Senate OKs bill to keep jobs in U.S.

The Washington Times ^ | March 5, 2004 | Jeffrey Sparshott

[findingtruth]

The Senate yesterday approved a measure that would stop federal contractors from using taxpayer funds to move jobs overseas.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, attached the legislation to a bill meant to restructure corporate taxes and end rising trade sanctions on U.S. goods sold in Europe. The amendment passed 70-26.

[hobson]

You can hide your head in the sand and scream to your hearts content but outsourcing is going to happen. Deal with it. Educate yourself: Outsourcing is just good economics for America

[DoughtyOne]

Bush has four major vulnerabilities this fall. Many of us tried like hell to avoid this, but here we are anyway.

1. Border Issues.
a. Illegal immigration
b. Trade merchandise not being inspected at points of entry, 98.5%
c. Still allowing immigration from terrorist states
d. Still promoting increased competition from foreign born to replace citizen workers
e. Still ignoring the impact on infrastructure, education, health care and crime
f. Catering to Fox makes Bush look like his water-boy. It's humiliating to him, for him to cater to Fox as he has. Name one thing Bush has publicly demanded from Fox. One can't write down all the demands Fox has made, from wanting there to be one nation from Canada to Panama, to demanding that we take care of his citizens as if they were our own. Bush just can't explain away this behavior.

2. Jobs
a. The feds still promote corporations moving off-shore
b. Manufacturing off-shore is supported
c. Now clearical and IT sector jobs moving off-shore is supported
d. Still promoting increased competition from foreign born to replace citizen workers

3. Anti-Terrorism Measures
a. While Bush's actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq are commendable, other actions are not.
b. Open borders...
c. Immigration from terrorist states allowed...
d. Refusing to face the Arafat issue. ANY TERRORIST ENTITY THAT REMAINS, WILL HELP NETWORK OTHER TERRORISTS
e. Trade merchandise not inspected could definately allow terrorists to import contraband. This will shock the sh-t out of our federal officals when it happens, and it's bound to

4. Spending like a drunken sailor
a. To be sure, elevated spending was going to take place as part of the war on terrorism. Approaching half a trillion dollars in debt per year is indefensible.


Dumping on me for point this out, isn't going to gain Bush points. At this stage of the game, these issues are major gifts to the other side. Some of us tried like hell to point this out starting in the year 2000.

[DoughtyOne]

B.S. Name one good thing about outsourcing. Thanks.

[hobson]

Expanded markets for one. Did you read the article?

[4m-ranch]

There is in fact a way they can predict economic activity with a great deal of accuracy. Bush has, in the past, stimulated the economy with tax cuts and the Fed has also added a great amount of liquidity. Another way to stimulate the economy is by the old fashioned way of "earning" money into the economy- the current bull market in commodities. This money is earned by the primary commodity producers and works it way up through the entire economy. For example, a bushel of wheat is transported, milled, baked into bread, shipped to stores and finally consumed. Each step takes labor and the creation of the original raw material guarantees the need for labor and pays the labor's wages. Typically, each one dollar of raw material income generates 7 dollars of national income and it takes approximately 6 months from the production of the commodity until the national income is realized. The commodities are already being produced, and the added dollar value is compounded into a 7 times increase in national income as the initial producer has additional revenue available to replace equipment, tools, supplies, living standards, etc. The "extra" income is available to the service/support industies to finance economic expansion.

This type of income generation is not new, as it was also employed after the Viet Nam war with the bull market in Ag products. At that time, as now, the Fed also inflated the money supply at about 10% so inflation was cited as the reason for the economy rather that the actual trade-turn of the raw materials. There is an elaborate article explaining this at www.northernlightsresearch.com "Short-Sellers Nightmare". Significant jobs numbers are in the works.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm sick of reading articles that front for those who seek to eliminate all but service sector jobs in the United States. Sorry bud, with with $400 billion dollars escaping this nation each year through trade deficits, I'm not buying the propaganda any longer. You know, the NAZIs, Stalin, Lenin and Mao each had their own followers who thought they were great. At some point you have to think. Eliminating jobs in the US is damnable.

[hobson]

Fine, I'm sick of people who refuse to educate themselves. It's funny that you mention Nazis, Stalin, Lenin and Mao. I'm sure they were not for free trade or global markets either.

[DoughtyOne]

Right back at you on that education point fella. We send out $400 billion in trade deficit dollars each year, which translates into $2.5 to $5.0 trillion in US commerce by way of the multiplier effect. I doubt you think this has any impact on our economy, if not positive. Don't ask me why, but it's my opinion that this nation would be a bit better off with between 25 and 50 thousand communities experiencing $100,000.000.00 in additional commerce due to that manufacturing being brought home.

If this trade was necessary for a nation to be successful, then you must think the United States was a misserable failure until around 1992.

Education? LOL

[america-rules]

Free trade creates way more American jobs then protectionist Gov't protection.

It's basic Econ 101 and you people have blinders on if you think butting up barries to free trade is going to help in the long run?

