Posted on 03/10/2004 4:43:33 AM PST by 1rudeboy
President George W. Bush hit back at Democratic critics of his administration's job-creation efforts on Tuesday, branding them as "economic isolationists" who would raise new trade barriers and damage the US economy.
The comments came as part of what appeared to be a co-ordinated administration effort to respond to growing political pressures over the slow pace of US job growth, which has helped push Mr Bush's likely Democratic opponent, John Kerry, ahead of the president in several recent polls.
In a speech in Virginia, Mr Bush said: "There are economic isolationists in our country who believe we should separate ourselves from the rest of the world by raising up barriers and closing off markets. They're wrong. If we are to continue growing this economy and creating new jobs, America must remain confident and strong about our ability to trade in the world."
Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, similarly warned Congress on Tuesday that "given the fact we're now in a stage of an economic recovery, the absolutely worst thing we could do would be to turn to economic isolationism".
Mr Zoellick told the Senate finance committee that increasing US exports to countries such as China and India, encouraging foreign investment in the US, and helping workers adjust to the loss of some jobs abroad were better responses than "bureaucratic interventions that will increase prices to our people".
Mr Bush's comments came less than a week after the Senate passed legislation aimed at preventing US government contracts from being carried out by workers in developing countries.
The administration has been uncertain over how to respond to the continued slow pace of job creation. Mr Bush has sought to distance himself from recent remarks by a senior economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, that outsourcing of jobs is just a part of trade and therefore good for the US economy. But the administration now appears set to mount a more robust defence of companies that move US jobs abroad.
"US companies with foreign affiliates now account for about 58 per cent of our exports," said Mr Zoellick. "So the companies that do business overseas are also exporting overseas."
"I think the challenge is: How do you help people in a way that doesn't hurt or kill other jobs?" he said, pointing out that the US currently runs a $60bn annual trade surplus in the service sector, which has seen a growing number of jobs moved to lower-wage countries.
And? It doesn't matter if you can see it or not. It is definitely going to happen. The alternative is all progress stops as of today. I know you don't believe that.
If progress continues- which it surely will- there will be a 'next thing' and there will be many more 'buggy whip factories' going out of business. It's just the way it is.
Or they may raise the taxes to pay for a more expensive American counterpart.
I am surmising that the company doing the state work won the contract with the lowest bid, which is mandated in most state laws.
Regardless of whether it's for real or not, the issue is a helluva lot bigger than some would like to think it is.
How many Toyota employee's were laid off in Japan when the American factories were built?...My guess none.
There's a huge difference between business expansion and job replacement.
Almost 40.
Wait'll you get sick. Real sick. Sick as in, can't work, can't hardly get up.
Yep and when it happens, that's problem isn't it?
When your wife.......oh, wait, you sound like you don't have time for foolishness like that, either.
No need to get personal. What is it you mean to say about my wife?
That'll be your "safety net".
I don't want a safety net. I prefer being free. People that want a government safety net are Marxists. Simple as that.
How's this for an answer: yes and no.
If our economy was doing poorly, certainly it would be appropriate to be concerned. But it's not doing poorly, contrary to the arguments of our "home grown leftists".
But most importantly, you personally should only worry about one job: yours. You see, the media loves to trump up heartbreak stories in election years if they oppose the incumbent. By doing so, they fan the flames of fear in regular people who think they're supposed to show sufficient concern. But it's all a bunch of hooey.
Reagan knew this when he asked "are you better off..."; the media was having a stroke over the "homeless problem", but level-headed Americans understood that they were doing just fine. So take a personal inventory; if Bush has been bad for you (and I think you'll need to consider the war on terror in this assessment), then by all means oppose him. Just be sure the alternative is what you're looking for.
If we have been increasing US exports, why has the trade deficit hit a record at 43.1 billion?
You are right! So many people are sitting around asking the question rather than looking for opportunities. I say look around, identify a need, then figure out a way to make money filling that need. Be creative! Innovate! Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for yourself! Ok, I got carried away...but still.
How to sell it? It's not the government's concern. That's the first point. The government is not in the jobs business. It's not the government's concern where I spend my money. Corporations don't belong to the government nor do they operate at the government's pleasure.
The only thing the government can do is to create a favorable environment for business to take place and for the economy to flourish. So far, with corporate taxes over 30%, they are not doing so.
You want to keep more corporations here? Reduce corporate taxes to almost nothing. Even at ten percent, just think about that. A corporation suddenly able to keep more than 20% more of its profit? Man, that would effect the economy in an amazing way.
The government just needs to reduce regulations on business, cut business taxes as much as possible and get the hell out of the way. That's what a government who was concerned about its citizens would do.
Oh, so they lowered everyone's taxes when they "outsourced" to foreigners?...I didn't know that.
May I demur, in honor of my grandfather, who thought Bryan a great man?
Bryan's call for the silver standard was motivated not only by the plenitude of silver from the great Nevada strikes (which is why we still see ads today for Carson City cartwheels that have sat in a mint vault or bank vault since the 19th century), but also by the long decline in farm-product prices which obtained from the end of the Civil War, roughly, until the onset of the Great War.
During this period, bankers who stipulated loans' principal in gold dollars received, by the workings of the market, a non-negotiated increment over and above the interest to which they were entitled by the terms of the loan, which increment represented appreciation of gold over the term of the loan. And since this appreciation was due in part to government policy, the farmers felt, not without justification, that they were being played by the bankers to their great detriment, with the government as a catspaw.
Hence Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech, which my grandfather attended, and which he thought the greatest speech of his life, and indeed of the age.
No, but I believe you're looking for the wrong solution. Corporations are not evil. They are GOOD with a capital G. Corporations are taxed at over 30%. But they don't pay those taxes. You do. The government needs to make the climate in America as favorable to corporations as possible- not unfavorable. Do away with those coporate taxes. Encourage businesses to make as much money as possible.
At the end of the day though, it's not the president's problem whether you have a job or not. Or at least it wouldn't be in a free country.
I'm not retired. In fact, part of my present job is oil work. We're not afraid of a lower oil price at all. We've seen what computing power have done to the computer industry and the effect on telecoms by the plummeting price data/voice transmission.
Lower prices as with trade deficits are neither good not bad. What's important is the economy as a whole, with special regard to total employment and real earnings. Those numbers have improved and people have become better educated and they give more to charity, and crime is down.
BTW, if you were buying gas and the station was selling gas at ten cents per gallon, would you refuse to buy it if you found out the gas had been refined by Nigerians?
Or if Mel Gibson filmed "The Passion of the Christ" in Italy.
I am not going to bash Mel. It was a powerful film, but if the protectionists were intellectually honest with their rhetoric they would be bashing Mel as a "Captain of industry" for filming his movie in Italy and using non-American workers.
That's simply not true. Expanding business creates new jobs that didn't exist before and old jobs that aren't needed disappear. Business expansion always eliminates some jobs while creating more new ones. Just think of all those people who worked in the IBM typewriter factory. All out of out work. No, but they have different and better jobs now.
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.