Why do you keep misrepresenting the truth? Our industrial production is up 50% since 1992 and up 20% since 1997.
Posted on 07/28/2005 8:26:19 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
American Families Are Hungry Too; CAFTA-DR's Passage Questioned
WASHINGTON, July 28 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Early Thursday morning the House passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a two-vote margin, 217-215. The Senate approved CAFTA-DR last month; it now goes to the President for his signature.
The agreement's said purpose is to open trade between the US, Central America and the Dominican Republic to promote higher paying and better jobs, investment in America and helping to forge relations with developing countries, supposedly cutting down on job loss and immigration issues.
"Why would America purposely give away American jobs to bridge relations with developing countries?" asks Janice McLean DeLoatch, syndicated TV host of Entrepreneurs Edge. "Americans are already suffering from manufacturing and textile jobs being lost overseas. I know this from my own personal business experience. Our families are hungry too. I would like to know if those in the US House had businesses deals that will be impacted by this agreement. Do we deserve to have American businesses go out-of-business for the sake of helping the democracies of Central America and the Dominican Republic succeed."
To schedule an interview with Janice McLean DeLoatch, call 410-515-2991, 443-299-7360 or email info@entrepeneursedge.org.
Why do you keep misrepresenting the truth? Our industrial production is up 50% since 1992 and up 20% since 1997.
I know plenty people who worked in manufacturing and they went back to school (government paid for some) to improve their skills. When they returned to the workplace flush with new skills, they still couldn't get a job. This is total crap...when Americans complain about illegal immigration the government cries they take jobs nobody else wants...not true. They drive the wages down to the point no one elese can afford to take such jobs. Many live 7 or 8 to a house-living frugally and sending their money back to where they came from. The building industry jobs are worth nothing now. The other bs idea is that it is the shortcomings of the American education system which forces these poor company's to seek workers in foreign lands. This is total BS. There are plenty of well educated people-public school graduates in fact. Americans who were laid off during the IT crash were in many cases forced to train their replacements-mostlt guest workers from India. There are a million excuses for why the impact of global trading is really the American workers own fault and if we really tried harder...we could work harder etc. but these companies are the robber barons of our time- they have no loyalty to any country. They will build great wealth at the expense of our people and our culture.
This is nonsense...I don't care what statistics you throw at me...I know for a fact that auto parts are manufactured mostly abroad. The steel industry is gone-as is the garment industry. You deny manufacturing is declining in this country. Take a drive; you can see the closed down plants and mills with your own eyes.
Also, how about comparing our productivity to an earlier time... 1993 was not a very good year.
I know, don't confuse you with the facts.
Not true, when I was in college, picking apples in upstate NY, was done by students looking for some extra bucks. Apples did not rot on the trees.
Feel free to post earlier start date info. But if you were right and we didn't make anything here anymore, those numbers would have been declining. You know, going down instead of up.
The cost of government is going to be paid with taxes one way or the other, right now most is paid my income taxes on the middle class, shifting part of that cost to consummers of imports is a reasonable thing to do. Particularly when it has the added effect of creating more (keeping jobs here) middle class tax payers. Traiffs, are a win win America as long they to do not get so high that they prevent importers from importing.
The problem with shifting "part" of the cost is that the feds can then raise both tariff rates and income tax rates. So how much money do you want these tariffs to raise? How high should the rate be? And how much would you lower income tax rates?
It should also be noted that a large part of the steel used in the usa is imported, something like 40 m/tons imported, also a large portion of the 80m/tons produced here is mini mills, I don't think mini mills are capable of producing high end steel.
