Posted on 10/13/2007 8:28:25 AM PDT by ckilmer
Bush: Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Alarmed by slipping support for free trade even among Republicans, President Bush is arguing that protectionism will cut Americans out of chances for more — and better — jobs.
Bush has launched a blitz on behalf of pending free trade pacts with four nations. He continued the push Saturday in his weekly radio address.
"More exports support better and higher-paying jobs," the president said. "And to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade."
His radio address followed a speech on trade he delivered Friday in Miami. Bush also granted interviews this week to business-oriented news organizations.
Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, it has not approved any free trade agreements that the administration has negotiated, and it has allowed Bush's authority to negotiate future deals under expedited procedures to expire.
Before lawmakers now are agreements with Peru and Panama, considered likely to pass, and with Colombia and South Korea, both seen as precarious. The deal with Colombia is in trouble over human rights issues and there is strong opposition to the South Korea agreement because of barriers erected by Seoul to keep out U.S. autos and beef.
The administration already has reached agreement with Democrats to include tougher language on protecting worker rights and the environment. But critics say five consecutive years of record U.S. trade deficits have played a major role in the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office in 2001.
"I know many Americans feel uneasy about new competition and worry that trade will cost jobs," Bush said. "So the federal government is providing substantial funding for trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the transition from one job to the next. We are working to improve federal job-training programs. And we are providing strong support for America's community colleges, where people of any age can go to learn new skills for a better, high-paying career."
He said the deals would level the playing field for American businesses and farmers, many of which now face high tariffs on exported products while other countries enjoy relatively open access to U.S. markets. And he argued that freer trade with allies serves "America's security and moral interests" around the globe.
"Expanding trade will help our economy grow," Bush said. "So I call on Congress to act quickly and get these agreements to my desk."
After spending Friday in Florida talking trade and raising money for the Republican Party, Bush flew to Texas for a weekend stay at his ranch. He travels Monday to Rogers, Ark., for a speech on the budget and to Memphis to raise money to help Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., in his re-election bid. The president returns to Washington Monday evening.
Free trade has cost the U.S. jobs.
The United States is open for imports from anywhere with NO tariffs. While American products in places like China and South Korea are taxed at high import duties.
But by trying to level the playing field it is going to lose us jobs???????
HOw about demanding our exports be given equal treatment?
President Bush are you sure a little tit for tat may just cost some of your fat cat buddies a few bucks?
Now that Nikita Khrushchev, THERE was a man who knew how to set industrial policy!
Interesting that you would bring up South Korea . . . .
Your idea of free trade is not fair trade.
I do not believe this is true. The US has trade barriers also. Historically, our markets have been more open but that situation is changing. For example, we have tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. We have a complex system of farm supports that restricts imports.
These agreements are complex documents. I am sure that there are many areas that are unfavorable to us as well as other areas that are favorable. It might be useful to evaluate the details of the agreements.
Without the agreements, there will be less trade. All things being equal, more trade is preferred because trade is voluntary. More voluntary exchanges will increase employment and provide more choices to consumers.
Don’t worry. The second they anoint Hillary all these trade deals will sail right thur. It was her hubby Bubba that rammed thru NAFTA. The notion that Democrats are any less Globalist is absurd.
The North American Alliance is going down.
But aren’t there jobs Americans don’t want to do anyway?
If he wants free trade then let's let him arrange for $20+ million of us to move to Mexico and live off their sociaty for free. As for myself, I'd like a nice house on the beach outside of Cozumel. I won't buy insurance, I won't learn the language, I won't pay taxes and I damn sure won't follow any Mexican laws. So get right on this for me Jorge so we can have free and balanced trade...
We cannot export things to poorer nations that cost more to manufacture here then everywhere else, and most of our things do.
The only way for these agreements to expand our trade on an equal basis is to value all of the currency the same.
Strangely the dollar continues to fall - it is now below the Canadian value! - and the dollar is neatly coming into the range where pesos will be envisioned at near parity, once they adjust out a few things.
Then you can have your precious Amero, senor, which is where all of this is designed to go.
And don’t even try to deny it.
We can still tell that a dog has passed by seeing the paw-prints in the snow.
And we can see you, as well.
Wow, that's a whole lotta' nuthin' . . . last year, almost 1030 billion dollars' worth of goods.
So in other words, you are opposed to a trade agreement with, say, South Korea because we have an illegal immigration problem.
Apparently, that was my first mistake.
“The only way for these agreements to expand our trade on an equal basis is to value all of the currency the same.”
Perhaps you should focus on debating my main points:
- Trade agreements are complex documents. Perhaps it would be preferable to have simpler agreements but I am not sure if simpler agreements are possible.
- All things equal, more trade is preferred to less trade.
- The US has many trade barriers. The old situation of open US markets and closed foreign markets has changed.
Your main point is that we cannot compete on manufacturing. On balance, I agree with your point. In specific areas, we compete very well. Our main problem is not manufacturing. We compete well in providing goods and services if we have a good political environment. The environment with over regulation, high taxes, energy mandates, union thuggery, and litigation madness is choking us. On balance, trade agreements are not a problem.
I guess we have to change your screen name to 1dumboy.
Why don’t you thrill us all with your acumen? - Tell us all what products we can sell abroad that are more expensive there than the products made elsewhere?
