• 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!

Should Businesses Be Able To Outsource if They Receive Government Help?

Should Businesses be able to outsource after receiving government handouts?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • No

    Votes: 8 47.1%

  • Maybe, depends on the circumstances

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
DontDoIt

DontDoIt

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
391
Reaction score
72
Location
Illinois, Land of Liberals
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is just a thought off the top of my head, and I haven't actually looked into the matter at all, but I'm just assuming that plenty of businesses who are outsourcing and doing jobs overseas have had some sort of government subsidy, bailout, etc. With this being said do you think they should still be able to outsource and relocate to different countries? To my knowledge there is no law on this matter, or much of anything at that, but I've been wrong before :D

Thoughts?
 
They may not be as competitively viable if they werent allowed to do so.
 
It would of course depend on the nature of the handout, what restrictions apply and whether or not they violate WTO or other rules.

Generally subsidies are provided in the form of either cheap land or reduced taxes in the US. One way the Southeast US got some Japanese, Korean and German car makers to build plants there. If the handout is a direct cash payment restrictions can be applied on where that money is spent of course.
 
Should business be able to outsource after getting bailout by the american taxpayer....NO NO NO NO NO
 
Government perks to business should be quid pro quo. Giving a sweetheart loan or a land sale should require a contract requiring the company to maintain a minimum number of jobs within the area for a certain number of years or some other public service. If the deal actually will benefit the taxpayer, everyone shouldn't have a problem agreeing to that in writing.
 
DontDoIt said:
This is just a thought off the top of my head, and I haven't actually looked into the matter at all, but I'm just assuming that plenty of businesses who are outsourcing and doing jobs overseas have had some sort of government subsidy, bailout, etc. With this being said do you think they should still be able to outsource and relocate to different countries? To my knowledge there is no law on this matter, or much of anything at that, but I've been wrong before :D

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I put "Depends on the Circumstances."

On one hand government contracts can help spur the domestic economy. On the other hand, some things may only be able to be done by foreign businesses.

Let me give you a local example. In South Florida, some of the local governments decided to give a certain percentage of their contracts to the smaller, local contractors rather than to larger contractors who could outbid them. They did this to help shore up the smaller local businesses to help the local economy.

I would be fine with something like that - as in a certain percentage of each contract must provide jobs for American employees.

Also, I have always supported a human rights tax on imported goods from nations whose governments perform human rights abuses. Perhaps we could make it a law that corporations with businesses in nations who perform human rights abuses are not allowed to have any part of a government contract. That would be a good thing to do too.
 
DontDoIt said:
This is just a thought off the top of my head, and I haven't actually looked into the matter at all, but I'm just assuming that plenty of businesses who are outsourcing and doing jobs overseas have had some sort of government subsidy, bailout, etc. With this being said do you think they should still be able to outsource and relocate to different countries? To my knowledge there is no law on this matter, or much of anything at that, but I've been wrong before :D

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Giving money to a business that outsources is no different than giving money to a foreign owned business.The government has no business giving any business money period but if they are going to give money to businesses it should be actual American businesses not American in name only. So the answer is no they should not be allowed to outsource if they receive money from tax payers.
 
DontDoIt said:
This is just a thought off the top of my head, and I haven't actually looked into the matter at all, but I'm just assuming that plenty of businesses who are outsourcing and doing jobs overseas have had some sort of government subsidy, bailout, etc. With this being said do you think they should still be able to outsource and relocate to different countries? To my knowledge there is no law on this matter, or much of anything at that, but I've been wrong before :D

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I voted Yes. Any company should be allowed to build a plant or open any facility anywhere in the world. If the government decided to give that company some money, that is the government's fault and not the businesses.
 
Depends on what kind of "government help" we're talking about. If the US government is hiring them to handle personal/sensitive/classified information, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that all people working those jobs be American citizens/residents. For most other situations, I'd say leave the business alone and don't try to micromanage their hiring practices too much.
 
David D. said:
I like Les' approach. I don't think it's fair to tell businesses they can't do something after the fact, ie here's some money and then (3 years later) 'oh, by the way you can't outsource now'. Those type of ground rules need to be laid from the get-go.

That being said, I don't believe the government should be giving dollars to businesses who frequently outsource, who are setting themselves up to outsource, ect. But that decision lies in the hands of the government, whom we elect.
Click to expand...

I think you are close to liking my approach, but not sure we are there. Please let me clarify. I believe in freedom. Any U.S. company should be able to build a facility overseas and the government should not have any say about the issue; unless, it is due to a critical national security issue. I further believe that no company should receive any type of financial payment from the government. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers or rewarding bad behavior.

Are we still in agreement?
 
