Thread: Sessions torn between Trump, Cruz

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

I just can't trust Cruz anymore myself. I started off liking him but after getting in on the Tea Party vote he switched it up and now he's switching it up again as he see's that his stance won't win the GOP primary unless he can appear to hardline it on some key issues. He's proven to be a flipflopper and as such to me can't be trusted now.

Further while you talk about the US Government subsidizing big business and corporations who do you think pays for those subsidies? The US leads in the highest business and corporate tax rates in the developed world so in many ways those business's are paying for their own subsidies. Without those subsidies then many business's just can't afford to keep all of their manufacturing in the US or even most of it and compete in prices. I'm totally cool with dumping all the subsidies but also at the same time business taxes and corporate taxes need to be lowered considerably for business's with the majority of their employee's inside the US. Why pay 30-40% when you can get 10-15% in a country that also has cheaper labor costs? Export/import costs are a joke in the US compared to the savings a business can make which means lower prices as well.

Hence I still see Trump as the only trustworthy candidate as every other has either been a flipflopper many times over or straight out sold the American People out. Trump has been saying the same thing for years and much of it the same things I have been saying before I ever started paying attention to Trump. So who should I support, the guy who doesn't think the idea's I have are any good or the guy who thinks the idea's I have are great and hence using those same idea's?

IMO Donald Trump has been more inconsistent than anyone running. That's one of the reasons I'm having a difficult time deciding between him and Cruz. Trump has changed a number of his positions over the last few months and that's a fact. However, it's 1:46 a.m. here so I won't bother boring you with the details. Yep, I'm getting sleepy.

MW Wrote:

Sen. Sessions voted against the Kirk Amendment that would have re-authorized the Ex-Im Bank, which would indicate that he does not support the bank. Huge corporations don't need the Ex-Im Bank to sell their goods. They can seek private funding for those transactions just like many other corporations and businesses do. It's really only the huge corporations that use the bank. A bank we're (taxpayers) funding to the tune of 140 billion dollars I might add. It's corporate welfare, pure and simple.

Sen. Sessions isn't selling anyone out by standing against the greedy corporations that demand we the taxpayers subsidize them. He's not stupid, he knows good and well they can seek the financing they need elsewhere just like everyone else. [FONT=Helvetica] Economists, policymakers, and commentators have long understood the many flaws of government-subsidized export schemes. They are unnecessary, inefficient, and unjust. Did you know just 10 corporations are responsible for 76% of the banks loans? Of course Boeing is at the top of the list.

Of course much of it is used by big corporations, these are the credit-worthy companies that can afford to back the loan guarantees. What is the problem with that? Boeing is the largest user because the value of the product they sell is the largest. But it still helps many other smaller companies as well.

MW, thank you for finding out that Jeff Sessions supported terminating the Ex Im Bank which is very disappointing because that was not in the national interest, will result in many plant closings, and harm thousands of American Workers.

If your information is correct, then Sessions views are more aligned with Cruz. Trump would never end a program that is vital to our manufacturing companies to continue to produce their products in the United States and hire American Workers.

Outrageous. Unbelievable.

Judy wrote:

MW, thank you for finding out that Jeff Sessions supported terminating the Ex Im Bank which is very disappointing because that was not in the national interest, will result in many plant closings, and harm thousands of American Workers.

Sorry to say that is an opinion fiscal conservatives won't share with you. If it's any consolation though, you have most of the Democrats and Obama in your corner ..... oh, and Lindsey Graham. Heck, even Ronald Reagan tried to close the bank down.

The Ex-Im Bank hampers the free market by picking private-sector winners and losers. Two percent of American exports receive loans and guarantees backed by taxpayers. This is unnecessary corporate welfare at its finest.

In theory the bank supports American companies, but in practice it offers foreign companies subsidized loans that allow those companies to undercut American-based companies that do not have access to the same low rates.

Originally Posted by MW

Sorry to say that is an opinion fiscal conservatives won't share with you. If it's any consolation though, you have most of the Democrats and Obama in your corner ..... oh, and Lindsey Graham. Heck, even Ronald Reagan tried to close the bank down.

The Ex-Im Bank hampers the free market by picking private-sector winners and losers. Two percent of American exports receive loans and guarantees backed by taxpayers. This is unnecessary corporate welfare at its finest.

In theory the bank supports American companies, but in practice it offers foreign companies subsidized loans that allow those companies to undercut American-based companies that do not have access to the same low rates.

MW, it's an EXPORT program. It doesn't finance our companies. It finances foreign buyers of our products which allows our companies to sell our products to these companies or governments as the case may be who want to buy our products.

Boeing wants to make and sell 10 757's to some airline in Ethiopia. The airline in Ethiopia doesn't have credit in their country to buy our products made in the US. Boeing says we'd love to sell Ethiopia Air 10 757's but we can't provide you with customer credit without a guarantee, you'll have to contact EX IM Bank. Ethiopia Air contacts EX IM BAnk and they determine all the credit issues and if they are viable then they issue a loan guarantee so Ethiopia Air can arrange the credit. Since the sale is helping our country, our country issues the guarantee to make the sale of the Boeings made in the US possible. Ethiopia Air is now responsible for repaying the loan. These loan guarantees aren't always 100%, they're partials, so Boeing and GE and all the others work out the rest of the deal with their customers.

Other countries do this which is why we do it.

That's why when we now don't offer it because of stupid maniacs in our government, Boeing will now be making those planes in China and selling them using China's export credit financing program.

Nothing about the Ex Im Bank helped any foreign company undercut US based companies. Terminating the Ex Im Bank will now give foreign producers enormous advantages over our producers so much so that what few manufacturing companies we have left will zoom right on out of here.

Boeing, GE, Cummins and many others lobbied hard to save US from this, but hey, you and your stupid boys won.

Well, pass it on to Jeff Sessions that he doesn't need to worry any more about American Workers versus Immigrant Workers, because without the Ex Im Bank credit financing, there won't be any jobs to work at and he just increased our trade deficit by another $200 billion a year.

Five facts about the Ex-Im Bank.

Excerpt:

1) The Ex-Im Bank doesn’t create jobs.

Government export finance assistance programs like Ex-Im “largely shift production among sectors within the economy rather than raise the overall level of employment in the economy.”
—Government Accountability Office, “Export-Import Bank: Key Factors in Considering Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization”

“[A]t best the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs in export industries by destroying jobs in non-export industries.”
—Donald Bodreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University

“By some estimates, the bank’s loan guarantees have resulted in up to 7,500 lost U.S. carrier jobs, and up to $684 million of lost income for U.S. airline employees annually.”
—Delta Airlines

2) The Ex-Im Bank doesn’t return money to the taxpayers.

The Ex-Im Bank’s profits aren’t real. They are an accounting illusion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports that if the bank followed more accurate accounting rules, its ledger would show a cost to taxpayers of $200 million/year, or $2 billion over 10 years.
—Congressional Budget Office Fair-Value Estimate

3) Less than 1 percent of 1 percent of America’s small businesses benefit from Ex-Im.

Congress requires that 20 percent of Ex-Im’s authorizations go to small businesses, but Ex-Im consistently fails to meet this statutory requirement. In reality, just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses receive any help at all from Ex-Im.

Instead, Ex-Im’s subsidies go overwhelmingly to very large corporations like Boeing, GE and Caterpillar.

4) The Ex-Im Bank uses American taxpayers’ money to help foreign corporations, including businesses that are owned by the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Of the 50 largest loans or guarantees approved by the Ex-Im Bank since fiscal year 2007, 46 percent of the loans have gone to state-owned companies or to a joint-venture that includes a state-owned company.

5) The Ex-Im Bank financed only 1.6 percent of total U.S. exports in 2013.

That’s less than 0.18 percent of the total U.S. economy.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/22/5-...bama-remember/

It sure would be nice if we could actually stay on topic on occasion. Just saying ...

Originally Posted by MW

Five facts about the Ex-Im Bank.

Excerpt:

1) The Ex-Im Bank doesn’t create jobs.

