Eric Cantor: Compromise? What's that?

[bascule]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/07/eric-cantor-compromise-tax-cuts-obama_n_780029.html

 

Yes I'm linking a Huffpost article. Please evaluate it based on substance. If you make an ad hominem argument against the Huffpost, please realize your argument is predicated on a logical fallacy. Thanks.

 

So yes, this is one Republican, and equating his opinion to the party as a whole would be a composition fallacy, but based on my anecdotal experience with Republicans (yes, I'm admitting I'm using a logical fallacy here) it's pretty telling. This Republican doesn't want to compromise, and is making a general statement about his party that the rest of them don't want to compromise either. If Mohammed won't come to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed, or rather, if the Republicans aren't willing to compromise with the Democrats (which is basically what he's stating), the Democrats MUST compromise with the Republicans to get anything done, and by compromise, I mean the Democrats MUST bend to Republican will, or the Republicans aren't going to go along with anything.

 

This has pretty much been the case for the past 4 years. The Republicans are simply unwilling to compromise. The Democrats really want to compromise, because unlike the Republicans they aren't totally irrational and stupid. And yes, I'm calling the Republicans out for that. The Republicans are uncompromising crybabies who got creamed in the last election, and the only reason they're being elected now is because there are a bunch of ill-informed, irrational voters who simply want to vote out the party in power so long as things aren't going their way. There is honestly no reason for anyone who voted Democrat in the past to switch gears and vote Republican now except if you feel that constantly shifting gears between two parties is a good policy, which is in no way rational.

 

Anyway, this speaks volumes to me, and conforms my previous assumptions. Even when Democrats do things that the Republicans should by their purported platforms agree with, they oppose it, until they can shit all over it and make it theirs and thus claim victory. The Republicans do not want what's best for America. The Republicans want what's best for Republicans, even if it's something they philosophically should agree with.

 

Republicans are harmful to America. They can't compromise. They won't even vote for things they agree with. To bring up a recent event from the past which was totally overshadowed by a bunch of Republican grandstanding, Republicans voted against benefits for 9/11 first responders, because they disagreed with the way the Democrats created a bill. That would've been a great place for Republicans to compromise and give 9/11 first responders the benefits they reserve. Instead, they made a big hubbub about the bill in an attempt to mitigate the fact that Republicans were voting against the best interests of 9/11 first responders. That's DEPLORABLE.

 

I don't know what else to conclude from this except that Republicans are so unwilling to compromise that they'd purposefully deny 9/11 first responders benefits. I'm not sure what term is exactly fitting for this, but I think "assholes" is a fairly fitting description

 

But please, let's see the conservatives of the forum jump to the Republicans' defense like they always do. Perhaps it's a problem with conservatives in general that they're unwilling to compromise with liberals. The very fact I have to include so much pre-emptive defense of my thoughts and hand-holding through basic logical fallacies should serve as an indicator of the general treatment liberals receive from conservatives. We can't be evaluated on merit, because conservatives have so many canned responses to anything we say that the nuances are completely lost.

Edited November 8, 2010 by bascule

[jackson33]

bascule;On the "Bush Tax Cuts", what is there to compromise, if one side wants to make them permanent as is now and the other side in any way wants targeted increases in taxes. Seems kind of cut and dry to me, however Cantor also refused to use the word permanent. Cantor's quote, your link but said on Fox News...

 

Chris, I am not for sending any signal to small businesses in this country that they're going to have their tax rates go up. I think it's indicative of -- the election result reflected the fact that people get Washington does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem -- [/Quote]

 

He further said, which makes the point;

 

WALLACE: But I'm trying to get a specific answer. Would you accept a temporary extension of all the tax cuts? Or you saying that all of it has to be permanent?

 

CANTOR: Chris, at this point, I really want to see that we can come together and agree upon the notion that Washington doesn't need more revenues right now. And to sit here and say we're just going to go about half way, or we're going to send a signal that it's going to be uncertain for job-creators and investors to put capital to work, that's exactly what we don't need right now.[/Quote]

 

Factually, as mentioned elsewhere this forum, even if they all agree and say the extensions are permanent, they can be raised by other means in the future. It really almost has to happen, with any pick up in the economy.

 

As for the "First Responders", Republicans tried to impose 'Paygo' and there was plenty of money floating around to cover the bill, TARP returns or unspent stimulus money or simply cutting something.

