Print

[pug_ster]

We are essentially giving Vietnam the same trade agreement as China. So having a little competition between those countries is a good thing.  Also I also see this as a 'goodwill' gesture after the vietnam war mess and this is the least we can do for that country.

Unfortunately, the US has been spoiled by cheap goods coming out from China.  I recall that I brought a power strip in the early 90's that says 'made in the USA' in it and that was the last time that I have seen it.  We can blame on Bush for allowing 'free trade' which has harmed US businesses and consumers in the long run.  Yes, Bush has imposed tariffs on Steel but he backed down under pressure from WTO.  

Even so, for the past few years many of the high tech jobs have been moved overseas, and we need to fix that too.  Free trade policies are slowly eroding the middle class in the US and the government needs to respond.

[throwingks]

I agree with you pug. Everyone is upset with Bush over Iraq. He has done a lot of other things such as this, that are overshadowed. I am fairly confident that we will see a Democrat in office next term, simply because the majority of people feel a need for change.

I was proud of the 'Made in America' campaign back then. What happened to it? Bush gave tax breaks for companies to go overseas. There is no incentive for a big corporation to stay in America.
http://www.aflcio.or...ns03312004a.cfm

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE

The Administration supports foreign sales corporation/extraterritorial income (FSC/ETI) legislation that reforms the tax code, removes the underlying reason for the tariffs that have been imposed on American exports by the European Union (EU), and further advances the competitiveness of American manufacturers and other job creators. Therefore, the Administration urges the Senate to pass S. 1637 promptly. If Congress does not act to replace the current FSC/ETI provisions in the tax code, the tariffs that were imposed on March 1st will inflict an increasing burden on American exporters, American workers, and the overall economy. To support the continued strengthening of our economy and to create more jobs, Congress should act now to end the threat posed by these tariffs and to promote the competitiveness of American manufacturers and other job-creating sectors of the U.S. economy. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress on enacting legislation that removes the threat of escalating EU sanctions and encourages economic growth and job creation at home.

http://www.congress....?...mp;summ2=m



I don't want to get into a huge argument, but you guys have been misled by the liberal spin wagon and your argument doesn't even make sense.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy)

... the tax on corporations is so high in the U.S. that it's silly for a company to stay here when they can simply SHIP EVERYTHING FROM OVERSEAS AND IT STILL BE CHEAPER. Now that's bad.
...

That is exactly what I said. We are agreeing, unless I misunderstand your point.

QUOTE(throwingks)

Bush gave tax breaks for companies to go overseas. There is no incentive for a big corporation to stay in America.

By not lessening the tax load of working in America, the tax break is essentially coming from not working in America. Kind of a double negative equals a positive kind of logic.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy)

Unions jack the price of the workers up.

I believe in supply and demand. Unions are asking for all they can get, and they should. I do not see any harm in the workers getting the cut of the money that the corporation is making off of their hard labor. There is a point when it is too much. Such as Eastern Airlines. But, for too long, until Unions were formed, the corporations were taking advantage of the work force. That is a different topic though.

[pug_ster]

What ThrowingKS' link (dated 3/31) refers to the bill that was voted mostly against by Democrats on 3/24 here.

http://www.senate.go...l...&vote=00060

The final version of the bill was passed (by majority of democrats) on 5/11/04 when they included some provisions for small-business owners.

No liberal spin here.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Dec 11 2006, 04:16 PM)

That is exactly what I said. We are agreeing, unless I misunderstand your point.By not lessening the tax load of working in America, the tax break is essentially coming from not working in America. Kind of a double negative equals a positive kind of logic.

