Tax the rich, pay for 1 percent of budget
The tax debate rages on, with the more liberal Democrats in Washington insisting on raising taxes for the rich (less liberal Democrats say they’re open to at least a temporary extension of the current tax rates for all). After four years of jacking up federal spending, congressional Democrats and President Obama now want you to believe that they’ve become fiscal hawks because they want to raise tax rates on 2 percent of Americans.
To which The Economist magazine says, hooey:
The irony in this drama is that the money at stake is, in the larger scheme, trivial. Raising taxes on the top 2% of households, as Mr Obama proposes, would bring in $34 billion next year: enough to cover nine days’ worth of the deficit. Indeed, the problem with the tax debate is not that Democrats and Republicans disagree, but that they mostly agree. Democrats think 98% of Americans should not pay higher taxes; the Republicans say 100% should not.
In a budget of $3.5 trillion, $34 billion comes out to a little less than 1 percent. Heck, it’s only a fraction of the annual interest payment on our national debt, and wouldn’t even cover the budget of eight separate federal departments: Defense, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, State, Housing and Urban Development, Education and Homeland Security.
The big money is in a middle-class tax hike, for the simple reason that — contrary to what Democrats want you to believe — the middle class receives about three-quarters of the savings from the Bush tax cuts.
Cutting the deficit will also take more than the Republican proposal to return non-security spending to 2008 levels. The impact of that plan would be larger than “taxing the rich” and might inspire some economic confidence rather than sapping it, but those cuts alone would still be woefully inadequate. The broader plan they’re expected to roll out Thursday had better be more impressive than that.
The deficit will shrink to some degree as the economy recovers and more people get back to working and paying taxes. As former Congressman J.C. Watts has said, “We don’t need more taxes, we need more taxpayers!”
To get the rest of the way there, “taxing the rich” won’t come close to sufficing. If you favor tax hikes to close the budget gap, you better be prepared for everyone’s taxes to rise.
Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
199 comments Add your comment
md
September 21st, 2010
3:01 pm
“where are the jobs that should have been created by the Bush tax cuts up to this point?”
More than likely talking about jobs maintained vs created. The more taken out of the economy, the less there is to pay folks. And the more the gov’t expands, also the less to pay folks in the private sector.
Surprised
September 21st, 2010
3:02 pm
Who knew the AJC paid its bloggers $250K a year?
Kyle Wingfield
September 21st, 2010
3:12 pm
Surprised: It’s in the millions, actually.
Kyle Wingfield
September 21st, 2010
3:13 pm
And it comes with the firm instruction that we only advocate for what benefits us personally…
Brad
September 21st, 2010
3:17 pm
OK, Kyle, if it’s so trivial, why do you have your panties in a wad?
HDB
September 21st, 2010
3:19 pm
“As former Congressman J.C. Watts has said, “We don’t need more taxes, we need more taxpayers!”
THIS is the key point that many aren’t facing; the decline in employment is occurring due to America’s LOSING its manufacturing base! What needs to be done is to RAISE the corporate taxes for those corporations who take American jobs offshore!! Raise taxes on Corporate CEOs who take jobs offshore!! If you want to incentivize Corporate America….close all of the tax loopholes that allow them to take jobs offshore!! When more people are WORKING…..the tax burden is lessened!!
Surprised
September 21st, 2010
3:22 pm
“And it comes with the firm instruction that we only advocate for what benefits us personally…”
Wasn’t that Ayn Rand’s whole philosophy? And I thought you guys worshipped her?
md
September 21st, 2010
3:25 pm
“What needs to be done is to RAISE the corporate taxes for those corporations who take American jobs offshore!! ”
No such thing as corporate taxes – just another expense on the books passed through to consumers.
And how many “little people” have their pensions/retirement in all these corporations?? I doubt they will be none too happy that their nest egg takes a serious hit because these corps are not taking those jobs overseas.
Can’t have the cake and eat it too.
JF McNamara
September 21st, 2010
3:29 pm
Kyle,
I’m not a Congressional Democrat, you’d have to ask them. $34B is $34B. You can’t make a big deal about it in one column and diminish it in another. It appeared to me that is what you did.
