It was GOP tax breaks and subsidies that moved millions of jobs to China. Not trade agreements.

[mudwhistle]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would have eliminated that deduction, and created a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back to America.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

Who's fault is it if leaving the US is a tax-break?

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh......so the latest lie is a tax deduction is now a subsidy?

Uh....somebody remind the retard the difference between a subsidy and a deduction.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy. You have made 6000 posts. You apparently feel you have something to add to this weird place.

I was just offering a suggestion as to how your points could come across better. Words matter and how you use words says a great deal about what you think of your opinions.

Enjoy your day at work.

Yes, I am aware. I highly doubt my comments will change anyone's opinion anyway. And you are correct, that people do color their view of someone based on how they use words. I agree.

Unfortunately, I simply don't care anymore. You are talking to a born loser. I have failed at everything I've ever done in my life. I few spelling errors won't change much for me. Don't care anymore. This is just a past time. Literally... to make time go by faster.

 

[Andylusion]

Oh......so the latest lie is a tax deduction is now a subsidy?

Uh....somebody remind the retard the difference between a subsidy and a deduction.

Yeah, this is something I've complained about for ages. People on the left use subsidy and tax deduction interchangeably, as if words have no meaning.

As near as I can grasp, the left has a world view that all money is really their money, and if they allow you to keep your more of your own money, then they are "subsidizng you".

But that would seem to be a self defeating argument because if a tax deduction is a subsidy..... then every person in the entire country, is subsidized, and why should a company not get a subsidy that everyone is getting?

It's a bonkers way of thinking... but you know... left-wingers... what do you expect.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh......so the latest lie is a tax deduction is now a subsidy?

Uh....somebody remind the retard the difference between a subsidy and a deduction.

Yeah, this is something I've complained about for ages. People on the left use subsidy and tax deduction interchangeably, as if words have no meaning.

As near as I can grasp, the left has a world view that all money is really their money, and if they allow you to keep your more of your own money, then they are "subsidizng you".

But that would seem to be a self defeating argument because if a tax deduction is a subsidy..... then every person in the entire country, is subsidized, and why should a company not get a subsidy that everyone is getting?

It's a bonkers way of thinking... but you know... left-wingers... what do you expect.

Yup.....compulsive liars.

 

[hadit]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

No. I consider myself a "citizen that thinks".

Here's the difference. I understand that tax breaks don't mean diddly jack.

A company faced with losing money, or relocating, is going to relocate, whether there is a tax break or not.
A company that is profitable without relocating, is not going to relocated, whether there is a tax break or not.

How do I know this? Because my company outsourced to china, and we didn't get any tax break whatsoever.

Why did we do this? Because the other option was to close the company. We couldn't produce our product economically, without outsourcing to China.

Companies are not "rewarded". People do not give companies 'awards' or 'prizes' for outsourcing or moving out of the country.

Most companies do not want to outsource, or relocate. My company hated the idea of outsource. My company CEO complained about it routinely.

Let me ask you something... would you like to spend 7 days, flying to China, to bicker with people there, paying an interpreter, and translating engineering specs to Mandarin? Does that sound like a 'fun getaway' to you? Go to smog filled Beijing, so you can pay $50 for crappy food?

And then when the screw the product up, you have to fly back to Beijing, and bicker through an interpreter again, to try and fix the error, over another week? My company executives had fights over who had to go to China. Literal yelling arguments, because everyone hates it. It's not fun.

So why do they do it? Because otherwise we'd have to close the company. Everyone would lose their jobs.

As long as this is the economic reality in the US, you can bicker all you want about tax breaks, and rewards, and blaw blaw blaw blaw... and "you are for the working man" and "You are pro-outsourcing" and making up all that crap..... as long as what I said above is the reality.... none of that matters.

Companies are going to move to where they can make money. If you pass Obama care, and Labor laws, and taxes on companies here, and they can't make a profit here, but they can over there... they will move over there.

That's the facts.

And if you arbitrarily force the jobs to "come back", any that can be done by automated systems or robots will not be done by humans. The method that costs the least is the one that gets the work. Right now, that's humans overseas.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

No. I consider myself a "citizen that thinks".

