When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to provide it domestically.Gee, thanks.
Kerry will stop awarding government contracts to companies who send jobs overseas and give tax credits to companies that remain loyal to their employees. John Kerry's not the perfect candidate, but he's got a plan to fight for good jobs.
The UC numbers are full of interesting tidbits about where Ohioans stand. Among women, Kerry leads Bush 50 to 49. Among African-Americans, Kerry leads Bush 92 to 3! Among 18-29-year-old, Kerry leads Bush 64 to 29. Among voters in urban counties, Kerry leads Bush 51 to 44. Talk about polarized. These are the "two Americas" that Edwards has been speaking about for months.
3 comments:
Poll numbers look good to me! And for being so much against corporate welfare, you're luvin' that tax credit to buisnesses keeping jobs here that they would probably keep here anyway. (I haven't read up on this 'tax loophole' I see sited everywhere around the Internet. I figure, like many of Kerry's arguments, it's at best, rather bogus).
When you suggest the jobs would "probably" stay here anyway, I admire your optimism! Since Bush took office, Ohio alone has lost over 300,000 jobs, over half of which are in the manufacturing sector. Giving companies tax breaks to stay in the U.S. is an investment in the sense that a wide cross section of Americans benefit. Workers benefit materially by keeping jobs; tax payers benefit materially by not having to support out-of-work manufacturers; we all reep the social benefits of a more sustainable economy. So I wouldn't classify that level of investment as "corporate welfare." Giving CEOs tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, on the other hand, does NOT benefit a wide cross section of Americans--only the CEO. Hence the term "corporate welfare."
I don't know much about the tax code. I have no doubt that pundits will continue to fight over whether the tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs are technically "loopholes" or not. That's a debate that diverts attention away from the fundamental fact that Bush's economic plan advocates giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. Bush has said over and over again that outsourcing makes the most sense. I think Kerry is making a mistake using the word "loophole," because then whether or not it's a loophole becomes the story.
What is interesting is that both sides are advocating particular kinds of government intervention. The dems want tax breaks for companies that stay in the U.S. The GOP wants tax breaks for companies that leave the U.S. Yet the Bush folks paint the other side as the "big government" side. In reality, I don't think it's "big govt" vs. "small govt." In reality, I think the left wants government to be "big" when the intervention/regulation/etc. benefits an array of social classes, while the right wants government to be "big" when the intervention/regulation/etc. benefits a single social class.
Signing a check over to a business for doing ‘something’ is corporate welfare; but for some reason, giving them a tax break for the same ‘something’ is not? Does only your personal perception of the purpose that the money serves what separates corporate welfare from corporate 'investment'?
As you probably know, a load of steel worker jobs were lost in the Cleveland area. While many 'mini-mills' succeed, these behemoths were failing. One of the principle reasons is that over the years, the unions extorted ever larger payment (and retirement) packages and the inept management went along with it. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the workers, if I go to my boss and demand a %500 pay raise, it's the company's responsibility to know better. But when my pay level causes the company to go broke, I shouldn't be all that surprised). So what you're saying is: "Let's tax these small companies in mainly southern states that know what they're doing, and use that money to subsidize ineptly run companies in the Cleveland area".
Post a Comment