stuckincincy Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I've searched and searched and come up with no legislation proposed to Congress by the current Administration on this subject. Why does Kerry try to blame the Admistration? I also didn't find anything coming out of the Clinton adm. Does anyone have some facts that show that this adm. has changed things? Anyone?
Yard Monkey Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I've searched and searched and come up with no legislation proposed to Congress by the current Administration on this subject. Why does Kerry try to blame the Admistration? I also didn't find anything coming out of the Clinton adm. Does anyone have some facts that show that this adm. has changed things? Anyone? 84971[/snapback] I don't think the current administration has really done anything to encourage or discourage it. This is just a phenomenom that has really taken off over the last 4-6 years (2-3 in particular) and mostly due to dynamics in the global marketplace. China and India in particular have made significant investment in their people and opened their borders to external investment. The availability of inexpensive, educated people that want to work hard, is very attractive to large corporations that are looking for every competitive edge they can find. It is hard to fight a trend that involves the forces of global free markets. Government legislation will do little to change this without severly inhibiting free markets.
John Adams Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I've searched and searched and come up with no legislation proposed to Congress by the current Administration on this subject. Why does Kerry try to blame the Admistration? I also didn't find anything coming out of the Clinton adm. Does anyone have some facts that show that this adm. has changed things? Anyone? 84971[/snapback] I think the criticism I hear most is that the current admin. hasn't been protectionist in keeping jobs here. I don't think there's been a criticism of the Bush admin. that something it did sent jobs overseas.
stuckincincy Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 I think the criticism I hear most is that the current admin. hasn't been protectionist in keeping jobs here. I don't think there's been a criticism of the Bush admin. that something it did sent jobs overseas. 85040[/snapback] But Kerry tv ads and surrogate ads, on a daily basis, say exactly that it's Bush's fault. The Democrats have for decades loved to rail against and recall Hoover and protectionism, and Clinton, despite his repeated campaign promises to the contrary, signed NAFTA and GATT treaties. Are Democrats actively lying to the public? This seems like a yes/no question...
UConn James Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I think the criticism I hear most is that the current admin. hasn't been protectionist in keeping jobs here. I don't think there's been a criticism of the Bush admin. that something it did sent jobs overseas. 85040[/snapback] Bush hasn't done anything to increase it, but the point is that his admin has done nothing to stem the flood of companies leaving the U.S. In fact, they've said that it's a good thing b/c it leads to cheaper products (I agree on this point. For example, it costs less for cheap Jap steel that makes screws so easy to strip). Maybe they could reduce some of the corporate welfare given out to such companies if they're not going to employ our citizens. Like StanleyWorks (makers of your hammers and tape measures) in this state that moved HQ to Bermuda to save on taxes in '02.
stuckincincy Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Bush hasn't done anything to increase it, but the point is that his admin has done nothing to stem the flood of companies leaving the U.S. In fact, they've said that it's a good thing b/c it leads to cheaper products (I agree on this point. For example, it costs less for cheap Jap steel that makes screws so easy to strip). Maybe they could reduce some of the corporate welfare given out to such companies if they're not going to employ our citizens. Like StanleyWorks (makers of your hammers and tape measures) in this state that moved HQ to Bermuda to save on taxes in '02. 85176[/snapback] The Executive Branch can't change law. It requires Congress to act, and because it's an international matter, the senate is involved. If this bothers Kerry so much, why did he not introduce legislation to effect a change? He is a Senator, after all... Anybody know why Kerry did not address this vital issue? Beforehand?
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 The Executive Branch can't change law. It requires Congress to act, and because it's an international matter, the senate is involved. If this bothers Kerry so much, why did he not introduce legislation to effect a change? He is a Senator, after all... Anybody know why Kerry did not address this vital issue? Beforehand? 85195[/snapback] Because he is an ineffective leftislator whose actions betray his words and have for 19 years.
KD in CA Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Maybe they could reduce some of the corporate welfare given out to such companies if they're not going to employ our citizens. Like StanleyWorks (makers of your hammers and tape measures) in this state that moved HQ to Bermuda to save on taxes in '02. 85176[/snapback] Yeah, and as a result, they can afford to keep JOBS in Connecticut. I love when people with no understanding of economics start throwing the fabled "corporate welfare" tag around.
UConn James Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Yeah, and as a result, they can afford to keep JOBS in Connecticut. I love when people with no understanding of economics start throwing the fabled "corporate welfare" tag around. 85299[/snapback] The Bermuda Backlash Stanley Works CEO John Trani told investors that reincorporation would save the toolmaker $30 million in taxes, following examples set by Tyco International, Ingersoll-Rand and nearly 20 other companies. More than half of that savings could go to Trani, whose pay is tied to company performance. I think that speaks for itself. Pretty crappy that negative publicity and the threat of an ineffective lawsuit (you know, like the one against UM, VT and BC for leaving the Big East?) was the only thing that made them reconsider. How many companies don't get such scrutiny or just do it anyway? That's a good question why nothing's been done about it. Kerry probably couldn't find a co-sponsor for such a bill in the House.... Remember from civics class that the President has the title of Chief Legislator?
