Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...help bring about an influx of new jobs to America. I'll be waiting..........

When asked about potential job losses from draconian cuts on everything from education to law enforcement that Republicans are making in their budget, House Speaker John Boehner dismissively said: "So be it."

speaking specifically of manufacturing here.

First of all.. Let's be clear:
Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes; Consumers Pay Taxes
Corporations collect taxes…

Consumers pay the cost of that “collection” and the cost of the IRS ($300 Billion)

Let's:
1.Repeal the 16th Amendment to the U.S Constitution
2.Pass HR25,S296 FairTax / Consumption tax.
3.Close the IRS

And let's turn the Tax Lawyer’s and CPA’s energy loose on the Federal Government and see what they come up with..?

catamount man wrote:...help bring about an influx of new jobs to America. I'll be waiting..........

Considering corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, I don't think high taxes are keeping them from hiring more.

Somebody explain how lowering the taxes, which was done, saved any manufacturing jobs in the US.

dbackjon wrote:Somebody explain how lowering the taxes, which was done, saved any manufacturing jobs in the US.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a vacuum. Other people have lowered their's much more than we lowered ours (and have vastly different approaches regarding taxation of repatriated income that's already been taxed elsewhere). Disney was right - it is a small world after all.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Somebody explain how lowering the taxes, which was done, saved any manufacturing jobs in the US.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a vacuum. Other people have lowered their's much more than we lowered ours (and have vastly different approaches regarding taxation of repatriated income that's already been taxed elsewhere). Disney was right - it is a small world after all.

So it's a race to the bottom in regards to taxation and labor costs. This would make sense if Bangladesh had a market for $120 blue jeans and PSP's.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Unfortunately, we don't live in a vacuum. Other people have lowered their's much more than we lowered ours (and have vastly different approaches regarding taxation of repatriated income that's already been taxed elsewhere). Disney was right - it is a small world after all.

So it's a race to the bottom in regards to taxation and labor costs. This would make sense if Bangladesh had a market for $120 blue jeans and PSP's.

No, it's not, per se, especially with the labor costs. But we have to recognize that we aren't going to be able to make blue jeans and cotton shirts here in America and that those jobs are never coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again - America is only going to be able to compete if it is able to innovate and make products and services that other people either can't do or can't do anywhere near as well as us. To ignore that reality is just silly. Protectionism doesn't work. There are examples galore proving that. To not recognize that companies pay less elsewhere and then invest elsewhere as well because they can (rather than paying more to invest back in America) is just closing your eyes. It doesn't make the problem go away.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So it's a race to the bottom in regards to taxation and labor costs. This would make sense if Bangladesh had a market for $120 blue jeans and PSP's.

No, it's not, per se, especially with the labor costs. But we have to recognize that we aren't going to be able to make blue jeans and cotton shirts here in America and that those jobs are never coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again - America is only going to be able to compete if it is able to innovate and make products and services that other people either can't do or can't do anywhere near as well as us. To ignore that reality is just silly. Protectionism doesn't work. There are examples galore proving that. To not recognize that companies pay less elsewhere and then invest elsewhere as well because they can (rather than paying more to invest back in America) is just closing your eyes. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Capital goods and such are the key. Just ask Germany.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So it's a race to the bottom in regards to taxation and labor costs. This would make sense if Bangladesh had a market for $120 blue jeans and PSP's.

No, it's not, per se, especially with the labor costs. But we have to recognize that we aren't going to be able to make blue jeans and cotton shirts here in America and that those jobs are never coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again - America is only going to be able to compete if it is able to innovate and make products and services that other people either can't do or can't do anywhere near as well as us. To ignore that reality is just silly. Protectionism doesn't work. There are examples galore proving that. To not recognize that companies pay less elsewhere and then invest elsewhere as well because they can (rather than paying more to invest back in America) is just closing your eyes. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Wrong. They'll come back once, as Ross Perot pointed out, our wages for factory workers falls into balance with those other countries. Now if we can just cut higher ed and make grants less available we'll see them come back even sooner.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
No, it's not, per se, especially with the labor costs. But we have to recognize that we aren't going to be able to make blue jeans and cotton shirts here in America and that those jobs are never coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again - America is only going to be able to compete if it is able to innovate and make products and services that other people either can't do or can't do anywhere near as well as us. To ignore that reality is just silly. Protectionism doesn't work. There are examples galore proving that. To not recognize that companies pay less elsewhere and then invest elsewhere as well because they can (rather than paying more to invest back in America) is just closing your eyes. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Wrong. They'll come back once, as Ross Perot pointed out, our wages for factory workers falls into balance with those other countries. Now if we can just cut higher ed and make grants less available we'll see them come back even sooner.

