Obama, the Wimp ... can't resist

[Feanor]

Once (or actually twice) again Obama disappoints me.

FIRST:
The extension of GWB taxes reductions, including the rich, for another two years. The fact is with the state of US budget deficits the reductions ought to expire for all income levels. This will absolutely be necessary in the long run, although conventional wisdom says don't increase taxes in a recession. But that "wisdom" isn't necessarily correct; it depends on what the government does with the money. If it spends money, it will stimulate the economy just as much as private spending does -- a fact overlooked or misunderstood by the average citizen.

The fact is that the US, (along with other western economies), faces overwhelming competition from the likes of China and India. What's to be done? Two areas the come to mind where government pro-action would help, and tax money well-spend, would be (1) education and (2) infrastructure.

Incidentally, infrastructure arguably includes health care. US companies have the de facto direct responsibility of providing employees' health insurance; imagine how their competitiveness would improve if they were relieved of this burden?

SECONDLY:
The US accepts that Israel will permit Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Apparently (according to the BBC report I heard), the US "did everything it could" to get the Israelis to extent the moratorium on this settlement (which is illegal according to international law). "Everything" included offering the Israeli air force an additional fifteen F35 fighter aircraft -- at over $130,000,000 a pop.

The fact is that the US has for decades done effectively nothing to force Israel to respect the rights of Palestinians, victims of ethnic cleansing in their own homeland. And the fact is that World peace would be served, and wind taken from the sails of Al Qaeda and Islamist Jihadism, if the US (1) ended military support of Israel, (2) ended guarantees of Israel bonds, and (3) asked the UN to impose sanctions on Israel. The US's stature in the international community would be instantly enhanced.

[3LB]

No matter what political party is in the White House, the US has always catered to Israel, with little or no consideration to anyone other than Israel. Shouldn't the discussion by this time be, why?

[Worf101]

Couple of things:

One: I've generally supported the President but it's getting harder and harder. He never really grasped the "no win" situation he was in.

1. He could never reach a compromise with the Republicans on anything. They were not then and certainly not now, willing to work with him on anything their single agenda has been and will be to oppose him, discredit him and ultimately defeat him. Why waste time trying to be resonable with people who want you dead.

2. Health Care Reform was a classic eample of a Pyrrich Victory. He won the battle but it may have cost him the war. Yeah it's a wonderful thing to try and get people health care but not when they're losing their homes and jobs. Priotrites.

3. World economic crises - There's little he or the US Govt. can do about this that he hasn't done already. We've not hit bottom on real estate yet and then and only then can we go from there.

4. Fickle American electorate. - They American public is fickle and spoiled, they expected miracles from day one and the last thing they want to hear is someone telling them the truth, no matter how obvious it may be.

5. Isreal has played him for a chump since day one. He can't afford to piss-off the pro-Israel lobby here in America, no one can who hopes to win the White House or keep it. He was dealing from a postition of weakness from the start, therfore he should never had staked so much of his political capital on trying to broker a peace. Israel uses him to get the Palestinians back to the table, then pisses in both their faces by building whatever they want wherever they want. The ONLY way to restore some sense of order to our relationship with Israel is to find a President willing to say, "okay, you don't want to listen, play fair, then you're on your own". But that would be political suicide.

With enemies emboldened by the mid-terms and support fast eroding, I've come to the conclusion that unless he finds a spine from somewhere he's doomed to be right down there along side Jimmy Carter despite all he's accomplished because American politics is about one thing and one thing alone... Perception.

Worf

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Couple of things:

One: I've generally supported the President but it's getting harder and harder. He never really grasped the "no win" situation he was in.

1. He could never reach a compromise with the Republicans on anything. They were not then and certainly not now, willing to work with him on anything their single agenda has been and will be to oppose him, discredit him and ultimately defeat him. Why waste time trying to be resonable with people who want you dead.

2. Health Care Reform was a classic eample of a Pyrrich Victory. He won the battle but it may have cost him the war. Yeah it's a wonderful thing to try and get people health care but not when they're losing their homes and jobs. Priotrites.

3. World economic crises - There's little he or the US Govt. can do about this that he hasn't done already. We've not hit bottom on real estate yet and then and only then can we go from there.

4. Fickle American electorate. - They American public is fickle and spoiled, they expected miracles from day one and the last thing they want to hear is someone telling them the truth, no matter how obvious it may be.

