Jack Welch bails from Fortune / Reuters after bipartisan criticism

[Texashiker]

Are you going to address the point he raised in his link?

Just stop free trade.

Tax issues start in the house. All tax bills have to introduced in the house of representatives.

Trade starts with the president.

Who helped cause this problem with jobs going overseas? Bill clinton signed the papers.

 

[Matt1970]

I misspoke, I was thinking of the repeal of glass steagal with those numbers. I have edited my post.

What I did say though, which is true, is that most of the opposition to it was from Democrats. I did not say all Democrats opposed it.

Democratic 102 Yea 156 Nay
Republican 132 Yea 43 Nay

I think we got boned plenty from both sides on that one but if you must, the numbers were higher from Republicans. Ross Perot had it right with the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country. We had a trade surplus with Mexico the year before Nafta was signed and a $15 Billion Deficit the year after.

Here are the three years trade surplus before Nafta in Billions:
$1.6
$5.3
$2.1

And deficits after:

$15.8
$17.5
$14.5

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

But, but, but it was supposed to create jobs.....

Well it didn't. It failed like a lot of our trade policies. BTW, our trade deficit with Mexico in 2011 was $64.4 Billion and $66.4 in 2010.

 

[dank69]

Democratic 102 Yea 156 Nay
Republican 132 Yea 43 Nay

I think we got boned plenty from both sides on that one but if you must, the numbers were higher from Republicans. Ross Perot had it right with the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country. We had a trade surplus with Mexico the year before Nafta was signed and a $15 Billion Deficit the year after.

Here are the three years trade surplus before Nafta in Billions:
$1.6
$5.3
$2.1

And deficits after:

$15.8
$17.5
$14.5

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

But, but, but it was supposed to create jobs.....

Well it didn't. It failed like a lot of our trade policies. BTW, our trade deficit with Mexico in 2011 was $64.4 Billion and $66.4 in 2010.

So it's going back down?

 

[Matt1970]

So it's going back down?

I would think that would be normal fluctuations.

 

[Fern]

All that shit is down because Republicans keep blocking legislation to close loopholes for offshoring jobs:Dems tried to close the loophole that allows corporations to write off expenses incurred from moving an office even if the move is overseas. Republicans blocked it.

That is fvcking retarded.

Moving an office/plant/business has always been deductible. It was deductible back in 1913 when income tax was first imposed. Did people only recently realize this and decide to offshore? How stupid.

What kind of azzhats think a company is going to move overseas just because it's deductible? Did you know that if YOU move overseas to work you can deduct it? I'm guessing you're already packing your bags for China now that you know this. I mean seriously, who wouldn't move overseas JUST because it's deductible?

BTW: For all you 'business challenged' Democrats, you don't have to move anything to hire workers abroad. They are already abroad, all you have to do is hire them. There ain't no moving to it.

Fern

 

[dank69]

That is fvcking retarded.

Moving an office/plant/business has always been deductible. It was deductible back in 1913 when income tax was first imposed. Did people only recently realize this and decide to offshore? How stupid.

What kind of azzhats think a company is going to move overseas just because it's deductible? Did you know that if YOU move overseas to work you can deduct it? I'm guessing you're already packing your bags for China now that you know this. I mean seriously, who wouldn't move overseas JUST because it's deductible?

BTW: For all you 'business challenged' Democrats, you don't have to move anything to hire workers abroad. They are already abroad, all you have to do is hire them. There ain't no moving to it.

Fern

That isn't the point. The point is that we give a tax break to companies moving offices overseas. You think that the law should not be changed to disqualify a corp from that tax break when they are moving jobs overseas?

 

[Fern]

Are you going to address the point he raised in his link?

Some Democrats are steamed that businesses closing U.S. operations can deduct the closing costs as standard business expenses. "The law, right now, permits companies that close down American factories and offices and move those jobs overseas to take a tax deduction for the costs associated with moving the jobs to China or India or wherever," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., last year.

PolitiFact Rhode Island delved into Whitehouse's statement in some detail and ruled his statement True. In general, businesses can deduct any costs they face in the course of doing business. And the costs of shuttering a factory in the United States are not exempt.

Whitehouse supported legislation to change that by disallowing exemptions associated with offshoring, which an official summary defines as "any transaction in which a taxpayer reduces or eliminates the operation of a trade or business in connection with the start-up or expansion of such trade or business outside the United States." The bill failed in the Senate because it couldn't get the 60 votes required to cut off the threat of filibuster and move the bill toward final passage. The bill failed on a 53-45 vote, largely along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it.

I'll address it. You don't shutter a factory because it's deductible. That's just flat-out stupid.

You can't, and you shouldn't, try to stop Americans from doing business abroad.

It's the dumbest possible approach. It's products imported from abroad that are the problem, not Americans - who ARE supposed to be a free people - doing business abroad that are the problem.

And I can tell you as a tax professional you'll never, ever, see a workable law that prevents US businesses from moving abroad. Not only is it not desirable, it's not do-able.

