Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hands Sandon 
I do agree with it. One of the best ways to begin dealing with it is to have limits on how much candidates can spend during elections. Green jobs can and should be made a priority. I don't have time to get more into this now, but flexibility in policies with a common sense approach is needed above all else.
Here's how not to deal with it. I copied and pasted it here from a post made over at HuffPo by someone named elfish-
"How Republicans sent Jobs Overseas
I. PROVIDE TAX INCENTIVES TO SHIP JOBS OVERSEAS:
In 2003, the Republicans passed new tax laws that gave businesses instant profits by shipping jobs over seas:
1. OVERSEA: Business receive Tax Deductions for moving and running a businesses over seas.
AMERICA: There is No Comparable Tax Deductions for starting and running a business in the US.
2. OVERSEAS: Companies can Defer tax payments for years (sometimes forever) on profits made overseas.
AMERICA: US corporations are required to Immediately pay taxes on any profits made in the US.
3. OVERSEAS: US Corporations get both a Tax Deduction and Tax Credit on Foreign Taxes. For every $100 in foreign taxes paid a corporation gets $135 in savings: $35 in deductions and $100 in Tax Credit.
AMERICA: No comparable credit for US corporations.
4. OVERSEAS: There is a "Check Box" option that allows overseas subsidiaries to disappear from the US Tax Rolls, shielding profit from taxes.
AMERICA: There are no comparable way for companies operating in America to hide from US taxes.
BOTTOM LINE: US Tax Code does everything to ship jobs overseas.
II. RESULT: MILLIONS OF JOBS OVERSEAS:
As soon as the new tax laws were passed under George Bush, the number of jobs sent overseas tripled:
2002 - 588,000
2003 - 315,300
2004 - 536,500
2005 - 832,000
2006 - 963,500
2007 - 1,095,500
2008 - 1,252,000
Total: 5,582,800
If those jobs were here, the unemployment rates would be 5.7%
III. ROMNEY'S ROLE. As Governor, Romney vetoed legislation that would have prohibited sending State jobs overseas and bared state contractors from sending jobs overseas. He even sent State Call Center Jobs overseas."
1. Limiting how much candidates can spend will not work. In fact, things have gotten worse every time we've tried that...since the 1970s. Candidates will simply find ways around it, just like everyone found ways around McCain-Feingold. The only way we have a chance to limit the money in these races is to try and limited the time they can campaign. Both parties would have to restructure their political calendars to make this happen. Until then, the money is here to stay...as is permanent campaigning.
2. There are two problems with your analysis of Republican positions here. First, the examples you provide are very simplified and highly misleading. What you're doing is conflating the net results for companies that take advantage of current tax law when moving overseas with specific policy positions of Republicans. No politician in his right mind would support specific tax credits for companies that move jobs overseas, for example. Secondly, you're ignoring that these corporations are often moving to escape our confiscatory tax and regulatory systems to begin with. We've made it too expensive to do business here.
3. With respect to jobs sent overseas: The Democrats tried this in 2004, and it didn't work then for the same reason it won't work now: You're ignoring the jobs that were sent IN to America. Yes, we "exported" jobs. But we also imported millions of jobs. So no, the unemployment rate would not be 5.7%. It would remain relatively unchanged, because you can't simply subtract jobs sent overseas without doing the same to the ones imported to America.
4. The Romney claim has been thoroughly debunked and explained. He didn't veto the bill because he wanted state contractors to send jobs overseas. This makes him about as much of an outsourcer of jobs as is my dog.
Really, Hands. You're sounding more desperate by the day. And you've still provided no real rationale for re-electing this President.
Let me translate- 