5. Isreal has played him for a chump since day one. He can't afford to piss-off the pro-Israel lobby here in America, no one can who hopes to win the White House or keep it. He was dealing from a postition of weakness from the start, therfore he should never had staked so much of his political capital on trying to broker a peace. Israel uses him to get the Palestinians back to the table, then pisses in both their faces by building whatever they want wherever they want. The ONLY way to restore some sense of order to our relationship with Israel is to find a President willing to say, "okay, you don't want to listen, play fair, then you're on your own". But that would be political suicide.

With enemies emboldened by the mid-terms and support fast eroding, I've come to the conclusion that unless he finds a spine from somewhere he's doomed to be right down there along side Jimmy Carter despite all he's accomplished because American politics is about one thing and one thing alone... Perception.

Worf

Wow, I could not have said this better. Personally, I think he is doomed already. I was a huge supporter of Obama, but there is no way in hell I can watch his capitulation to the Republicans for another four years. I am hugely disappointed in him, and somewhat angry at him as well. It will be decades before another minority will ever see the white house thanks to his piss poor performance.

[dean_martin]

Actually, in the recent tax battle, I think the President was more in tune with what is going on on the ground. People are struggling. I think he took the pragmatic approach even though it cost him on several fronts, including having to give up more than he wanted. Unfortunately, he's not going to get the credit he deserves because for whatever reason no one wants to give this Pres. credit for anything.

The numbers are telling. The wealthiest Americans would've seen a tax increase of only 3% while middle income earners would've have seen an increase of 6%. Throw in the failure to extend unemployment benefits and you would've had those struggling the most hit hardest. Recovery is going to be a long process. I think the President's economic policies are for the long-term. If I'm hearing right, he even bucked the recommendations of his own economic advisers. To me, that means he took up the yoke by himself. The deficit may have to keep growing until the economy shows more signs of improvement.

Many of us are disappointed that Pres. Obama has not come through completely or at all on many issues. But in two years he enacted some changes for the better. He has his veto power, a slim majority in the Senate and his displayed willingness to actually listen to repubs (much of which is nonsense, imo) to hold onto what he has accomplished. He may have even earned some collateral to leverage in the future.

[Feanor]

Couple of things:

One: I've generally supported the President but it's getting harder and harder. He never really grasped the "no win" situation he was in.

1. He could never reach a compromise with the Republicans on anything. They were not then and certainly not now, willing to work with him on anything their single agenda has been and will be to oppose him, discredit him and ultimately defeat him. Why waste time trying to be resonable with people who want you dead.

2. Health Care Reform was a classic eample of a Pyrrich Victory. He won the battle but it may have cost him the war. Yeah it's a wonderful thing to try and get people health care but not when they're losing their homes and jobs. Priotrites.

3. World economic crises - There's little he or the US Govt. can do about this that he hasn't done already. We've not hit bottom on real estate yet and then and only then can we go from there.

4. Fickle American electorate. - They American public is fickle and spoiled, they expected miracles from day one and the last thing they want to hear is someone telling them the truth, no matter how obvious it may be.

5. Isreal has played him for a chump since day one. He can't afford to piss-off the pro-Israel lobby here in America, no one can who hopes to win the White House or keep it. He was dealing from a postition of weakness from the start, therfore he should never had staked so much of his political capital on trying to broker a peace. Israel uses him to get the Palestinians back to the table, then pisses in both their faces by building whatever they want wherever they want. The ONLY way to restore some sense of order to our relationship with Israel is to find a President willing to say, "okay, you don't want to listen, play fair, then you're on your own". But that would be political suicide.

With enemies emboldened by the mid-terms and support fast eroding, I've come to the conclusion that unless he finds a spine from somewhere he's doomed to be right down there along side Jimmy Carter despite all he's accomplished because American politics is about one thing and one thing alone... Perception.

Worf

Good stuff, Worfster.

Great comments. So many Americans just don't get it. But the US is far from rock-bottom yet and I truly hope it doesn't have to hit that before it can retrieve itself.

Americans must not just retreat into the American Myth and nostalgia for the never fully realized American Dream. Leave that to the Tea Party's pathetic supporters. Otherwise your nation will go south in a hurry, (and take mine, Canada, along with it). America will prosper in inverse proportion to its stubborn adherence to these by-gone notions. When things get even worse, what will Americans do? You don't have to worry about "socialism". On the contrary, it's the the Tea Party leadership wantabees, like of Sarah Palin, who are eager to lead the nation down a path to fascism. (It ain't Obama whose the "Nazi".)

The US needs more effective health care. And it needs cheaper health care regardless of whether it's paid for the by individuals, employers, or governments. Its current system is simply not viable anymore in light of the fact of horrific budget deficit and the likelihood of decades of economic stagnation.

WTF? Are American really so total blind to the control of AIPAC over its politicians and Zionist insiders' control of its media? Why do Americans, otherwise justly proud of their principles and freedom, tolerate this?

[Feanor]

Actually, in the recent tax battle, I think the President was more in tune with what is going on on the ground. People are struggling. I think he took the pragmatic approach even though it cost him on several fronts, including having to give up more than he wanted. Unfortunately, he's not going to get the credit he deserves because for whatever reason no one wants to give this Pres. credit for anything.
....

Many of us are disappointed that Pres. Obama has not come through completely or at all on many issues. But in two years he enacted some changes for the better. He has his veto power, a slim majority in the Senate and his displayed willingness to actually listen to repubs (much of which is nonsense, imo) to hold onto what he has accomplished. He may have even earned some collateral to leverage in the future.

I think the US and world can thank the heavens that it was Obama and not John McCain who was elected. That said ...

"Some collateral to leverage" be damned; it's leadership that counts, to which the electorate will respond. On every front, even health care, Obama has failed to show leadership. Electors, like wolves, sense weakness and he just might not be reelected. That would be too bad because worse fortune will betide Americans if they elect any likely Republican.

[Feanor]

No matter what political party is in the White House, the US has always catered to Israel, with little or no consideration to anyone other than Israel. Shouldn't the discussion by this time be, why?

But you know why. It's (a) Zionist PACs, and (2) Zionist insider influence on the media. The discussion should be what to do about it.

[dean_martin]

I think the US and world can thank the heavens that it was Obama and not John McCain who was elected. That said ...

"Some collateral to leverage" be damned; it's leadership that counts, to which the electorate will respond. On every front, even health care, Obama has failed to show leadership. Electors, like wolves, sense weakness and he just might not be reelected. That would be too bad because worse fortune will betide Americans if they elect any likely Republican.

Unless someone like Sarah Palin wins the repub nomination, I think Pres. Obama is doomed to be a one-termer. He's practicing a "new" form of politics (or at least a form we haven't seen in over a decade) while the repubs are going on with their "scorched earth" politics as usual. Nobody is noticing that Obama is trying to bring discourse and true statesmanship back to Washington. Because he's the only one doing it, he's been forced to compromise on issues. It's like trying to negotiate with your child over whether he should get the candy bar while waiting in the check-out line or trying to convince your dog that she needs to eat her food instead of dog treats. Personally, I hope he becomes the latest comeback kid and that discourse and statesmanship are adopted by both sides as the means for getting things done.

[Feanor]

... Personally, I hope he becomes the latest comeback kid and that discourse and statesmanship are adopted by both sides as the means for getting things done.

Me too, but then how likely is it?

In tough times the dialogue always polarizes. The Republican Party understands this (on some level) and has drifted to the right. The Dems, including the President, don't seem to realized this.

Do you know history? The great depression struck Germany very hard; people look to leaders who offered simplist, patriotic solutions. German parties like the Social and Christian Democratics tried to practiced statesmanship & compromise and were crushed by Hitler and the Nazi Party.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Me too, but then how likely is it?

In tough times the dialogue always polarizes. The Republican Party understands this (on some level) and has drifted to the right. The Dems, including the President, don't seem to realized this.

Do you know history? The great depression struck Germany very hard; people look to leaders who offered simplist, patriotic solutions. German parties like the Social and Christian Democratics tried to practiced statesmanship & compromise and were crushed by Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Nobody elected Obama to practice the exercise of statesmanship. We wanted the change he promised, of which he has failed to deliver. This change was not statesmanship(the Republicans have no interest in that), but to get policies that the Democrats really wanted - Single payer healthcare, a more fair tax process(no more rich getting tax breaks), and a re-steering of the ship that leaned more toward big business and the rich, than the poor and middle class. No more wars we cannot afford to pay for, and no more imperialistic policies that get us to war.