 

On those first responders, I'm a little confused; Didn't they have insurance to pay medical cost and since Unionized NYC Employees, aren't' they the responsibility of NYC. Why is Congress even involved? If disabled, I know their covered and with no time limit, what am I missing?

[bascule]

I think it's indicative of -- the election result reflected the fact that people get Washington does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem

 

 

deficit = spending - revenue

 

This guy is a Congressman?

 

Our country has a budget deficit problem. Spending and revenue both contribute. The national debt started going up again when Bush cut taxes and tax revenue fell. So yes' date=' our country does indeed have a revenue problem.

 

I really want to see that we can come together and agree upon the notion that Washington doesn't need more revenues right now. And to sit here and say we're just going to go about half way, or we're going to send a signal that it's going to be uncertain for job-creators and investors to put capital to work, that's exactly what we don't need right now.

 

He wants Democrats and Republicans to "come together and agree" on the Republican opinion that increasing taxes on the rich is bad. Great. And he won't accept a compromise like temporarily extending the tax cuts. Must be permanent!

 

Good lord...

Edited November 9, 2010 by bascule

[jackson33]

bascule, until 2007 with relation to the GDP the Nation had very little problem with deficits (60-65% of GDP) and in agreeing Government can play a role, spending during good times can play a positive role or to discourage inflation cutting back a bit.

 

Yes, TODAY the problems are both spending and revenues, but the question we've been arguing over for over years is how to increase economic activity (GDP), to get through the problem. The used method has been to use Government and it has simply not worked, GDP stagnant and then basically only Federal spending. Keynesian Economics, if you wish.

 

If you increase taxes at this point, your simply drawing from a flat economy, leading to more job loses, less investments and further declines. It's a toss up on how effective it will be, since Government must cut back (will not help the economy), however the private sector does have a great deal of $$$ to work with, the Government(s) has/have nothing and the idea is to give a green light/ confidence to business and the CONSUMER to participate. None of them have any idea what there taxes will be next year, now going into the Christmas buying season, where normally over half small business shows a profit.

 

I disagree with you blaming Bush, short of TARP and HIS "Prescription Drug Bill", even though TARP money has pretty much been repaid but those days are gone. The problems today are much greater, with ever greater problems coming in the form Health Care and Finance Reform, which both lead to that lack of confidence.

 

With out trying to prove this point, when your researching the 2000's keep in mind the increases in entitlements, welfare and military spending or mandatory spending which has been steadily increasing and WILL be getting much worse. IMO, neither Bush or Obama has taken this problem seriously.

[Pangloss]

He wants Democrats and Republicans to "come together and agree" on the Republican opinion that increasing taxes on the rich is bad. Great. And he won't accept a compromise like temporarily extending the tax cuts. Must be permanent!

 

You're making hay out of standard political starting positions. We don't know where they'll end up. The President hasn't offered a compromise on this issue, he's offered an extension. That's not middle ground, it's just putting off another fight. That's his starting position, Cantor's is "make them permanent".

 

This is a better image for politics in progress:

 

[bascule]

You're making hay out of standard political starting positions. We don't know where they'll end up. The President hasn't offered a compromise on this issue, he's offered an extension. That's not middle ground, it's just putting off another fight. That's his starting position, Cantor's is "make them permanent".

 

Good lord, you're defending this guy? And not even compromising with me that his position is, shall we say, just a little bit misinformed and completely uncompromising? Meanwhile you chastise the Democrats for a failure to compromise when they have tried to compromise.

 

I'm certainly feeling the purposelessness of posting here again, both here in the politics forum and in the climate science forum.

Edited November 9, 2010 by bascule

[padren]

You're making hay out of standard political starting positions. We don't know where they'll end up. The President hasn't offered a compromise on this issue, he's offered an extension. That's not middle ground, it's just putting off another fight. That's his starting position, Cantor's is "make them permanent".

I thought we were going to finally let them all expire and stop pretending we can always more borrow money to pay our utilities - and since it requires new actions to stop them from expiring, I'd say if Obama really was far to the left then that would have been his natural starting position. However, appearing to be more of a pragmatist he's actually (that crazy lefty) proposed that at this time an extension would be in our best economic interests. A compromise IMHO, would be if the Republicans want them to be permanent, they should find a way to fund them that doesn't involve saddling the next generation with yet even more debt. I'm sure the initial proposed spending cuts would appear outright offensive to Democrats, but that would be a great place to compromise across the board and trim everyone's belt.

