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?
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.