So far; no universal health care, and more tax cuts for the rich. Are participation in one war extends to at least 2014, even if the other is truly winding down. He has failed time and time again, and has been outsmarted by a bunch of dummies. We can make excuses for his poor performance all we want, but the proof is in the pudding - he is making no one happy but the republicans.

[JSE]

It's funny to hear the tone time and time again of how the republicans are "all or nothing" and are not interested in working with Obama or Democrats.

You do realize Obama and the Dems completely ignored the Republicans over the last 2 years? At least until they got their clock rung last month. They did what they wanted without listening to any input from the Republicans or even the majority of americans in some cases.

Other than Ideology, how have Obama and the Democrats been any different than the Republicans over the years?

Neither party nor Obama gives a rats arse about the american people. It's just "business as usual". Pun intended.

[dean_martin]

Nobody elected Obama to practice the exercise of statesmanship. We wanted the change he promised, of which he has failed to deliver. This change was not statesmanship(the Republicans have no interest in that), but to get policies that the Democrats really wanted - Single payer healthcare, a more fair tax process(no more rich getting tax breaks), and a re-steering of the ship that leaned more toward big business and the rich, than the poor and middle class. No more wars we cannot afford to pay for, and no more imperialistic policies that get us to war.

So far; no universal health care, and more tax cuts for the rich. Are participation in one war extends to at least 2014, even if the other is truly winding down. He has failed time and time again, and has been outsmarted by a bunch of dummies. We can make excuses for his poor performance all we want, but the proof is in the pudding - he is making no one happy but the republicans.

See? He won't be appreciated in his own time. Statesmanship and discourse are the promises he DID keep. (He did make those promises and some voted for him because they were tired of partisan bickering and our waning standing in the world. It was the Congressional Dems who didn't get the partisan part and that's why they were thrown out.) The bottom started falling out at the end of the campaign season. You can promise to go to the moon, but if it's blown up before you can get there then you have to break that promise.

OK, so maybe I'm grasping at straws, but I do see a method that I approve of although it may not be as effective as I would like it to be. Besides, when have we seen drastic change for the better? Whenever things change dramatically it's always for the worst.

[JSE]

. Statesmanship and discourse are the promises he DID keep. (He did make those promises and some voted for him because they were tired of partisan bickering and our waning standing in the world.

Seriously? I did not see this at all. When did he ever truly and willingly try and work with the Republicans? Healthcare? Nope. The Stimulus Package? Nope. He is now, only because he has not choice.

[dean_martin]

nor Obama gives a rats arse about the american people.

I have to disagree with you on the Pres. I believe he does really care about the American people even to the point where he risks ridicule by his own party. The Congressional Dems are a different story. They got caught up in being the victors. Most Americans hate gloating. Any sports fan can tell you that. That's why their collective asses were kicked. Let's say the average sports fan has the option of kicking TO's ass if he does his cell phone thing in the end zone after scoring a td. Will the average sports fan elect to exercise that option to kick his ass? My guess is that 9.5 out of 10 would, the other .5 being fans of the team he plays for.

If the Pres. fought the tax battle into the next Congress the poor and middle class wouldn't have gotten jack squat. The Congressional Dems were willing to take that chance even though over half of them wouldn't have been there for the fight. That's reckless, imo.

[dean_martin]

Seriously? I did not see this at all. When did he ever truly and willingly try and work with the Republicans? Healthcare? Nope. The Stimulus Package? Nope. He is now, only because he has not choice.

On healthcare he gave up on the public option and struck deals (many of them mischaracterized as backroom deals) to get passage. But I must confess, I can't remember whether any republicans signed on. They were opposed to the whole idea and have been for decades. They weren't going to compromise or work with the Pres. Healthcare is simply not a good example. It's on the Democratic platform and would never be found on the Republican platform. Indeed, it would've been political suicide for Repubs to have worked with the Pres. on healthcare. The best they could do as a minority party at the time was complain that the Pres. wouldn't work with them. I guess some people bought that bs. If you read some of the posts in this thread you'd think the Pres. struck a deal with the devil on healthcare which ain't too far off from striking a deal with repubs. I jest. I jest.

The stimulus package included tax cuts and credits that are rarely talked about but are what the repubs wanted in that package. Besides, the stimulus package helped republican donors. I'm pretty sure the stimulus package got some repub votes in Congress, didn't it?

