Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

Speaking of this and why there is a terrible disconnect between the rich and the poor.

Target had to set up a trust fund to pay off all the workers who would be losing their jobs.
So 176,00 people will be dividing up 60 million dollars.
Which is fine on the face of it until you consider that the CEO who was fired for making the poor decisions that created the problems which required all those people to be fired in the first place was given a compensation package worth about the same amount.
That man needs to pay more taxes, a lot more.

Target CEO's Golden Handshake Pretty Much Matches The One For All 17,600 Canadian Employees

 

Trade restrictions costs US jobs and hurts economic activity. Any deal, that I can think of, that increases countries freely trading is good.

I know a person who wants to start a business importing artistic wood-crafted items from a country in Africa. I have not looked at his business plan, so I will use my estimations. First, due to excessive regulations I am doubtful he will get the business going. That aside, assuming for every $100 in sales he generates in the US from the imported items, let's say $20 goes to the African nation and the craftsmen - that leave us with $80 of new US business activity. You would focus on the $20 and say it is a trade deficit and that a US business created "jobs" overseas. An economist sees the $80 in new US business activity. This person's business will have expenses like: shipping and distribution, warehousing or storage, marketing/advertising, labor, insurance, office supplies/equipment, travel, banking fees, communication costs, utilities, taxes just to name a few - and if he does it correctly he will have some profits. All this new business activity can easily compensate and more for the $20 going to the African nation. And the further the analysis, an economist would factor in the increased business activity in Africa as it increases their ability to import US goods and services...

So, when you say bad trade deals, I don't understand your point. In modern times we do not see trade deals where the US or US companies go into poor nations and basically exploit the nation's resources without regard for the environment, human rights and other social factors. US trade deals benefit poorer nations. US trade deals have considerations for the environment, for human rights, etc. The US is a force for good!

China is able to manipulate their currency through buying US debt. If we control our debt we can control currency manipulation. China prints their currency to buy US dollars, flooding the market with their currency - keeping their currency cheap in relationship to dollars, to buy US debt. This actually causes the cost of US debt to be artificially low - giving our lawmakers incentives to incur more debt. It is a terrible cycle - that is rooted in using debt to finance government. I would argue that the currency manipulation hurts both the US and China - and the US has as much power to stop it as China.
--- merged: Jan 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM ---

Innovation would come to a screeching halt is the internet was treated like a utility.

I am out of my element, but what about Google Fiber and the test markets they have set up? Competition is best for the internet in my opinion. Let companies with deep pockets innovate. If Netflix through my cable company is inadequate and Netflix is not able to negotiate a deal, I want to be free to have an alternative. How would it work as a utility. One company, one rate, no innovation, piss-poor customer service, etc, etc., etc. If DSL is a problem let cellular networks step up and continue increasing speeds. I am not a heavy user of the internet on my phone, but I can rarely tell the difference between WIFI download speed and the speed through the cellular network.
--- merged: Jan 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM ---

I have been following the issue, what am I missing? From yesterday's WSJ.

Broadband Industry Backs GOP’s Proposed Net-Neutrality Bill - WSJ

 

Of course the industry backs the the bill, it leaves them all kinds of holes to get their claws into the consumer.
The bill is designed to look like an alternative but it really doesn't address a number of major issues including throttling.
Your comments about Google fiber is interesting since one of the companies who supports Net Neutrality is Google, along with most of the tech companies that would provide that the innovation you are talking about.
I suspect they don't like the idea of having to bow down to one monster IP either.

 

I am fully supportive of fair trade for the US and investing overseas in a a global economy, but our recent trade deals were not fair trade to the US in terms of impact on US workers, trade deficits, environmental and worker protections in trade party countries and currency manipulation well beyond just China, most notably Korea and soon, Japan.

On corporate tax policy, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rates put the US nearer the bottom than the top on corporate taxes.

On Net Neutrality, this is a good article on the Republican bill that effectively guts the FCC.

And the letter from 100+ tech companies opposed to the proposal from Republicans on the FCC to allow tiered services being pushed by Comcast/Verizon/Time Warner
--- merged: Jan 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM ---
p.s. I also support a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank (with corrections to prevent abuses like those by the biggest corporations, Boeing, to name one). It has always had bi-partisan support but faced opposition from House Tea Party Republicans last year and a short term extension was all that could pass. It needs to be reauthorized beyond June of this year.

 

Again, I think on this issue a lot gets lost in the vague terms used to describe the issue - net neutrality. I am in favor of net neutrality, without a doubt. I am also against government sanctioned monopolies, without a doubt. If the deal is that my IP gets protected status from the government, and is my only option for internet services in exchange for that IP giving unrestricted flow from content providers - I don't want that deal. I want to participate in a free market where I have choice. If I want to pay an IP to get 24/7 access to Netflix at the highest possible speed, give me that choice. If I want to pay an ISP to get 24/7 access to content rich on-line gaming, give me that choice. If I want upload speeds 100x faster than the norm, give me that choice. If my wife's mother simply wants internet to check Facebook and nothing else, give her that choice at a cost that reflects that. If net neutrality results in consumers having one option that is inadequate for what many people want to do, I don't want that. So, if we think IP's are going to give us the "biggest pipes" possible coming into our homes and businesses once they get the FCC treating them like a utility we will deserve what we end up with. As a utility, everyone will have to live with the same options. Some will pay too much and others will not get the speeds they want.
--- merged: Jan 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM ---

There is vague talk of closing loopholes. It is rare that corporations (or individuals) purposefully violate current tax law. Some tax laws are unclear and subject to interpretation, the IRS regularly issues tax rulings and regulations intended to clarify tax law. Most of the political rhetoric is rooted in populism. As the Target example illustrates, Democrats rarely will go into detail regarding how they would change the law to address how Target can invest in Canada, creating Canadian jobs and be able to deduct some expenses related to that lowering their US tax bill.