Here's the difference. I understand that tax breaks don't mean diddly jack.

A company faced with losing money, or relocating, is going to relocate, whether there is a tax break or not.
A company that is profitable without relocating, is not going to relocated, whether there is a tax break or not.

How do I know this? Because my company outsourced to china, and we didn't get any tax break whatsoever.

Why did we do this? Because the other option was to close the company. We couldn't produce our product economically, without outsourcing to China.

Companies are not "rewarded". People do not give companies 'awards' or 'prizes' for outsourcing or moving out of the country.

Most companies do not want to outsource, or relocate. My company hated the idea of outsource. My company CEO complained about it routinely.

Let me ask you something... would you like to spend 7 days, flying to China, to bicker with people there, paying an interpreter, and translating engineering specs to Mandarin? Does that sound like a 'fun getaway' to you? Go to smog filled Beijing, so you can pay $50 for crappy food?

And then when the screw the product up, you have to fly back to Beijing, and bicker through an interpreter again, to try and fix the error, over another week? My company executives had fights over who had to go to China. Literal yelling arguments, because everyone hates it. It's not fun.

So why do they do it? Because otherwise we'd have to close the company. Everyone would lose their jobs.

As long as this is the economic reality in the US, you can bicker all you want about tax breaks, and rewards, and blaw blaw blaw blaw... and "you are for the working man" and "You are pro-outsourcing" and making up all that crap..... as long as what I said above is the reality.... none of that matters.

Companies are going to move to where they can make money. If you pass Obama care, and Labor laws, and taxes on companies here, and they can't make a profit here, but they can over there... they will move over there.

That's the facts.

And if you arbitrarily force the jobs to "come back", any that can be done by automated systems or robots will not be done by humans. The method that costs the least is the one that gets the work. Right now, that's humans overseas.

Yeah, absolutely. I've been saying that for years. Everyone was screaming about Iphones, and Obama met with Steve Jobs, and asked how to bring jobs back.

The whole idea of somehow 'forcing jobs back' is ridiculous, and so Atlas Shrugged. I just re-read the book, and it's amazing how many times aspects of the book, are played out almost verbatim today.

But even if you could somehow write a law "You must bring jobs back to the US", those Iphones would never be built by hand in the US. Of course it would be automated, and aside from a few technicians to keep the machines running, they are not going to be built by dozens of workers like in China. It's never going to happen that way.

No matter how mindless some on the left seem to be.... I keep thinking that they should at least grasp this.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would have eliminated that deduction, and created a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back to America.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

Pardon me for just barging in here. Just want to know that RDean has been corrected again as usual.. He truly doesn't RESEARCH -- he reacts as he is told to react. So --- Just nail him with one of his own phony "Truth Meter" sites. Politifact got this one correct. It's a MIRACLE !!!!!

Never were tax breaks for moving operations overseas. There was only the SAME EXACT corporate deductions for expenses that always existed. NO ONE PASSED a subsidy or tax break for outsourcing. Congress just never PENALIZED foreign expansion of US businesses..

Is there a corporate tax break that ships jobs overseas?

Only a CPA might enjoy digging into the nuances of tax policy. But our search for evidence shows that the Democrats’ description is so simplistic as to be misleading. There is no special tax break for outsourcing.

When we asked Democratic groups for evidence for their claims, they pointed us to Republican votes on a failed tax reform bill -- a bill that experts told us would not have affected corporations’ behavior.

There is no tax break or loophole that addresses outsourcing or insourcing jobs specifically. When Democrats say "tax breaks" in these ads, they are usually talking about standard business expense deductions. Companies can write off many business-related expenses as tax-deductible -- including relocation.

But this isn’t a special provision just for businesses that move outside of the United States. A business would get the same deductions for money spent moving from New York to California.

Among Republicans’ reasons for opposing the legislation, the policy would have lost revenue and added to the deficit, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. The government would have spent more money on the tax credit for insourcing than it would have raised by eliminating deductions related to outsourcing. Overall, the policy would have resulted in an estimated $214 million loss over 10 years.

