The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (47 comments)

  1. bkeyser

    Wow. Sounds like WaPo must be particularly upset with the likes of Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Isuzu, and Subaru. Oh, and Mercedes-Benz, and BMW. Those foreign companies all have manufacturing plants here in the US.

    Fargin bastages.

  2. The problem is that unless we have reporters that will debunk those lies on the mainstream media, the general public will NOT know the truth and they[‘ll believe the lies or distortions from WAPO as well as CBC, ABC, NBC, CNN and most major newspapers.

    1. tina,
      Then it is up to those of us who understand what is happening to provide the information to the wilfully ignorant. Since the media, for the most part, has abdicated it’s responsibility to the truth, “We the People” must, MUST provide the information to those who have no clue how intentionally misleading the mainstream information “presstitutes” have become. Everyone on this comment board and everyone who reads this has an obligation to forward to your address book this information to inform the willfully ignorant of the abuses and misstatements of facts by the media. It is YOUR responsibility. And mine. And ours.

  3. Michael

    Justr pathetic…another hit piece from the Washington Post to grab headlines….just like th High School Bully BS!!! Just amazing the blantant lies to give Obama a talking point that is JUST UNTRUE!! I cannot stand this type of garbage but I am never suprised by anything that comes out of the Washington Post. Which can never tell you about any Jobs that Obama created, any business he has ever run or payroll that he was responsible for!! No indepth coverage of the MILLIONS of people out of work because of Obama’s Policies!! Never! Of course not!! Sorry WaPo like you other stories panned and scrapped!

  4. I’m sure WaPo isn’t at fault. That article was obviously from their equivalent of Superman’s Bizzaro.

  5. Abu bin Squid

    Jimmy P.,
    You’re getting in the way of the re-election. Libs have no use for critical thinking. If it sounds good then they run with it. Got it?!?!11!


  6. Symshady

    How dare that Romney contribute to the success of all those companies when that’s his job. Sheesh. The NERVE of the guy! Imagine, having a real career for most of your life before running for President. Who would’ve thunk it? /s

  7. patrick crowe

    There is a company called GM that Obama restructured. Apparently, they closed some US factories, only to open new ones in China and Mexico. The difference is, Romney risked private capital.

  8. Dan Short

    The car companies do not have manufacturing in the United States; they have assembly plants. The high end jobs, of actual making the components are all in foreign countries.
    No have you ever asked why they assemble here? Simple really, Americans are stronger, and can make the production line move more efficient. Add to that the fact, assembled cars take up more room than parts when shipping, saving money.
    It also helps, as the assembly is the least technical part of the equation, so the unqualified, uneducated, dope smoking Americans are the perfect—robotic humanoids, to interact with the robots that do most of the assembly work.
    Contribution, contribution, contribution is the answer to why different places are involved in different productions. In this nation –we have destroyed the technical environment, and replaced it with the entitled worker, who doesn’t realize that his contribution has to be subsidized by someone else.
    The prime example is the travesty of the debacle of the General Motors destruction. This succeeded in turning a viable company, into an absolute economic mess; all by the actions of government interference.
    Congress is the one who sends all jobs overseas. The sooner the people of this nation figure that out—the sooner we can then begin the process of correction.

  9. PaoloT61

    Another point missed by the WaPo article was the US didn’t have >8 % unemployment… there was a tech labor shortage during the 90’s and many companies outsourced or partnered with offshore companies to fill the gap. The WaPo should shrink the size of their print format from broadsheet to tabloid.


    What I gathered from ths story is a history of expanding and successful business ventures. In Obamas world being good at what you do is bad. Would the Post have printed a positive story about Romney if all these had all been business failures?

  11. Perspecticus

    When you’re rIght you’re right. He was rich long before he helped ship jobs overseas, empty out companies here, and destroy the lives and futures of thousands of people in order to add a few more dollars in the pockets of his investors.

    1. Yeah, uh…this whole article just debunked the “helped ship jobs overseas” part. Did you not read it?

      The companies he’s said to have “[emptied] out” were already falling apart, guy. That’s what private equity does: it’s salvaging failing business.

      If you don’t even make a good faith effort to understand these things, then you really shouldn’t be talking about them, let alone proclaiming your ignorance in public for all to hear.

    2. Catman21954

      You appear to have the same level of business “expertise” as Obama — which is why this country is in such bad shape, and why Obama needs to be a one-term President.

    3. Keith Greenlee

      That’s absolute garbage!

    4. christine

      Wow. You should go do some intensive research. You are in need of some factual education.

  12. VA Voter

    James, don’t you think its time to go after Hamberger’s boss by name as well and tie the boss to as many hit jobs as there are.

  13. Russ Davis

    WaPo bad reporting is of course redundant. If they do accidentally tell the truth they apologize.

    1. Russ, you comment is a logical fallacy: character assassination as a substitute for factual rebuttal. Labeling instead of critical thinking.
      Kill the messenger to bury the message.

      State of denial. The masters love such puppets.

  14. Henry Smith

    I guess what they are really saying is that you have to judge a Presidential candidate by the people he associated with in his past and the things they did & said and worked for…..Bill Ayers/Bernadette Dorn, domestic terrorists….Rev Wright, American & Jew hater, Black Theology Religion….Blago, Ill Gov, criminal, inmate….Resko, most recently and still an inmate….Choom Gang, Pot Smokers, Cocaine Users… Yes, I think they have a good idea they need to run with…… lets look more closely at their pasts. Because now, Romney running for President and obama is invoking Executive Privilege to cover his involvement in or covering up Brian Terry’s death and the death of over 300 Mexicans!

    1. tracy klovens

      henry, you speak the truth well done…

    2. We so care about dead Mexicans. I wonder how many Bush’s Operation Wide Receiver in 2006-07 killed, since most weapons in that sting disappeared into Mexico.

      I don’t see Bill Ayers on the President’s cabinet; I do see that Republican banker Timothy Geithner. The fact is, he pals around with rich and powerful folks. No one gets to be President without doing that.

      And did you complain when in 2009, John McCain embraced Ghadafi and offered him assurance of US aid and advice on how to handle bad PR? Was that palining around with terrorists? When I observe a double standard, I suspect it is based either on ideology (liberal/conservative)–which has nothing to do with reality–or race. (Obama, for whom I am not voting, is blamed for many things no other President got heat for. He has 1/3 the days off as Bush but he gets lots of shat for that. He uses a teleprompter (all Presidents for 50 years have used). He creates a mandated healthcare bill, the very concept created by the Heritage Foundation and promoted by conservatives Gingrich and enacted by severe conservative Romney into the Mass mandated program. Double standard demonstrates discrimination.
      But since Obama’s policies have been much more centrist than liberal, the ideological argument is flawed. That leaves only one layer, the deep racial fear and contempt which hides in the heart of the rightwing, the base of the
      racist minority which continue to poison our political discourse and search for pragmatic solutions.

      1. Well, you might not care (the progressive hive sees all people as disposable for the good of the collective) but I think normal American’s are not thrilled with selling guns directly to drug cartels. Obama’s policies are centrist? If you mean centrist in that he falls between a communist and a socialist I agree. By the way, the suggestion this is racist is beyond stupid unless you think a Clinton presidency pulling the same assinine policy would not be getting heat. Oh, I forgot he was the first ‘black’ president. I stand corrected. Maybe it is racist.

      2. Old Bull

        Dale, you really need to work on your regurgitation skills. You are trying to cram so much irrelevant and/or untrue facts on one post that it is impossible to disentangle them all and address them. Not that you would care. You just have to complete your seminar assignment so you can get back to your “Fast and Furious” videogame. However, just to address your final assertion, that opposition to Mr. Obama is based only on racism. You keep thinking that, Dale, if it gives you comfort. But try to remember that way back in 1996, a black man could have had the Republican nomination for the taking–but he chose not to do so. I’m referring, of course, to Gen. Powell. The difference between Gen. Powell and Mr. Obama is that Gen. Powell has a solid record of accomplishment, while Mr. Obama had none. Now Mr. Obama has a record of accomplishment, but it’s all bad. Now he must be defeated before he can do any more damage. It’s that simple, and that profound. His race is utterly immaterial. At least, it is to Republicans.

        To you, apparently, it’s the only thing that matters.

      3. I find it interesting that neither Don nor Old Bull cited any tangible evidence… Both did, however, manage to personally attack the person giving their perspective on the situation simply because their views, policies, and racial integrity were called into question. Bravo, intellectuals.

        1. Aside from the Colin Powell tidbit, obviously. I just find it interesting that there seems to be a party that embraces the general well-being of the population, and there’s a party that embraces the general well-being of individual corporations… Through millions and millions of dollars of advertising, the Republicans have done it: They have created a base of bible-banging racists that will follow their every move. Does that mean that all republicans fit in this category? No. Probably only 25% or so. Some may call people with democratic views “obamabots”, but even this was a term coined by the conservative media that the base of the GOP clings to. This idea that attacking your opponent regardless of whether the facts are there or not HAS to stop. From both parties.

          INB4 argumentative pseudo-intellectuals claim that I’m just another obamabot… I’m libertarian. I hate both parties. Especially the civil liberties that have been taken away by the patriot act and then exacerbated by the NDAA. (If you’re not familiar, get familiar with them. It’s a big deal”).

          I can go on and on about Obama’s failures. Sadly, we have a dominant two party system. I would rather choose the party that values me as a part of a community rather than a party that sees wage-workers (such as myself) that want a better wage as an inconvenience to billionaires.

          1. What are you, a union thug who envies the successful.
            You are vile to desire higher wages. You are depraved to think that the falling median wage (30% in last 30 yrs) is anything but a blessing, for unemployment and lack of unions insures low wages, which helps protect American jobs. When we get rid of the minimum wage ($290 a week) and wages drop to 50cents an hour, no one will send jobs to China. All we need is to transition to a slave labor economy and there will be plenty of jobs….and poverty is not real. Even the poor in the US have shoes and tv sets.

            So let’s join the race to the bottom.

        2. So “intellectuals” is a term of derision by the know-nothing Fox-misinformed rightwing lumpen reactionaires.

          An analysis of logic and pointing out the lack of evidence is significant critical work. Those who prefer their views pre-digested and have no sources to call upon or logic to assert can always mock the “intellectuals.” (ie those they resent and envy for their superior intellect, knowledge, and expressive talents.” I call it sour grapes.


  15. This is a very weak refutation.
    It ignores central facts, such as CSI outsourcing to Asia).
    It refutes statements that Modus made to the SED (“Two years later, Modus Media told the SEC it was performing outsource packaging and hardware assembly for IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Computer Corp. The filing disclosed that Modus had operations on four continents, including Asian facilities in Singapore, Taiwan, China and South Korea.”

    It doesn’t deal with either the issues (not whether Romney “got rich” outsourcing jobs but whether this was a key component of Bain operations. The Post article is well-documented. This “refutation” fails because it does not refute the Post evidence, lies about the facts, and does not contain any documentation or sources at all.

    Pure opinion, from a partisan propaganda organ, is worthless. Those who have drunk the kool aid will
    claim “the bain outsourcing story has been discredited.”

    If this is the instrument of debunking the Post story,
    I think this article will be a game changer in the debate about whether Romney’s business experience the kind that qualifies a man (with zero foreign policy experience and a failed term as governor, where his state was 47th in job creation in the US….he won’t be talking about his government experience much)…….
    so the rightwing dicks will buy this failed refutation automatically (dittoheads)
    but anyone with any independence will look at the documented facts and discredit the unsupported claims which ignore the facts about his expertise in “job-creation.”

    The comics will kill him with this one.
    Voltaire observed that ridicule can topple kings.
    Romney’s defense is “they are confusing outsourcing with outshoring.” Bain offshored and outsourced to companies which helped corporations offshore.

    That just invites more mockery. Sometimes, splitting hairs is a means of trying to divert attention from the simple truth, a desperate attempt to turn an issue of integrity (what did Romney do at Bains vs what he claims (but will not document)) into a quibble about semantics.

    Bains made money investing in and managing firms which helped big corporations send jobs abroad, including many to Asia. Romney has tried to hide this unpopular side of his “getting rich.” But now it’s out….and even the AEI cannot provide a credible cover. It’s to laugh!

    1. Fear the Same

      This is a very weak refutation of Pethokoukis’ article.

      Unlike the Post article Pethoukis backs up his articles with hard facts. This “refutation” fails because it does not refute Pethokoukis’s evidence, lies about the facts, and does not contain any documentation or sources at all.

      Pure opinion, from a partisan propagandist is worthless. Those who have drunk the Flavor-aid will claim “that Pethokoukis’s takedown of the post has been discredited.”

      If this is the instrument of debunking of Pethoukoukis’s well-researched take-down of the Post’s shoddy reporting, I think this spiel will be a game changer because it suggest that the only people who have a beef with Pethokoukis’s decisive and well-ordered takedown of the WaPo’s shoddily researched article are people who can’t construct a coherent sentence.

      >The Comics will kill him with this one.
      Sadly not many people these days read the comics.

      >Voltaire observed that ridicule can topple kings.

      This is true although, some ridicule can be labeled racist even if the King has more white blood than George Zimerman

      >Romney’s defense is “they are confusing outsourcing with outshoring.” Bain offshored and outsourced to companies which helped corporations ONshore.

      Sometimes, splitting hairs is a means of trying to divert attention from the simple truth, a desperate attempt to turn an issue of integrity (whether the Post’s reporting has any basis in truth) into a quibble about semantics.

      Bains made money investing in and managing firms which helped big corporations bring jobs here including many FROM Asia by helping find Markets for Americanmad goods. WaPo has tried to distort this record by conflating Romney’s period at Bane with those of prominent Obama contributors. But now the truth’s out….and poor DALE cannot provide a credible cover. It’s to laugh!

      1. Using the same format as another writer and replacing the words that you disagree with is borderline pathetic, Fear the Same. I understand your reasoning for writing this way… a mockery of something that you find woefully ignorant… but what I don’t understand is how you can claim that Pethokoukis’ article contained any tangible numerical data. Most of what he had to say was purely based on perspective: not fact.

        “What CSI actually did was provide U.S. software developers with technical support and sales. Example: It provided domestic outsourcing — which is different than overseas offshoring — for call centers and help desks. As far as its international business goes, CSI was a reseller of U.S. software in European markets. In other words, they helped distribute U.S. software around the world.”

        Why can’t we distribute software around the world from the good ol’ USA? Why do we NEED to have entire companies overseas to handle international distribution? The cost benefit for this company must minimal because there already exists several companies that deal with international distribution. Three letters. DHL. So the reality of the situation must be that the costs were less to take the jobs overseas, and it benefited the Company; America be damned.

        “Those overseas call centers in the WaPo story were based in Europe and Japan, and serviced international customers of U.S. companies in their local languages.”

        Are Americans incapable of handling problems in other countries? Do we not have millions of citizens who are at least bi-lingual? Are we not “The Melting Pot”?

        “Again, what Modus Media did was help companies like Microsoft and IBM sell their products internationally. Products destined for American consumers were manufactured here at home.”

        Why does it matter where the product is destined in a global economy? Manufacturing brings prosperity to the region: distribution brings prosperity to the company.

        etc etc etc etc etc etc….

        Same old shit, just a different day.

        At the end of the day, it is an intrinsic trait that companies MUST care about the bottom line… maximizing profits. That’s it. Countries, the people, environment, everything else be damned. If you want to keep voting for companies and corporations, go for it. Let wage inequality continue to grow, until all you have is your Bible and a prayer. Hopefully that will save you.

    2. The article addresses precisely the arguments you are claiming it doesn’t, and you’re perfectly free to fact check any claims made by the article if you wish. Or, you can continue buying into a WaPo article published in coordination with the Obama campaign in what it says about Obama’s rival, in spite of the facts to the contrary. Your choice, Obamabot.

    3. Voltaire was a narcissistic supercilious little fraction of a man. Unfortunately, that is the type of persona that is popular today. They never take risk, or put themselves on the line, they just make fun of people that do.

      1. Character assassination is the method of those who cannot find evidence to support their disapproval.

        Voltairewas a French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit and for his advocacy of civil liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, free trade and separation of church and state. Voltaire was a prolific writer, producing works in almost every literary form, including plays, poetry, novels, essays, and historical and scientific works. He wrote more than 20,000 letters and more than 2,000 books and pamphlets. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform, despite strict censorship laws with harsh penalties for those who broke them. As a satirical polemicist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize intolerance, religious dogma and the French institutions of his day.
        Voltaire was one of several Enlightenment figures whose works and ideas influenced important thinkers of both the American and French Revolutions.” (Wikipedia_)

        Voltaire was banned from Paris by Lous XV and spent many decades fighting for the persecuted (and was effective).

        Here a rightwing Christian website agrees that Voltaire had an influence on the Founding Fathers.

        “The typical belief is that the Revolutionaries were influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers of France and England, by men like Voltaire and Rousseau.

        To this we agree…”

        Jefferson felt so highly of Voltaire that he had a bust in his office.

        The Founding Fathers were Enlightenment men who appreciated the contributions of the European Enlightement, of which no scholar will deny Voltaire was a leading light by his accomplishments and influence.

        Psychobabble about Voltaire’s narcissism can be dismissed as a way to hide from a factual discussion.
        The fact is that Voltaire was one of the most important intellectuals and writers in history and his influence was very significant in framing the ideas of the American Revolution.

        Character assassination is the weapon of the dishonest and the impotent. Voltaire was hated by the clergy, the monarch, and the aristocrats of Europe; he has survived the most vile denigration. You can’t dismiss his immense contributions to art, philosophy, and politics, without revealing yourself as a an ignorant fool.

        In 1778, the Voltaire Medal was awarded to George Washington for his contributions to human liberty.

        The Library of Congress states: “Jefferson was profoundly interested in the work of the French philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author. The French influence in Jefferson’s collection did not go unnoticed.”, the most scholarly of the Jefferson websites, writes: ” Voltaire, the great French philosopher and writer, died six years before Jefferson arrived in Paris. Jefferson admired his works and included them among a list of books of ancient and modern history, mathematics, astronomy, and religion recommended for the education of his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787.[2] Jefferson’s library included Voltaire’s works published by Beaumarchais at Kehl, which he visited. A little more than a year after Jefferson arrived in Paris, he wrote, “I find the general fate of humanity here most deplorable. The truth of Voltaire’s observation offers itself perpetually, that every man here must be either the hammer or the anvil.” The bust of Voltaire is at Monticello.l

        From John Adams’ Diary: “About a month before the death of VOLTAIRS, Mr. ADAMS saw that great wit, then in his eightyfourth year, at the Paris theatre of Comedy. The old man attended the performance of his own Alzire. “Between the acts, the audience called him out and clapped and applauded him the whole time. ”

        Ben Franklin met Voltaire and honored him as a most esteemed author/activist (Voltaire fought against religions intolerance, tyranny, torture, slavery, and history based on dogma rather than facts). He respected Voltaire so much he took his grandson to have Voltaire pronounce a blessing. Voltaire, a Deist like the Founding Fathers, said: “God and Liberty.” (nytimes, jan 1922 article).

        In short, Voltaire was a great hero and inspiration to the authors of the Constitution. His attackers have included, defenders of monarchy, slave-owners, churchmen who used torture to ensure conformity, and all those who opposed the Enlightenment values, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, of tolerance, equality, liberty, democracy, and human brotherhood.

        Those who are so demented as to attack him today no doubt object for much the same reasons.

        1. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand…. Win.

  16. Darrell

    Steve, you’ve eloquently stated what we all must do – disseminate the truth to the willfully ignorant!

  17. RedneckJD

    One thing that always amazes me about complaints of sending jobs “overseas” is what is the reason they go “overseas”. Labor is the biggest expense of most, if not all businesses. When the costs become burdensome, something must be done. And if unions, government regs, etc. become too expensive then you must cut costs. And if that means sending jobs overseas, so be it. There is nothing wrong with that. You look at the underlying reason, and make adjustments there. Do away with unions, cut regs to zero, and most jobs may stay here.

    1. realmanyoga

      This was 1000% a greedy money grab starting with the first outsourced job. In fact, it was a double ended money grab. First was to screw the American workers by hiring Sanjay and Parvinder for 30 cents on the dollar. Second was to fail to impose import tariffs and duties to dilute the effect of the lower prices that the offshore manufactured product would have. In other words, the tariffs and duties would have helped keep American products price competitive.

      The problem with the conservative philosophy is that once you’ve raped and pillaged a populous, there are no more customers to sell to.

  18. OK, I can agree with this analysis, but they don’t give the full context.

    The steel company in SC that Bain invested in went broke with $55M in debt, having paid Bain $35M in management fees. That was Romney’s investment, BOD member, …

    That is not making $ from good investing, it is pillaging the company.

    1. Usam1981

      That company almost went out of business 10 years before if finally closed. That company had BANE to thank for those 10 years, idiot. That is not pillaging.

    2. Good point! The great riches of investment are supposed to be justified by great risks. But if you make money even when you borrow, cut pensions (and use US taxpayer money to guarantee pension payments), strip assets and lay off workers, then go bankrupt….and you make a ton, where is the risk (got this idea from Bill Maher)?

      If you make money even when your business fails, what justifies the huge profits? Those huge profits are wealth stolen from the workers.

      And when the big banks make 240 trillion in risky “investments” (really just gambling) in credit swaps and European sovereign debt (these are facts), if it works they make hundreds of billions. But if it fails, they have, owing to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, tranferred all at risk accounts to their commercial banks where the taxpayer/government is obligated to back them up.

      So heads they win; tails they win. Where there is no risk, great profits are theft. Big business needs Big government to fight its wars, take care of the cast off workers, and pay them for being rich enough to lobby enough to buy subsidies and tax loopholes.

      If great profit is justified by great risk, those who profit from failed businesses or who are bailed out when they fail by the taxpayer, can no longer justify the more than 100% of wealth they extract from the workers.

      If private rewards cannot be rationalized by risk taken,
      this is not free markets or capitalism but rather highway robbery.

      No risk/no rewards. No risk/great rewards = theft.

      It’s a funny two-tiered economy: if you are rich enough, you can buy policies which make you richer.

      If you work or are unemployed or a student or senior or child, you pay for the enrichment of the rich by having austerity (ie pain, cuts, losses) imposed.