US liberals are saying that any US firm that invests in another country, creating a job in that country rather than having that job created in the US is doing something wrong. It is not difficult to take a side on this issue. We either encourage free international trade or we discourage it - the choice is clear. I can understand the political need to appeal to a population of low informed voters who may have been impacted by a job loss. I don;t agree with it, rather than a focus on being anti-free trade I would rather see a focus on training, education and professional development. Jobs are always going to come and go. The rate of change is speeding up, we need a population willing and able to keep pace with those changes - not a population sitting idle complaining about low skill, low paying jobs going to China.

I see potential in the President's community college proposal. I think there is some merit and that a detailed proposal could be created, legislation drafted and passed. A good opportunity for compromise because there is agreement on the general principle.
--- merged: Jan 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM ---

Can you be more specific. To say you favor US companies investing overseas and to say that it is wrong for US companies to move jobs overseas appears as a contradiction. What would you actually change?

S&P 500 companies have about $1.9 trillion parked overseas, money that could be repatriated. This is one reason why the effective tax rate is materially lower than the stated maximum tax rate - losses come back and are reflected in tax reporting, foreign profits may or may not be reflected in tax reporting.

And if we all know what the effective tax rate is, why not change the tax law to more closely match the effective rate - and minimize tax avoidance strategies.

 

Without regulating ISPs, you might get Time Warner slowing down NetFlix and pushing out their own, lesser quality streaming video services. Where is your choice?

Or you might get a small company with an innovative idea that Comcast sees flowing through it pipes and decide they can do it on their own and slows down the small outside innovator. Where is your choice?

Ot maybe Verizon decides to slow down Google and start their own search engine. Where is your choice?

That is a potential result of tiered services and that is the concern with the Republican bill that ties the hands of the FCC to the point that they are powerless to prevent monopolitic practices by the big three (or four/five) that now control a significant majority of bandwidth.

I thought I was specific....fair trade, not free trade (job protectons, environmental protections, current manipulation protections); tax reform to incentivize insourcing not outsourcing; reauthore Ex-Im to benefit US small businesses wishing to expand overseas markets to start.
--- merged: Jan 22, 2015 at 6:19 PM ---
Net Neutrality for Ted Cruz is worth reposting.

 

Repubs on the FCC voted for marginalizing students from poor and working families last month.

On party line vote last month, ther FCC expanded the E-Rate program that provides high speed internet in schools and libaries, many in poor urban and rural areas, at a cost of $.16/month fee added to phone bills.

 

Somebody did a fantastic job with that.

The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

 

The Republicans threw a few cute little additions into the bill that made it illegal for towns and counties to set up their own IPs and wireless services.
Right now there are a couple of towns that have broadband service that rival Europe, faster than just about anywhere else in the United States because the town decided they wanted to make that investment.
This way they can provide free broadband to their citizens.
That would be illegal under this new law.

City Wifi: Fast, Cheap, and No You Can't Have It | Mother Jones

 

And another thing the NCTA is fighting tooth and nail will be the definition of broadband.
They are not happy that the FCC wants to update it to 25Mbps down/ 3 up.
They insist the nobody needs it that fast.
Considering that most industrialized countries are faster than we are that is a ludicrous statement.
Who knows what the future usage will call for?

Why You Should Care That The FCC Is Trying To Redefine Broadband

 

Dammit President Obama now you've done it.
You went and said that people should get their kids vaccinated so the Republicans are going to have do their usual knee jerk response of saying no they don't.
Of all the things two parties should be agreeing on it's this.

 

The FCC is moving to correct that problem.

 

And so it goes, $.16/month here and there and it adds up - My father is retired, on a fixed income, has no interest in the internet - so he should pay so others can get subsidized internet!?! I say no. $.16/month or not - this is an example of a core principled disagreement between how I view these issues compared to a liberal view point. I would suggest that we don't tax A some people to support B for others. a better way, if we need to tax anything, would be to tax high speed internet directly to subsidize those in society needing a subsidy. And I would argue that before we subsidize the internet for students, we make sure they can read at grade level first.

I about a tax on internet posting? I propose a $.16/post to help poor children, that is nothing. And if you are against the tax, why are you are at war with children? Why don't you want young people to prepare for the future? Why are you against science? I reject the notion that we can not make the internet accessible to poor children and internet posters should do their fair share. TFP posters should without a doubt support fairness and equity. We also know that minorities and women are not properly represented on the internet - it goes without saying anyone who does not support the proposed tax is not only an elitist internet prick, but also a racist, and a sexist. Oh, and global warming causes more snow or less snow, the science is settled!
--- merged: Feb 3, 2015 at 6:55 PM ---

I won't support the proposed law under those conditions. More than anything I support choice and I want to error on the side of free'er rather than restricted markets.
--- merged: Feb 3, 2015 at 7:00 PM ---

Republican's don't get their kids vaccinated???? I would like to see a source for that. People with libertarian views would argue that the government has no right to force vaccinations (different from saying it should not be done) - but the libertarian wing of the Republican Party is small and there are most likely as many in the libertarian wing of the Democratic Party.

 

Here are two who (and yeah, Rand is on the libertarian wing but Christie?)

Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Rand Paul Jump Into Vaccine Debate : The Two-Way : NPR

 

Then why should I pay for subsidized oil and gas exploration? A whole bunch of military bases overseas and in Cuba that we don't need? And arming ordinary police forces with military weapons? There are a lot of taxes that I pay that I might not agree with, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't help the country.