Tax experts we spoke with said the law was almost entirely symbolic. The amount of money associated with these standard deductions is minuscule, compared to corporate tax revenue overall. So minuscule, in fact, that getting rid of deductions for business expenses associated with outsourcing would not be nearly enough to affect a company’s decision to engage in foreign activity.

"It adds up to a trivial amount of money," said James Hines, a professor of law and economics at the University of Michigan. "Given how many big multinational firms we have, it’s impossible that it has any effect on their behavior."

So I saw RDean questioning a poster's statement that this tax consequence is TINY in the big scheme of things. It sure IS --- if it amounts to $21Mill a year.. That doesn't cover state functions at the WHouse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh look, rdean is lying again.

How unique.

 

[flacaltenn]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

No. I consider myself a "citizen that thinks".

Here's the difference. I understand that tax breaks don't mean diddly jack.

A company faced with losing money, or relocating, is going to relocate, whether there is a tax break or not.
A company that is profitable without relocating, is not going to relocated, whether there is a tax break or not.

How do I know this? Because my company outsourced to china, and we didn't get any tax break whatsoever.

Why did we do this? Because the other option was to close the company. We couldn't produce our product economically, without outsourcing to China.

Companies are not "rewarded". People do not give companies 'awards' or 'prizes' for outsourcing or moving out of the country.

Most companies do not want to outsource, or relocate. My company hated the idea of outsource. My company CEO complained about it routinely.

Let me ask you something... would you like to spend 7 days, flying to China, to bicker with people there, paying an interpreter, and translating engineering specs to Mandarin? Does that sound like a 'fun getaway' to you? Go to smog filled Beijing, so you can pay $50 for crappy food?

And then when the screw the product up, you have to fly back to Beijing, and bicker through an interpreter again, to try and fix the error, over another week? My company executives had fights over who had to go to China. Literal yelling arguments, because everyone hates it. It's not fun.

So why do they do it? Because otherwise we'd have to close the company. Everyone would lose their jobs.

As long as this is the economic reality in the US, you can bicker all you want about tax breaks, and rewards, and blaw blaw blaw blaw... and "you are for the working man" and "You are pro-outsourcing" and making up all that crap..... as long as what I said above is the reality.... none of that matters.

Companies are going to move to where they can make money. If you pass Obama care, and Labor laws, and taxes on companies here, and they can't make a profit here, but they can over there... they will move over there.

That's the facts.

And if you arbitrarily force the jobs to "come back", any that can be done by automated systems or robots will not be done by humans. The method that costs the least is the one that gets the work. Right now, that's humans overseas.

Yeah, absolutely. I've been saying that for years. Everyone was screaming about Iphones, and Obama met with Steve Jobs, and asked how to bring jobs back.

The whole idea of somehow 'forcing jobs back' is ridiculous, and so Atlas Shrugged. I just re-read the book, and it's amazing how many times aspects of the book, are played out almost verbatim today.

But even if you could somehow write a law "You must bring jobs back to the US", those Iphones would never be built by hand in the US. Of course it would be automated, and aside from a few technicians to keep the machines running, they are not going to be built by dozens of workers like in China. It's never going to happen that way.

No matter how mindless some on the left seem to be.... I keep thinking that they should at least grasp this.

And that's the REAL ISSUE.. Even China knows that the days of "cheap labor:" are over. They have MASSIVE investments in factory automation, robotic upgrades and 3D printing.

All we have to do to "bring jobs back" is to realize that a job TODAY looks massively different than it did 20 years ago,.. You must have MULTIPLE skills and be willing to do MULTIPLE "jobs".. And we need to beat the Chinese to a front-runner status in 21st Century manufacturing techniques..

Plenty of jobs for writing robotic scripts, quality control, hi-tech maintenance, etc.. But the lever pulling, sewing machine era is so yesterday..

 

[bripat9643]

But I can run with a Liberal source, too...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.


Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguingthat exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic partsaccounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which asAmerican Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."

As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.

Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.

Since millions of jobs moved under Bush and the GOP was able to use reconcilliation three times, I'm guessing you think tax breaks and subsidies were the answer, but they didn't work out as planned. Did I guess right?