Well this is why politics are interesting because we have the same goal. This tax break is a two-way street. It's not simply if you're overseas you get a tax break. If your company depends on imports and then assembles the product here, or any number of things benefit from this and it is a good step. The liberal spin was that they focused only on the fact that companies outside of the US could still take advantage of this as well and spun it against the president and conservatives just as they did the "tax break for the rich" which essentially addresses this issue as well. Society depends on each other. We need products from other places and we're trying to make it cheaper for our companies to get those products so they stay here. That's all this is about, it was depicted to make it look as though it were designed to send people overseas which makes no sense on any level. It was designed to prevent just that.

QUOTE

I believe in supply and demand. Unions are asking for all they can get, and they should. I do not see any harm in the workers getting the cut of the money that the corporation is making off of their hard labor. There is a point when it is too much. Such as Eastern Airlines. But, for too long, until Unions were formed, the corporations were taking advantage of the work force. That is a different topic though.

Yes I believe Unions are a necessary evil. It's just that they are just as much harm as they are good. We want our workers to get paid decent amount and have good working conditions, but at the same time we also need employers to employ these workers.

[pug_ster]

BCfosheezy, first of all, don't use the word 'liberal spin' on what you think others say.  You already offended enough people in your last thread, don't spread it over here.

Not all Unions are good.  Some of the lesser powerful unions are more negotable to demands as long as they get good pay and benefits, which is understandable.   Whereas the more powerful Unions are more socialists like where in addition where they can get a 2 - 15 minute break, and can walk off after 8 hours of work, etc....  Give an example I have worked with some union people before where their contract says that they move computers around, put it on the desk, plug the computer into the wall, but expect you to plug in the keyboard and turn on the power switch.  And those union people are electricans, not computer technicians.

Another example, one of the most powerful unions in the US is the Teacher's Union.  You ever wonder why many parents bring their kids to private schools?  Perhaps you should read the 20/20 report.

http://abcnews.go.co...i...1265&page=1

I'm not saying that all teachers are bad, but Unions doesn't really give any incentive to be better in your job because the union treats everyone equally, whether you are putting 100% of your effort or 50%.

On the other hand, there are companies like Costco which pays employees well and give them good benefits with an average pay of $17 an hour.  If all the companies are like that, we don't even need unions.

http://www.nytimes.c...aDIvM9aRy88 nCA

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 12 2006, 09:55 AM)

BCfosheezy, first of all, don't use the word 'liberal spin' on what you think others say. You already offended enough people in your last thread, don't spread it over here.

It was appropriate to use "liberal spin". I offended YOU, that's it. Don't speak for others, they can do that theirselves.

QUOTE

Not all Unions are good. Some of the lesser powerful unions are more negotable to demands as long as they get good pay and benefits, which is understandable. Whereas the more powerful Unions are more socialists like where in addition where they can get a 2 - 15 minute break, and can walk off after 8 hours of work, etc.... Give an example I have worked with some union people before where their contract says that they move computers around, put it on the desk, plug the computer into the wall, but expect you to plug in the keyboard and turn on the power switch. And those union people are electricans, not computer technicians.

Another example, one of the most powerful unions in the US is the Teacher's Union. You ever wonder why many parents bring their kids to private schools? Perhaps you should read the 20/20 report.

http://abcnews.go.co...i...1265&page=1

I'm not saying that all teachers are bad, but Unions doesn't really give any incentive to be better in your job because the union treats everyone equally, whether you are putting 100% of your effort or 50%.

On the other hand, there are companies like Costco which pays employees well and give them good benefits with an average pay of $17 an hour. If all the companies are like that, we don't even need unions.

http://www.nytimes.c...aDIvM9aRy88 nCA

 

Yeah I think we agree for the first time.

[pug_ster]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16218184/

The main problem with the mounting trading surplus is China's devaluing of the Yuan vs the Dollar.  Because of that, goods from China are ridiciously cheap.  Unless the US puts up some kind of tariff to make US goods competitive, there's no way we can compete.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 15 2006, 08:45 AM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16218184/

The main problem with the mounting trading surplus is China's devaluing of the Yuan vs the Dollar. Because of that, goods from China are ridiciously cheap. Unless the US puts up some kind of tariff to make US goods competitive, there's no way we can compete.

