Free trade's victims turning against Bush, GOP

The Herald Sun ^ | August 25, 2003 | associated press

[snopercod]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- This year's highly publicized job losses in North Carolina manufacturing, including the Pillowtex bankruptcy, could mean trouble next year for President Bush in a region that was a stronghold in 2000.

Bush won more than 56 percent of the vote in both North Carolina and South Carolina in 2000. But his strong support of free trade has turned some against him in the South, where U.S. trade policies are blamed for the loss of jobs in textiles and other manufacturing sectors.

Andy Warlick, chief executive officer of Parkdale Mills in Gaston County, said he doubts he will repeat his 2000 vote for Bush next year.

"He made a lot of promises and he hasn't delivered on any of them," Warlick said. "I've had some firsthand experience of him sending down trade and commerce officials, but they're just photo ops. It's empty rhetoric."

Fred Reese, the president of Western N.C. Industries, an employers' association, said executives are beginning to raise their voices against Bush and are planning education and voter drives.

"We're seeing a new dynamic where the executives and employees are both beginning to see a real threat to their interests. You're going to see people who traditionally voted Republican switch over," Reese predicted.

The hard feelings were on display days after Pillowtex's July 30 bankruptcy filing, when Republican U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes walked into a Kannapolis auditorium to meet with former workers.

"Thanks for sending the jobs overseas, Robin!" shouted Brenda Miller, a longtime worker at the textile giant's Salisbury plant.

In December 2001 Hayes -- who is an heir to the Cannon family textile fortune -- cast the tie-breaking vote to give Bush the authority to negotiate "fast-track" trade agreements, trade treaties that Congress must vote up or down with no amendments.

At the time, Hayes said he won promises from the Bush administration that it would more strictly enforce existing trade agreements and pressure foreign countries to open their markets to U.S. textiles.

"Are we pleased with the way they responded? Absolutely," Hayes said. "Are we satisfied with where we are? Absolutely not."

Jobs in many industries have fled overseas since 1993, when Congress passed the Clinton-backed North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. About half the textile and apparel jobs that existed in 1994 are gone.

Since Bush took office in January 2001, it is estimated North Carolina and South Carolina have lost more than 180,000 manufacturing jobs.

And even more textile jobs could be out the door once quotas on Chinese imports expire at the end of next year.

Republican U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger voted for NAFTA and fast-track, and has seen his 10th District lose nearly 40,000 jobs, primarily in the textile and furniture industries.

"Certainly, there's a political cost to any controversial vote no matter which side you take," he said. "People are casting stones, but we're trying to pick them up and build something."

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Edwards voted against fast-track in 2002 after voting for an earlier version. In 2000 he voted for permanent normal trade relations with China.

Recently, though, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards has attacked Bush's trade policies and called for fairer trade measures.

Robert Neal, vice president of the local chapter of the Pillowtex workers' union, said Hayes has worked to try to ease the impact of job losses in his district.

"Though he (Hayes) voted for fast-track, he is really concerned about the workers and their conditions in the state of North Carolina," Neal said.

Not everyone feels that way.

Reese is organizing 1,500 manufacturing companies across North Carolina in an effort to leverage what he calls a new voting bloc.

In South Carolina, voter drives are planned for the first time at Milliken & Co., which has about 30 plants in the state. Mount Vernon Mills of Greenville, S.C., is forming a political action committee.

The company's president Roger Chastain, a one-time Bush voter, doesn't expect to support the president or Jim DeMint, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Ernest Hollings.

"We're basically liquidating our whole middle class, polarizing people on the two extremes, have and have-nots," Chastain said of the manufacturing job losses. "We'll be a Third World country."

[ex-snook]

"Wow. How brave. "

Nah - How America first.

Backing off your Goebbels-like smear? "I can only imagine the party going on at the Buchanan Compound on 9/11." "

Pat fully supported Bush in the Afghan war as a response to the 9/11 attack on America. Pat is for protecting American interests both in war and in jobs.

[Gunslingr3]

I read your post and you argue that the only taxes collected are when they are levied on imports

You're making things up and attributing them to me. It's definitely an issue of reading comprehension. Maybe you can source that statement?