You do realize how little factory workers in most emerging markets make, right?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
No, it's not, per se, especially with the labor costs. But we have to recognize that we aren't going to be able to make blue jeans and cotton shirts here in America and that those jobs are never coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again - America is only going to be able to compete if it is able to innovate and make products and services that other people either can't do or can't do anywhere near as well as us. To ignore that reality is just silly. Protectionism doesn't work. There are examples galore proving that. To not recognize that companies pay less elsewhere and then invest elsewhere as well because they can (rather than paying more to invest back in America) is just closing your eyes. It doesn't make the problem go away.

Wrong. They'll come back once, as Ross Perot pointed out, our wages for factory workers falls into balance with those other countries. Now if we can just cut higher ed and make grants less available we'll see them come back even sooner.

Hey, if you want jobs like that back then by all means, feel free to continue on that path. I'd actually prefer to aim a little higher than simply pumping out cotton t-shirts at below minimum wage as a core industry in America. Perot, for all his positives, and he had many, wanted time to stand still economically. Be protectionist, resist efforts to eliminate trade barriers, and we could sit in a "Fortress USA" type situation and never be affected by the rest of the world. And it was ironic, considering that what Perot advocated publically is the exact opposite of what he did in his very successful businesses, which is where he was flexible and innovative and, not coincidentally, successful.

Trade barriers, protectionist legislation, and other heavy handed ideas are no substitute for innovation and invention and using those to compete against the world. Choosing to ignore it doesn't make it go away.

protectionism and isolationism are our chance for survival. You can see what becoming a melting pot has led to. It's time to put our interest above the rest of the world because they sure as hell don't give a damn about us.

catamount man wrote:protectionism and isolationism are our chance for survival. You can see what becoming a melting pot has led to. It's time to put our interest above the rest of the world because they sure as hell don't give a damn about us.

You may wanna run that by China, first.

Oh I know we're tied at the hip and it's disgusting but ya know what....I'm gonna quit worrying about it. Does no good. But I honestly wish our govt would be straight up with us, the citizens. As is, I'm gonna do my best to save, save, save and live my life without any direct government interference. Wish me well as I wish you well.

catamount man wrote:Oh I know we're tied at the hip and it's disgusting but ya know what....I'm gonna quit worrying about it. Does no good. But I honestly wish our govt would be straight up with us, the citizens. As is, I'm gonna do my best to save, save, save and live my life without any direct government interference. Wish me well as I wish you well.

You got it.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Wrong. They'll come back once, as Ross Perot pointed out, our wages for factory workers falls into balance with those other countries. Now if we can just cut higher ed and make grants less available we'll see them come back even sooner.

Hey, if you want jobs like that back then by all means, feel free to continue on that path. I'd actually prefer to aim a little higher than simply pumping out cotton t-shirts at below minimum wage as a core industry in America. Perot, for all his positives, and he had many, wanted time to stand still economically. Be protectionist, resist efforts to eliminate trade barriers, and we could sit in a "Fortress USA" type situation and never be affected by the rest of the world. And it was ironic, considering that what Perot advocated publically is the exact opposite of what he did in his very successful businesses, which is where he was flexible and innovative and, not coincidentally, successful.

Trade barriers, protectionist legislation, and other heavy handed ideas are no substitute for innovation and invention and using those to compete against the world. Choosing to ignore it doesn't make it go away.

I get it, you're a fan of wage deflation and sweat shops.

The US needs ditch diggers too. And while our wages must fall under free trade, the liberalizing forces of capitalism will force wages up in other countries. Or they will eventually answer to pitchforks as the hoi poloi get tired of making nike's for a pittance, the greedy non producing bastards.