[GMichael]

I don’t think that he has done any better, or any worse than most who have preceded him. Some of what he has done (all the spending) has shocked me. But I think he is doing his best. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen. I am withholding judgment for now.

[dean_martin]

Some of what he has done (all the spending) has shocked me.

I know. If only we could peek in on an alternate universe in which the only difference is that there were no bailouts or stimuli and see what would've happened. I have my doubts as to whether the gloomy predictions that allegedly necessitated the spending would've come to fruition. On the other hand, we might see you holding my place in line at the soup kitchen while I run down the alley and pee. We gotta stick together, you know.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Seriously? I did not see this at all. When did he ever truly and willingly try and work with the Republicans? Healthcare? Nope. The Stimulus Package? Nope. He is now, only because he has not choice.

Being as pissed at him as I am, I still cannot sidestep the facts. In the beginning of his Presidency, he did reach out to Republicans. The rebuffed him. With healthcare the Republicans didn't want a single law passed the would truly harm the profits of the health care industry. The President made a major mistake by letting the house and senate craft his major campaign promise. They made a mess of it, and the Republicans lied through their teeth about the legislation before even reading about it.

The Republicans did get their way on the stimulus package. Too much money went on tax cuts, not enough on infrastructure, and that blunted the effectiveness of the entire package.

Did he have a choice? He sure in the hell did. If he stood his ground on the tax cut for the rich, he could have blamed the republicans for all of the consequences of holding out for tax cuts for the rich. You cannot talk about financial responsibility while rewarding the top 2% a tax cut the country has to borrow $700 billion to pay for. That does not make any sense, and that is not what 74% of American wants to see. That 74% includes both Republicans and Democrats. National debt, does this legislation care about national debt? Hell no, it seeks to bust it further, with the help of the republican party that got is into debt in the first place. And let me be balanced here. The Democrats have shown they are completely incapable of governing a country. The whole health care debacle was painful, and totally untidy to watch. Those idiots could not even come together and rally behind a single message. Blue Dogs ruining this, progressive demanding that, insurance industry bought and paid for completely thumbing their nose at the Democratic base. All of this is freakin insanity, and why China neither respects us, not believes that we will stand up to them." America the declining power" used to be something they said quietly, and between themselves. Now they openly say it, rebuff us, and ignore whatever we have to say.

This country is in decline, no doubt about it. I do not think Americans are ready for the new reality.

[Feanor]

I know. If only we could peek in on an alternate universe in which the only difference is that there were no bailouts or stimuli and see what would've happened. I have my doubts as to whether the gloomy predictions that allegedly necessitated the spending would've come to fruition. On the other hand, we might see you holding my place in line at the soup kitchen while I run down the alley and pee. We gotta stick together, you know.

I wonder then as I wonder now why the US treasury didn't bail out the sub-prime mortgagors. Suppose they had just said, Look banks, we won't let the mortgages default, so all your effing derivatives won't fail and you don't need hand-outs from us. But no, they gave the cash to the banks who are now forclosing on the poor saps who they duped into taking them in the first place, all the while crowing about how they're paying back the government and handing out fresh bonuses to their top brass.

Stimulus is a standard measure against recession. It can work. But there are good and bad ways to do it. After 9/11 George W. further eased credit and told the consumer, Spend, spend, spend. At it work sort of, although it left the US consumer in debt up to his eyeballs. But this go-round easy credit isn't enough; the consumer know he's already
carrying more debt than he can handle. Tax cut won't work either: the poor will pay down their credit cards and rich will invest their tax savings off-shore. I hate to put it quite this way, but the Obama government needs to "tax and spend". The incidence of tax should, of course, be mainly on the rich and corporations. I hear the US corporations are sitting on cash of almost $2 TRILLION and not investing it. No wonder it's a "jobless recovery". If the Obama goverment had any balls it would say, Bugger you guys: we're going to grab your cash and invest it in infrastructure. But of course Obama has no balls.

[GMichael]

If the Obama goverment had any balls it would say, Bugger you guys: we're going to grab your cash and invest it in infrastructure. But of course Obama has no balls.

I don't think I can get behind this. As much as it might help, we just can't have the government taking money from businesses as it/he sees fit. That's a pretty slippery slope.
I wouldn't mind seeing tax increases if it meant the hiring back of the many police, firemen and teachers who have lost their jobs lately. While they're at it, they could spend some of it to fix up the roads. Creating more jobs seems key to me.