 

 

 

And while I appreciate the old sausage analogy, citizens are supposed to oversee this factory, and are supposed to bring it up when something on the line just simply stinks.

 

Ninety percent of the discussions here are just that - critiques of a sausage factory. It doesn't change to "Stop whine'n that's just how they are made" when Republicans manage to eek out a majority in one of the three branches.

[bascule]

Thank you Padren. You do get it. The Republicans are simultaneously complaining about the deficit AND opposing Democratic legislation that would lower the deficit AND flat out refusing any compromise on the matter. I could've jumped straight to the Republican stereotype that they're shilling for the rich and oppose Obama's plan to make the Bush tax cuts permanent only for the lower and middle classes simply because they want to keep taxes extremely low for the rich as compared to the past half century. But I didn't do that. Instead I merely attacked Republicans because they are refusing to compromise.

 

And Pangloss totally ignores all of the ridiculous things that are coming out of this guy's mouth and jumps on me for "making hay"...

[Pangloss]

Good lord, you're defending this guy?

That is not what I said.

 

I'm certainly feeling the purposelessness of posting here again, both here in the politics forum and in the climate science forum.

That is neither my fault nor my problem.

 

And Pangloss totally ignores all of the ridiculous things that are coming out of this guy's mouth and jumps on me for "making hay"...

That is not what I did. I am allowed to challenge your opinion on Eric Cantor's statement (in fact you invited me to do so), just as you are allowed to challenge my opinion that Democrats have "failed to compromise".

 

But don't worry. I'm not going to threaten to leave if you don't agree with me.

[bascule]

I think it's about time I moved on permanently...

[Pangloss]

Like I said before, I hope you don't. But I'm getting tired of this passive-aggressive thing. You won't tell me what your problem is, you won't tell anyone else what your problem is, and you keep emo-dumping on the Politics forum.

 

Please stop.

[Mr Skeptic]

deficit = spending - revenue

 

This guy is a Congressman?

 

Our country has a budget deficit problem. Spending and revenue both contribute. The national debt started going up again when Bush cut taxes and tax revenue fell. So yes, our country does indeed have a revenue problem.

 

I'd have to agree that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Consider for example how often people who win the lottery go bankrupt soon afterwards. Why? They spend more than they get, no matter how much they get, and in particular can't hold on to a pile of money without spending it. It seems to me our government is just like that, if there's a big pool of money set aside for some distant purpose, they will loot it for something now.

 

---

 

And why should the Republicans compromise if the Democrats will bend over backward for them?

[The Bear's Key]

I'd have to agree that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Outsourcing + tax breaks on richest + factories closed and reopened overseas + enormous loopholes + free trade agreements = huge losses of government funds. I agree with bascule.

 

 

Consider for example how often people who win the lottery go bankrupt soon afterwards. Why? They spend more than they get, no matter how much they get, and in particular can't hold on to a pile of money without spending it. It seems to me our government is just like that, if there's a big pool of money set aside for some distant purpose, they will loot it for something now.

Oversimplified.

 

Many lottery winners are inexperienced with money, and so they likely never expected having to deal with managing their new life in such critical detail, and might've been too dependent on a false expectation of winning relief from life's everyday needs for problem-solving (now amplified by the new responsibilities of their mega-fortune).

 

http://lotteryguide.org/static_article.php

 

RULE 3:

Seek personal growth before financial growth. Remember, prosperity is a state of mind, not an amount of money, and there are no self-made wealthy pessimists.

.....

Unprepared winners make the mistake of crediting their jackpot for their future fortune before they win and then blaming their jackpot for their eventual misfortune after they win. They fail to realize soon enough that money is merely a tool of wealth, not wealth itself. The lesson is that you have to take care of the money; the money will not take care of you. If you have problems before you win, these will be magnified and intensified after you win the lottery -- not solved by it.

Government needs smarter/wiser spenders, not clueless penny-pinchers.

 

Edited November 10, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[padren]

I'd have to agree that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Consider for example how often people who win the lottery go bankrupt soon afterwards. Why? They spend more than they get, no matter how much they get, and in particular can't hold on to a pile of money without spending it. It seems to me our government is just like that, if there's a big pool of money set aside for some distant purpose, they will loot it for something now.

