Posted on 09/01/2003 10:12:05 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
RICHFIELD, Ohio (AP) — President Bush announced yesterday he is creating a high-level government post to nurture the manufacturing sector, which is bleeding jobs in states crucial to his re-election.
On a rain-soaked Labor Day trip to a factory training center, Mr. Bush said he directed Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans to establish an assistant position to focus "on the needs of manufacturers." Keeping factory jobs is critical to a broader economic recovery, the president said, his outdoor venue ringed by cranes, backhoes and bulldozers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
We already have that one. (Hint: Replace Job with Homeland.)
Obviously President Bush is making this half-hearted effort for window-dressing purposes only. He can't be serious if he doesn't know the difference between thousands and millions.
Next, he'll be up there saying, "Ahhve been workin' as hard as I've evah worked for the Umericun people..."
For a president that I like so much, he sure does alot to piss me off.
If he appoints workers who have seen their jobs go overseas, it'll help the unemployment situation. (sarcasm)
Protectionism is necessary. How can a country possibly maintain a superior standard of living if our jobs and money can be siphoned off by those who need less to survive?
The globalists would say a rising tide lifts all ships. I would counter that an ebbing tide leaves many ships stranded.
That's probably because decent, educated, conservative, hard-working US citizens are feeling the job pinch.
Maybe the problem is with the governing sector? In any case why should expect a powerless 'manufacturing czar' to be any more successful than the 'drug czar'?
There are probably some definitional issues here, as usual. But are you saying you want the government to make sure you can get a job?
The government has responsibility to have policies that assure that capable, qualified, hard working people are able to find stable jobs. Stopping the invasion will help protect the jobs of those on the lower rungs of the economic spectrum. Not granting any more work visas and revoking those that are used for jobs US citizens could be doing would also help.
The government can't make sure everyone can have a job. But it can't have policies that favor jobs going overseas or at home to non-citizens if it wants to continue to govern.
Here are the numbers from the BLS on extended mass layoffs .
Extended mass layoffs in manufacturing don't exeed 50% in any quarter of 2001, and that includes post 911 Q4. In 2002 the manufacuturing component of extended mass layoffs never exceeded 40% of the total.
Given that manufacturing accounted for less than 50% of extended mass layoffs in any quarter of 2001-2002, its hard to believe that manufacturing losses account for close to 90% of all the jobs lost during that period.
I'm not saying that manufacturing wasn't hit hard during the economic downturn, but absent a credible source for their statistics, I'd question the accuracy of the reporting.
Sounds like the IT business can pound sand, since it apparently is not crucial to his re-election.
2003: 14.6 million
2002: 15.3
2001: 16.4
2000: 17.3
In a cyclical downturn which included a terrorist strike and significant financial scandals, this is pretty positive.
Off 16% or so in three years; this is actually remarkable given the decline in asset values/stock equity and plenty of outsourcing offshore.
With the national unemployment rate around 6% or so, it may require a new field, a move, self-employment or outsourcing something for someone...but virtuous conservatives would expect to be able to find work in this country.
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.