• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

Excuse me but jobs left they U.S. in droves over the course of 8 years of the Bush administration.

The question remains, how does lowering taxes any further help when it certainly didn't keep jobs in the U.S.?

Seems like it was a fundamental restructuring of the labor market, than it was an issue with low taxation. When analyst jobs are leaving the states because the labor pool for them in India is so robust and they only charge 10 cents on the dollar, what are you going to do with an industry of companies looking to cut costs? Of course, the real price turns out to be 80 cents on the dollar, what with coordination costs. Still, this all had very little to do with who was in office or what the taxation policy was.

It is known that lower taxation helps companies thrive and provide jobs.
 
Less government spending. They should reduce taxes to increase investment and allow struggling businesses to keep some extra money to get through. If anything government spending ultimately hurts the nation.

So $282 billion in tax cuts was a bad idea?
 
Congress should financially handle themselves before they even think about trying to regulate Wall Street. Thank you Republicans for preventing the Dems from trying to ram through more garbage.

So you think Wall Street shouldn't get any form of regulation?

Tell me, do you think it is okay for firms to buy an audit? Considering your posts, you are treading in territory you've never encountered.
 
I would rather have the government remove itself so that the economy can breath ;) The government can help by shrinking. It needs to become smaller and lower taxes. The market can fix itself, the government doesn't need to become a parasite that grows bigger and bigger.

So you'd be okay with catastrophic failure in the banking system that results in the wholesale annihilation of credit all the way down to your local savings and loan?

There was no regulation on the ratings the rating agencies gave.
There was no regulation on the CDS that AIG oversold.

And removing the government totally would have prevented Enron eh?

Do you have any understanding just how this economy works?
 
yeah tax our way to prosperity. Jack up taxes on investments and corporations and then pss and moan when companies and jobs leave the USA.
That's about the extent of Democrat financial and economic knowledge. I am fully convinced these elected Democrat officials are under equipped for higher level thinking, or basic thinking for that matter.
 
Excuse me but jobs left they U.S. in droves over the course of 8 years of the Bush administration.
Wrong, waaaaaaay before that. Try again, there was a little thing called the Carter administration when the highest tax rates were oppressive, fuel shortages existed, wages were inflated out of control, the economy sucked, manufacturing was down, and jobs moved to China. Nixon and Ford didn't help things out, but liberal policies doubled down. Bush had NOTHING to do with job flight as it stands today.
The question remains, how does lowering taxes any further help when it certainly didn't keep jobs in the U.S.?
Hiring went up during the tax cut period.
 
So you think Wall Street shouldn't get any form of regulation?

Tell me, do you think it is okay for firms to buy an audit? Considering your posts, you are treading in territory you've never encountered.

Hard to tell when discussing things on the internet what people know and don't know.

That being said, do you know that every corportation that has audited financial statements pays for those audits. Yes the practice is lousy, but it is scary to listen to people simplictically trying to demonize one industry.

Can things be improved, yes and they should be. Americans should be concerned that politics is driving change in an industry that is the lifeblood for all economies.

Polititians have done a great job of driving manufacturing jobs overseas in the last 20 years. We are now largely a service industry. Do we want to destroy that as well? Thoughtful change is what is called for. I hope we get it as I have a 19 year old son who I hope will live in an America that does good and does well.
 
yeah tax our way to prosperity. Jack up taxes on investments and corporations and then pss and moan when companies and jobs leave the USA.

Seems like it was a fundamental restructuring of the labor market, than it was an issue with low taxation. When analyst jobs are leaving the states because the labor pool for them in India is so robust and they only charge 10 cents on the dollar, what are you going to do with an industry of companies looking to cut costs? Of course, the real price turns out to be 80 cents on the dollar, what with coordination costs. Still, this all had very little to do with who was in office or what the taxation policy was.

It is known that lower taxation helps companies thrive and provide jobs.

I was referring to the quote above in that jobs were leaving the U.S. as Bush twice cut taxes. Tax cuts didn't stop companies from shipping jobs overseas because, as you point out, cheap overseas labor caused the restructuring of our labor market.

Yes, taxation helps companies, but tax cuts are no guarantee they will keep jobs here.


Wrong, waaaaaaay before that. Try again, there was a little thing called the Carter administration when the highest tax rates were oppressive, fuel shortages existed, wages were inflated out of control, the economy sucked, manufacturing was down, and jobs moved to China. Nixon and Ford didn't help things out, but liberal policies doubled down. Bush had NOTHING to do with job flight as it stands today.
Hiring went up during the tax cut period.

See above as to what I was referring to.
 
Last edited:
Seems like it was a fundamental restructuring of the labor market, than it was an issue with low taxation. When analyst jobs are leaving the states because the labor pool for them in India is so robust and they only charge 10 cents on the dollar, what are you going to do with an industry of companies looking to cut costs? Of course, the real price turns out to be 80 cents on the dollar, what with coordination costs. Still, this all had very little to do with who was in office or what the taxation policy was.