Also, couldn’t we do both raise tax and lower spending and have $68B? If I’m a fiscal conservative, that’s what I’d do. I wouldn’t go on a “Save the Rich” campaign when I know I can raise revenue that way. We’re in a deficit situation and we need more revenue from everywhere to balance the budget. Wouldn’t this $34B help do that?
Personally, I’d raise tax on everyone and cut to the bone until we got balanced, but that won’t happen. Both sides are too busy catering to their pet causes.
khc
September 21st, 2010
3:30 pm
how do you eat an elephant….one bite at a time…..tax increases and spending cuts necessary. dollar for dollar with al gore’s lockbox for the savings to be applied to usa debt with specific targets.
also, anyone been to doctor or hospital lately….they need to turn loose some cost accountants on why this stuff costs so much….if we could get handle on medical costs and outcomes that would be good start on putting dent into government spending.
tax cheats (what happened to all those rich folks who hid their money in ubs/switzerland) and food stamp, medicaid and medicare fraud…..
energy efficient upgrades where payback in 5 years or less for all govt facilities….
ramp up reward program for innovative bureaucrats (who might need witness protection program too)
as someone told me once…….inch by inch it’s a cinch
John
September 21st, 2010
3:31 pm
“What needs to be done is to RAISE the corporate taxes for those corporations who take American jobs offshore!! Raise taxes on Corporate CEOs who take jobs offshore!! ”
Add to that the corporations who abuse the H1B Visa program. The program was intended to fill positions that couldn’t be filled with US workers….not to replace US workers with lowered salaried foreign workers.
Ayn Rant
September 21st, 2010
3:33 pm
The Bush-Republican tax cut scheme that is about to expire is the principal, but not the only, cause of the economic decline of 2001 -2007 and the 2008 financial blowout.
When the tax cut went into effect, it immediately moved the federal budget from burgeoning surplus to deep and continuing deficit. In 2000, there was talk of beginning to pay down the national debt. Only seven years later in 2008, the national debt had increased by $5 trillion and the economy was in deep recession.
Was that tax cut a good idea? Of course not! So, why would you think it’s a good idea to extend it? A tax cut while the federal budget is in deficit is the same as giving away money, borrowing it back at current interest rates, and passing the debt forward.
Tax cuts for the middle class would be spent on goods and gadgets at Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, etc.. That’ll create good manufacturing jobs in Asia and a few low-paying transport and shelf-stocking jobs in the US.
Tax cuts for the rich, who don’t need the money, would be spent on luxury goods from Europe, or “invested” in speculative, non-equity financial instruments. That’ll create good jobs at the Mercedes and BMI factories and the yacht-building shipyards of Europe, but will not result in any appreciable capital investment in US industry and commerce. The rich are savvy enough to put their money where the risk is low and the return is high; they won’t be betting on America.
Why repeat mistakes and expect different results? That’s really dumb!
khc
September 21st, 2010
3:33 pm
forgot to mention….limit to a specific amount porkbarrel for legislators with a published yearly recap in a well accessed publication of record
HDB
September 21st, 2010
3:36 pm
md September 21st, 2010
3:25 pm
“And how many “little people” have their pensions/retirement in all these corporations?? I doubt they will be none too happy that their nest egg takes a serious hit because these corps are not taking those jobs overseas.”
It would be much LESS of a hit because:
1) The tax INCENTIVES for keeping jobs here would be better for the investors
2) More Americans would be working….thereby increasing the number of taxpayers, thereby spreading the tax BURDEN to more people
3) Raising the corporate tax rate for taking jobs offshore would more than incentivize corporations to KEEP jobs here!!
Baking a bigger pie…….
Kyle Wingfield
September 21st, 2010
3:40 pm
Ayn Rant: Kindly explain how the Bush tax policy was the principal reason the housing market went bust and the financial markets tanked. I’ll grab the popcorn.
md
September 21st, 2010
3:44 pm
HDB,
1) what incentives might those be??
2) Actually, less may be working because we can’t afford to hire as many.
3)Raising corp tax only raises expenses – cuts would have to occur somewhere else or profits suffer. No profits, no jobs.
John
September 21st, 2010
3:48 pm
“And how many “little people” have their pensions/retirement in all these corporations?? I doubt they will be none too happy that their nest egg takes a serious hit because these corps are not taking those jobs overseas.”
Certainly not those who couldn’t get a job and start a pension/retirement plan because the jobs have been shipped overseas.