Fern

 

[Fern]

That isn't the point. The point is that we give a tax break to companies moving offices overseas. You think that the law should not be changed to disqualify a corp from that tax break when they are moving jobs overseas?

No, the law shouldn't be changed.

I can tell you:

(1) That is not the problem. The problem is free trade - foreign manufactured products are imported to be sold here. You cannot overcome that by preventing American companies (* see below) from doing business abroad. All that will happen anyway is American business going broke while foreign owned manufacturing companies eat their lunch by importing goods here. See my sig.

(2) You'll never be able to stop Americans doing business abroad.
In most cases it's a GOOD thing for us to do business abroad. What shall we do, leave all those markets to China? We need to sell our products abroad. In such cases we have factories abroad for the same reason foreign companies like BMW and Toyota have factories here: Protection from exchange rate fluctuations and reduced shipping costs, for example.


* I don't know why people think companies are 'American' just because they are incorporated here. We have no restriction on stock ownership unlike many other countries. Who owns the stock of 'our' companies? Where the heck is the Middle East oil money invested etc? Is it an American company if 51% of the stock is owned by foreigners? Would it have any 'duty' to patriotism over profit if it were?

Fern

 

[blankslate]

Yawn... someone dares question the status quo, and the puppets attack in packs.

This was much the same situation when people questioned Bush's reasons for invading Iraq... funny how it's easy to bring up this point when it's someone who is saying something you don't disagree with.....

/yawn

 

[Matt1970]

That isn't the point. The point is that we give a tax break to companies moving offices overseas. You think that the law should not be changed to disqualify a corp from that tax break when they are moving jobs overseas?

That is spin and Dems know it. It’s dishonest in that it is not a tax break. It is just a normal business expense. This is the equivalent of saying you get a tax break for laying off people when all you are doing is showing the human resources salary as an expense.

 

[Thump553]

That is spin and Dems know it. It’s dishonest in that it is not a tax break. It is just a normal business expense. This is the equivalent of saying you get a tax break for laying off people when all you are doing is showing the human resources salary as an expense.

Call it what you will, I see absolutely no reason to permit the expenses incurred by corporations moving jobs overseas to be offset against their otherwise taxable income. No reason for the rest of us to subsidize this behavior. If corporation still feels it is a wise decision without getting the tax break then they can do what they wish.

 

[Munky]

This was much the same situation when people questioned Bush's reasons for invading Iraq... funny how it's easy to bring up this point when it's someone who is saying something you don't disagree with.....

/yawn

So in two years I can expect the know-it-alls to nod their heads and claim "of course it was manipulated, everyone knows this?"

 

[shira]

Democrats were arguing that it was a bad number under Bush, Republicans are arguing it's a bad number now. I expect it'd be a great number again if Romney were in office.

There's a difference between, on the one hand, stating that the BLS numbers don't give an accurate profile of the true state of the U.S. economy - I agree with that assessment whether the numbers are reported under Democrat or Republican administrations, and , on the other hand, stating without a shred of evidence that BLS numbers are being manipulated by the White House.

With five minutes of research, Jack Welch could have determined that the BLS is essentially immune from political pressure. But no, the buffoon decided to shoot his mouth off.

 

[shira]

Yawn... someone dares question the status quo, and the puppets attack in packs. Then attempt to draw attention away from the issue by unrelated crap like his tenure at GE. You're not fooling anyone.

The fact that his performance at GE is being questioned was part of the linked story, suggesting that this was one more "insult" to Welch's pride that caused him to bail. Perhaps you should read the story before you question why that information was included in my original post.

 

[LegendKiller]

I find it laughable that people want to think labor participation will forever be as high as it was previously. As if the baby boomer lump and women's workplace habits would remain static forever.

As far as the movements in the numerator, no jobs study is perfect, anybody who looks at them knows the pitfalls.

 

[dank69]

No, the law shouldn't be changed.

I can tell you:

(1) That is not the problem. The problem is free trade - foreign manufactured products are imported to be sold here. You cannot overcome that by preventing American companies (* see below) from doing business abroad. All that will happen anyway is American business going broke while foreign owned manufacturing companies eat their lunch by importing goods here. See my sig.

(2) You'll never be able to stop Americans doing business abroad.
In most cases it's a GOOD thing for us to do business abroad. What shall we do, leave all those markets to China? We need to sell our products abroad. In such cases we have factories abroad for the same reason foreign companies like BMW and Toyota have factories here: Protection from exchange rate fluctuations and reduced shipping costs, for example.


* I don't know why people think companies are 'American' just because they are incorporated here. We have no restriction on stock ownership unlike many other countries. Who owns the stock of 'our' companies? Where the heck is the Middle East oil money invested etc? Is it an American company if 51% of the stock is owned by foreigners? Would it have any 'duty' to patriotism over profit if it were?

Fern

We aren't talking about a company opening a new office overseas to enter a new market. We are talking about a company closing an office here in order to open one somewhere else. Otherwise, you'd have a point.