| Year | Production | Imports | Exports | Apparent consumption |
Unit value ($/t) |
Unit value (98$/t) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1942 | 17,300,000 | 17,300,000 | 0.84 | 8.40 | ||
| 1943 | 15,000,000 | 15,000,000 | 0.93 | 8.76 | ||
| 1944 | 11,300,000 | 11,300,000 | 0.97 | 8.98 | ||
| 1945 | 11,500,000 | 11,500,000 | 1.00 | 9.06 | ||
| 1946 | 15,200,000 | 15,200,000 | 1.08 | 9.03 | ||
| 1947 | 17,800,000 | 17,800,000 | 1.21 | 8.84 | ||
| 1948 | 19,200,000 | 19,200,000 | 1.29 | 8.72 | ||
| 1949 | 19,600,000 | 19,600,000 | 1.38 | 9.45 | ||
| 1950 | 22,600,000 | 22,600,000 | 1.44 | 9.74 | ||
| 1951 | 26,600,000 | 26,600,000 | 1.50 | 9.40 | ||
| 1952 | 24,400,000 | 24,400,000 | 1.53 | 9.41 | ||
| 1953 | 27,700,000 | 27,700,000 | 1.60 | 9.77 | ||
| 1954 | 26,500,000 | 26,500,000 | 1.64 | 9.94 | ||
| 1955 | 29,400,000 | 29,400,000 | 1.73 | 10.52 | ||
| 1956 | 32,000,000 | 32,000,000 | 1.72 | 10.31 | ||
| 1957 | 29,800,000 | 29,800,000 | 1.86 | 10.79 | ||
| 1958 | 25,800,000 | 25,800,000 | 1.60 | 9.02 | ||
| 1959 | 25,700,000 | 25,700,000 | 2.02 | 11.31 | ||
| 1960 | 26,100,000 | 26,100,000 | 2.02 | 11.12 | ||
| 1961 | 23,300,000 | 23,300,000 | 2.04 | 11.12 | ||
| 1962 | 21,300,000 | 21,300,000 | 2.12 | 11.44 | ||
| 1963 | 21,500,000 | 21,500,000 | 2.12 | 11.29 | ||
| 1964 | 24,400,000 | 24,400,000 | 2.10 | 11.04 | ||
| 1965 | 27,300,000 | 27,300,000 | 2.08 | 10.76 | ||
| 1966 | 28,400,000 | 28,400,000 | 1.81 | 9.11 | ||
| 1967 | 31,300,000 | 31,300,000 | 1.90 | 9.27 | ||
| 1968 | 31,700,000 | 31,700,000 | 1.92 | 8.99 | ||
| 1969 | 33,600,000 | 33,600,000 | 2.02 | 8.97 | ||
| 1970 | 30,600,000 | 1,720 | 26,400 | 30,600,000 | 2.00 | 8.40 |
| 1971 | 30,200,000 | 2,110 | 19,700 | 30,200,000 | 2.13 | 8.57 |
| 1972 | 31,900,000 | 1,320 | 24,900 | 31,900,000 | 2.22 | 8.66 |
| 1973 | 35,000,000 | 1,150 | 33,700 | 35,000,000 | 2.30 | 8.44 |
| 1974 | 35,100,000 | 47,100 | 35,100,000 | 2.41 | 7.97 | |
| 1975 | 29,600,000 | 29,600,000 | 2.70 | 8.18 | ||
| 1976 | 29,600,000 | 29,600,000 | 2.97 | 8.51 | ||
| 1977 | 29,400,000 | 29,400,000 | 3.08 | 8.28 | ||
| 1978 | 33,400,000 | 33,400,000 | 3.33 | 8.33 | ||
| 1979 | 32,400,000 | 32,400,000 | 3.76 | 8.44 | ||
| 1980 | 22,900,000 | 22,900,000 | 4.46 | 8.82 | ||
| 1981 | 19,500,000 | 19,500,000 | 4.77 | 8.55 | ||
| 1982 | 17,700,000 | 17,700,000 | 4.95 | 8.36 | ||
| 1983 | 16,700,000 | 16,700,000 | 5.24 | 8.58 | ||
| 1984 | 20,000,000 | 20,000,000 | 5.66 | 8.88 | ||
| 1985 | 19,100,000 | 10,900 | 379,000 | 18,700,000 | 6.02 | 9.12 |
| 1986 | 19,100,000 | 27,200 | 18,100 | 19,100,000 | 6.38 | 9.49 |
| 1987 | 19,300,000 | 121,000 | 331,000 | 19,100,000 | 5.99 | 8.59 |
| 1988 | 19,600,000 | 155,000 | 1,000 | 19,800,000 | 6.10 | 8.40 |
| 1989 | 20,700,000 | 100,000 | 7,000 | 20,800,000 | 5.77 | 7.58 |
| 1990 | 21,900,000 | 227,000 | 5,000 | 22,100,000 | 5.78 | 7.21 |
| 1991 | 20,300,000 | 150,000 | 5,000 | 20,400,000 | 6.60 | 7.90 |
| 1992 | 21,400,000 | 100,000 | 4,000 | 21,500,000 | 6.25 | 7.26 |
| 1993 | 19,000,000 | 162,000 | 4,000 | 19,200,000 | 6.63 | 7.48 |
| 1994 | 20,100,000 | 199,000 | 4,000 | 20,300,000 | 6.97 | 7.67 |
| 1995 | 21,000,000 | 280,000 | 4,000 | 21,300,000 | 6.86 | 7.34 |
| 1996 | 20,500,000 | 346,000 | 3,000 | 20,800,000 | 6.88 | 7.15 |
| 1997 | 18,900,000 | 663,000 | 9,000 | 19,600,000 | 7.25 | 7.36 |
| 1998 | 18,400,000 | 670,000 | 10,000 | 19,100,000 | 8.15 | 8.15 |
| 1999 | 19,000,000 | 920,000 | 12,000 | 19,900,000 | 8.05 | 7.88 |
| 2000 | 16,300,000 | 1,200,000 | 20,000 | 17,500,000 | 8.65 | 8.19 |
APPARENT CONSUMPTION = PRODUCTION + IMPORTS - EXPORTS.