      The theory is: if you are rich enough, you can steal political power and the new wealth created by increasing productivity (ie profits), you can extract all the value added by “the fruit of their labor.” In past 30 yrs, rich gain 280% in income; median wages fall 30%.

      If you are able to steal this wealth without sharing it with the workers, you have “earned” it and any attempt to tax you is “punishing success” and stealing the property of the rich (which they stole from the workers who have been excluded from prosperity).

      If your father steals my car, and years later, after he has died and you have inherited the car, I take it back, am I violating your property rights (you didn’t steal it)? CAn I steal what originally belonged to me?

      When 17 US billionaires pay zero taxes, but I at 71, making 50K a year pay twice the taxes of say, Romney,
      this too is theft. This too is a transfer of value/wealth I have created thru my hard work (40 hrs a week) for while my wages decline or are stagnant, the rich have nearly tripled their income and wealth.

      If you return money that was unfairly transferred, is that theft? Or is the original transfer the theft? And when the banks make huge profits on their risky gambles, knowing that the govt is obligated to bail them out, shouldn’t the workers/taxpayers have a share in those profits?

      As Anatole France once wrote, lamenting the criticism made of the poor for begging for the nanny state to feed them: Are only the rich (think 2008 bank bailouts) allowed to beg? In the US today, welfare (TANF) cost about 40 billion a year, or 1/3 of what the wealthy drug industry gets in govt subsidies (over a trillion given away since Medicare Part D passed in nearly 10 yrs ago under Bush). Don’t cut the subsidy, cut welfare.

      Big oil companies like exxon, chevron, and others which recently have made up to 40 billion profits in a year and paid no taxes, indeed got refunds from the IRS), shift costs of environmental and health damages (from pollution) to the public. Is this not a form of theft: we make 40 billion year with no taxes and you pay for the
      illness and early death our products result in.

      There are many ways to steal; the worst are those which are legal robbery, made legitimate by powerful corporations being rich enough to buy elections and bribe politicians for special favors, including stealing taxpayer money (like the 20 billion a year tax subsidy to the world’s richest corporations) and shifting costs of harm done to the taxpayer/govt.

      And so I conclude: when someone steals from you, it is not theft to take it back. It is justice. And when someone who takes no risk and is backed up by the taxpayer (240 trillion in risky investments by the big banks now on shoulders of govt to pay off in case of losses) makes huge profits, is that really earned?

      Workers work and they are taxed on their productivity; this punishes hard work.

      Those who live off their investments (often inherited as with Trump and Forbes) and do not work, pay a much lower rate than workers (thus rewarding not working) and sometimes no taxes at all.

      So we punish work and reward passive gains with a lower tax rate. If I am a teacher making 50K, I pay about 20-25% in taxes. If I own billions in stock (tho I might be in a coma), I pay only 15 or less % (Romney paid 13.9), some pay none at all. Isn’t this tax structure a form of theft, punishing those who work in order to afford letting those who do not have very low tax rates. This is a form of legal theft, based on an unfair (but paid for) law, which punishes work but rewards the rich for being rich.

      The rich are rewarded for being rich; the poor are punished by having their hard work taxed at a higher rate than billionaires. Shouldn’t it be just the opposite?

      1. Sam Huntington

        Some good points, but consider that the top
        5% of wage earners in CA pay 70% of the taxes .

        The bottom 50% pay NO State of Federal
        Income tax . A point the Washington Post
        rarely makes . Small businesses bear the brunt
        of the tax laws . Voila – that
        plus costs of illegal immigration, plus the effects of
        the recession mean trouble .

        1. According to a UC study, the top 1% (nationally) owned 43% of financial wealth; the top 20% own 93%. And the bottom 80% owns 7%. The richest 400 American billionaires pay an average of 17% total Federal taxes.

          I am 71, work full time, make 50K, and pay 20%.

          Believe me, Romney, who makes 20 million without working and pays 13.9% total fed taxes, if he had to pay another million, would not feel it. If I, with my average income, had to pay more, I would be in serious pain.

          In California, the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes (but own a higher percent of wealth).

          Nationally, the top percent owns 43% but pays 36% of taxes. Those who pay no Fed income taxes do pay payroll taxes, often at a higher rate than many billionaires (of whom 17 paid no taxes at all).

          If a billionaires has to pay say at the Clinton rate(39), he might have an income of 40 million instead of 42 million.

          ‘For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.” — Luke 12:48

          When billionaires pay a lower rate than teachers and firemen, we are witnessing class warfare in action, the transfer of wealth (created by society, with its roads and law and courts) which workers create to the very rich as median wages decline (over 30% in last 30 years).

          Tax rates on the rich are at the lowest rate in 80 years.