I'm not suggesting any of this happens overnight and I'm speaking more towards what should be than what's currently real. But quit acting like the very notion that countries should be free to pursue they're economic advantages or that unskilled laborers should be able to make a living wage is settled.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Hey, if you want jobs like that back then by all means, feel free to continue on that path. I'd actually prefer to aim a little higher than simply pumping out cotton t-shirts at below minimum wage as a core industry in America. Perot, for all his positives, and he had many, wanted time to stand still economically. Be protectionist, resist efforts to eliminate trade barriers, and we could sit in a "Fortress USA" type situation and never be affected by the rest of the world. And it was ironic, considering that what Perot advocated publically is the exact opposite of what he did in his very successful businesses, which is where he was flexible and innovative and, not coincidentally, successful.

Trade barriers, protectionist legislation, and other heavy handed ideas are no substitute for innovation and invention and using those to compete against the world. Choosing to ignore it doesn't make it go away.

I get it, you're a fan of wage deflation and sweat shops.

The US needs ditch diggers too. And while our wages must fall under free trade, the liberalizing forces of capitalism will force wages up in other countries. Or they will eventually answer to pitchforks as the hoi poloi get tired of making nike's for a pittance, the greedy non producing bastards.

I'm not suggesting any of this happens overnight and I'm speaking more towards what should be than what's currently real. But quit acting like the very notion that countries should be free to pursue they're economic advantages or that unskilled laborers should be able to make a living wage is settled.

Deal - as soon as you quit acting like the very notion that the US's economic advantage is something more than pretectionism and is something more like innovation and invention. Perot did, why won't you?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I get it, you're a fan of wage deflation and sweat shops.

The US needs ditch diggers too. And while our wages must fall under free trade, the liberalizing forces of capitalism will force wages up in other countries. Or they will eventually answer to pitchforks as the hoi poloi get tired of making nike's for a pittance, the greedy non producing bastards.

I'm not suggesting any of this happens overnight and I'm speaking more towards what should be than what's currently real. But quit acting like the very notion that countries should be free to pursue they're economic advantages or that unskilled laborers should be able to make a living wage is settled.

Deal - as soon as you quit acting like the very notion that the US's economic advantage is something more than pretectionism and is something more like innovation and invention. Perot did, why won't you?

Protectionism is your dirty word. I think a high standard of living, abundant natural resources and energy, strong middle class, and liberty are worthy of protection. Besides, none of those stifle innovation.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Deal - as soon as you quit acting like the very notion that the US's economic advantage is something more than pretectionism and is something more like innovation and invention. Perot did, why won't you?

Protectionism is your dirty word. I think a high standard of living, abundant natural resources and energy, strong middle class, and liberty are worthy of protection. Besides, none of those stifle innovation.

It is my dirty word because history is full of examples of when people like you try to use protectionism as a means of securing what you say and it doesn't work. All you are advocating is a repeat of past failures, no matter how worthy your end goals are.

And really, what are you proposing? I've stated that we need more innovation, more invention here, lower corporate tax rates, we need to increase immigration, especially educated immigrants (including those educated here) - what do you propose? I just read an article where Microsoft took on $2.2B in debt in the US last month rather than repatriating more than $40B in cash because it was cheaper to do so. While we fiddle around talking about trying wring more money out of "evil" corporations, they are keeping money abroad and reinvesting it in places other than the US because it keeps them competitive with non-US corporations that don't have to worry about our tax code. The longer this continues, the more damage is done. What's your plan for reversing this, other than Kerry's poor approach of calling them Benedict Arnolds?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Protectionism is your dirty word. I think a high standard of living, abundant natural resources and energy, strong middle class, and liberty are worthy of protection. Besides, none of those stifle innovation.

It is my dirty word because history is full of examples of when people like you try to use protectionism as a means of securing what you say and it doesn't work. All you are advocating is a repeat of past failures, no matter how worthy your end goals are.

And really, what are you proposing? I've stated that we need more innovation, more invention here, lower corporate tax rates, we need to increase immigration, especially educated immigrants (including those educated here) - what do you propose? I just read an article where Microsoft took on $2.2B in debt in the US last month rather than repatriating more than $40B in cash because it was cheaper to do so. While we fiddle around talking about trying wring more money out of "evil" corporations, they are keeping money abroad and reinvesting it in places other than the US because it keeps them competitive with non-US corporations that don't have to worry about our tax code. The longer this continues, the more damage is done. What's your plan for reversing this, other than Kerry's poor approach of calling them Benedict Arnolds?