Government export finance assistance programs like Ex-Im “largely shift production among sectors within the economy rather than raise the overall level of employment in the economy.”
—Government Accountability Office, “Export-Import Bank: Key Factors in Considering Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization”

“[A]t best the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs in export industries by destroying jobs in non-export industries.”
—Donald Bodreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University

“By some estimates, the bank’s loan guarantees have resulted in up to 7,500 lost U.S. carrier jobs, and up to $684 million of lost income for U.S. airline employees annually.”
—Delta Airlines

2) The Ex-Im Bank doesn’t return money to the taxpayers.

The Ex-Im Bank’s profits aren’t real. They are an accounting illusion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports that if the bank followed more accurate accounting rules, its ledger would show a cost to taxpayers of $200 million/year, or $2 billion over 10 years.
—Congressional Budget Office Fair-Value Estimate

3) Less than 1 percent of 1 percent of America’s small businesses benefit from Ex-Im.

Congress requires that 20 percent of Ex-Im’s authorizations go to small businesses, but Ex-Im consistently fails to meet this statutory requirement. In reality, just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses receive any help at all from Ex-Im.

Instead, Ex-Im’s subsidies go overwhelmingly to very large corporations like Boeing, GE and Caterpillar.

4) The Ex-Im Bank uses American taxpayers’ money to help foreign corporations, including businesses that are owned by the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Of the 50 largest loans or guarantees approved by the Ex-Im Bank since fiscal year 2007, 46 percent of the loans have gone to state-owned companies or to a joint-venture that includes a state-owned company.

5) The Ex-Im Bank financed only 1.6 percent of total U.S. exports in 2013.

That’s less than 0.18 percent of the total U.S. economy.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/22/5-...bama-remember/

Daily signal? That's the Heritage Foundation that's trying to kill the bank.

Oh look what I found!

_________________________

EX IM Bank was reauthorized on December 4, 2015! Hoorah!! They attached it to the Highway Bill! Smart!

Too late to save Boeing and GE and maybe some others, but for now, the bleeding has been stopped from that stupid move to take their export financing away for 3 years.

Cruz loses fight on Export-Import Bank reauthorization

Christine Ayala Follow @christine_ayala Email cayala@dallasnews.com
Published: December 4, 2015 11:39 am

By Christine Ayala and Michael Linbenberger

WASHINGTON– Despite strong support from some Texans in Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz voted against a $281 billion, five-year transportation funding bill Thursday, citing objections to a provision that gives new life to the Export-Import Bank.

The bank provides financing to U.S. exporters and their customers, helping American businesses compete globally. Dallas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, led an effort to kill the bank for years. Cruz is also among the bank’s harshest critics.

“The Export-Import Bank is an egregious example of corporate welfare and has no business being reauthorized – period, much less snuck through as part of an alleged must-pass bill,” he said.

The bank’s authority expired June 30, making it unable to approve new applications for buyers of such U.S. products as tractors and planes.

Passage of the transportation bill mostly thrilled advocates for more robust spending on roads, bridges and transit projects. President Obama is expected to sign it into law, ending years of short-term deals that left state and local planners guessing as to how much they would have to spend. Key supporters include Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, who has long championed stepped-up investment in infrastructure. She pushed for extending the program that provides public agencies and private firms government-backed loans to spend up construction of major projects.

Sen. John Cornyn, the deputy GOP leader, joined Johnson on the House-Senate conference committee that negotiated final details – including the Export-Import provision.

“As the top exporting state in the nation, Texas cannot continue to grow and create jobs without a modern and efficient highway system and freight network,” Cornyn said. “This bill provides our state with the long-term certainty to plan for and invest in the high-quality infrastructure Texas needs to continue to thrive.”

Cruz not only objected to the bank extension. He also called the transportation spending “irresponsible.”

The bill does “nothing to put our highway programs on a firm financial footing, nor does it do anything to move more funding and decision-making to the state level,” Cruz said in a statement.

The transportation bill increases spending over the next five years, but its authors refused to increase the taxes that traditional pay for the program. The motor fuels tax has remained unchanged for more than 20 years, and this bill keeps the rate steady. Instead, it uses a variety of budgetary maneuvers to help fund the increased spending. It transfers more than $50 billion from the Federal Reserve capital account, for instance, a one-time fix that does nothing for long-term funding.

It also reduces dividends paid by the Fed to large private banks, and uses the money to help pay for the bill. It increases customs fees paid by airlines and others, a move those industries have said is unfair. Some items – like $10 billion for Amtrak – are not funded at all.

Back in North Texas, the bill looked like progress to the Regional Transportation Council staff. Amanda Wilson, a spokeswoman for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, said it’s too soon to know which local projects will benefit most. But she said the bill will mean predictability, a big priority for local planners and policymakers alike. She said the bill will mean a boost in funding for states the first year, then a funding schedule for the remaining years of the project.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...rization.html/

Cruz not only objected to the bank extension. He also called the transportation spending “irresponsible.”

See, poor Ted is just on the wrong side of everything because he's a Puppet and just does what they tell him and he's so stupid he doesn't even know how much harm his crazy positions cause.

Americans want big exports, that creates jobs in our country, and we don't care to finance the purchases with foreign buyers and foreign countries who want our stuff. They do credit checks and evaluate their credit worthiness before they make the loan guarantees.

Americans want big good jobs with these big companies and the more EX IM Bank financing there is available the more exports, the more goods make here by American Workers!!

Americans want good roads and improved bridges!!

We want all this good stuff!!

What we don't want is 30 million or more illegal aliens roaming our streets and work places and schools, hospitals, parks, stores and alleyway or $800 billion a year in stupid trade deficits which means we're importing more than we're exporting, and costs US our factories, good jobs and money supply.

And that's with the EX IM Bank in play. If Congress hadn't finally renewed the bank, you could have added about $200 to $300 billion more to the trade deficit.

These stupid politicians, like Ted Cruz. They're a menace!

We spend far more taxpayer money per year than what we spend on the EX IM Bank. We actually make money on the Bank. It depends on what accounting system they use. But the most it costs us is $2 billion over 10 years, PEANUTS, or if you use a different accounting method without the mark to market rule, it makes us $14 billion over 10 years. Either way, it either makes US some money, breaks even or cost us a little bit but we gain all those jobs and production and income.

That's why we've had it for 81 years. And now we''ll have it for 3 more. How can you run a bank on a 3 year authorization??!! That's so stupid.

Renew it for good and make it permanent so our industries can rely on it. What do they do in 3 years when the same ole crap comes up again?! This is why our companies are getting sick of US. We must turn this all around, and I know a guy who knows just how to do it!!

STAY TRUE!! STAY TRUMP!!

For more information on EX IM Bank (Export-Import Bank):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export..._United_States

Originally Posted by MW

It sure would be nice if we could actually stay on topic on occasion. Just saying ...

Oh just think of me as busy little bee buzzing here and buzzing there but tying it altogether into a nice honey hiive!!

Ted LOST another one. He lost on the trade bill (he voted for it all gung ho, promoted it on the TV with Paul Ryan, then he voted against it but only to get even with McConnell over the EX IM Bank deal which is why he called McConnell a liar). He lost on the EX IM Bank at the end (rightfully so, this is a program we need for our big industries). He lost on Planned Parenthood (they were innocent). He lost on Obama Care (he's not a good lawyer). He just loses on everything because he doesn't understand the deals, good or bad, and can't win therefore, because he can't argue them in a convincing manner, usually because he's wrong to begin with, but even when he's right like on ObamaCare, he couldn't win, and he was responsible for the appointment of John Roberts, who threw the deciding vote to keep ObamaCare.

I'm sorry, MW, but Ted is just ... icky!

If I had to a choice to vote for Ted Cruz or the Tattoo Artist, I'd choose the Tattoo Artist every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Typical Washington bull crap politics. Re-authorization of the Ex-Im Bank should not have been included in the must pass highway funding bill. Re-authorization of the Ex-Im Bank would not have passed as a stand alone bill so leadership included it in a must pass bill. Geez, how many times have we seen this scenario play out. Oh well, once again the taxpayer takes it in the rear so the greedy corporations can maximize profits. Another venue for corporate welfare remains alive and kicking at our expense. Well, Cruz, Sessions, and other fiscal conservatives gave it their best shot because they care about we the taxpayer.

Anyone who applauds the Ex-Im Bank re-authorization supports corporate welfare.