It is known that lower taxation helps companies thrive and provide jobs.
No it is not known and we have this thing called "paper" which we can use to write down things like, history. But you're right, it doesn't matter who is in office because corporatists actually run the government.
 
You seem to have down all the rightwing talking points about the Carter admin.

Unfortunately you don't have some of your "facts" straight.
Wrong, waaaaaaay before that. Try again, there was a little thing called the Carter administration when the highest tax rates were oppressive,
Are you sure about that? What were the income and business tax rates at the end of Nixon/Ford admin and what were they at the end of Carter admin?
fuel shortages existed,
Please explain how Carter was responsible for the '73 and '79 oil shortages.

wages were inflated out of control,
Please explain when and how they suddenly became out of control during the Carter admin.

the economy sucked,
Please describe how Carter caused it to suck and when it started to suck.

manufacturing was down,
Please explain how the Carter admin reduced manufacturing and compare the level in 1975 and 1980

and jobs moved to China.
What jobs moved to China between 01/20/1977 and 01/20/1981

Nixon and Ford didn't help things out, but liberal policies doubled down.
What policies would that be?

Bush had NOTHING to do with job flight as it stands today.
From the beginning, this administration has had strong free-trade and pro-outsourcing stances, citing its ability to increase efficiency and productivity. Bush's policy believes that outsourcing is a positive transaction that will enrich the US economy in the long-run, even if it causes short-run pain and dislocation for those whose jobs are outsourced. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Counicl of Economic Advisors expressed this point of view saying, "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade."
Policy / Economics of Outsourcing
Hiring went up during the tax cut period.
What tax cut period did hiring go up?
 
Excuse me but jobs left they U.S. in droves over the course of 8 years of the Bush administration.

The question remains, how does lowering taxes any further help when it certainly didn't keep jobs in the U.S.?

Jobs were leaving the US long before the Bush years. That aside, I thought you might be interested in reading this (just for informational purposes):

"Shipping Jobs Overseas" or Reaching New Customers? Why Congress Should Not Tax Reinvested ... | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Free Trade Bulletin

To demonize U.S. multinationals operating production facilities abroad is to indict virtually every major American company. At latest count more than 2,500 U.S. corporations own and operate a total of 23,853 affiliates in other countries. In 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, majority-owned foreign affiliates of U.S. companies posted $4.1 trillion in sales, created just under $1 trillion in value added, employed 9.5 million foreign workers, and earned $644 billion in net income for their U.S.-based parent companies.2
The primary reason why U.S. companies invest in affiliates abroad is to sell more products to foreign customers. Certain services can only be delivered on the spot, where the provider must have a physical presence in the same location as its customers. Operating affiliates abroad allows U.S. companies to maintain control over their brand name and intellectual property such as trademarks, patents, and engineering expertise. U.S. companies also establish foreign affiliates because of certain advantages in the host country- lower-cost labor, ready access to raw materials and other inputs, reduced transportation costs and proximity to their ultimate customers. Yes, the motivations can include access to "cheap labor," but labor costs are not the principal motivation for most U.S. direct investment abroad.
Politicians focus most of their attention on comparing exports and imports, but the most common way American companies sell their goods and services in the global market today is through overseas affiliates. In 2006, U.S. multinational companies sold $3,301 billion in goods through their majority-owned affiliates abroad and $677 billion in services. For every $1 billion in goods that U.S. multinational companies exported from the United States in 2006, those same companies sold $6.2 billion through their overseas operations. For every $1 billion in service exports, U.S.- owned affiliates abroad sold $1.6 billion.3
Contrary to popular myth, U.S. multinational companies do not use their foreign operations as an "export platform" back to the United States. Close to 90 percent of the goods and services produced by U.S.-owned affiliates abroad are sold to customers either in the host country or exported to consumers in third countries outside the United States. Even in Mexico and China, where low-wage workers are supposedly too poor to buy American products, more than half of the products of new and existing U.S. affiliates are sold in their domestic markets, whereas customers in the United States account for only 17 percent of sales.4
If President Obama and other leaders in Washington want to encourage more investment in the United States, they should lower the U.S. corporate tax rate, not seek to extend the high U.S. rate to the overseas activities of U.S. companies. Extending high U.S. tax rates to U.S.-owned affiliates abroad would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage as they try to compete to sell their goods and services abroad. Their French and German competitors in third-country markets would continue to pay the lower corporate tax rates applied by the host country, while U.S. companies would be burdened with paying the higher U.S. rate. The result of repealing tax breaks on foreign earnings would be less investment in foreign markets, lost sales, lower profits, and fewer employment and export opportunities for parent companies back on American soil.
Politicians who disparage investment in foreign operations are wedded to an outdated and misguided economic model that glorifies domestic production for export above all other ways for Americans to engage in the global economy. They would deny Americans access to hundreds of millions of foreign customers and access to lower-cost inputs through global supply chains. In short, they would cripple American companies and their American workers as they try to compete in global markets.
 