HDB
September 21st, 2010
3:52 pm
md
September 21st, 2010
3:44 pm
“HDB,
1) what incentives might those be??”
Raising the tax rate for taking jobs offshore means LESS taxes on a corporation that KEEPS jobs here! Expansion means more employees….a spreading of the tax burden!
2) “Actually, less may be working because we can’t afford to hire as many.” If you taxed corporations MORE for taking jobs OFFSHORE, they would be able to hire more people HERE!!
3)”Raising corp tax only raises expenses – cuts would have to occur somewhere else or profits suffer. No profits, no jobs.” If you incentivize job CREATION here, you won’t raise the corporate tax! Right now, the incentive in the corporate tax structure is to take jobs OFFSHORE!! Jobs need to be kept HERE!!
atlmom
September 21st, 2010
3:56 pm
And you’re only talking about the federal tax rate – there are state/local taxes, state local income taxes, etc, which means the marginal tax rate is closer to 60%. Is that ‘fair’?
The only thing trying to be ‘fair’ does is to make things that much more unfair. Seriously – the wealthy will typically always be wealthy…
I grew up near a whole bunch of money. Seriously – serious money. We had ‘nothing’ compared to my neighbors/friends, etc. My parents NEVER EVER told me that I somehow ‘deserved’ the money that anyone I knew had. It would never even have come up. The idea that I had any right to their money is and was preposterous. I was taught to get an education, work hard, and whatever I had was mine – I worked for it – but I had no claim on anyone else’s stuff, ever. This whole – oh, let’s make it FAIR crap – is just that. It won’t become fair because you wish it so.
We really do need to scrap the IRS and the whole tax system we have, because this will never be resolved.
Again, we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem (thank you Dave Ramsey). And if they do make more in revenue – who’s to say that one penny will go towards paying off the deficit. It’s like having a teenager who needs another $20. They didn’t spend the first money you gave them wisely, why would you give them more to spend unwisely? Show us you can make the sacrifices, then I might think that you need more money. Show responsibility and leadership.
md
September 21st, 2010
4:03 pm
HDB,
All your points are related to tax incentives, when cost of labor is the issue. We can not compete with a country that provides labor at a 80-90% cost savings. To equal that out, the tax incentives would have to be huge……
We are a spoiled country in relation to many around the world, and it has caught up to us. Our current standard of living is unsustainable in the global marketplace.
left wing
September 21st, 2010
4:04 pm
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In that case, I feel pretty good that Left wing management is using my moniker. However, there is only 1 me.
Here’s what I see in this article. First, they usually project costs over 10 years, and assume that the $34 Billion is correct, and that it won’t change over 10 years (the second is obviously suspect). So, that’s $340 Billion. The cost of the tax cut for that top 2% is been estimated at $700 Billion, so the real swing in this is $1 Trillion (40 Billion) over 10 years. And of course, the cost of doing this is being financed by us (courtesy of the Chinese, the Saudi’s, etc).
I see no reason to blow a Trillion dollars on the most affluent in our society. But hey, I saw no reason to blow a Trillion dollars attacking Iraq, either.
atlmom
September 21st, 2010
4:11 pm
HDB: how can you possibly raise the tax rates for when jobs go overseas? really? what happens when the whole company just moves overseas? Seriously, we seem to have some entitlement idea about what everyone does – it’s crazy.
John
September 21st, 2010
4:14 pm
@md 3:04pm…”We are a spoiled country in relation to many around the world, and it has caught up to us. Our current standard of living is unsustainable in the global marketplace.”
Are you then saying America wages should drop to the levels of developing countries in order to compete in the global marketplace and keep jobs here in America? Would that also mean getting rid of laws that protect American workers as well…such as making sure working environments are safe, not employing children, etc.?
md
September 21st, 2010
4:22 pm
John,
It is what it is……………………….just looking at the math.
As atlmom says, at some point the entire company will just get up and go. To do as HBD says will only speed up the demise. Punishing corps is a bad plan. The best course of action would be to drop corp rates across the board creating a viable corp climate for open competition. Anything else will result in more corps jumping ship or a trade war – we lose in either scenario.
JDW
September 21st, 2010
4:33 pm
Kyle wrote
“So, to be fair, I guess I should have said, “three years of jacking up federal spending.”