Revising my response, I think I interpreted the post incorrectly (but I won't take away the 'like' from LESGOVT because that'd be mean).

I say 'maybe' because I think the gov't is well within it's reach to provide ground rules preventing outsourcing for a limited time frame when handing out $'s to companies. After all, the government is in it to protect our (the American people's) best interests while the corporation is always looking out for its own interests and profits.
 
samsmart said:
I put "Depends on the Circumstances."

On one hand government contracts can help spur the domestic economy. On the other hand, some things may only be able to be done by foreign businesses.

Let me give you a local example. In South Florida, some of the local governments decided to give a certain percentage of their contracts to the smaller, local contractors rather than to larger contractors who could outbid them. They did this to help shore up the smaller local businesses to help the local economy.

I would be fine with something like that - as in a certain percentage of each contract must provide jobs for American employees.

Also, I have always supported a human rights tax on imported goods from nations whose governments perform human rights abuses. Perhaps we could make it a law that corporations with businesses in nations who perform human rights abuses are not allowed to have any part of a government contract. That would be a good thing to do too.
Click to expand...
i like the concept, but fear it would result in unintended consequences if implemented

this would give license to foreign nations to impose their own HR tax on USA goods and services. they need only observe the portion of our population in prison to make such valid assertion
it would result in an additional barrier to American exports
with our present deficit of trade, that would not be a good thing
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
I think you are close to liking my approach, but not sure we are there. Please let me clarify. I believe in freedom. Any U.S. company should be able to build a facility overseas and the government should not have any say about the issue; unless, it is due to a critical national security issue. I further believe that no company should receive any type of financial payment from the government. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers or rewarding bad behavior.

Are we still in agreement?
Click to expand...

Les, while you were typing this I deleted my post after realizing I totally misinterpreted the OP (not sure how I did that because it's pretty straightforward, but anyways...).

To respond to your post, I am generally not in favor of the government handing out $'s to companies,

but when they do,

I'd like to make sure that the investors (the taxpayers) are going to get something out of it. This is where maybe a provision prohibiting a certain level of outsourcing for a defined time-frame would be acceptable. If the company doesn't want to play by those rules, then they don't have to accept the money.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
i like the concept, but fear it would result in unintended consequences if implemented

this would give license to foreign nations to impose their own HR tax on USA goods and services. they need only observe the portion of our population in prison to make such valid assertion
it would result in an additional barrier to American exports
with our present deficit of trade, that would not be a good thing
Click to expand...

If a human rights tax were implemented on the United States and pushed for prison reform, I don't see how that would be a bad thing.
 
samsmart said:
If a human rights tax were implemented on the United States and pushed for prison reform, I don't see how that would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

it would be bad to the extent that American products would be less price competitive with the added tax imposed

but if doing so caused our nation to examine our incarceration rates and (in)justice system such that positive change resulted, then yes, that would absolutely be a wonderful thing
 
If we were in China's or India's or Russia's current financial condition, it probably would not be a bad thing to do, but we no longer have commanding resources, competitive labor, nor leaders with brains.. Under the current circumstances it would be economically ignorant to outsource anything. Yet, there is no jobs agenda. The gov't thinks that saving those worthless banks will cause some trickle down. That's funny. They'll give money to Corporations instead of encouraging micro development at local levels. Almost everything that is good for local economies costs the Gov'ts tax bases. We're trapped in ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a logical question until you think about what out sourcing is and how it’s done. If say a rescued computer business buys a power supply for an American company that has the power supply built in Mexico had the business outsourced? If the company buys a power supply made in the US but the fan in the power supply is from American manufacturer that assembles the fan just on the other side of the fence in Mexico have they outsourced? BTW, you can see the assembly building in Mexico from the parking lot of the US engineering building for the fan we were using.
Now, how can you build anything without having something in it outsourced to a foreign company?
 
I'm for giving a preferential tax rate to businesses that hire a significant percentage of their workforce domestically.

I'm also for significant tariffs on goods made in non-OSHA / polluting overseas factories. Time to level the playing field, IMHO.
 
I know, given current issues, that "jobs" is a big talking point - rightly so. But, if a government is going to "invest" in a business, then they need to get a return for their investment. I don't know that "jobs" is the only way that the return can be measured. Research & Development, for example, could pay off in a lot more jobs in the long run potentially much more than immediate jobs. I'm sure there are other cases - maybe selling American products in other countries bringing dollars back home could also be worth it.

I think massive government spending in business enterprise is a bad idea when there are other american companies who could compete in the same areas. (For that matter, I think government trying to do just about anything that private companies can do is a bad idea). But, government spending in certain areas (social value with low financial return) with companies having an equal chance for the opportunity can be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom