“JPMorgan Chase, and virtually every other major bank in this country,” Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders answers when asked by New York Daily News to name three U.S. corporations “destroying the national fabric.”
- Sanders is quoted by New York Daily News in editorial board interview
- Sanders says Apple isn’t in that category, through “I do wish they’d be manufacturing some of their devices, here, in the United States rather than in China” and paying fair share of taxes
- Says GE closing plants, shipping jobs overseas, and avoiding taxes is an example of “greed” and “selfishness”
- Says he’ll renegotiate all U.S. trade agreements if elected
- On difference between him, Republican Donald Trump on trade: “We have some specificity and it isn’t just us going around denouncing bad trade”
- Asked if his too-big-to-fail list is “essentially the list that already exists under Dodd-Frank? Under the Financial Stability Oversight Council?” he says…
View original post 147 more words
Deadly Clear 
“Sanders says Apple isn’t in that category, through ‘I do wish they’d be manufacturing some of their devices, here, in the United States rather than in China’ and paying fair share of taxes”
Why isn’t Apple manufacturing here? Or paying what you consider their “fair share” ? Simple — socialist / Keynesian economics doesn’t work — never has, never will.
One thing Reagan understood is that you get a LOT more tax revenue when the tax rates are substantially lower, but there are a lot more people people & businesses paying! For example, look @ his 2 terms as governor of California — when he took office the State had a massive debt — when he left office it not only had a budget surplus, 10’s of thousands of new jobs had been created. Since then the State went back to Keynesian economics, again has massive debt & businesses are leaving.
Simply put, federal & state gov’t. regulations & taxes forced Apple to set up manufacturing outside the U.S. Would Apple & many other companies rather have all their facilities in the U.S.? Sure they would — they just can’t afford it — unless you want to pay a LOT more for things you buy — which you don’t. Would you pay $1200 for an iPhone? I didn’t think so. I wouldn’t buy one @ the current price. How ’bout $50 for a pair of jeans you can get @ WalMart for less than $15?
Before I “semi-retired” I was the engineer in a couple manufacturing facilities. Had to deal with accountants fairly often & I was hired to increase productivity, which I did. I know what you have to go thru to make products in the U.S. that you can sell for enough $$$ to pay your employees a decent wage and show a bit of profit @ the end of the year. And I also know why the company would make a lot more $$$ doing the same thing outside the U.S. — and then could sell the same products for a lot less.
Mr. Sanders, as a senator, is one reason why it’s so expensive to do business in the U.S., which taxes businesses more than just about any country in the world. He’s helped drive business out of the U.S. & knows as much about economics as I do about “the dark side of the moon”.
Someone will say but wait — Toyota, Honda, BMW & others have manufacturing facilities in the U.S. That’s true. Why? Because making cars in their home country to U.S. specifications then shipping them over is more expensive than building them here.
Now let me throw you a curve ball — I drive a big Dodge Ram 4-wheel-drive pickup with a Cummins diesel engine. The frame & all the drivetrain parts were made in the U.S. & so were some of the body parts — others were made in Canada. A few parts made in other countries. But the truck was assembled in Mexico! Why ship all those parts to Mexico, then send the finished vehicle back up on a train? Because it costs less to do that. Crazy, isn’t it?
If you want business to come back to the U.S. you’re going to have to scrap the current tax system & start all over again with a much simpler system with much lower rates. That’s not even a matter of argument — it’s economic fact. Send Bernie Sanders to South America where he’ll get to see how well his socialist ideas work.
There is currently a deep rift in the Democratic Party over whether America should bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, a bank regulation that was in place from 1933 to 1999. Financial experts drafted the Glass-Steagall Act in order to correct the banking industry abuses that lead the stock market crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed. Back In February 1995, newly-appointed Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Bo Cutter and senior advisers including John Podesta gave President Bill Clinton three days to decide whether to back a repeal of Glass-Steagall Act. Robert E. Rubin began his career in finance at Goldman, Sachs & Company in New York City in 1966; where he served as Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Operating Officer from 1987-1990 and as Co-Senior Partner and Co-Chairman from 1990-1992. Rubin joined the Clinton Administration in 1993 as Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and as Director of the newly-created National Economic Council. At the NEC, Rubin coordinated economic policy recommendations to the President and monitored the implementation of the President’s economic policy goals. Published Financial Records show Rubin himself was paid over $100 million by Citigroup to push through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Ultimately Bill Clinton finally signed the bill that eliminated Banking Regulation, once and for all by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, and most of our smaller financial institutions merged into four massive banking industry giants.
While I agree that Glass-Steagall should not have been repealed, I have to correct a statement in the above comment: “Financial experts drafted the Glass-Steagall Act in order to correct the banking industry abuses that lead the stock market crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed.”
What led to the market crash & Depression was the same thing that led to FDR’s “Bank Holiday of 1933” — just after he took office for the 1st time — the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. And banksters used “reverse psychology” to get it passed — they publicly stated it was bad legislation that should not pass — knowing the public hated banksters so much that if they said it was bad it must be good. Read “The Creature From Jekyll Island” for a LOT more info.
By 1933 there was only 40 cents on the dollar of gold to back up all the notes in circulation, and FDR’s “Presidential Proclamation 2039” mirrors a memo he received from the chairman of the NY Fed. The Fed feared a “run on the banks” and for good reason — if the public found out that the paper “money” they were using wasn’t worth but 40 cents on the dollar, as Henry Ford said, “I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
The stock market crash of 1929 was a classic example of what happens when you place “value” on paper that isn’t worth anywhere near as much as you think it is — notes, stocks, bonds, et al. And the Fed Act of 1913 gave the banks the authority to create “money” out of thin air — as they still do. With that Act, CONgress delegated its Constitutional authority to “create money and regulate the value thereof” to a cartel of bankers — research it if you don’t believe me — I’ve been researching for over 20 years.
Every really bad thing that has happened to the American economy is a direct result of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and FDR’s “Bank Holiday of 1933” (taking us off the gold standard). And since nearly every country in the world has adopted some form of a Fed central bank system, it doesn’t matter which country’s economy completely fails 1st — like dominoes, all national economies will fall.
Now here’s another point — the “Federal Reserve” is neither federal nor a reserve — it is not a Gov’t. agency, never has been & doesn’t even claim to be. And if you read Fed publications, you’ll find out that they actually tell you what the Fed is & what it does. Not every detail & your reading level needs to be quite high, but the Fed admits to things like creating money out of thin air — Fed publications even tell you how it’s done — “the whole system is based on credit” — not anything of real value.
Does Bernie Sanders know all this? Obviously not. Hillary? Probably — @ least some of it. Donald Trump? Not sure — he should though. Ted Cruz or John Kasich? Or the American pubic? Not even a clue.