[Texas_Dawg]

Pat fully supported Bush in the Afghan war as a response to the 9/11 attack on America. Pat is for protecting American interests both in war and in jobs.

Yeah... because George Bush isn't.

[Dr Warmoose]

That depends on what I can buy with the money. If it's just a bunch of overpriced American junk (say for example a 1981 Dodge K car instead of a Datsun that will go 300,000 miles), then not really.

That is one of the big problems with you Free Traitors. You hate this country so much that you would rather see foreign governments benefit, then you turn around and demand clean air, water, constant electricity, safeguards and protections against fraud, a postal system, passable roads, medical care, retirement system, courts, police, military, utilities and a host of other things, but refuse to pay for these benefits through buying products made in this country that will be taxed by this country to benefit this country.

Since you clearly hate this country and only care to exploit it and the people for your own selfish purposes, why haven't you left and moved to India, China or Russia? Your money goes there, and clearly you think that the people there are superior to Americans, why don't you get closer to the source of all of this greatness?

Because you are a thief and leech wishing to take advantage of the things in this country while benefiting foreigners with your patronage.

This is why you hate tariffs on foreign goods, you don't want to see any of your money spent on this country you selfishly loot and pillage.

Tough talk, but I really get tired of you thieves that wantg to exploit this country's greatness and do absolutely nothing to maintain it for our posterity.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Yeah... because George Bush isn't."

I heard George was a "Merchant" as well!

[hchutch]

For the most part, I think it's deserved, and your side's hands are not clean.

There are some REAL problems with our economy, but free trade has nothing to do with it. The outsourcing and offshoring is more a sign that the problems have gotten bad enough that some companies are bailing out of here.

I oppose tariffs because they won't solve the problem. All they will do is give the politicians a VERY convneient excuse to avoid doing the heavy lifting to solve the problems that have got companies decideing to bail out. We know what they are. We know we've got VERY heavy opposition for it.

But tariffs are an easy way out. Because rather than solve the problems, the politicans will instead raise them more and more, and in effect SUBSIDIZE the self-destructive patterns that were put into place a long time ago and need to be dealt with now. I'm talking the out of control regulations, a tort system that can give outrageous settlements or be used to coerce industries, the corporate tax system that is so damn complex that lots of accountants and lawyers have to be hired - so the company can figure the tax code out, and the fact that profit and success have become dirty words.

Tariffs will do NOTHING to deal with those problems. I think it is only reasonable to insist these problems be dealt with first. AFTER those problems are addressed, if the problem is still there, I will CONSIDER tariffs and protectionist measures, but only after dealing with those other problems and only IF the problems persist.

Right now, the call for tariffs and taxes on outsourcing is nothing more than a cry for protection from the consequences of bad decisions we made earlier, and quite frankly, I don't believe people should be allowed to avoid the consequences of their bad decisions. It's a basic principle called accountability.

If that makes me a "Free Traitor" because I will NOT support an easy out for politicians, so be it.

[snopercod]

Unfortunately, that's the way it works. The RAT party will make sure that Bush gets the blame. Count on it. I can hear the attack ads now. "Bush is using your tax dollars to build pipelines and power plants in faraway Iraq, while our infrastructure is decaying, cities are being blacked out, and our workers go hungry."

What really sticks in my craw is to see President Bush on TV telling me that the economy is rosy. He should stop doing that, because the economy is NOT rosy. Did he learn nothing from his father?

Caveat: Although I have been looking for engineering work for about three years now without success, I am seeing a little pickup in the listings on Monster.com and FlipDog. Maybe things are getting somewhat better for some people.

[ex-snook]

Quoting Frum? Quote what Buchanan said about Bush's efforts in the Afghan war, not Frum dragging some fish across the road.

[StolarStorm]

Don't hide behind codes, say exactly what you mean.

[ArneFufkin]

Frum WAS quoting Buchanan.