No actually that would be two years, Duhbya and his crowd own the 2008 budget that ended in Oct 2008 as well. That also means your $750 Billon number is more wrong than it was anyway.
Spending in 1992 the last year of Bush One was $1.381 Trillion. In 2000 the last year of Clinton it was $1.789 Trillion or an increase of $408 Billion or 29.5%.
In 2008 the federal government spent $2.982 Trillion a whopping $1.193 Trillion increase or a 66.7% increase.
Spending is projected at $3.754 Trillion in 2012 a $772 Billion dollar increase from those heady Duhbya days or a 20.56% increase. In 2015 spending is projected at $4.385 or an increase of 1.403 Trillon or 47% when compared to Duhbya.
I would be happy to go back to Reagan if you wish but the nums are worse there. The fact is the Republican Party has sold us a bill of goods starting with Reagan. They have promised to decrease spending and deficits when in fact they have increased spending exponentially and put us in the predicament we find ourselves today.
Now you would have us believe that past performance is not an indicator of future performance!!!!! As for me give me the good old days of Bill Clinton…budget surpluses, limited spending and fast paced growth.
BTW, where were you and rest of the Republican crowd when Ronnie, Bush 1 and Duhbya were getting us into this mess?
lester maddox
September 21st, 2010
4:33 pm
kyle, I’d be interested in your reasons the housing market went to hell and the financial market tanked.
Jefferson
September 21st, 2010
4:35 pm
If you don’t like the system, pay politicians off to change it or move. Its been going on for years.
md
September 21st, 2010
4:38 pm
“I’d be interested in your reasons the housing market went to hell and the financial market tanked.”
Pretty simple actually – many folks from all walks of life borrowed more than they could afford.
John
September 21st, 2010
4:40 pm
“Pretty simple actually – many folks from all walks of life borrowed more than they could afford.”
Sounds like our Republican candidate for governor….Nathan Deal.
md
September 21st, 2010
4:43 pm
“Sounds like our Republican candidate for governor….Nathan Deal.”
must be a pretty grounded fellow then……it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Folks don’t borrow what they can’t repay and the mess never happens….simple as that.
Scooter (the Original)
September 21st, 2010
4:43 pm
I thought Bush only cut taxes for the rich. Isn’t that what was repeated… Bush’s tax cuts for the rich?
Jefferson
September 21st, 2010
4:44 pm
Its starting to fall into place, hang loose folks.
Brad Steel
September 21st, 2010
4:46 pm
The big money is in a middle-class tax hike, for the simple reason that — contrary to what Democrats want you to believe — the middle class receives about three-quarters of the savings from the Bush tax cuts.
Thanks for the typical obfuscation. The “middle class receives about three-quarters of the savings from the Bush tax cuts” means that the upper-class the aforementioned 2% must receive the other 25%. That sounds familiar.
atlmom
September 21st, 2010
4:47 pm
JDW: I believe Kyle might have been in elementary school at the time. Just a thought.
JDW
September 21st, 2010
4:49 pm
@Linda 2:57
I am one of those “high earners” and I can tell you first hand from me and those I know that if an employee is needed and will be profitable they will be hired in spite of the tax rate.
Your $500K earnings and $25K taxes hypothesis is simply incorrect.
First off the actual additional taxes paid by someone earning $500K in 2010 would be $11,866. Second if any decent business person decides to hire someone they require that they earn a profit for the company. Therefore a new hire that earns a profit will be hired if the tax rate is 35%, 39.6% or 75%. In fact the higher the rate the MORE likely the new employee is to be hired.
As for Startups, if you don’t know how to calculate a P&L you will fail anyway so that is irrelevant. Second tax rates are usually not a big factor in startups because taxes are paid on PROFITS. Startups usually don’t make profits for some time and so for them the key point is the ability to raise capital.
That is where we should be spending money, not worrying about a guy making $500K spending an extra $11,866 in taxes.
Rafe Hollister
September 21st, 2010
4:57 pm
HDB: you are heading in the opposite direction when you talk about raising corporate tax rates. What we desperately need is lowering the corporate tax rate. The US is one of the top 3 in corporate tax rates, that is why corporations are leaving this country. Put the corporate tax rate down where it needs to be to get corporations moving to the US instead of mowing away. More corporations=more jobs.
