Bush or Kerry - No Americans!

[KeSs]

I am very interested in who people over seas want to win the election. There has been a lot of talk about how other countries view the USA recently. So if you are if you DO NOT live in the USA then please vote. I know some people will still vote in this poll who are americans but who knows....

 

[ItsikH]

Even though Kerry seems a little better, maybe just because Bush has already been to the White House... none of them look promising.

 

[KayEm]

I get the impression many people will be voting to show their support/displeasure for Bushs' foreign policies. Despite whether people agree or not with the Gulf War, you shouldn't discount the wider issues of what he has done over his term of office. However, not being a US citizen I haven't the knowledge to venture an educated opinion without being influenced completely by the media. I'm completely sitting on the fence, but that's my 2 cents worth.

 

[Dom]

Bush.
Mr. Kerry says that his personal view is that abortion is wrong, but that he votes in favour thereof because so many people want it.
Prostitutes sell their bodies and politicians their souls!

 

[graememx]

There is not a chance in hell that this poll is correct. Only American's must be voting, because genuine poles from the likes of the BBC and Reuters say that the vast majority of Europeans would prefer to see Kerry in the White House.

Vote Kerry because I can't.

cheers, Graeme, Manchester UK

 

[MountainPro]

There is not a chance in hell that this poll is correct. Only American's must be voting, because genuine poles from the likes of the BBC and Reuters say that the vast majority of Europeans would prefer to see Kerry in the White House.

Vote Kerry because I can't.

cheers, Graeme, Manchester UK

yep, i agree with that..

being the President of the US is merely a PR stunt. He just stands up and says what he has been told to say, a puppet for the real people that run the country. Anti-Americanism amongst Europeans is mainly due to this fool representing the US. If Kerry gets in i think you will find a less hostile attitude towards the US all round. Electing Bush was a PR blunder of massive proportions and the American public should realise that. Bush is a dislikable man and very difficult to take seriously, exactly the opposite traits you should have when you are president.

 

[Julian Radowsky]

I might not agree with everything that Kerry stands for, but America needs to be rescued, and GWB is not the one to do it.

Go to the link below for a taste of the America that GWB has created.
Blaming the action of the police on events of 9/11 is foolish and dangerous.
America wake up! You are living in a police state where you are so brainwashed and media programmed that you actually believe that you are free.

Police action at New York Republican convention

For more interesting pieces of info about the way your police state operates go here: Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote

And also, GWB does not seem to actually have a brain that is used in any analytical capacity whatsoever, if he did, he would have taken note of what his father had to say : "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

 

[limerickman]

My views about Mr.Bush are well known.
From a foreigners perspective, the US foreign policy is crucial.
And in this regard I would suggest that Bush's policy and the illegal invasion of Iraq has made the USA and the world more unsafe.

I would also suggest that George Bush's economic policy has also caused the US economy to jitter (the amount of US companies setting up here in my country is huge).
A short anecdote - a friend of mine works for a venerable american company (and when I say venerable, I mean a household name in the medical/pharmaceutical sector).
This company has only two manufacturing sites : one in the USA, the other here in Ireland.
To make one unit of their product - the cost in the USA is 33 cents (dollar).
The same product made here in Ireland costs 10 cents to make.
The Irish operation will make a profit of € 120 million this year ($ 140m).

The facility in the USA is currently being closed down by the company in question.
The facility here in Ireland employs over 500 people and will grow to 750 by the end of next year.
In dollars terms, the average basic employee salary is approx € 40,000 or $ 48,000 (without overtime).

Now I can't blame George Bush for the fact that the same product can be made 66% cheaper than in the USA.
But when you look at the good average wage (for someone working on a production line), the question needs to be asked, why is it less expensive to make a product here than in the USA ?
The lower labour costs here drive US companies to setup here.
Intel/J&J/Dell/Google/Jannsen have all announced massive job creation here in the last few months.
Bush's policy sets the climate in the US economy - yet US companies are exporting jobs to this country in their hundreds.

Kerry has to be the better option.
The last four years have beeb disasterous.

 

[Bikerman2004]

This company has only two manufacturing sites : one in the USA, the other here in Ireland.
To make one unit of their product - the cost in the USA is 33 cents (dollar).
The same product made here in Ireland costs 10 cents to make.
The Irish operation will make a profit of € 120 million this year ($ 140m).

The facility in the USA is currently being closed down by the company in question.
The facility here in Ireland employs over 500 people and will grow to 750 by the end of next year.
In dollars terms, the average basic employee salary is approx € 40,000 or $ 48,000 (without overtime).

Now I can't blame George Bush for the fact that the same product can be made 66% cheaper than in the USA.
But when you look at the good average wage (for someone working on a production line), the question needs to be asked, why is it less expensive to make a product here than in the USA ?
The lower labour costs here drive US companies to setup here.
Intel/J&J/Dell/Google/Jannsen have all announced massive job creation here in the last few months.
Bush's policy sets the climate in the US economy - yet US companies are exporting jobs to this country in their hundreds.

Limerickman,
Please tell us how Bush's economic policies have caused labor costs to go up?
It would also help if you disclosed how much money Ireland gives these companies to re-locate. How much comes from the EU in the form of grants?
Seems to me that an Irishman will do that job cheaper than an American will.
If this is the case, exactly how is it Bush's fault that a company goes where the costs are cheaper? Perhaps we Americans, in our neverending quest to own the biggest SUV, biggest TV, and biggest house are pricing ourselves out of the market.

 

[limerickman]

Limerickman,
Please tell us how Bush's economic policies have caused labor costs to go up?
It would also help if you disclosed how much money Ireland gives these companies to re-locate. How much comes from the EU in the form of grants?
Seems to me that an Irishman will do that job cheaper than an American will.
If this is the case, exactly how is it Bush's fault that a company goes where the costs are cheaper? Perhaps we Americans, in our neverending quest to own the biggest SUV, biggest TV, and biggest house are pricing ourselves out of the market.

Well, you are pricing yourselves out of the market.

The 10 cents it costs to make the product here in Ireland - absorbs all direct/
indirect costs for the entire plant.
In laymans terms, 10 cent cost of each product absorbs all productions costs,
production wages, production overhead, everything.
The product is actually sold for 38 cents - so the net profit is 28 cent per unit of product sold (and all product is sold).

The only grant that this particualr company receives from the Irish goverment and the EU is a grant for the building of the facility (capital grant).
Therefore plant and equipment, buildings are capitalised in the balance sheet
and the goverment grants are amortised.

My point is that those 750 jobs for that one plant are more viable - a lot more viable - here in Ireland rather than in the USA.

It should be of concern that it is better for an American corporation to setup
here on the western seaboard of Europe - than it is to invest and create jobs
in an existing plant within the USA.
It should be of concern that labour costs here can still manage to outstrip the
USA ( basic $ 48k per year is a good wage by USA standards).

Why is it that we can product a product 66% cheaper than in the USA ?
In a labour intensive industry - and both plants are labour intensive - it is the labour cost which is makes Ireland more competitive for this US-owned company.

It is a fact that in Ireland - international competition and lower wage costs
in the Far East will probably replicate what is happening in Ireland vis-a-vis
the USA.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Well, you are pricing yourselves out of the market.

The 10 cents it costs to make the product here in Ireland - absorbs all direct/
indirect costs for the entire plant.
In laymans terms, 10 cent cost of each product absorbs all productions costs,
production wages, production overhead, everything.
The product is actually sold for 38 cents - so the net profit is 28 cent per unit of product sold (and all product is sold).

The only grant that this particualr company receives from the Irish goverment and the EU is a grant for the building of the facility (capital grant).
Therefore plant and equipment, buildings are capitalised in the balance sheet
and the goverment grants are amortised.

My point is that those 750 jobs for that one plant are more viable - a lot more viable - here in Ireland rather than in the USA.

It should be of concern that it is better for an American corporation to setup
here on the western seaboard of Europe - than it is to invest and create jobs
in an existing plant within the USA.
It should be of concern that labour costs here can still manage to outstrip the
USA ( basic $ 48k per year is a good wage by USA standards).

Why is it that we can product a product 66% cheaper than in the USA ?
In a labour intensive industry - and both plants are labour intensive - it is the labour cost which is makes Ireland more competitive for this US-owned company.

It is a fact that in Ireland - international competition and lower wage costs
in the Far East will probably replicate what is happening in Ireland vis-a-vis
the USA.

Actually I think your point was that this is somehow Bush's fault. Again, what economic policy did Bush implemnt that caused this to happen?

 

[limerickman]

Actually I think your point was that this is somehow Bush's fault. Again, what economic policy did Bush implemnt that caused this to happen?

The point being that goverment is responsible for the macro-economic climate.
The macro economic climate in the USA is in a bad way.

If prices in my economy are rising - I will make a wage demand to meet the costs of running my home, paying for petrol/medical care/insurance etc.
I have no control over the fact that petrol (gasolene as you call it) goes up at the pumps.
I have no control over the fact that my medical expenses are going up.
I have no control over the fact that, if I live in California, the price of electricity increased by 400% in 2001.
But I still have to fork out for these costs each month.

Goverment has a part to play - it had a part to play when it decided to de-regulate the utility industry.
Goverment has a part to play in converting a 200 billion surplus in to a 500 billion deficit.
Goverment has a part to play when it gives tax breaks to firms to outsource
jobs to other countries (in the case of the plant here in Ireland it's been here
since 1994, and has out performed the US equivalent, year on year : so the tax break/outsource issue doesn't pertain to the example I specified, but it does in the case of more recent US-owned expansions here in Ireland).
Goverment has a part to play when the job base has actually diminished in the USA since Bush took office.

So let's go back to my individual job in the USA.
I go to my boss for my annual review - having to pay more for electricity,
gasolene, healthcare, insurance : these macro economics factors influence my review with my boss. I have to pay more therefore I have to earn more.
Labour costs go up.
Senior management see the wage bill increasing year on year : the firm becomes less competitive.
George Bush comes to us and tells us that we get a tax break if we outsource jobs.
My firm look at other regions where costs and productivity are far more efficient.
My wage increase comes to an end - cause my firm closes and relocates production to Ireland or the Far East.

 

[Bikerman2004]

The point being that goverment is responsible for the macro-economic climate.
The macro economic climate in the USA is in a bad way.

If prices in my economy are rising - I will make a wage demand to meet the costs of running my home, paying for petrol/medical care/insurance etc.
I have no control over the fact that petrol (gasolene as you call it) goes up at the pumps.
I have no control over the fact that my medical expenses are going up.
I have no control over the fact that, if I live in California, the price of electricity increased by 400% in 2001.
But I still have to fork out for these costs each month.

Goverment has a part to play - it had a part to play when it decided to de-regulate the utility industry.
Goverment has a part to play in converting a 200 billion surplus in to a 500 billion deficit.
Goverment has a part to play when it gives tax breaks to firms to outsource
jobs to other countries (in the case of the plant here in Ireland it's been here
since 1994, and has out performed the US equivalent, year on year : so the tax break/outsource issue doesn't pertain to the example I specified, but it does in the case of more recent US-owned expansions here in Ireland).
Goverment has a part to play when the job base has actually diminished in the USA since Bush took office.

So let's go back to my individual job in the USA.
I go to my boss for my annual review - having to pay more for electricity,
gasolene, healthcare, insurance : these macro economics factors influence my review with my boss. I have to pay more therefore I have to earn more.
Labour costs go up.
Senior management see the wage bill increasing year on year : the firm becomes less competitive.
George Bush comes to us and tells us that we get a tax break if we outsource jobs.
My firm look at other regions where costs and productivity are far more efficient.
My wage increase comes to an end - cause my firm closes and relocates production to Ireland or the Far East.

What tax break did Bush offer for countries to go elsewhere? Did companies suddenly start going overseas when Bush became president? It's been going on for years. Probably since companies learned that labor was cheaper in some other areas. You convienently forget the US economy was declining before Bush took office.(The tech boom collapsed while Clinton was in office) That was further accelerated by 9/11. The US economy has slowly been emerging from this. I do agree that the government should and does play a part in the economy. This is where we part ways. The government should not manage the economy in the macro view. If that was an effective then the Soviet Union would not have collapsed.
In the past you said the tax cuts have harmed the US economy. If gas, health care, and other costs are going up for people, how does the government giving tax breaks hurt? Seems that it would actually help the very people you've described. Puts a little more money in their pocket to help pay for some of their expenses. Or we can take away the tax cut and squeeze them a little more. They go and ask for more money from their employer. Eventually the plant shuts down because it relocates to Ireland where labor costs are cheaper.
The government works best when it monitors the economy by providing incentives to stimulate develop and growth in different areas.

 

[limerickman]

What tax break did Bush offer for countries to go elsewhere? Did companies suddenly start going overseas when Bush became president? It's been going on for years. Probably since companies learned that labor was cheaper in some other areas. You convienently forget the US economy was declining before Bush took office.(The tech boom collapsed while Clinton was in office) That was further accelerated by 9/11. The US economy has slowly been emerging from this. I do agree that the government should and does play a part in the economy. This is where we part ways. The government should not manage the economy in the macro view. If that was an effective then the Soviet Union would not have collapsed.
In the past you said the tax cuts have harmed the US economy. If gas, health care, and other costs are going up for people, how does the government giving tax breaks hurt? Seems that it would actually help the very people you've described. Puts a little more money in their pocket to help pay for some of their expenses. Or we can take away the tax cut and squeeze them a little more. They go and ask for more money from their employer. Eventually the plant shuts down because it relocates to Ireland where labor costs are cheaper.
The government works best when it monitors the economy by providing incentives to stimulate develop and growth in different areas.

My understanding is that US companies get a tax break when they relocate
jobs outside of the USA (perhaps I am wrong in this ??)
Either way, it seems to me that the US is haemorraging jobs - particualrly in the manufacturing sector to place like here for example.

$ 48,000 for working on a production line is a pretty good wage (that's what my friends company pays).
And even at that level of wages, his company are more competitive than their
US counterparts.

I am not saying that Ireland is better than the USA.
What I am trying to fathom is how a company that pays good wages by irish
(and US) standards for working on a production line - can still manage to make a product 66% cheaper than in the USA ?

In my friends companies case, he was telling me that the 10 cent per lens cost - 7 cent (of the ten cent) is wages and labour costs, the other 3 cent
abosrbs all remaining overhead.
Yet the US equivalent costs 33 cent to make of which 25 cent is labour costs.
It doesn't make sense.

 

[DOC69]

Yet the US equivalent costs 33 cent to make of which 25 cent is labour costs.
It doesn't make sense.

It does if out of that 25 cents, 22 cents goes to management & their pension funds and 3 cents go to the line workers....

 

[Bikerman2004]

My understanding is that US companies get a tax break when they relocate
jobs outside of the USA (perhaps I am wrong in this ??)

There is no tax credit or break for re-locating outside the US.

 

[jitteringjr]

There is no tax credit or break for re-locating outside the US.

Not entirely true. There may be no direct tax credit, but there are plently of indirect ways for a company to save tax dollars by setting up subsidiaries in other countries.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Not entirely true. There may be no direct tax credit, but there are plently of indirect ways for a company to save tax dollars by setting up subsidiaries in other countries.

There is no tax credit or break expressly for those that set up overseas.

 

[jitteringjr]

There is no tax credit or break expressly for those that set up overseas.

Why are you repeating yourself? Did you not read this part:

There may be no direct tax credit, but....

Sure, there is nothing in GAAP that says “Thou shall receive tax rewards for….” There is still a tax incentive to set up overseas.

For a hypothetical example (real examples are more complex and I don't have the time or desire to research one) say the 'Clip Me' paperclip company buys the 'Hey Mon' bauxite smelter in Jamaica and sets up a subsidiary so it can get cheaper aluminum for raw materials.

Now lets say that the tax rate in Jamaica is 10% and the tax rate in the US is 15% (again this is hypothetical)

Now, the parent company tells 'Hey Mon' to sell raw material to 'Clip Me' at an inflated price. This increases profits in the smaller taxed company and decreases profits in the higher taxed 'Clip Me' company in the US. Therefore the parent company gets a tax break nonetheless.

So Limerickman is not wrong by saying that US companies "get tax break when they relocate jobs outside of the USA"

 

[Bikerman2004]

Why are you repeating yourself? Did you not read this part:

Ok maybe you didn't understand my response. There is nothing in the tax code that expressly gives a tax credit or break for relocating overseas. I'm sorry, since when did GAAP dispense with tax code? Your example is rather poor.