[ArneFufkin]

Once again, Buchanan's words, written on September 28, 2001:

"We are told the first target of America's wrath will be the Taliban. But if we rain fire and death on the Afghan nation, a proud, brave people we helped liberate from Soviet bondage, we too will slaughter hundreds of innocents. And as they count their dead, the Afghans too will unite in moral outrage; and, as they cannot fight cruise missiles or Stealth bombers, they will attack our diplomats, businessmen, tourists."

This argues AGAINST action in Afghanistan as a response to the 9/11 attacks.

[dogbyte12]

Again. I am not disputing you. I am only suggesting that we don't go into an economic gun fight with a knife.

If we want to wave the wand and remove all tarriffs, I wouldn't be crazy about it, but I could accept that. Allowing our goods to be blocked by countries with tarriffs while letting theirs in is not Free Trade.

Free Trade is when somebody invests capital in an idea, produces it, and sells it in an equal market. The american producer who is being tarriffed at 70% in India is not freely trading. The american or indian company shipping goods into the US is. That is all. India needs us more than we need them. They already have the built in advantages of lower labor, safety health care, environmental costs. Can we not compel them through sanctions or tarriffs to simply get rid of their tarriffs? Then fine, drop the tarriffs completely.

I don't think it is unrational to expect this. Maybe that is my irrationability speaking though.

[hchutch]

Where is the proof that our LACK OF TARIFFS is the problem?

Where is the proof that imposing tariffs will solve the real problems that have hamstrung our economy?

Instead, I'm being told to accept the tariffs and we will work on the other problems later. But later, particularly when we're talking with politicians, tends to be a LONG TIME OFF. And eventually, more and more companies will decide it's easier to write a check for the amount of the tariff and pass the costs on to the consumer than it is to keep dealing with regulations and a tort system that is constantly distancing itself from common sense, or a corporate tax system that needs to be killed IMMEDIATELY, or the fact that too many people see a profitable corporation as a bad thing that something must be done about.

I'm sorry, but your last post does NOTHING to make me reconsider my opposition to tariffs at this juncture. Nothing at all.

[Texas_Dawg]

Quote what Buchanan said about Bush's efforts in the Afghan war, not Frum dragging some fish across the road.

He had very qualified "praise" for Bush and our military after the Afghanistan War, which followed his typical doom and gloom and "warnings" (wishings) about America getting its comeuppance.

[ex-snook]

This argues AGAINST action in Afghanistan as a response to the 9/11 attacks. "[Re Pat and the Afghan war]

Well I looked it up. Which is a very good idea when Frum is involved. It was actually 9/20 in LA Times. And the very first paragraph reads.

As the twin towers of the World Trade Center came down in flames, taking 5,000 Americans with them, an unserious era in U.S. history came to an end. "All is changed, changed utterly," wrote poet W.B. Yeats. President Bush has now received full authority to wage war against all who abetted the slaughter. It must be done. Our American family cannot permit the mass murder of our brothers and sisters to go unpunished.

I believe President Bush also said the enemy was not the Afghan people but the Taliban. [As he also said about Saddam and the Iraq people].

[Poohbah]

That is one of the big problems with you Free Traitors.

You hate this country so much that you would rather see foreign governments benefit, then you turn around and demand clean air, water, constant electricity, safeguards and protections against fraud, a postal system, passable roads, medical care, retirement system, courts, police, military, utilities and a host of other things, but refuse to pay for these benefits through buying products made in this country that will be taxed by this country to benefit this country.

I am taxed when I am paid for my work. I am taxed when I buy food at the grocery store. I am taxed when I live in my home. I am taxed when I occupy a hotel room, whether I am forced to do so on business--and thus am being taxed further. I am taxed when I turn on the faucet to get a drink of water. I am taxed when I purchase gasoline for my car, so that I can get to work--so that I can be taxed some more--or for whatever brief respite for amusement I can get from my labors. I am taxed when I buy a book to edify myself and possibly become of more use to my employer, thus getting me a raise--and entry into a higher income tax bracket. I am taxed when I turn on an electric light in the evening, after working most of the daylight hours for the benefit of the Great God, Government. I am taxed when I pick up my telephone to make a call (said tax being intended as a temporary one to pay for the Spanish-American War). I am taxed when I spend the money I have earned. I am taxed when I save the money I have earned, as people tell me I should. I am taxed when I invest my money and risk losing every last penny of it. I am taxed at birth for my diapers. I am taxed at death for whatever assets I hoped to leave to my progeny. My survivors even get the joy of paying a special tax associated with my interment.

