Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are bickering over who is the bigger fan of outsourcing. The Obama campaign has accused the private equity firm Romney owned and founded, Bain Capital, of "pioneering" outsourcing with itsinvestments in companies that moved manufacturing overseas. Romney has claimed that he left Bain before jobs were outsourced andcountered that Obama's the real "outsourcer in chief" for investing government funds in energy companies that went on to hire workers abroad."Both candidates recognize that in globalization, offshoring happens," says Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both candidates are generally favorable towards globalization. These are not protectionist people." Outsourcing often leads to companies moving jobs out of the United States, but it also makes consumer goods cheaper to buy by making them cheaper to produce. Neither candidate has proposed trying to fundamentally alter that dynamic."Both the president and Mr. Romney understand that outsourcing is an unobjectionable fact of life, that the process generates large net benefits for Americans, and that attempts to restrict outsourcing would have deleterious effects on the US economy," Ikenson says. "However, both campaigns have decided, thus far, that it is easier to demagogue the issue and label the opponent as the bigger outsourcer than it is to explain how outsourcing works." That's because Romney doesn't want to look like a callous moneybags to American workers, and Obama doesn't want to undermine the image of the populist he plays on TV. So the détente serves both sides
why is there so much vitriol between the two sides if both pretty much have the same view? is it the deletion, the disinvolvement of "we the people" in favor of big business at least by one side, from this advantage that outsourcing is allegedly responsible for?
Where the candidates do differ is on how they want to respond to outsourcing—especially when it comes to tax policy. The Obama campaign has proposed ending tax incentives for companies that move jobs overseas and has proposed tax changes that it argues will stimulate manufacturing, such as tax credits for manufacturers of products that can be used to produce green energy. The Romney campaign has promised to crack down on China for artificially lowering the value of its currency, which makes Chinese goods cheaper and makes it harder for American manufacturers to compete. Romney has also proposed exempting companies' overseas profits from taxes. As president, Obama has reneged on his pledge to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), which makes it cheaper and easier for companies to manufacture goods in Mexico and Canada and import them to the United States, and signed new free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea that have similar effects.
ah ha, taxes trickle down is and remains a con from a guy who played many roles in movies, was it an act to convince "we the people" that his hat tip to the rich was in our favor too.
why are we in so much fiscal trouble why are the disparagement's between the rich and the middle class so far apart, why is the right trying to maintain this status quo? Walmart family controls 42% of the wealth here, more then all of the rest put together. if we don't work toward more fairer and opportunity to attain the illusive American dream, right wing has stored it with their WMD's, cause we can't find it.
we cannot depend on polls or speeches or other woefully inadequate surrogates to secure the America we want and was promised to us by the forefathers of those who seek to continue to oppose. that faction of the country has had a problem with being honest and sticking to their word, American Indians, Black slaves, immigrants from other countries, and now, "WE THE PEOPLE" where's the jobs Mr. Beohner? almost two years after your election 2010 lies were promised to your base, because we progressives knew it was more "TRICKLE" BS.