The problem is we can't hold on to no money without spending more than it - and this tax cut is new spending of that exact nature. Can we afford to buy the American Taxpayer another bloody tax cut? I don't understand how tax cuts end up in a special column of spending that is somehow considered "not spending" when at this level of debt they are luxury items when they are unfunded cuts, and we still haven't paid off the national debt.

 

What frustrates me the most, is every time we have tax cuts proposed or tax cuts ready to finally expire, the entire financial community starts screaming about how the sky is going to fall and "uncertainty" is just too high, and the only way to fix this horrible (and frankly, self-created) state is to cut taxes to some new, finally reasonable level. Only no matter how many times we do that, whatever the new tax structure is it will always be "too high" and need to be lowered for growth to occur.

 

If Obama had cut taxes 50% across the board his first day in office, I honestly believe we'd still be hearing how that was "a good start" but how vitally important it is for us to enact whatever new tax cuts the Republicans felt were critical to Saving America and Restoring Economic Confidence in the market. There is no discussion, there is no debate, there is no baseline target of what exemplifies a healthy rational tax rate. There is only populist spending - in the form of tax cuts - to give tax payers (voters and campaign contributors) money borrowed from foreign governments on the promise that it will be paid by the next generation.

 

If we need to borrow money to keep our economy moving forward at a rate that can alleviate unemployment in a timely manner - sure, I can support that. I have supported that many times over, and that does extent to conservative strategies as well as liberal ones. But now they are taking about permanent tax cuts? I'm sorry but you cannot judge the size of government without looking at the responsibility to pay money the government has borrowed. Any increase in that debt increases the size of our government's responsibilities. Unfunded tax cuts increase debt, period. Simply "starving the beast" is as irresponsible as a policy of institutional anorexia - it is unhealthy, it leads to intentional underfunding solely to build the case that those funded programs are "ineffective" to justify their scraping later on. Both sides play that game, but we have to get beyond these stupid games if we are going to make any progress on the issue of spending.

 

 

 

And Mr Skeptic, I have to ask: If you believe "It seems to me our government is just like that, if there's a big pool of money set aside for some distant purpose, they will loot it for something now." how do you believe we can solve the current problem? Obviously then we can't balance the budget like we did under Clinton - it will just be looted some how. Also, how is borrowing money for new tax cuts any different than borrowing a pool of money that is not ours, to spend on a populist handout? Isn't this tax cut the exact definition of exactly what you say is wrong?

[Pangloss]

Government needs smarter/wiser spenders, not clueless penny-pinchers.

 

Or government needs smarter/wiser penny-pinchers, not clueless spenders. Honestly, I'd take either dynamic.

[jackson33]

I think it's about time I moved on permanently...[/Quote]

 

bascule, I suppose the proper procedure would be a PM, rather to go off topic, but this might be of interest to many that post without getting an expected result. A couple of your threads since returning have been...well hostel toward the loyal opposition. In doing so, it should been presumed by you that any answers would be negative, maybe those in agreement, simply giving a pos rep point and moving on (that has in fact happened). If you have made a good case, I'd say you have from your viewpoint, then as did the old bascule, you would defend your argument.

 

Like I said before, I hope you don't. But I'm getting tired of this passive-aggressive thing. You won't tell me what your problem is, you won't tell anyone else what your problem is, and you keep emo-dumping on the Politics forum.

 

Please stop. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; Preface, I think your doing as good a job as anyone could in moderating and discussing under POLITICS. However loyal liberals, everywhere I turn are having problems expressing themselves since the election. I see it whether it comes from NPR, posters in Political Forums to pundits, Liberal pundits especially on Fox and from a good many politicians. Polosi for instance almost seems to be living in another World.

 

 

Outsourcing + tax breaks on richest + factories closed and reopened overseas + enormous loopholes + free trade agreements = huge losses of government funds. I agree with bascule. [/Quote]

 

The Key; I'm not sure this was bascules point for the thread, but what would you suggest the US do, to prevent the things you mentioned.

 

"Outsourcing" is an economical solution, no different than you buying the most economical product or service. Where ever it comes from the normal person will buy the best product by relation to its price. Business is no different and to expect they should be is just wrong, there not going to stay in business if they can't compete on the World stage.