So let me get this straight.....

You're claiming Bill Clinton fucked shit up so bad that tax breaks and subsidies couldn't even fix it, right????

Hey, wait.....

Didn't Obungles sign an agreement like that???

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)
The United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan—signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Feb. 4, 2016. This trade, investment and economic governance agreement had been negotiated in secret since 2010.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade positions so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a thing in there about tax breaks and subsidies. Would you mind pointing them out?

I pointed out where the TRADE AGREEMENTS are the problem, Dumbass...

And even the LIBERAL Huffington Post agrees!!!

So once again, your thread fails due to you posting a bunch of bull crap that I can call you on using LIBERAL sources....

View attachment 66186

Many articles in magazines, even liberal one, are opinion pieces.
The truth is that without tax breaks and subsidies and seminars to teach business to move, so many might not have left. Remember, millions of jobs moved to China when Republicans controlled both houses and Bush was president. Republicans were able to use reconcilliation again and again. And yet, even with proven GOP inaction, it's the fault of the Democrats????
How can that be? Republicans take no responsibility even when no one can stop them.

Libs have been saying this for decades, but they never mention any specific taxes or subsidies. So tell us, what tax breaks or subsidies should Congress eliminate to prevent corporations from relocating overseas?

 

[bripat9643]

We’ve also written before on several occasions that the tax code has long allowed U.S. corporations doing business abroad to defer paying taxes on any of their “unrepatriated income.” That is to say that the revenue earned by the company’s foreign subsidiary remains untaxed by the IRS until that money is brought back to the parent company in the U.S.

Sometimes politicians also refer to this as a “tax break for shipping jobs overseas.” And Clausing told us that this part of tax law could motivate companies to move business abroad.

“This can provide a huge incentive for locating jobs and income abroad, since many tax haven countries have tax rates that are very low, even approaching zero, and thus the money can grow abroad ‘tax free’ until it is repatriated,” she said.




No tax breaks for moving business out of country? WTF? Being able to avoid tax on business profits conducted out of the country isn't a tax break?

Why did business lobby so hard for those provisions? You think they just magically showed up in the tax code one day? LMAO.

And notice congress won t get rid of that ability to avoid those taxes.

If American corporations had to pay U.S taxes on all their operations worldwide, they would all immediately relocate all their operations overseas. No country does that, and for a reason: It's the ultimate in stupidity and economic suicide.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Unfortunately, I simply don't care anymore. You are talking to a born loser. I have failed at everything I've ever done in my life. I few spelling errors won't change much for me. Don't care anymore. This is just a past time. Literally... to make time go by faster.

I am speechless. But I also don't agree with your opinion of yourself.
I was messing with you. That's all. You are fine. Call me stupid or something.

 

[bripat9643]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

They are rewarded, but not by the federal government. Lower labor rates isn't a subsidy to bushiness. Lower taxes by foreign countries is not a subsidy by the U.S. government. It's an example of the stupidity of the U.S. government.

 

[bripat9643]

So... Ford could stay in the US, and profits made in the UK, would be taxed there, and then taxed again here.

I suggest you Google corporate taxes on overseas profits.
Educate yourself dude. No company is "double taxed". US Companies get credit for taxes paid in other countries.

Read and learn.

they would be double taxed if they had to pay U.S. federal taxes on all their overseas profits.

 

[Wilbur Right]

So tell us, what tax breaks or subsidies should Congress eliminate to prevent corporations from relocating overseas?

The cost of the move itself would be a place to start.

But the tax advantage of paying a lower rate in another country is a plus, but not the biggie.

The biggie is cheap labor.

Which does a major company pay more of; taxes or labor costs?

 

[bripat9643]

Andy. You have made 6000 posts. You apparently feel you have something to add to this weird place.

I was just offering a suggestion as to how your points could come across better. Words matter and how you use words says a great deal about what you think of your opinions.

Enjoy your day at work.

Andy comes across as someone who knows what he's talking about, whereas you come across as a pretentious ignoramus.