Please do, so that my company can gear up to export them...
Hey Toddster, bill needs some help with setting-up a business plan. Can you post that list of goods we export?
you have basically said it all...
except ~ muchas gracias jorge bush!!!
I lived there for a year and wanted to bring a Harley Davidson there. Price at the time new about $18,000. After import duties, about $60,000.
NOw as for a new American car?????
We need to enact the South Korea FTA as soon as possible, I agree.
Make sure that they are more expensive to produce here then in the target country and to provide the plan clearly showing how to sell these overpriced goods there.
The second they anoint Hillary, all the Freepers who support Bush on this issue will suddenly be against it.
Gladly. And the target date for your bankruptcy is when?
You are correct in many circumstances.
For instance our sugar industry is subsidized for every pound of sugar they produce. World proce is about a dime a pound and we give producers another dime for every pound they come up with.
Fanjul family here in South Florida own the govt. the land and pollute like they live somewhere else.
They shake down the govt and politicians are bought and paid for .
And yes trade is great for bringing folks together BUT many many countries like the Chi-coms and the South Korea send us their crap and don’t want to take ours if they have a fledgling home producer.
Actually now that I think about it, just mark-up the price of whatever product your company sells by 1000%, call up someone in Canada or Mexico, and off you go. Best wishes.
There. Fixed it.
BUMP
'Fleece' Traders claimed that this would increase 'good jobs'. However, they have yet to identify who is now holding these 'good jobs'. Perhaps they should check out China to find them.
Trade is we buy from you and you buy from us. Not we'll trade you our jobs and our Treasuries for your cheap expendable goods.
'Free' trade, another addition to the Administration's '101 more ways to elect Democrats'.
Do we favor free trade or not? Seems to depend. When the commodity exchange is open we favor it. When it is the weekend they are all commies.
I like Duncan Hunter’s idea: “mirror tariffs” — maintaining the same tariff rates as our foreign trading partners.
If I had wanted to make my point using other words I would have used other words.
Asking me if I apposed trade agreements because several female celebrities have not worn underwear in public recently makes about as much sense as the question you asked in response to my post. Maybe more sense actually.
He’s selling us out. We are a sovereign nation George. Stop importing poverty, stop NAFTA.
“Asking me if I apposed trade agreements because several female celebrities have not worn underwear in public recently makes about as much sense as the question you asked in response to my post. Maybe more sense actually.”
I vote that it makes more sense. 1rudeboy specializes in the inane one-liner. Others have called his responses obtuse, but I think your response might be the most creative and on point that I’ve seen, Lol.
I still think that you should change that screen name to 1dumboy. It resonates.
I had reduced the argument to the absurd in the very first post, but that passed you by in your haste to bash every poster here who had the temerity to disagree with you.
One cannot sell goods there that cost more to produce here than anywhere else, yet you panted and blathered, then chunked up a huge waste of bandwidth to deny that.
I even asked you if you had truly read the post, but nothing was forthcoming except more distortions and nonsense.
Your posts are meaningless.
That is the portion of your reply that drew my comment. Don't forget.
So he brought-up illegal immigration by accident? Please help him out.
Even better, we are ahead of the export pace from the same year-to-date figures in 2006: currently, we are at $753.4 billion as of August, 2007; last year, as of August, 2006, we were at $675.7 billion. That augurs well for this being another record year for exporting goods. That's a strong increase of 11.5% over last year at this time.
Also, imports are not up by the same percentage; the year-to-date figure for the import of goods as of August, 2007, was $1,272.6 billion; imports for the same period in 2006 were $1,227.2. That's an increase of only 3.7% for imported goods.
“So the federal government is providing substantial funding for trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the transition from one job to the next. We are working to improve federal job-training programs. And we are providing strong support for America’s community colleges, where people of any age can go to learn new skills for a better, high-paying career.”better, high-paying career.”
They’ve been throwing that line of nonsense around for about twenty years now. Just what percentage of displaced manufacturing workers do they claim to have retrained and put in a, “better, high-paying career.”
Do they have some reliable stats on that?
The man is a blathering fool. NONE of the candidates running on the Republican ticket want to be tied with this national embarrassment.
I expected that most would be able to understand the idea that if someone shows they do not have the sense or desire to use a prophylactic with a next door neighbor then it's likely they will have failings when dealing with anyone else anywhere else.
Again, my mistake. I admit it. I did not consider the obtuse reader.
“So he brought-up illegal immigration by accident? Please help him out.”
His #11 was a spoof about US citizens treating Mexico the same way Mexican illegals treat the US, and the unlikelihood (more like impossibility) that any other nation would be up with the nonsense the US puts up with. A twist on leveling the playing field. No relation to trade with South Korea.
Been talking to a neighbor from Belize.
She says they don’t care for Nafta or these other treaties because their small country has no Niche market other then unspoiled nature.
No auto industry, no dairy or banana or coffee or marijuana that’s better then anyone else so they don’t care to compete like our cattle or wheat industries. (I use these industries only as an example). But they are not for Equal trade and too have high tariffs.
You are correct in that it was supposed to create middle classes the world over who in turn would purchase our goods, food stuffs, weapons.
Most can’t afford (or we don’t want to have) our weapons but we do sell a lot.
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.