 

"Tax breaks on the richest"; First those breaks were initiated for the same reason, they should be now, even more so. We were in a sluggish period in 2001/03, when they were given and we're in even worse shape now. Second, local/State Taxes have not taken a holiday and in many cases more than absorbed any benefits provided anyone. Third; Most those rich are in fact employers or would be employers and be hurt. Forth; We do NOT yet have a retaining wall to keep people or business in the US. Every last one of the DOW listed Corporations do near half or more business overseas, have business relations in many countries and the only reason many stay here, is to be listed on the NYSE and in that DOW.

 

"free trade agreements = huge losses of government funds"; Well Government Funds are being hurt by a number of things, but free trade is NOT one, in fact Ford/GM/Chrysler/Most Electronic Companies (Apple/Microsoft) and dozens of other in doing that overseas business, are maintaining jobs and their bottom lines in some cases would be -0-. China is growing at about a 10% annual rate, India 7% and many South American Countries.

 

Oversimplified. [/Quote]

 

Not really, since those that do the spending are not seemingly concerned with the income. To even go over the US Annual Budget, which is getting common, would be synonymous with a Lottery Winner....Because you win a few million, really dosen't mean your going to be able to live like a millionaire very long....

[The Bear's Key]

Or government needs smarter/wiser penny-pinchers, not clueless spenders. Honestly, I'd take either dynamic.

Good point. Same thing really.

 

 

The Key; I'm not sure this was bascules point for the thread, but what would you suggest the US do, to prevent the things you mentioned.

 

"Outsourcing" is an economical solution, no different than you buying the most economical product or service.

It's one thing to let it occur naturally, it's another to encourage it by incentives from law. I remember practically the day the outsourcing exploded in the Bush years.

 

 

"Tax breaks on the richest";

See padren's reply, it covers that well.

 

 

"free trade agreements = huge losses of government funds"; Well Government Funds are being hurt by a number of things, but free trade is NOT one

Where's the tax revenue on the goods? And how shall U.S. businesses here compete with foreign ones that gain cheap prices by keeping detestable working conditions and utterly destroying the environment? (among other nasty practices)

Edited November 11, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[Mr Skeptic]

Padren, yes I agree that unfunded tax cuts are just another form of spending, if only a slight increase in spending (whatever extra it will take to pay off the debt). Obviously does not apply if the effect of the tax cut is to grow the economy enough that the extra interest payments are less than the growth (not that I think this actually happens). But the very reason we can so easily cut taxes is because it increases spending, and we just can't get enough of spending. As to a solution, I really don't see how our current system could solve that, not until people get fed up with our debt enough that they are willing to pay it. However in a different thread I suggested a possible solution, what do you think? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52620-possible-solution-to-overspending/page__p__571163__#entry571163

[jackson33]

At "The Keys" request;

 

The problem is we can't hold on to no money without spending more than it - and this tax cut is new spending of that exact nature. Can we afford to buy the American Taxpayer another bloody tax cut?[/Quote]

 

padren; As said, the Bush Tax cuts 2001/2003 were enacted during a sluggish period in the economy, the burst of the Tech Bubble, loss of trillions in the value of those Companies and/or their values. Hundreds went under and they all suffered extreme losses in their value. 9-11 did not exactly help the situation, all this moving along the chain to other areas of the economy. I would suggest, if Obama had come into office, played TARP as was intended and held to Bush's 2009 Budget proposal, extended the Bush Tax cuts, say five years, not gone a spending spree via Stimulus and held off arguable domestic policy, we would simply not be in this position today. However he didn't and we're back in the same situation, primarily because the Housing Problem and Financial System have not been allowed to correct themselves. Add the stimulus was and remains a source of money to bail out States and TERRITORIES, who for the most part have yet to attack their own internal problems. California, NY and Illinois, are all likely to require additional bailouts (not going to happen) or be forced to reorganize, causing all kinds of problems. Top all this pessimism off with inflation which is already in gear (commodity prices) and the Fed buying PART (600B$) of 2011 National Debt and your looking at increased inflation.

 

 

I don't understand how tax cuts end up in a special column of spending that is somehow considered "not spending" when at this level of debt they are luxury items when they are unfunded cuts, and we still haven't paid off the national debt. [/Quote]

 

It's NOT a tax cut for anybody, the rich or anyone else that may lose certain credits or pay taxes in the first place. An economy has two primary drivers, the CONSUMER and the private sector. If you raise taxes (sun setting Bush Tax Cuts) on either of these drivers, the general economy can only suffer. Consumers will have FAR less money to spend or if you increase taxation on the more wealthy the private sector will further stagnate.