I think you addressed a good issue here with China. I think that your solution is inappropriate for the situation it tackles. Let me explain.



Since we're speaking of a U.S. trading surplus and since we're comparing the "Yuan vs the Dollar", tariiffs on China's goods are not going to help. Tariff's are on incoming goods into the land that the legislative body can govern. In this case, if we place tariff's on China, it will only apply to U.S. buyers buying Chinese goods. This will not help our trade surplus or the value of the dollar. This can only be done by selling more of our goods to places outside of this country. I think we would both agree on that, however a tariff cannot help that situation.



You were correct when you said U.S. goods need to be more competitive. They need to do this by taxing the manufacturers less. The unions will have to ease up a bit. One of the most important things though, is the EPA. The EPA forces these manufacturers to conform to strict regulations and spend vast amounts of money to comply. It's financially more responsible for these companies to relocate across the border to Mexico. The worst part of it all is, the EPA still failed us. It has no jurisdiction in Mexico, yet that same polution doesn't stop at the border like the EPA has to. It floats right over into the U.S. It encourages the aforementioned China to produce huge amounts of goods and since they have no regulations we are being poluted. It's the same with the other countries these companies are moving to. So what did we accomplish besides making our companies leave and losing ourselves money?



Bottom line, the only way the U.S. can stay competitive is with price. We've got to make it easier for our companies to operate here.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 19 2006, 04:01 PM)

I think you addressed a good issue here with China. I think that your solution is inappropriate for the situation it tackles. Let me explain.
Since we're speaking of a U.S. trading surplus and since we're comparing the "Yuan vs the Dollar", tariiffs on China's goods are not going to help. Tariff's are on incoming goods into the land that the legislative body can govern. In this case, if we place tariff's on China, it will only apply to U.S. buyers buying Chinese goods. This will not help our trade surplus or the value of the dollar. This can only be done by selling more of our goods to places outside of this country. I think we would both agree on that, however a tariff cannot help that situation.
You were correct when you said U.S. goods need to be more competitive. They need to do this by taxing the manufacturers less. The unions will have to ease up a bit. One of the most important things though, is the EPA. The EPA forces these manufacturers to conform to strict regulations and spend vast amounts of money to comply. It's financially more responsible for these companies to relocate across the border to Mexico. The worst part of it all is, the EPA still failed us. It has no jurisdiction in Mexico, yet that same polution doesn't stop at the border like the EPA has to. It floats right over into the U.S. It encourages the aforementioned China to produce huge amounts of goods and since they have no regulations we are being poluted. It's the same with the other countries these companies are moving to. So what did we accomplish besides making our companies leave and losing ourselves money?
Bottom line, the only way the U.S. can stay competitive is with price. We've got to make it easier for our companies to operate here.

it sounds good in theory.  But what kind of products or services that we can sell outside that can be competitive if we have implemented this plan of yours?  Besides, if we have lower taxes, how else can we replace that revenue?

The EPA might make companies to business elsewhere but it is a necessary evil.  In the 1970's countries like LA was called smog city causing people to get sick.  It wasn't until the EPA put its foot down to put in place policies to improve air quality.  So you think it is okay to 'loosen' those restrictions let polluters get away making us sick in the process, so that we can sell our stuff for cheap?

The problem with the US's overconsumption of products is that everything that things manufactured today are designed to be thrown away. When was the last time you see a local repair shop (if there's one) which actually repair your TV, VCR or dvd-player?  No I am not talking about repairshops who sends it out to repair but repair it themselves.  The problem is that because of the unfair yuan-dollar policy, the actual materials for producing the product cost more than the cost more than the finished product from China.  Even if we paid no taxes, we can't compete with China.