 

[bripat9643]

So tell us, what tax breaks or subsidies should Congress eliminate to prevent corporations from relocating overseas?

The cost of the move itself would be a place to start.

But the tax advantage of paying a lower rate in another country is a plus, but not the biggie.

The biggie is cheap labor.

Which does a major company pay more of; taxes or labor costs?

The cost of labor isn't something the federal government has any control over, especially in foreign countries, so why is it even mentioned in this debate?

 

[deltex1]

Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

So the law Whitehouse decries is still the law. There is little debate that the current system allows companies to get a tax break for their expenses when they send jobs outside the U.S.
We rate Whitehouse's statement True.

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
Under current law, companies can deduct the cost of moving people and equipment overseas from their taxes. S. 3364 would have eliminated that deduction, and created a new 20 percent tax credit for all costs associated with moving overseas jobs back to America.

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing


Bernie Santa's followers have it all wrong. There is nothing in any trade agreement about tax breaks for companies moving millions of American jobs to China. It's been and has always been about GOP tax cuts and subsidies for companies moving to China. Come on people, get it right.

Of course..I hear ya...Obabble is blameless. GFY.

 

[hadit]

Andy, I take it you view yourself as a citizen of the world?
Cause you sure do support the screws being put to the American workers.

And why didn't you address the tax benefits for companies relocating out of the country.

They get much lower labor rates, much higher profits as result of low labor and very favorable tax treatment on profits. Plus whatever perks are thrown at them by the country they relocate to. Like cheap land, no pollution controls and new manufacturing plants.

You still want to claim companies are not rewarded for moving out of country?

No. I consider myself a "citizen that thinks".

Here's the difference. I understand that tax breaks don't mean diddly jack.

A company faced with losing money, or relocating, is going to relocate, whether there is a tax break or not.
A company that is profitable without relocating, is not going to relocated, whether there is a tax break or not.

How do I know this? Because my company outsourced to china, and we didn't get any tax break whatsoever.

Why did we do this? Because the other option was to close the company. We couldn't produce our product economically, without outsourcing to China.

Companies are not "rewarded". People do not give companies 'awards' or 'prizes' for outsourcing or moving out of the country.

Most companies do not want to outsource, or relocate. My company hated the idea of outsource. My company CEO complained about it routinely.

Let me ask you something... would you like to spend 7 days, flying to China, to bicker with people there, paying an interpreter, and translating engineering specs to Mandarin? Does that sound like a 'fun getaway' to you? Go to smog filled Beijing, so you can pay $50 for crappy food?

And then when the screw the product up, you have to fly back to Beijing, and bicker through an interpreter again, to try and fix the error, over another week? My company executives had fights over who had to go to China. Literal yelling arguments, because everyone hates it. It's not fun.

So why do they do it? Because otherwise we'd have to close the company. Everyone would lose their jobs.

As long as this is the economic reality in the US, you can bicker all you want about tax breaks, and rewards, and blaw blaw blaw blaw... and "you are for the working man" and "You are pro-outsourcing" and making up all that crap..... as long as what I said above is the reality.... none of that matters.

Companies are going to move to where they can make money. If you pass Obama care, and Labor laws, and taxes on companies here, and they can't make a profit here, but they can over there... they will move over there.

That's the facts.

And if you arbitrarily force the jobs to "come back", any that can be done by automated systems or robots will not be done by humans. The method that costs the least is the one that gets the work. Right now, that's humans overseas.

Yeah, absolutely. I've been saying that for years. Everyone was screaming about Iphones, and Obama met with Steve Jobs, and asked how to bring jobs back.

The whole idea of somehow 'forcing jobs back' is ridiculous, and so Atlas Shrugged. I just re-read the book, and it's amazing how many times aspects of the book, are played out almost verbatim today.

But even if you could somehow write a law "You must bring jobs back to the US", those Iphones would never be built by hand in the US. Of course it would be automated, and aside from a few technicians to keep the machines running, they are not going to be built by dozens of workers like in China. It's never going to happen that way.

No matter how mindless some on the left seem to be.... I keep thinking that they should at least grasp this.

It is true that liberals inhabit a peculiarly reality free existence.