 

Since any money spent above the projected incomes est. at about 2.5 to 2.9T$ for 2011 and 2012, will in fact be deficits and there is no current hope of lowering the GDP/Deficit Racial or keeping below 100% (my opinion*) with out massive cuts in spending. I'm not talking about the game playing you hearing with future cuts in 2014 or 2050, but in 2011 and 2012 spending.

 

*Regardless who buy's the debt (the Fed, Americans or some foreign entity) though foreign investments are the worst, it all counts has debt and interest will be paid. Some are estimating the interest alone by 2020 will be near or over 1T% and if you think about it, 5% of 20T$ (low current estimate by 2020) is 1T$ and mandatory spending (above any entitlements). That is all this nonsense about cutting 100M here or 100M there, which won't happen anyway (Health Care/Finance Reform) is pure speculation, disingenuous and political double talk.

 

Summery; And IMO, we can't afford to increase taxes on anybody, in any manner, in any State or by the Federal until the economy improves, which as in many Countries already has been. To do this, is not expecting the normal to be what it is today (as suggested) but allowing the private sector to perform, without government influence (taxation/regulation). I'd give this a 50% chance of meaningful recovery, only if ALL the US Governments, simultaneously get their financial houses in order.

 

 

It's one thing to let it occur naturally, it's another to encourage it by incentives from law. I remember practically the day the outsourcing exploded in the Bush years. [/Quote]

 

The Key; Outsourcing especially in Electronics (Taiwan), began long before Bush. In my working days, I remember in the early/mid nineties driving up the 401 Highway out of Windsor, Canada seeing American Factories one after another. I also remember in the 50's and 60's when the US was being bombarded with Japanese items and listening to all the complaints by American producers. I would agree China became a major factor during Bush's tenure, but since they have, coincidentally along with Japan, have become the source for our money today, keeping our product/services cost in line and US importers of some US products, was all this that bad. You might look at our Corporate Tax Structure, Local/State/Federal Regulations, Cost of Operation including labor for the cause of outsourcing. Fix some of these problems and watch major foreign investment IN THIS COUNTRY, which was very strong 1995-2006...

 

Where's the tax revenue on the goods? And how shall U.S. businesses here compete with foreign ones that gain cheap prices by keeping detestable working conditions and utterly destroying the environment? (among other nasty practices) [/Quote]

 

Have you ever wondered what those conditions were before American Business went into some of those Countries, no jobs and plenty of poverty? Anyway, as economies grow life becomes better for more and more their people.

 

All kinds of tax revenue is generated; There are probably as many involved in transporting, handling and distributing foreign imports, as produce them. They pay all kinds of local/State taxes and some pay Federal Taxes. People buy the products, paying sales tax (excise taxes on some) on and on. We might not even have a trade deficit, if it weren't for oil and other commodities, which for some reason we're not using our own. Cap and Trade, via legislation or the EPA, would likely cause even more trade deficits, as American Refineries, smelters etc, to simply move elsewhere. Your talking isolationism and tariffs and even Unions have given up on this, preferring to go International.

[The Bear's Key]

You might look at our Corporate Tax Structure, Local/State/Federal Regulations, Cost of Operation including labor for the cause of outsourcing.

The goal of certain political strategists is for exactly that outcome, where our nation's forced to lower its standards in response to policies in foreign areas where global businesses exploit.

 

 

Have you ever wondered what those conditions were before American Business went into some of those Countries, no jobs and plenty of poverty?

Yes, which is my concern.

 

Just think of everything a greedy minority of businesses in the U.S. tries to get away with in our lands, and nearly does. And that's with our Constitution standing in their way.

 

I can only imagine those businesses' global romp exploiting a vast frontier of lands without such a Constitution to hinder them, draining resources and impoverishing people, making deals with tyrant leaders of such lands, and then finally exploiting the debilitated people from those areas in order to gain cheap prices which trap the western nations (via the illusion of unconditional free trade) into lowering barriers to the greedies for similar exploitation of them.

 

Let's make something clear, it's not isolationism we're trying to achieve, but simply not to do unconditional free trade. I have much less of a problem in the U.S. doing free trade with nations similar to our code of ethics and work standards.

 

Conditional free trade is a strategy of protecting ourselves from the kinds of abuses the greedies would do to our system if they had the chance.