[BCfosheezy]

[quote name='pug_ster' date='Dec 20 2006, 04:45 PM' post='3812448']

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 21 2006, 03:12 PM)

What kinds of products or services can we sell outside that CAN'T be competitive if we implement this plan of mine? If we lower taxes we will HAVE that revenue.You see, taxes come from U.S. citizens. Our country's wealth does not come from the citizens. We can't pay ourselves. Our wealth comes from trade overseas. If we keep cutting our own throats on trade by being unwilling to compromise in order to restore it, we will increase the burden on our taxpayers as you have depicted and we will continue to regress.

1) So what you say our wealth comes from overseas, so how can the US government get their share of the revenue if we eliminate or reduce taxes?  2) Even if we have eliminated taxes as you say, we still can't compete because we can't compete foreign paying $.50 an hour.  

QUOTE

It is NOT a necessary evil to send business elsewhere nor is it acceptable. That is exactly what the original poster and youself were saying Bush was trying to do and you were slamming him for it. What I already told you about the polution floating across the border still applies. What don't you understand about all nations on earth share the same atmosphere? If we don't make the product, someone else will and we live on the same planet and have the same polution. We're simply out the money. To the bolded statement, Yes. The air is just as poluted without the restrictions as it is WITH them. All you're suggesting is we lose the money.

You don't seem to care whether someone to polluting in your backyard or polluting in a backyard 10,000 miles away.  Most people would prefer if someone polluted somewhere else but I guess you are the exception.  Unfortunately, we can't dictate how some other country control their pollution but we can control ours.
 

QUOTE

You have never seen companies in the U.S. without these EPA regulations, taxes, and unions so you really don't know whether we can be competitive or not. Our manufacturing quality is most likely going to be higher so we could be competitive even if our price doesn't beat theirs.

That's really funny.  Right, we might as well turn our country backwards and go back to be an industrial age where the government tells me it is okay for you to inhale diesel fumes, abestos, don't have adequate water to drink because our water supply was polluted while getting paid $5 a day.  Because that's the only way to compete with countries like China.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 21 2006, 10:42 AM)

1) So what you say our wealth comes from overseas, so how can the US government get their share of the revenue if we eliminate or reduce taxes? 2) Even if we have eliminated taxes as you say, we still can't compete because we can't compete foreign paying $.50 an hour.

I looked for where I said to eliminate taxes and then I didn't find it. Then I realized it was you trying to spin what i said. I've made the suggestion to reduce the strain on our industry so our country can  do better financially. It is not debateable that our nation's wealth comes from our trade with other nations. Everyone knows this.

QUOTE

You don't seem to care whether someone to polluting in your backyard or polluting in a backyard 10,000 miles away. Most people would prefer if someone polluted somewhere else but I guess you are the exception. Unfortunately, we can't dictate how some other country control their pollution but we can control ours.

I DO care about polition. What I have stated over and over again that you don't seem to understand, is that whether you're 10,000 miles away or here, the polution still effects everyone. What about that don't you understand? MOST people understand that. We CAN'T control the polution our nation is exposed to. Whether it be someone testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere to pulluting it, we have no control over that but will be exposed to it as soon as the earth rotates, or once the wind blows the pollution across the border, or as soon as that polluted water makes its way to us or however. The bottom line is, all we are doing is losing out on the money from this production. It will take a global effort to reduce pollution. Until then you are lying to yourself. Everyone knows this. It's common sense.

QUOTE

That's really funny. Right, we might as well turn our country backwards and go back to be an industrial age where the government tells me it is okay for you to inhale diesel fumes, abestos, don't have adequate water to drink because our water supply was polluted while getting paid $5 a day. Because that's the only way to compete with countries like China.

Who said any of that? That's NOT the only way to compete. It's funny that you are trying to twist it around. Our nation is going backwards because of people that share your point of view and keep sending our business overseas. I'm making suggestions to move it forward. What is HILARIOUS is that all of the examples you listed are still going on in the U.S. yet it's just more expensive to do it so people are leaving.