| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/13/2006 10:44:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
Enough already!! |
Posted on 03/11/2006 4:08:48 PM PST by quidnunc
Details, please--I live in Hunter's district.
There are some 3,200 terminals in US ports. 80% of them are foreign owned or leased.
I guess there are people here who just don't want to get along with others, or let anything go. It's a choice.
Especially Krauthammer. After all, he spent the '80s trying to defeat Ronald Reagan. Some real insight there, you betcha.
Which Americans' heads are you going to put a gun to in order to force them to buy those terminals and run them at an economic loss?
Say WHAT?!
Ummm....sorry...no, I didn't. I haven't been much on the ball, lately...check my post # 72.
For those of us that had doubts about the DPW deal, it's my opinion that the criticism be levelled at President Bush's staff. I am very concerned that his staff is letting him down, and his loyalty to his people could become a liability, if it hasn't already.
I just don't see how anyone can function well in that kind of pressure cooker for 2 years, let alone 5 or more. They're all good people, I'm sure, but it's time for a renewed vigor in the administration.
Excellent post.
The port deal shows the major disconnect our current leadership has with the public. Bush failed miserably to articulate his position to the average American.
How could he set the public's mind at ease when his first impulse was to threaten a veto and call his opponents racist?
Bad political move, no matter the actual merits of the port deal.
Ooops...I meant # 71. See what I mean?
You know, in actual relationships, there are two sides to every argument.
To attribute it all to the woman is sexist.
So 80 percent are losing money?
Character matters to me. Honesty matters to me. That's my choice.
Are you aware that mr brainstem has been banned?
Do you think it's a good idea to agree wholeheartedly with a DU troll?
If that post was over the line, it would have been removed.
DITTO
I agree. Something is amiss with the advice the President receives. Because he cannot review everything in depth, he has to rely on others to do so and give him sound information and counsel. However, his 'stylist' needs to go. By that, I mean whoever suggests a given stance, such as the veto threat. It makes the administration appear too aloof and secretive; not on everything, but some things...There are times defiance is perfect.
I think you're on the money; some of the WH staff has staled.
In the case of DPW, the focus should be on the CFIUS process. CFIUS was created by Executive Order in 1975; their procedures need to be updated for post-9/11 times.
It was a good call. It demonstrated that the paleocon could discern a closer kinship between America and the British than to Arabs. I suspect that same discernment is shared by a large portion of the American public, and that is the source of their opposition to the port deal.
Rush apparently has 'grown' to a degree that such distinctions are odious, as they have been to Liberals for decades in their endless war against anything that remotely smacks of ethnic or cultural preference. Utopian fantasies that once were the hallmark of the left are now being peddled on the right, accompanied by the same name-calling the left has always used.
Just pointing out that you were agreeing with a leftist.
Please reread what I wrote: "ECONOMIC loss."
That's a business term that relates to a metric of the risk vs. return on investment.
To wit: you invest $100,000 into your small business. At the end of the day, your profit was about the same as what you would've made investing in T-Bills. But, hey, you made a profit, right?
Not really.
You see, if you'd invested that money in T-Bills, your risk would be zero. Investing in your business, your risk is much higher. Your return on investment (ROI) must rise as your risk level rises, or else you're basically risking your financial well-being without deriving any benefit from doing so, and that's a working definition of economic insanity.
For companies chartered in the US, the ROI must be significantly higher than overseas, because the US tax and regulatory environment increases your operating risk significantly. (Basically, if your company is foreign-chartered, the worst that can happen on the regulatory side is that you get shut out of the US market and lose your assets located in the US; if your company is chartered in the US, every damn asset of the company world-wide can be seized under some regulatory circumstances.)
Port operations are not huge money-makers; they are a steady source of cash flow, but not a huge one. Foreign companies can tolerate the lower ROI on their capital outlays better than US companies for the reasons I've outlined.
BTW, the above explanation is also why production of low-value consumer products has moved offshore.
Duncan Hunter's bill does nothing to correct decades of tax and regulatory insanity--it merely seeks to ensure that all port operations are placed under the worst aspects of said tax and regulatory insanity.
Here's a hint. The "moderates," as delineated in the article, are the feminine side of this relationship. 'Pod.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.