HDB
September 21st, 2010
4:58 pm
atlmom September 21st, 2010
4:11 pm
You don’t see how lowering the corporate tax rate for KEEPING jobs here would do more to spur the economy??
Example: Company A is headquartered in the US…but moves its factory to China. Tax it at current tax rate – let’s say 25%. Take same corporation and tax it at 10% if it keeps its manufacturing capability in the US….that’s an incentive to keep manufacturing here…which would spur employment!!
The current tax laws INCENTIVIZE corporations moving manufacturing OFFSHORE…..shouldn’t the opposite be true??
The reason why the US is in an economic downturn is that our manufacturing bases have been offshored…..and the main catalyst IS manufacturing!!
Kyle Wingfield
September 21st, 2010
4:59 pm
JDW:
1. “Dubya and his crowd” include Pelosi and Reid if you’re talking about 2008. (Just as references to Clinton should also, for most of his term, include references to the GOP control of Congress.)
2. You’re using nominal figures rather than inflation-adjusted ones, which I used (as I wrote in my comment) and which any serious economist would use to make these kinds of comparisons across time.
3. If you insist on using 2008 as the comparison, then inflation-adjusted spending has grown $611 billion in the two years since then — or about the same as the previous seven years.
4. In inflation-adjusted terms, spending grew by 32.5 percent from 2000 to 2008 — and is projected to grow by 32.4 percent from 2008 to 2015, the last year on your chart. This does not speak well of Bush (see my earlier comment about his alleged fiscal conservatism) but it sure as heck does not absolve Obama and the Dems in Congress for what they’re doing now.
HDB
September 21st, 2010
5:00 pm
Rafe Hollister September 21st, 2010
4:57 pm
What many here are failing to note is that I’m saying to cut the corporate tax rate for KEEPING jobs here…but RAISE it on companies that offshore jobs!!! That would incentivize corporations to maintain a manufacturing base HERE!!
BB
September 21st, 2010
5:01 pm
I would rather raise taxes on companies that abuse the H-1B visa. Or …
Any hungry lawyers out there looking for glory?
Pursuing the following idea would even be socially useful, not like those lawyers you read about suing companies for having an expired patent number printed on their products.
Improving the U.S. education system, while a laudable goal, does NOT fix this problem. There are a million or more un-or-under employed engineers and IT people that are already very well educated.
A better fix would be for someone to initiate a class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the H1B visa under the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the amendment that freed the slaves).
An H1B employee is “out of status” if they are laid off, and is required to leave the country immediately. There is no statutory “grace period”.
This gives an employer the power to threaten an employee with IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION. The employer is not, of course, directly ordering the deportation, they are merely making the employee subject to immediate deportation by the U.S. government.
In United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (19smilies/cool.gif, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment circumscribed involuntary servitude to be limited to those situations when the master subjects the servant to:
1. threatened or actual physical force,
2. threatened or actual state-imposed legal coercion or
3. fraud or deceit where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or mentally incompetent.
The federal anti-slavery statutes were updated in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386, which expanded the federal statutes’ coverage to cases in which victims are enslaved through psychological, as well as physical, coercion.
Being put “out of status”, subject to immediate deportation, is a form of “threatened or actual state-imposed legal coercion”. re
Usmc Dawg
September 21st, 2010
5:02 pm
@ “Keep it Real” 1:37pm
Bro, Your comment is a great example of the problem we have today.
You insinuate that “people that make good money” have that guarantee for the rest of their life.
You don’t just “make” the club for high income and then have it guaranteed the rest of your life.
One might earn $100,000 or more on a given year and earn only $50,000 the next year.
Using your example that you say “they” get more money back than they put in points to the RIDICULOUS tax code that people like you protect, and you and your ilk refuse to address the F’d up tax system that lets a person making $100,000 not pay any taxes.
Read the “Fair Tax” book, educate yourself and put your Marxist philosophy aside. The Fair Tax taxes everyone equally AND gives incentives to “the rich” to bring their money back to the U.S. for investment in our economy. THAT EQUALS JOBS.
Don’t be a slave to the leftwing radicals that instill the “class warfare”, “race hate” and “income envy” mentality in you and your ilk.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE!
Now, That’s keeping it real!
JDW
September 21st, 2010
5:02 pm
@ATLMOM all the more reason he needs a history lesson, but I believe he was around for at least the last few years of the debacle.