          You cannot squeeze blood out of turnip; those workers (150 million of us) whose wages have been declining as prices have been rising would suffer immensely with higher taxes. The very rich would not be personally effected at all. 21 million or 20 million (with rates at Clinton level)? Do you really thing that hurts the rich?

          But taxing the 50% who make $10 an hour or less, who already pay payroll taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc etc would be very painful and reduce them to poverty, choosing between paying rent or buying food. kl

          For 30 years, the rich have nearly tripled their income while the median wage is down 1/3. Complaining that those who own 93% of the wealth (the top 20%) pay too much in taxes (while at 80 year lows, and lower than any other peer nation (35 developed states), is pure selfishness if you are one of the rich but pure masochism if you are one of the 240 million Americans who own 7% of the wealth.

          Rewards for the rich; austerity for the working class: this is the recipe for economic collapse and revolt.

    3. christine

      Really? Do u expect EVERY investment to be a success? That’s not the way things work. His success rate is 80%-20%. That is an incredible record! …I dont expect people to be perfect and make wise and fiscally responsible decisions every time…sometimes you take risks that dont turn out well . But obama’s not even close to 50%-50%. That would be a drastic improvement…which is sad.

  19. G.K. Paleos

    Please, don’t try to educate a liberal or the willfully ingnorant. It is one and the same. The fact is the global economy has benefited the USA greatly, and at the same time has lifted millions out of poverty, world wide. Those are undisputed facts. But facts get in the way of the liberal convoluted thinking. If something feels good expect a liberal to embrace it; if not will fight it.

    With respect to WaPo hatchet job, you should know by now, they and others in the liberal media, have abdicated their responsibility to inform the public with honesty and integrity. That’s why they are going down the tube.

    1. 99% of Americans receive a benefit when jobs are outsourced? I’m confused, how does that work?

    2. GK, if you call someone ignorant, it is damaging to spell it “ingnorant.” It’s the kettle calling the pot black.

      Many economists dispute that “the global economy has “benefited” the US greatly.

      Global economy translated as sending American jobs overseas has cost us millions of jobs and hundreds of thousands of factories, destroying American jobs and adding govt costs while reducing revenue.

      Global economy also means resource wars, which also have cost hundreds of thousand of innocent lives lost and trillions in (borrowing) funding.

      Global economy (I think you mean globalization) has reduced hundreds of millions to poverty, as in Africa where subsistance farmers are forced either to abandon their farms (price wars to bankrupt them or just hired mercenaries, as with Coca Cola in Columbia, killing local people who protest the taking and destruction of their ancestral homes). Globalization (global financial control of economies) means cutting spending on the poor and working class, students, and pensioners while cutting taxes on the rich and giving mega-national corporations sweetheart deals to control the natural resources and hiring at slave wages. All this is to protect the banks from their own bad decisions.

      In Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins, who worked as a hitman for various corporations, the author describes his own job as offering bribes to national leaders to allow foreign corporations to extract wealth from the dirtcheap labor and lack of environmental controls. If the leader refuses the bribe, he is told his other choice is to see his family killed. This often works.

      But if it fails, if the bribes and threats don’t buy the leader to serve the corporations, the jackels are sent in.

      These are assassins who do the killing of those unwilling to go along with the scheme of paying off the leader for his support for corporate exploitation of resources and labor.

      This is how the global economy actually works.

      This benefits transnational corporations, willing national leaders, and the banks. It crushes the working class, who often make 4 dollars a day with long hours and no rights.

      To claim the “global economy’s” benefits to the world and the US is “undisputed facts,” is to ignore the real effects of globalization on increasing inequality (this means the working class and poor get less: it’s called austerity, a form of class warfare in which the privileges of he rich are paid for by cutting funds for pensions, wages, scholarships for students, and often selling off public assets (the commonwealth) at fire sale prices to crony corporations (this is called by the IMF creating large pools of capital). As in India, or Africa, or Greece, globalization (debt/mandated reforms which reward the rich and punish the working class and poor), most people suffer from global economic activities.

      But you can buy a toaster from China (pay 54cents an hour) for $15 (which will break down in a few months) as a result of the global economy…so that’s good, isn’t it.

      Of course if you job was outsourced (also a key part of globalization is the race to the bottom), and your unemployment just ran out and you lived in a society where McDonald’s advertised nationally for 60,000 new low-paying jobs and got 1 million applications, you might just think that globalization, for you and those 940,000 who applied but did not get hired (94%) that the global economy was crushing you.

      So I dispute that what you call facts are facts. They are ill-informed, undocumented opinion. I suggest that the global economy has created a world of the very very rich and billions who live on less than $500 a year.

