Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Sen. Toomey off base

October 5, 2013

I am responding to an opinion piece in your paper on September 7, 2013, regarding Senator Toomey's comments at a Town Hall meeting....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(32)

CitizenQ

Oct-05-13 9:12 PM

Sorry Francine, I didn't understand you were amused by the disagrees. Most of us just ignore them. You mentioned it so often on several different posts that I thought it was bothering you. My mistake. Have a good evening.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:44 PM

"Mr Underwood, glad to see you in favor of what worked for over 200 years in our country....trade tariffs." - FortySixand2

Tariff's were also the primary source in revenue to fund our Government.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-05-13 8:20 PM

The worm turns indeed! Mr Underwood, glad to see you in favor of what worked for over 200 years in our country....trade tariffs. There is no point in drawing political boundaries and trying to run an economy without them.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Oct-05-13 7:43 PM

Francine, it's part of the game I was referring to a few weeks ago, if someone on here disagrees with you, you will receive 6 disagrees while they have 6 agrees, it's childish.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CitizenQ

Oct-05-13 7:12 PM

Francine, you've made several comments about the number of disagrees on a post. You need to stop worrying about them or you'll drive yourself crazy. Post what is your honest opinion and what is in your heart and it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with you. There are posters here that I generally agree with but there are times when my opinion doesn't match theirs. Doesn't make either of us better than the other. They are just opinions and as they say, everyone has them. Just enjoy posting your thoughts and don't worry about the number of agrees or disagrees your statement earns. :)

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-05-13 2:29 PM

Republicans cut jobs they don't create jobs.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-05-13 2:28 PM

You did not look very far down the list, did you Erik. There are plenty of red states with unemploymnet rates higher than the national average.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-05-13 1:19 PM

Mr. Reeder:

Republican jobs.....just look at the average unemployment rates in red states versus blue states.

Red states drill for oil and gas, promote economic activity and keep taxes & regulations low.

That is proof enough. But you will never accept what is clearly obvious to everyone else.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-05-13 1:17 PM

This tax credit would only benefit large corporations who could fill out the required paperwork and hire attorneys to file that paperwork with the government.

Small companies would not benefit.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Oct-05-13 9:59 AM

Governments shouldn’t be in the business of coercing or enticing companies; they should be in the business of assuring a proper environment for businesses to operate in. Things like the rule of law, taxes and regulations applied without favoring some supporters or special interests over others would go a long way in accomplishing that. There’s nothing wrong with levying an import tax as a cost of doing business in our marketplace.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Oct-05-13 9:14 AM

"At first glance, the other half of the Bring Jobs Home Act might seem more sensible. Under current law, companies get a tax deduction for moving expenses; the proposed act would eliminate that deduction when a company moves a U.S. operation overseas.

In practice, though, this proposal is another invitation for corporate obfuscation, since it is easy to present plant relocations as the closing and opening of two different operations."

—Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard University

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Oct-05-13 9:14 AM

"The credit would have created bizarre corporate incentives. Imagine a company that's deciding between establishing a factory costing $1 million in Honduras and establishing a $10 million factory in Massachusetts. The greater productivity here might well offset the higher costs.

But under the Bring Jobs Home Act, a smart company would open first in Honduras, then shut down and then relocate to the Bay State. The firm would get $2 million in tax credits, which would more than offset the cost of the Honduran operation. The tax code would encourage businesses to start a foreign operation first -- by subsidizing the cost of later switching to the United States.

The act would provide a credit even for fully automated factories. But why should we provide tax credits for units that employ nobody?...

continued>

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Oct-05-13 9:14 AM

Sounds like a "clean" Democratic bill. No Republican amendments but how much went to the unions? Another "Democrat only" bill passed on to the President?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Oct-05-13 9:11 AM

"The Bring Jobs Home Act would have created an 'insourcing expense credit' equal to one-fifth of expenses related to shutting down a business overseas and re-establishing it in the United States.

If enacted, this measure would have joined the pantheon of awful, politically motivated tax credits.

Good tax policy targets easily measurable actions. But it's hard to tell when a business unit is being relocated and when, instead, some old operation is being dismantled and replaced by a substantially different operation. Corporations constantly move in and out of different lines of business in places around the world.

The tax credit would have meant that taxpayers could pay for 20 percent of the costs of dismantling failed foreign units and setting up new but only vaguely related units in the United States...

continued>

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:58 AM

"Republicans don't create jobs ever." - CMReeder

Koch Brothers (the left's heads start exploding).

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-05-13 8:56 AM

Republicans don't create jobs ever. They cut them. -Reeder

Chuck you're lucky Shaman is a liberal or he would be calling you a tea bagger with your "absolutes".

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-05-13 8:51 AM

Republicans don't create jobs ever. They cut them.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-05-13 8:50 AM

"Toomey is a RINO that has brown-nosed Obama from his first day in office."

LOL

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:49 AM

Have a good day at work Francine.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:49 AM

Business expenses and income derived offshore and not brought back to the US isn't taxable, so you cannot "tax" that offshore labor if the company keeps that money offshore anyway.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:33 AM

So it's corporate welfare until it's not corporate welfare.

The only thing the bill tried to do was eliminate standard business deductions for moving jobs offshore, while providing an additional 20% business credit for moving them back. It did absolutely nothing to help an American based manufacturer to compete in the market.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:30 AM

"Republicans were considering supporting the insourcing bill until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wouldn't include any GOP amendments." - Source: The Hill, 7/19/12

All of the bills sponsor were Democrats and they wanted no Republican input. Imagine that (sarcasm font).

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-05-13 8:28 AM

Francine, I never stated that he is wrong in his assessment of this issue. But to be fair the writer failed to mention that Toomey was an avid supporter of The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which allowed more small businesses to expand and hire more employees. Does the Bring Jobs Home Act really address the issues of why companies choose to move offshore? Democrats blame it strictly on greed, yet fail to address the rising costs of manufacturing at home due to increase regulations and labor costs. In turn making it difficult to compete with foreign imports. I would be willing to bet that the same people that are against these companies, are the same people that take advantage of their products at a cheaper cost.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-05-13 8:25 AM

Francine:

Protectionism does not work.

Look at Japan. Their economy is highly protected from imports, yet they have suffered recession and stagnation for over 25 years.

It is painful to watch good domestic companies suffer from imports.

The costs of taxes and compliance with regulations consume too much for smaller companies to remain competitive.

Larger companies can absorb the cost a bit easier.

That is why high taxes and additional regulations only benefit corporations and the wealthy over small business and the middle class.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-05-13 8:21 AM

So wouldn't this be another form of "corporate welfare" that the left so often complains about?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web