Edited November 11, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[jackson33]

The goal of certain political strategists is for exactly that outcome, where our nation's forced to lower its standards in response to policies in foreign areas where global businesses exploit. [/Quote]

 

The Key; I'm not sure which way your heading here, but if you saying the US doesn't need foreign investments in the US, IMO you would be wrong. From google, to the many Auto Manufacturers on down to small business owned and operated by unknown numbers of foreigners, we have benefited from there participation.

 

Yes, which is my concern. Just think of everything a greedy minority of businesses in the U.S. tries to get away with in our lands, and nearly does. And that's with our Constitution standing in their way. [/Quote]

 

No doubt in the past some business ventures have left a mess behind in the US. I've spent a deal of time in Southern Arizona and seen several open pit Copper mines left with little other value than tourist attractions, Bisbee, Green Valley, Stafford just a few. I've also seen some really highly grade (copper content 60/80%) potential operation in the Mountains East of Phoenix that never got off the ground 30-40 years ago, because of COST. Some spent millions just trying to get exploration permits, that would have hired thousands but simply left the Country. It's much cheaper to mine in South America or other places with far less a copper percentages, than to mess with the US. The same holds true for Natural Gas, Crude oil production or many other commodities, even when there NOT on Federal Property.

 

I can only imagine those businesses' global romp exploiting a vast frontier of lands without such a Constitution to hinder them, draining resources and impoverishing people, making deals with tyrant leaders of such lands, and then finally exploiting the debilitated people from those areas in order to gain cheap prices which trap the western nations (via the illusion of unconditional free trade) into lowering barriers to the greedies for similar exploitation of them.[/Quote]

 

Wow! think that's the longest sentence I've seen in awhile, but it does show passion, even if I disagree with the message. First where in the Constitution does it say or allow the Federal to say what can be done with privately owned land? or in fact for Government to own land? I understand and agree with zoning laws or where business operation can operate, but these are local/State laws and their prerogative. What you basically talking about are Federal Regulation, intended for Federal Lands and/or some environmentally induced regulation, expanded by activist judges.

 

Let's make something clear, it's not isolationism we're trying to achieve, but simply not to do unconditional free trade. I have much less of a problem in the U.S. doing free trade with nations similar to our code of ethics and work standards. [/Quote]

 

The trouble with that, is isolationism or tariffs is/are required to attain that goal, pick and choose whom you will trade with. If a business needs foreign material (commodities) or products to sell, your asking the Federal Government to pick the winners and losers. In a world with an average pay scale far less than half ours, how else could this be accomplished?

 

Conditional free trade is a strategy of protecting ourselves from the kinds of abuses the greedies would do to our system if they had the chance. [/Quote]

 

Free Trade are agreement between Governments. As the US President is finding out "ONE WAY" agreements are not going to happen. Both parties are going to have to see a benefit for their people or simply play dictator with regulation and tariffs. I would suggest one "greedies" would be the OPEC Nations, whom couldn't care less where their oil goes and the US is literally subsidizing them with continued US restrictions against using our own. Does that really make sense?

[The Bear's Key]

The Key; I'm not sure which way your heading here, but if you saying the US doesn't need foreign investments in the US, IMO you would be wrong.

No, my point is that the U.S. shouldn't be trapped into letting Company X derail our standards of living.

 

Foreign investments are great, but the U.S. needs to grant its "free" trade privileges with strings attached for cases where "investors" try to undermine our system.

 

 

No doubt in the past some business ventures have left a mess behind in the US.

And in the present. And in the future, they'll continue to.

 

Something to ask yourself: ever see an ordinary, worker citizen be able to dump mass loads of poison into the environment or contaminate a river's fish with mercury -- escape repercussion by law?

 

Who's more free?

 

Can you state a reason why the law should apply more to worker citizens than to businesses owners with more economic power?

 

 

Wow! think that's the longest sentence I've seen in awhile, but it First where in the Constitution does it say or allow the Federal to say what can be done with privately owned land?

You've completely misunderstood. I had replied to this...

 

Have you ever wondered what those conditions were before American Business went into some of those Countries, no jobs and plenty of poverty?

 

So, again, what if a nation, lacking a Constitution, were harmed by global businesses depleting its resources, and its workers labored in deplorable conditions for meager pay so the greedy business owners -- unethically gaining products cheap -- then undercut the businesses from all Constitutional nations who do free trade unconditionally?