History is full of examples where countries played hard ball with their various competitive advantages.

We can do whatever the fuck we want when it comes to trade and taxation. But we won't because the rules are made by multinational corporations. We'd have to change the entire political system or at least roll it back about 50 years to reverse course. The corporations that take advantage of this are not evil, they're doing what we allow them to do at the expense of our country's future. I like our country and it's ideals. Free trade waters them down.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
It is my dirty word because history is full of examples of when people like you try to use protectionism as a means of securing what you say and it doesn't work. All you are advocating is a repeat of past failures, no matter how worthy your end goals are.

And really, what are you proposing? I've stated that we need more innovation, more invention here, lower corporate tax rates, we need to increase immigration, especially educated immigrants (including those educated here) - what do you propose? I just read an article where Microsoft took on $2.2B in debt in the US last month rather than repatriating more than $40B in cash because it was cheaper to do so. While we fiddle around talking about trying wring more money out of "evil" corporations, they are keeping money abroad and reinvesting it in places other than the US because it keeps them competitive with non-US corporations that don't have to worry about our tax code. The longer this continues, the more damage is done. What's your plan for reversing this, other than Kerry's poor approach of calling them Benedict Arnolds?

History is full of examples where countries played hard ball with their various competitive advantages.

We can do whatever the **** we want when it comes to trade and taxation. But we won't because the rules are made by multinational corporations. We'd have to change the entire political system or at least roll it back about 50 years to reverse course. The corporations that take advantage of this are not evil, they're doing what we allow them to do at the expense of our country's future. I like our country and it's ideals. Free trade waters them down.

That's not even an answer, it's just a rant. Hey, I want the world to be a better place too, and I want economic prosperity for this country too, but wishing for it to happen and having an idea on how to bring it about are two different things. How do we play hard ball with our competitive advantages? What do we do that will make it work?

Chizzang wrote:First of all.. Let's be clear:
Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes; Consumers Pay Taxes
Corporations collect taxes…

Consumers pay the cost of that “collection” and the cost of the IRS ($300 Billion)

Let's:
1.Repeal the 16th Amendment to the U.S Constitution
2.Pass HR25,S296 FairTax / Consumption tax.
3.Close the IRS

And let's turn the Tax Lawyer’s and CPA’s energy loose on the Federal Government and see what they come up with..?

Post of the decade!!!!!

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
History is full of examples where countries played hard ball with their various competitive advantages.

We can do whatever the **** we want when it comes to trade and taxation. But we won't because the rules are made by multinational corporations. We'd have to change the entire political system or at least roll it back about 50 years to reverse course. The corporations that take advantage of this are not evil, they're doing what we allow them to do at the expense of our country's future. I like our country and it's ideals. Free trade waters them down.

That's not even an answer, it's just a rant. Hey, I want the world to be a better place too, and I want economic prosperity for this country too, but wishing for it to happen and having an idea on how to bring it about are two different things. How do we play hard ball with our competitive advantages? What do we do that will make it work?

I spoke with a supplier yesterday who recently traveled to China and warned me that the quality of products in our industry is going to deteriorate rapidly over the next year or so as assembly of products gets moved to China. These are recreational equipment products so no real harm to consumers but this might lend credence to the concerns over toxins found in Chinese made plastics and dog food.

I had another conversation with a client who is a facilities inspector for the USDA and is travelling to Thailand this year to inspect the processing of food imports into the U.S. We have to pay government officias to travel over seas because while we want cheap imports, we can't trust other govenments to make them safe.

How did we ever survive back before free trade when stuff was produced in the good ol' USA?

So one answer is to not allow importers to cheat on quality and safety standards. This would level the playing field for American manufacturers. Another would have been a "buy american" provision in the stimulus and bank bailouts. China required all of their large stimulus package to be spent with Chinese companies.

There are many other things that can be done, and I'm sure you will dismiss them as protectionist without explaining whether or not they will help our cause.

But forget that, go back and tell me how free trade has benefited our economy as a whole. I'm all ears.