-shore. Those who stay here because of the "money" from the gov't will suckle from our gov't teet because they will say the gov't is preventing them from outsourcing - so we'll pay...and pay ...and pay. I don't see how this fits into your "anti-corporate welfare" position.

CkG

Edit - yes it addresses your anti-outsourcing welfare stance but it doesn't "fix" corporate welfare at home - it'll just enable them to receive more.

No Cad, it won't. Is there anything you won't spin? If we're paying $100B in corporate welfare today, and we reduce that by 50% (pick a #, any #) by denying corporate welfare to offshoring companies, that means we are now paying only $50B. I don't know how they did math when you were in school, but I learned that $50B is less than $100B.

We aren't talking about paying more corporate welfare. We aren't talking about adding new loans, exemptions, credits, whatever. We're talking about denying existing welfare to certain companies. The companies who still qualify are companies that are already getting these benefits. They will continue to receive exactly what they're receiving now. There is no increase.

Man, I don't know how to make it any simpler than that. If you can't understand the difference, I seriously don't know how we can ever have a useful discussion about anything. If you won't understand the difference because you want to divert the thread -- again -- well, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The 1% solution.

All Jobs Count

Thursday, March 4, 2004; Page A22

NOBODY CAN SAY for sure how many U.S. jobs will be "offshored" to places such as India, but the best estimates are around 3.5 million between now and 2015. If that number sounds scary, try this one: The total number of U.S. jobs destroyed over the same period is likely to be well over 300 million. Capitalism eliminates jobs constantly, but except during recessions it creates new ones even more quickly: In 1999 alone, 33 million jobs were destroyed and 36 million created.


In short, the loss of a few hundred thousand jobs per year to offshoring is a small part of the churning that goes on in the U.S. labor market. Precisely because every job loss is painful, it makes more sense to think of ways of stimulating employment generally than to craft legislation to address 1 percent of the problem.

That has not stopped state and federal legislators from touting 1 percent solutions. Sen. John F. Kerry, the leader in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored a measure to require phone-based service workers -- IT support people and so on -- to inform callers of their location. A measure buried in the recently signed omnibus spending bill stipulates that certain work for the federal government may not be done overseas. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than 30 bills have been introduced in more than 20 states, including Virginia and Maryland, seeking to regulate or slow offshoring.

These efforts are misguided, and not just because they are the equivalent of trying to stop illegal immigration by reinforcing the patrol on a 10-mile section of the Mexican border. Why, for example, is it important that consumers know if their call is being answered in Bangalore or Austin? If the service is poor, they can take their business elsewhere; if the service is good, what's the difference? The answer is that there isn't any difference, which is why there is no consumer outrage on this issue. There is, however, political outrage, reflecting insecurity over jobs -- insecurity that really reflects the lack of new job creation in the economy overall, not the small phenomenon of offshoring.

Restrictions on government contract work being done abroad are no more logical. If pursued at a federal level, they undermine the U.S. position in global trade diplomacy: The United States has pressed for government procurement around the world to be open to international competition. At a state level, procurement restrictions create a new layer of red tape that is more costly than it's worth. In New Jersey, for example, a contract with a call center was canceled because 12 jobs would have moved abroad; the extra cost to the state's taxpayers was $900,000. Marylanders, beware: Two bills restricting state contracts are floating around the legislature.

Politicians want to be seen responding to the job anxiety of the moment. But they would do better to think big about the job market. They should struggle to improve public education. They should invest more in retraining for laid-off workers. They should minimize taxes that directly penalize job creation. And they should fight against changes in the tax code that benefit the wealthy, exacerbating the inequality that technology and globalization tend to accentuate.

*******
Well that pretty much sums this all up - no?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

The Defending American Jobs Act of 2004 would bar companies from receiving federal grants, loans and loan guarantees if they layoff U.S. workers and hire foreign workers in their place.

I like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S.

Huh? Sounds like those that stayed here instead of offshoring to be more profitable will be given MORE corporate welfare.

CkG

Hmmmm. We stop paying corporate welfare to companies that offshore ... therefore, we are giving companies more corporate welfare. Allllrighty, then.

Less is more. Wrong is right. Down is up. Got it.

I know you are confused That's what I was pointing out. You said that you like this approach better than giving more corporate welfare to companies who manufacture in the U.S. - but that is exactly what will happen if you cut off funds to those who off-shore. Those who stay here because of the "money" from the gov't will suckle from our gov't teet because they will say the gov't is preventing them from outsourcing - so we'll pay...and pay ...and pay. I don't see how this fits into your "anti-corporate welfare" position.