 

Keep in mind that lots of businesses here in the U.S. don't exist in a vaccuum, they have variuos operations around the world, seeking to exploit the unsuspecting. They'd be as ruthless and destructive here as they are in undeveloped nations, except our Constitution stalls them.

 

So when they up-and-leave the U.S. for other nations entirely, it's because 1) our free trade makes it possible for them to relocate without losing profits -- effectively the same as being in the U.S. except with cheap labor -- and 2) those other nations don't have a Constitution protecting its workers against the greedy business practices.

 

Think, jackson33....reverse the scenario: what if nations everywhere allowed workers the same opportunity to escape undesirable work by freely traveling between nations, the same way businesses (via Free Trade) can escape undesirable protections for workers/citizens by moving freely between nations.

 

Let's call it...a Free Travel Agreement.

 

If you give it an honest thinking, you might realize why border control's so important to those businesses who pay crap and treat workers likewise.

 

Everything's a strategy for maximized profits when $$ in law's involved.

Edited November 12, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[jackson33]

No, my point is that the U.S. shouldn't be trapped into letting Company X derail our standards of living.

 

Foreign investments are great, but the U.S. needs to grant its "free" trade privileges with strings attached for cases where "investors" try to undermine our system. [/Quote]

 

The Key; Then your saying foreign investments/investors should be held to a different standard, which factually they are held to the SAME standards any business operates under. How could they derail our "standards of living"? I hope you understand, each State also regulates foreign Companies operating in their State and frankly the different standards people live under by State are extreme in many cases.

 

As for undermining our system, it has more to do with Government changing the playing field and ALL business trying to correct some of those changes. Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot has said and I agree, he could never have built this 300,000 employee building supply operation, under today's regulations.

 

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it’s a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers… [/Quote]

 

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/home-depot-co-founder-lectures-obama-on-economics/

 

 

Can you state a reason why the law should apply more to worker citizens than to businesses owners with more economic power? [/Quote]

 

Most those business owners, have probably been "worker citizens" in their life, regardless they are people and ALL people are subject to law. In fact those owners can and often are, held liable for errors the workers make.

 

So, again, what if a nation, lacking a Constitution, were harmed by global businesses depleting its resources, and its workers labored in deplorable conditions for meager pay so the greedy business owners -- unethically gaining products cheap -- then undercut the businesses from all Constitutional nations who do free trade unconditionally? [/Quote]

 

So when they up-and-leave the U.S. for other nations entirely, it's because 1) our free trade makes it possible for them to relocate without losing profits -- effectively the same as being in the U.S. except with cheap labor -- and 2) those other nations don't have a Constitution protecting its workers against the greedy business practices. [/Quote]

 

Leave the Constitution out of your comments, it's misleading and National Laws are what your talking about. Some Nations our Corporations do business with are actually Dictatorships, Monarchies or otherwise not even free Democracies. China and Saudi Arabia, just a couple and no business is going to last long in either these two or most others, without following THEIR LAWS.

 

1) It depends on the agreement, and there are hundreds covering most all Nations. Each agreement is designed to benefit the people of the signers, in some way, kind of a give and take compromise to achieve maximum efficiency. US Labor, especially Union Labor is going to make a difference, however there are many other issues involved, not excluding cooperation on completely unrelated issues.

 

2) To repeat, it's the laws and most Nations are as concerned about their people, even if in different ways. This includes the US, where some States have different concerns, like trading with Mexico, border States or others would prefer Israel, NY,NJ.

 

Think, jackson33....reverse the scenario: what if nations everywhere allowed workers the same opportunity to escape undesirable work by freely traveling between nations, the same way businesses (via Free Trade) can escape undesirable protections for workers/citizens by moving freely between nations. [/Quote]

 

Well for the most part people have the opportunity to move themselves to many places, no less than business can, especially if they are already doing business or hold dual citizenships. Some places do have certain restriction (time/benefits/conditions). For instance millions of folks retire out of their native homeland, register with the State, follow their laws, buy homes, pay the local taxes, some even having property rights to pass on, in death. Business in fact is a little more difficult, but few Countries would prevent a major Corporation from moving into there Country. Since a certain amount of wealth is involved, allowing the person/family/business is involved for registering, many Countries do not allow free movement of (your words) citizen workers.