[DoughtyOne]

Once again, this nation was quite successful before we sold our soul to this trade nightmare. You guys can't come to grips with that though.

If trade deficits were the miracle grow that you deem them to be, why was it that no European nation was stupid enough to run trade deficits with China? Not a single one was as recently as a couple of years ago. I'm not sure today.

[DoughtyOne]

P.S., basic History 101 trumps your basic Econ 101.

[Kay Soze]

Actually Bush is a lame duck when it comes to being able to represent The US in trade relations.

He is indebted to so many nations for siding with him in the UN for the war in Iraq that he has zero leverage.

[BrucefromMtVernon]

Karl Marx was an outspoken advocate of so-called "free trade". He'd also smile on the "information economy" and globalization.

[BrucefromMtVernon]

Karl Marx was an outspoken advocate of so-called "free trade". He'd also smile on the "information economy" and globalization.

[hotdogjones]

Not surprised at this bill. I had an interview at a beltway bandit. The americans where managers and project leaders. The developers where H1-B visa people.

I felt like I was in a foreign country. Looked like they were surprised to see an american there.

I have noticed some the application forms try not to ask if you are a US citizen. THey just ask if you are authorized to work in the US (places that don't require clearances).

[LowCountryJoe]

Before one keeps parroting this distortion that Marx was in favor of free trade, I thought that I'd share some dialogue that I engaged in on the matter found in the blocked quote. I only ask that you check this out and then see if you want to keep perpetuating this misrepresentation. I find it rather funny that I didn't get a reply from ServesURight. Will I get one from any of you?

To: LowCountryJoe

"But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."

Karl Marx

To: ServesURight

I'm leery of quotations without sources. I've seen and read that one many times and I've never seen where he wrote it or where he said it.

I'm asking that you check out this link to a thread I started that didn't start much of a discussion. But, I think that it's very use information in case you run across it again.

Now, will someone show me the source of the Karl Marx quote?

To: LowCountryJoe

WHY KARL MARX ADVOCATED FREE TRADE

To: ServesURight

That's interesting! even a blind squirrel finds... Did you happen to read the whole speech by Marx. He was well conflicted on the matter...go on read it! The problem was that his conclusion was all wrong. He assumed that the removal of boundaries and boarders to allow trade liberalization would lead to a one politically party ruled "Pangaea" - one that is centrally planed; he ignores the very "freedom of capital" argument that he invokes earlier in the same speech. He also ignores the fact that, if bad enough conditions existed, wealth holders would "go off" (leave society) and do their own thing. Does that sound familiar?

Just about everything Marx said concerning trade liberalization was, in essence, true. But his conclusion ignores the very same human conditions that he pegged so correctly earlier in his speech.

Just taking that isolated quote and reading it, should tell one to dig deeper...Go ahead and try that!

Thanks for posting...goodbye!

...He'd also smile on the "information economy" and globalization.

He might also smile on 401(k)s, SIMPLE IRAs, and other pension plans investing in securities that benefit the worker. Though I'm sure he'd be terribly conflicted on that one as well because he believed the worker should reap the entire profit.

[LowCountryJoe]

Puke!

Maybe some of them can actually see other consequences that may occur down the road. I'm sure there's some in the senate that realize there is no "free lunch". Kind of like some of you correctly point out that there's really no "free trade", only agreements with strings and circumstances.

[Walkin Man]

Some Republicans said the measure could hurt U.S. companies competing overseas and damage trade relations.

There ya go...

Hand the government right over to Kerry, you morons!

Proof that Republicans care more about other countries than their own.

That there is even a debate over our own government using taxpayer money to create jobs for foreigners over Americans citizens shows how far the free trade rot has spread in our government.

[hobson]

Right back at you on that education point fella. We send out $400 billion in trade deficit dollars each year, which translates into $2.5 to $5.0 trillion in US commerce by way of the multiplier effect.

You're on the right track but you're not looking at the whole picture therefore, your conclusion is misguided. Trade policies have little affect on the trade deficit. International capital flow, savings and investment have the greatest impact. You speak of the money-multiplier effect but leave out the other side of the equation: benefits of competition, the lower costs of goods for consumers/businesses, value of the dollar, and net International Investment position (NIIP). Given your "Education? LOL" response I will assume you are familiar with these components so I will not elaborate.

...I doubt you think this has any impact on our economy, if not positive. ...If this trade was necessary for a nation to be successful, then you must think the United States was a miserable failure until around 1992.

Absolutely! Trade is great! The US manufactures currency for a meaningless fraction of a cent. People all over the world are willing to trade their stuff that has intrinsic value for our stuff (dollars) that have little intrinsic value. How could that possibly be bad?

[DoughtyOne]

I do approve of reasoned trade. Trade that winds up with a trade imbalance of nearly half a trillion dollars each year is not something I support. Why should we charge very little tariffs on nations that mark our goods up 40%? I don't ask for much, but 5% vs 40%. Nah, I'm not buying off on that.