CkG

Edit - yes it addresses your anti-outsourcing welfare stance but it doesn't "fix" corporate welfare at home - it'll just enable them to receive more.

No Cad, it won't. Is there anything you won't spin? If we're paying $100B in corporate welfare today, and we reduce that by 50% (pick a #, any #) by denying corporate welfare to offshoring companies, that means we are now paying only $50B. I don't know how they did math when you were in school, but I learned that $50B is less than $100B.

We aren't talking about paying more corporate welfare. We aren't talking about adding new loans, exemptions, credits, whatever. We're talking about denying existing welfare to certain companies. The companies who still qualify are companies that are already getting these benefits. They will continue to receive exactly what they're receiving now. There is no increase.

Man, I don't know how to make it any simpler than that. If you can't understand the difference, I seriously don't know how we can ever have a useful discussion about anything. If you won't understand the difference because you want to divert the thread -- again -- well, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Right - and you think those that stay because of the grants/loans won't milk it for more because of this new restriction? Are you that naive?
And it still doesn't address your position on "corporate welfare" for those that manufacture in the U.S. It only addresses the ones that may try to elimnate jobs here and hire overseas.

And is everyone "diverting" if they don't agree with you?

CkG

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It won't overcome the 70% labor savings these companies are realizing by off-shoring. If you make it more expensive to do business here do you think that will create jobs or lose them? Knee jerk reactionism isn't going to bring a single job back from India. Sorry.

I'm sure that's true in many cases, but why should we continue paying those companies corporate welfare? This bill still saves money for taxpayers, and if it preserves a few American jobs in the process, so much the better. Why should American taxpayers subsidize companies who won't hire American taxpayers?

First you need to prove/explain how this will save any jobs. I don't think you can. If we take away from the bottom line of these corps. how do you think they will make up the difference. By raising prices? I don't think they will make themselves less competitive by doing that. Just take the hit? Stock price will plummet. No, they are going to cut costs. And what's the biggest cost? Labor in almost every case. Bye bye jobby. This plan has a real good chance of backfiring.

JMAO

 

[Chadder007]

This is just a small step in helping but it won't solve the problem. I am ALL for it though. Gotta go mail the representatives.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Right - and you think those that stay because of the grants/loans won't milk it for more because of this new restriction? Are you that naive?

Yawn. More of the same.

And it still doesn't address your position on "corporate welfare" for those that manufacture in the U.S. It only addresses the ones that may try to elimnate jobs here and hire overseas.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Please clarify.

And is everyone "diverting" if they don't agree with you?

No, diverting is when you try to hijack a thread by monotonously injecting spurious comments. Spurious can mean completely off-topic, or, as in this case, it can mean striking a completely absurd position not central to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the relative merits of this approach, go for it (like your second set of comments above). If all you want to do is bleat nonsense about how reducing corporate welfare is increasing corporate welfare, you are trying to divert the thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Right - and you think those that stay because of the grants/loans won't milk it for more because of this new restriction? Are you that naive?

Yawn. More of the same.

And it still doesn't address your position on "corporate welfare" for those that manufacture in the U.S. It only addresses the ones that may try to elimnate jobs here and hire overseas.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Please clarify.

And is everyone "diverting" if they don't agree with you?

No, diverting is when you try to hijack a thread by monotonously injecting spurious comments. Spurious can mean completely off-topic, or, as in this case, it can mean striking a completely absurd position not central to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the relative merits of this approach, go for it (like your second set of comments above). If all you want to do is bleat nonsense about how reducing corporate welfare is increasing corporate welfare, you are trying to divert the thread.

Nevermind your contradictions then and read the two links I posted

CkG

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The 1% solution.

All Jobs Count

<snip....>

And they should fight against changes in the tax code that benefit the wealthy, exacerbating the inequality that technology and globalization tend to accentuate.

*******
Well that pretty much sums this all up - no?

CkG

So, what do you think about the last part? Are you agreeing with it, too?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The 1% solution.

All Jobs Count

<snip....>

And they should fight against changes in the tax code that benefit the wealthy, exacerbating the inequality that technology and globalization tend to accentuate.

*******
Well that pretty much sums this all up - no?

CkG

So, what do you think about the last part? Are you agreeing with it, too?

To a point, but I'm sure you don't interpret that the way I do or the way it might have been intended What do you think it means. Wait - don't answer that - better check with Bow to see if he approves of the nature of this discusssion.

CkG