Bush: Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs

Yahoo ^ | 10/12/07 | JENNIFER LOVEN

[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.

[nyyankeefan]

you have basically said it all...

except ~ muchas gracias jorge bush!!!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

What a surprise. Bush immediately produces a straw-man argument. Those who oppose managed "free" trade by unelected internationalists are "protectionists." Just like those who oppose illegal immigration are "racist."

"We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish."

RON PAUL LIBRARY

[Joe Boucher]

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?????

[1rudeboy]

We need to enact the South Korea FTA as soon as possible, I agree.

[bill1952]

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.

[Wolfie]

The second they anoint Hillary, all the Freepers who support Bush on this issue will suddenly be against it.

[1rudeboy]

Gladly. And the target date for your bankruptcy is when?

[Joe Boucher]

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.

[1rudeboy]

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.

[capitalist229]

Free trade has cost created U.S. jobs.

There. Fixed it.

BUMP

[ex-snook]

"Free trade has cost the U.S. jobs."

'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'.

[RightWhale]

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.

[Mr. Mojo]

I like Duncan Hunter’s idea: “mirror tariffs” — maintaining the same tariff rates as our foreign trading partners.

[isthisnickcool]

So in other words, you are opposed to a trade agreement with, say, South Korea because we have an illegal immigration problem.

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.

[rbosque]

He’s selling us out. We are a sovereign nation George. Stop importing poverty, stop NAFTA.

[1rudeboy]

No, you can't wriggle off the hook so easily . . . one can presume that you were speaking of our illegal immigration problem, and not underwear, when you wrote about getting "$20+ million of us to move to Mexico and live off their sociaty for free."

[Will88]

“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.

[bill1952]

>, just mark-up the price of whatever product your company sells by 1000%, call up someone in Canada or Mexico, and off you go.

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.

[1rudeboy]

"We cannot export things to poorer nations that cost more to manufacture here then everywhere else, and most of our things do." [emphasis added]

That is the portion of your reply that drew my comment. Don't forget.

[1rudeboy]

So he brought-up illegal immigration by accident? Please help him out.