GG Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Maybe that question should be asked of Kerry's Treasury Secretary to-be Bob Rubin, as Citicorp expands its presense in India.
blzrul Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 I worked for a company that did outsourcing and it was a very profitable business. And generally when we displaced someone, we hired a few elsewhere. But there were still people who lost their jobs. We couldn't hire them if they didn't have the skills we needed. And we were in there because we could do a function better than the company could. Outsourcing can make sound business sense. Kerry has stated flat out that outsourcing cannot be stopped, nor should it. There are just some things that are better outsourced, whether it's lawn service or converting code. When it can be done cheaper elsewhere and DONE AS WELL then it will be outsourced. In business that's a good thing because it frees companies up to focus on new technology or core competencies. Kerry is, however, not in favor of rewarding companies who outsource just to save money. Often, as we all know, those jobs are NOT done as well offshore. So why should a company get breaks for sending jobs overseas, and bringing back shoddy products? Call a customer support number lately? Then you know what I mean. More than one company has actually shut down a call center and re-opened it here in the US after complaints that people couldn't communicate with the call center staff. When outsourcing was done in the 1990's it wasn't a big issue because the economy was strong and there were plenty of jobs. Unfortunately in this weak economy displaced workers have few alternatives which is why this is now such an issue.
GG Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Kerry is, however, not in favor of rewarding companies who outsource just to save money. 85682[/snapback] Nice of Mr. Kerry to make a decision for the company's management & shareholders. It's that darn profit thing, again. If it wasn't for profits, the world would be a better place. Let me get this straight, outsourcing is good during the Clinton administration, when fake jobs are created in the States. But outsourcing is bad when you have to deal with the overhang of the bubble. BTW, did you notice this little tidbit in your "reasoning" - I worked for a company that did outsourcing and it was a very profitable business. And generally when we displaced someone, we hired a few elsewhere. But there were still people who lost their jobs. We couldn't hire them if they didn't have the skills we needed. And we were in there because we could do a function better than the company could. Outsourcing can make sound business sense. Do you not believe that a multinational company that does 30% - 40% of its business overseas also should give an opportunity for a peasant in India? Since you love to nail the "compassionate KKKonservatives," why does your compassion stop on the US shores? Outsourcing is another term for free trade and immigration control.
KD in CA Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 The Bermuda BacklashI think that speaks for itself. Pretty crappy that negative publicity and the threat of an ineffective lawsuit (you know, like the one against UM, VT and BC for leaving the Big East?) was the only thing that made them reconsider. How many companies don't get such scrutiny or just do it anyway? That's a good question why nothing's been done about it. Kerry probably couldn't find a co-sponsor for such a bill in the House.... Remember from civics class that the President has the title of Chief Legislator? 85471[/snapback] Uh, yeah, right. John Kerry wanted to save the day and couldn't find anyone else to sign on. Where was Chris Dodd? Stop taking the brown acid. And no, that article doesn't speak to anything. What does "More than half of that savings could go to Trani, whose pay is tied to company performance." mean? "COULD go?" Pretty vauge. Does the author have a copy of Trani's comp plan? Is so, why didn't they spell out exactly what the impact would have been to him? If not, it is a stevestojan statement thrown in to get people fired up about CEO compensation, a red herring issue 98% of the time.
blzrul Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Nice of Mr. Kerry to make a decision for the company's management & shareholders. It's that darn profit thing, again. If it wasn't for profits, the world would be a better place. Let me get this straight, outsourcing is good during the Clinton administration, when fake jobs are created in the States. But outsourcing is bad when you have to deal with the overhang of the bubble. BTW, did you notice this little tidbit in your "reasoning" - Do you not believe that a multinational company that does 30% - 40% of its business overseas also should give an opportunity for a peasant in India? Since you love to nail the "compassionate KKKonservatives," why does your compassion stop on the US shores? Outsourcing is another term for free trade and immigration control. 85960[/snapback] It would be nice if it were all so simple. The outsourcing I did entailed hiring American workers, here in America, to perform a function at which they excelled and at which the subscribing company did not. It did not involve offshoring jobs. They are two separate things. So when we got a contract with a company, some of those people were either let go OR hired by us. Those who were let go generally fared well because the economy was doing well and there were jobs for them. And we also helped them find new jobs. If in today's world those jobs are BEST done overseas, then that's naturally where they will go. And that's good news for those workers. Taking the approach that moving jobs overseas because it's CHEAP is not the same thing. I don't expect you to try to understand, because you don't want to, and I am not trying to convince you. But having worked in outsourcing for 11 years I have some experience and, I reiterate, it is a complex issue.
IUBillsFan Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 It would be nice if it were all so simple. The outsourcing I did entailed hiring American workers, here in America, to perform a function at which they excelled and at which the subscribing company did not. It did not involve offshoring jobs. They are two separate things. So when we got a contract with a company, some of those people were either let go OR hired by us. Those who were let go generally fared well because the economy was doing well and there were jobs for them. And we also helped them find new jobs. If in today's world those jobs are BEST done overseas, then that's naturally where they will go. And that's good news for those workers. Taking the approach that moving jobs overseas because it's CHEAP is not the same thing. I don't expect you to try to understand, because you don't want to, and I am not trying to convince you. But having worked in outsourcing for 11 years I have some experience and, I reiterate, it is a complex issue. 86960[/snapback] I have no idea what you are trying to say... I owned a company that did what you say you did...I think. Getting a contract for a company that had an IT dept they let the IT dept go and we filled that void. What that has to do with the question that started this thread is beyond me. What has Bush done to make jobs go overseas? Corp welfare is bs...IMO...It's a tax issue. You own a company in the US you pay taxes on the products you sell in the US BUT you also pay taxes in what you sell overseas...If your company is bases overseas you don't pay taxes in what you sell in the US.
Recommended Posts