For the years that imports and exports were not available, production was assumed to be equal to apparent consumption.
Thomas D. Kelly
Minerals and Materials Analysis Section, USGS
(303) 236-8747 x 269
kellyt@usgs.gov
If I believed all that I might tend to agree with you about the socialist takeover and "the demise of American manufacturing." I don't. Sure, lots of people say that the US economy is in the worst shape since Hoover. No proof or verification is needed or wanted. Everyone says it. "It's true-- if it weren't true than I couldn't blame my failings on others."
Now, when I loose my job I don't even think about voting in tax-hikes for others to pay my food bill. It's not because I'm so friggin' noble and glorious (well, maybe partly) but it's because I've found it takes a lot less effort to just ignore what my neighbors or the news people say about the economy and just do my own checking for myself. It's actually pretty easy to find out what works and what doesn't. What's been in demand a lot lately is home building and oil drilling, but at the moment, I'm working with a US manufacturing company and I'm telling ya, it's not demising at all.
You might want to try again. What you posted is slag production, not steel production. LOL!
My husband and I used to buy only GM products. We then purchased a Toyota Camry, which was built in the US. No comparison. We'll not be buying another GM product.
We had a good year in 2004. The U.S. produced 96.2 million tons of raw steel.
LOL, what do ya know we matched our production for 1951.
LOL, I thought the 1950s were what all you Buchanan-bots wanted us to return to?
What's funny is that since 1951 we've boosted our GDP by 462%. Not bad with 96.2 million tons of steel.
CAFTA has tax-cuts, and the Democrats always say we can't afford tax-cuts because they increase the deficit wreck the country. They lie. Tax-cuts cut the deficit in two ways (I can't believe I'm having to explain this on a forum for conservatives). One way is that tax-cuts expand the economy so tax revenue increases. Another way is tax-cuts increase income faster than the cost of government, so it's not as big a bite out of the paycheck.
That's it. CAFTA cuts taxes and does not raise income taxes. There is no shifting here-- it's just a question of do we want a tax-cut or not. The article is "American Families Are Hungry Too; CAFTA-DR's Passage Questioned" and the writer wants us to repeal the tax-cut to feed other people's families and not our own.
Uh oh, hot button pushed--
[WARNING: BLOWING OFF STEAM ALERT]
Everyone wants to tax others-- "tax those people so us people can live better". That's why taxing those "consummers of imports" seems so "reasonable". Of course it sounds reasonable --to you. Another thing --all this "keeping jobs here" nonsense is really getting old. You know and I know that the only "giant sucking sound" after NAFTA was the one from the oval office. The vast majority of Americans have found more job openings with higher pay. As far as I'm concerned this whining unemployable minority that's living off my taxes should at least say "thank you" and leave it at that.
There. I feel better now. Sorry about that.
Import now vrs 1950's
2000 = 34.4 1953= 1.5
2001 = 27.3 1954= 0.8
2002 = 29.6 1955= 0.9
2003 = 21.0 1956= 1.3
2004 = 29.1 1957= 1.1
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.