[Feanor]

I don't think I can get behind this. As much as it might help, we just can't have the government taking money from businesses as it/he sees fit. That's a pretty slippery slope.
I wouldn't mind seeing tax increases if it meant the hiring back of the many police, firemen and teachers who have lost their jobs lately. While they're at it, they could spend some of it to fix up the roads. Creating more jobs seems key to me.

It seems to me, GM, that your are contradicting yourself between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.

Ask yourself, if you don't tax people or companies, what are they going to do with the money?

• Nothing: i.e. they save it -- hold it as cash. This what many US corporations are doing today with almost 2 trillion bucks
• Speculate (gamble) with it, i.e. buy whatever -- Picaso paintings, hog belly futures, credit default swaps -- in the hope that the thing will increase in value; (or in the case of CDS that they will profit when a company goes bust). This happened a lot before the last crisis and was one of its principal causes
• They spend it on luxuries, (or pay out dividends to shareholders who spend it on luxiries). There are two kinds of luxuries:
  • Domestically producted -- which might or might not lead to more domestic production
  • Foreign produced
• Invest it in productive capacity (or inventories): there are two kinds of productive capacity:
  
  • Domestic
  • Foreign, (off-shore)

The conservative myth is that all tax savings will be invested in domestic productive capacity. As you see, above, this is only one of the options and not the one being chosen by businesses today. If the government does hand out tax reductions it is able to target the money on, say, green energy development, or improving the school system so our kids might still find a job in the global economy.

[GMichael]

It seems to me, GM, that your are contradicting yourself between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.

Ask yourself, if you don't tax people or companies, what are they going to do with the money?

• Nothing: i.e. they save it -- hold it as cash. This what many US corporations are doing today with almost 2 trillion bucks
• Speculate (gamble) with it, i.e. buy whatever -- Picaso paintings, hog belly futures, credit default swaps -- in the hope that the thing will increase in value; (or in the case of CDS that they will profit when a company goes bust). This happened a lot before the last crisis and was one of its principal causes
• They spend it on luxuries, (or pay out dividends to shareholders who spend it on luxiries). There are two kinds of luxuries:
  • Domestically producted -- which might or might not lead to more domestic production
  • Foreign produced
• Invest it in productive capacity (or inventories): there are two kinds of productive capacity:
  
  • Domestic
  • Foreign, (off-shore)

The conservative myth is that all tax savings will be invested in domestic productive capacity. As you see, above, this is only one of the options and not the one being chosen by businesses today. If the government does hand out tax reductions it is able to target the money on, say, green energy development, or improving the school system so our kids might still find a job in the global economy.

I don't feel that taxing is the same as just grabbing up trillions. I therefore do not see my comments as a contradiction.
Taxing is needed. As long as the money goes to create jobs, I'm all for it. But I don't feel that any government should be able to just grab up all the cash of any company as they see fit. Why be in business if the government can just scoop up all your profits if you do a good job? So they can give it to the companies who screwed up and are in trouble now?

[Feanor]

I don't feel that taxing is the same as just grabbing up trillions. I therefore do not see my comments as a contradiction.
Taxing is needed. As long as the money goes to create jobs, I'm all for it. But I don't feel that any government should be able to just grab up all the cash of any company as they see fit. Why be in business if the government can just scoop up all your profits if you do a good job? So they can give it to the companies who screwed up and are in trouble now?

True and I agree, GM. I was indulging in a little hyperbole when I said the gov should "grab" their money. On the other hand tough tax rates, (which would need Congressional approval of course), might be what's called for.

Actually, I'd like to see a scheme whereby a company would receive a tax credit if they did, indeed, in fact, and measurably, invest their profits in the domestic economy.

[GMichael]

True and I agree, GM. I was indulging in a little hyperbole when I said the gov should "grab" their money. On the other hand tough tax rates, (which would need Congressional approval of course), might be what's called for.

Actually, I'd like to see a scheme whereby a company would receive a tax credit if they did, indeed, in fact, and measurably, invest their profits in the domestic economy.

Now you're talkin'.
A tough tax rate on companies that are fat and ugly could not only bring money in to the government, it could also light a fire under their asses to invest some of that cash in the domestic economy. Credits for them doing so on their own would help as well.