Not only are death and taxes inevitable, we've hit the government-worshipper's Nirvana--even death is taxed.

I am taxed from womb to tomb.

And then I want what little your sainted government is willing to let me keep to last as long as possible--but you scream that I'm a traitor for not purchasing an overpriced and underreliable piece of crap, SOLELY on the basis of the fact that the nameplate says "Toyota."

Since you clearly hate this country and only care to exploit it and the people for your own selfish purposes, why haven't you left and moved to India, China or Russia?

You know, if your way of thought ever becomes the majority in this country...I'll take you up on that idea. AFTER I sell all of my property to overseas entities, with the exception of the house I live in--THAT sucker I'll just torch in place, AFTER planting endangered Mesa Mint all over the property, so that thieves like you will not be permitted to make use of it.

In the meantime, I'm grateful that some concept of freedom remains in place in America, in spite of the best efforts of some folks on the far fringes of the political spectrum.

Your money goes there, and clearly you think that the people there are superior to Americans, why don't you get closer to the source of all of this greatness?

As I said, if your anti-freedom, anti-capitalist mindset becomes the majority view...I'm gone, along with anything of value I have. Do without me, my work, or my wealth.

Because you are a thief and leech wishing to take advantage of the things in this country while benefiting foreigners with your patronage.

You know, if I make bottom-grade crap and try to sell it, I'm honest enough with myself and the customer to not try to get charge dollar for it.

If a foreigner is more willing to make a better product than an American is, then that speaks to a character flaw on the American's part.

This is why you hate tariffs on foreign goods, you don't want to see any of your money spent on this country you selfishly loot and pillage.

Quit overcharging me for your crappy goods.

Tough talk, but I really get tired of you thieves that wantg to exploit this country's greatness and do absolutely nothing to maintain it for our posterity.

Only doctrinaire Marxists refer to people with any cash left over after the Great God, Government's cut comes out as exploiters.

[hchutch]

The paleos' own words make a pretty good case on a lot of that, IMHO. I suppose I'm on that list, too, huh?

But then again, folks like me are supposed to just smile sweetly and take it when we are falsely accused of being disruptors or worse, I guess. I don't like being lied about and falsely accused, and I will NOT put up with it.

[Texas_Dawg]

President Bush has now received full authority to wage war against all who abetted the slaughter.

I know dozens of fringe Leftists who said the same thing, and then bitched and screamed about everything Bush chose to do after 9/11, just like good old Pat.

[dogbyte12]

Fine oppose tarriffs. All tarriffs. You all seem to say that we will worry about India's tarriffs sometime in the hypothetical future. Again, why?

Why are tarriffs only bad for us? That is really what I want to know. Not why tarriffs are bad for us, but why tarriffs aren't bad for everybody else. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. If you say want to get involved in the computer industry in India, to support all these call centers, etc... and you make a widget that is needed for it, you ship it into India and you pay the 70% tarriff, while the other american company that builds a plant there doesn't. How is that good for you? Seriously. It only encourages the company that is left here to outsource into high tarriff countries. It keeps jobs there. Funny that. It moves jobs from other countries there. Funny that.

I will support Free Trade. We let your goods in, you let ours in. No duty on either side. Fair enough. Let me know when that happens. Let me know when we can sell fruit and vegetables in France, rice in Japan.

I think some of you don't understand that there are different camps. Some are tarriff fans, some just want equal access to markets. Do you believe that we shouldn't have equal access to foreign markets? If not, what should we do about it? Just lower our tarriffs and wait for them to get around to it? Is that really a solution?

[ex-snook]

"everything Bush chose to do after 9/11, just like good old Pat. "

No BS - Refererences please about Pat's comments on the WAR.