      Globalization is increasing inequality and thus enriching the rich and punished everyone else. Great inequality leads ultimately to economic collapse (as a tapped out consumer class stops spending and the demand gap cause profits to drop and jobs to be cut) and social conflict. Often, wars are created to mask the internal economic conditions (the richest nation in all history cannot fix the potholes in the road or keep median wages from falling (over 30% the last 30 years) or pay the bills.

      Wars are a stealth stimulus (used by Reagan and Bush, tripling and doubling the debt to stimulate economic growth) which also serve to provide huge (often no-bid) contracts to private corporations and so feed the rich…as well as to divert attention away from the fleecing that goes on as a result of feed the rich/starve the poor strategies (austerity).

      So the global economy uses bribes, threats, assassinations, and wars to further enrich the rich and extract payment from the billions of ordinary workers and the one billion who live on less than $1 a day.

      It has benefited the banks, transnational corporations, some local leaders, and it has harmed ordinary workers, national sovereignty and democracy (corps often get govt to get rid of elected governments it doesn’t like, usually replacing them with military dictatorships…just anyone who will give the corporations what they want:
      cheap labor, no rules, and maximum ability to extract as much wealth as possible, even if it means exploiting workers and destroying the environment. Bottom line, baby.

      Millions of people are protesting everyday in many nations the effects of globalization. From Spain to Greece to Egypt to China, workers, students, farmers, and other ordinary people are in the streets protesting the existing global economy, which tries to extract wealth, control governments, and get everyone in debt.

      Among the greatest beneficiaries of globalization are the banks, which gamble and if win keep all the profits (offshoring to avoid taxes) and if they fail, the government bails them out (Big Business demand Big Government). The losers are the vast majority of workers and children and seniors.

      If you want the inside story by a former corporate predator, check out Perkins’s Confessions book. It shows you what really goes on, not the fairy tale of free markets and voluntary debt which the banks and corps
      use to fool those whose pockets they are picking.

      As they take your money (in lower wages or rigged market prices (as with drugs, agriculture, and energy), they get you all angry about some teacher who is getting 2 million in pensions The average teacher pension with 30 yrs in expensive states is 3K; in poorer states, the pension is about 2K.

      So, using the most expensive state’s data , 36 K a year from retirement at 65 and average death at 80. 15 x 36 = $540,000 total benefits. But if you live to 125, you will have received 2 million. How many live this long? Zero.

      Cutting teacher’s pay and benefits (in Wisconsin, the starting salary (with 5 years of college) is 25K with an average of 49K) is the kind of austerity (or making the poor pay more to fund the privileges of the rich) which mirrors the strategy of global economics. Cut taxes for the rich, sell off public assets at bargain prices to those just enriched by tax cuts, and cut spending on pensions, education, healthcare, unemployment,etc.

      Austerity (this is the program of globalization) means less for the vast majority, less wages, fewer benefits, more debt. If this is an undisputed benefit, I am Elmer Fudd.

      The most people brought out of poverty are the 300 million Chinese, who have risen due to the policies (including controlled markets; China owns 40 of the 44 leading corporations in China) of a communist party ruling in an authoritarian manner, in the absence of political competition (no other parties) and civil rights.

      You can credit globalization with this huge economic progress in China, but in fact, China has rejected the globalization scheme in large part. They will not be bribed by the corporations; they will not borrow over their heads from the big global banks; they will refuse to follow international rules on price fixing, pirating, etc. and other ways to subvert the globalization program.

      In many nations, people are falling into poverty. Example number one is the USA. Globalization also has put Europe in a position to collapse, with conservative leaders in Greece, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland imposing austerity for the people and bailouts for the banks, and it has failed in each case and those who criticize globalization (ie the left) is resurgent, winning new power in Greece, Germany, and other nations fed up with austerity and the ability of global banks to impose poverty on the average person in order to bail out the banks and control the economy for the benefit of………..the banks.

      Globalization means that financial capitalism has come to the entire world. And, in actual results, that means:
      declining wages, job losses, more debt, cuts to pensions, student loans, and govt services. To benefit a few thousand bilionaires, billions are being forced into new levels of poverty, from Thailand to the USA.

      Globalization also means the end of real national sovereignty, which means the imposition of New World Order which represents the banks and transnational corporations, and those that serve them.

      For ordinary people, the global economy is a disaster; in the US, 20 million unemployed and 150 million whose wages have declined 10% in the past 10 years, as the income of the rich has reached new heights…would dispute that the “global economy” has benefited them.

      They would be more likely to flip you off.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content