My opinion is that the conservative talking point is the right decision. The liberal one of tax and spend is not the answer.

Tax and spend makes sense, if you only spend what is collected in taxes.
The GOP likes to BORROW AND SPEND, making our grandchildren pay later for what we enjoy today....
 
thrive? maybe, but only tempory...

provide jobs? again, temporary...

Put it this way: it helps companies recover faster from a downturn.
 
Put it this way: it helps companies recover faster from a downturn.

But how about avoiding these downturns? Seems to me that we had a good economy during times of much higher tax rates...
 
Jobs were leaving the US long before the Bush years. That aside, I thought you might be interested in reading this (just for informational purposes):

"Shipping Jobs Overseas" or Reaching New Customers? Why Congress Should Not Tax Reinvested ... | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Free Trade Bulletin
So you were just born on 01/20/2009? In that case you probably missed the history of this country's tax rate. You see, companies, citizens and the economy did just fine before outsourcing and -40% corporate tax rates. That history also shows what has happened to the country since 1981. Maybe you should read some of that history... from both sides.
 
You seem to have down all the rightwing talking points about the Carter admin.

Unfortunately you don't have some of your "facts" straight.

Are you sure about that? What were the income and business tax rates at the end of Nixon/Ford admin and what were they at the end of Carter admin?

Please explain how Carter was responsible for the '73 and '79 oil shortages.


Please explain when and how they suddenly became out of control during the Carter admin.


Please describe how Carter caused it to suck and when it started to suck.


Please explain how the Carter admin reduced manufacturing and compare the level in 1975 and 1980


What jobs moved to China between 01/20/1977 and 01/20/1981


What policies would that be?


From the beginning, this administration has had strong free-trade and pro-outsourcing stances, citing its ability to increase efficiency and productivity. Bush's policy believes that outsourcing is a positive transaction that will enrich the US economy in the long-run, even if it causes short-run pain and dislocation for those whose jobs are outsourced. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Counicl of Economic Advisors expressed this point of view saying, "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade."
Policy / Economics of Outsourcing

What tax cut period did hiring go up?


Why would anyone waste their time trying to explain anything to you as you would ignore it? Facts don't matter to those who are economically challenged and are looking for someone else to blame for their own personal problems.

Regardless of what you think, you really aren't smarter than anyone else so if you can be successful so can millions of others without govt. help.

In spite of what you feel you cannot reform the financial institutions without reform for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just like you cannot hold private business responsible for the same things bureaucrats are doing with taxpayer dollars. We have a 13 trillion dollar debt and rising so those bureaucrats need to get the people's house in order before raking CEO's of private business over the coals.

Every post of yours ignores the real problem which indicates to me you have an agenda. Tell us what that agenda is as it certainly isn't to benefit the average American.
 
But how about avoiding these downturns? Seems to me that we had a good economy during times of much higher tax rates...

Not with the same growth rates.
 
Not with the same growth rates.

Do we need high growth rates? Isn't that part of the problem?
Surely a steady, even if slow, growth rate is preferred to wild oscillations?
 
That's about the extent of Democrat financial and economic knowledge. I am fully convinced these elected Democrat officials are under equipped for higher level thinking, or basic thinking for that matter.

Which only means they have a lot in common with GOP elected officials.
 
Do we need high growth rates? Isn't that part of the problem?
Surely a steady, even if slow, growth rate is preferred to wild oscillations?

Depends on the kind of company you are and what you growth target is. If you are a dividend based company like IBM, slow and steady is your friend. If you are a start-up shooting for acquiring significant market share, you will be want 400% growth. High taxes limit growth, hiring, expansion, development. With high taxes you'll look like a lackluster European firm, who can't grow without government assistance.
 
Which only means they have a lot in common with GOP elected officials.

Ain't that the truth. Both party officials seem to be as incompetent and as stupid as each other. Want my advice America?

Scrap the two party system. Not for our sake, but for yours.
 
Ain't that the truth. Both party officials seem to be as incompetent and as stupid as each other. Want my advice America?

Scrap the two party system. Not for our sake, but for yours.

I hear you, my Northern brother. It's always funny to hear the partisans say how bad the other side is when their side is no better.
 
Depends on the kind of company you are and what you growth target is. If you are a dividend based company like IBM, slow and steady is your friend. If you are a start-up shooting for acquiring significant market share, you will be want 400% growth. High taxes limit growth, hiring, expansion, development. With high taxes you'll look like a lackluster European firm, who can't grow without government assistance.

In addition when you have a 13 trillion dollar debt you have to pay debt service and that comes from economic growth.
 
In addition when you have a 13 trillion dollar debt you have to pay debt service and that comes from economic growth.

Well, yes, except that according to the US Treasury it is a $54.7 trillion debt.
 
Back
Top Bottom