As for your idea that “at some point in time the entire company will get up and go”…it doesn’t happen that way. A large company might change a tax location to reduce taxes, but when it comes to offshoring jobs, tax rates are a small part of that decision.
More important issues are wages, benefits and skill set. On those issues we are at a disadvantage on wages in some areas that will never be balanced.
The main benefit driver is health insurance and without meaningful health reform we will continue be at a disadvantage. Most places we compete against have government sponsored single payer plans, here we continue to foist that burden on companies.
Our single advantage is skill set but that is diminishing rapidly due to our declining educational system.
Linda
September 21st, 2010
5:04 pm
The high unemployment rate is not primarily due to job losses! There were 3.1 million more job losses during the ‘01 recession than in the current recession. Lower job creation accounts for 65% of the current high unemployment rate.
Biden said we had lost 8.8 million jobs. Actually, we lost 55.4 million jobs & added 46.5 million jobs.
Private sector employers have gone on strike!
md
September 21st, 2010
5:04 pm
“Example: Company A is headquartered in the US…but moves its factory to China. Tax it at current tax rate – let’s say 25%. Take same corporation and tax it at 10% if it keeps its manufacturing capability in the US….that’s an incentive to keep manufacturing here…which would spur employment!!”
And what is to stop said corporation from moving said headquarters offshore to avoid that 25%??
You have half the equation correct – drop the rates. You can forget the other part.
md
September 21st, 2010
5:08 pm
“A large company might change a tax location to reduce taxes, but when it comes to offshoring jobs, tax rates are a small part of that decision. ”
I believe pre-ression Ireland would beg to differ. Their entire economic engine was being driven by relocating companies directly due to tax rates.
HDB
September 21st, 2010
5:10 pm
md September 21st, 2010
5:04 pm
“And what is to stop said corporation from moving said headquarters offshore to avoid that 25%??”
The lower tax rate!! The corporation would save an additional 150% by keeping it headquarters and manufacturing base here! The current tax code incentivizes taking jobs offshore….so penalize a corporation for doing just that!! If you raise the corporate tax on a corporation when they offshore jobs, the less likely they would do so…for the tax savings ARE the incentive!!
Rafe Hollister
September 21st, 2010
5:11 pm
HDB: you Dems love to pick winners and losers and assess punishment. I understand your theory, but it does nothing to attract new corporate citizens, just punishes and rewards those already here. New corporations=new jobs=new taxpayers.
md
September 21st, 2010
5:14 pm
HDB – you continue to leave out the cost of labor. It would be much cheaper for that company to move it’s headquarters avoiding the 25% and maintain the lower labor costs of offshoring jobs. They may save some money on tax rates, but will lose more in labor expenses when they bring those jobs back in.
Labor cost is why they are leaving in the first place, tax rates help decide where to go.
JDW
September 21st, 2010
5:19 pm
Kyle, I think you will find in the case of almost every budget, the final number is almost exactly the one submitted by the President in question. Some of the line items may shift but we are talking raw numbers so that is irrelevant.
If the inflation adjusted numbers were based on say 1980 dollars I would agree with you, in this case current dollars are a more accurate view because inflation has been constant over the period and the only adjusted numbers are 2005 numbers. For any valid comparison you have to use adjusted numbers from the current year backwards or pick a number from a year prior to any years being reviewed.
This renders your third point mute.
As to your fourth, I am not trying to absolve the current administration. I would do things much differently given the option. My point is that they are better than what came before them (Duhbya, Bush 1 and Ronnie). My point that we have been sold a bill of goods by the Republican Party still stands and that is the main point.
HDB
September 21st, 2010
5:23 pm
Rafe Hollister September 21st, 2010
5:11 pm
md September 21st, 2010
5:14 pm
Question: How many companies that offshored their work are coming BACK because of the inferior quality of the work done….or the inability to speak ENGLISH clearly?? The cost of labor may increase profit..but if the quality declines, so does profit!! If by incentivizing corporations to keep manufacturing HERE, I’d challenge the quality of American workmanship against any place worldwide!! For a many call centers that went to Mumbai….the preponderance of them are RETURNING!!
ANY corporation that has the capability of expansion would create new jobs…and that’s what the US sorely needs!!