Bush: Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs (more of instilling of fear)

[rodeodance]

Source: ap



Bush: Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 22 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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=Ai3zMnELJOncxY9BTuT4h_ys0NUE

[Thor_MN]

1. Problem is, the only thing Bush is exporting is jobs.

[tom_paine]

2. LOL. Yeah, what would we do without those extra 2.5 million fast-ffod jobs

They lie and they lie and they lie. Like the Nazis they have patterned themselves after (nonviolently) there is simply no end to their audacity in their mendacity.

[dkofos]

21. Get thinner??

[havocmom]

3. That Yale degree he has must've come outta a bag of pretzels

[kurth]

4. Yeah, let's make the trade deficit BIGGER

[OHdem10]

5. Tell that to all the Americans who have lost jobs

and have lost ground in salary due to these trade agreements.

[niceypoo]

6. Protectionism has the opposite effect

Republicans are such retards

[pampango]

13. Protectionism will cost some jobs and create some jobs.

Historically if we raise tariffs and other barriers to imports, other countries will raise tariffs and barriers to our exports. Since we are the second or third leading exporting country in the world, behind Germany and, perhaps, China, the jobs that produce those exports would be in jeopardy, if other countries responded by placing tariffs or quotas on our exports to them.

There would be new jobs created in industries that cannot compete now with imports. Perhaps more jobs would be created than lost. I believe that our country could survive a world with limited international trade, due to increased tariffs and quotas, because we are a large, relatively prosperous domestic market and abundant natural resources. The countries that would suffer more than us would be poor ones, small ones, and those that are net exporters or that are deficient in natural resources.

Germany and Japan would be big losers if international trade was significantly curtailed. Much of their prosperity is tied to exports, in spite of their high wage economies. Canada is also a net exporter, so it too would be hurt, but a decrease in trade.

Protectionism might be a winner for the US, though. We would have to withdraw from, or mutually renegotiate, international trading agreements that restrict countries ability to place tariffs and quotas on imports. (They are basically "you don't restrict my exports and I won't restrict yours" agreements.) We have the sovereign right to withdraw from or seek to renegotiate these agreements, but until we do one or the other, we are stuck with them.

[TroubleMan]

17. Selective protectionism can create a lot of jobs.

Specifically raises tariffs on China, while risky (because they own a lot of our debt), would help USA manufacturing a lot. In fact there might be a small net loss of jobs at the beginning, while companies that relied on imports downsize or adjust, but in a few years there would be a huge net increase in jobs.

[BootinUp]

7. Look even Bush is differentiating himself

from Hillary.

[Heywood J]

8. "More exports support better and higher-paying jobs,"

Except if you're in China, which is where the exports are actually coming from, and where you can expect wages to go further down.

"And to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade."

That economic expansion that's been showing in everyone's paychecks, of course. This man is so delusional that he should be certified out of office under Amendment 25 provisions.

[Vinca]

9. Up is down and down is up. The world according to George. nt

[Colorado Progressive]

10. This, coming from the blivet who got a B- in economics 101

[ixion]

11. Outsourcing takes jobs from the US... protectionism does not

yet another in a long line of BOGUS statements by chimpenfurher.

[Gin]

12. I got a "9" on the Give Bush a Brain Game......maybe that will help!

g

[rodeodance]

14. my jaw dropped this am: Bush said there were Fed. job training for people

who had lost their jobs. and they paid better.
I had on the news on the car radio.

so if you lose your job to Fair trade-the fed will train you and it will be a higher paying job. yup

[sendero]

15. Any leader..

... (Including Bill Clinton under whom this mess took off in earnest) would tie accepting imports from their country to some kind of quid pro quo. Call it "protectionism" or whatever you want, everyone else is doing it and the only reason we aren't is that fat cats do well without it, and to hell with everyone else.

[pampango]

16. Everyone else is not doing it.

Unilaterally setting tariffs or quotas against imports in not allowed, if countries belong to international trading agreements. Almost every country belongs to such agreements; the last big entrant being China in 1999.

[Trillo]

18. Curious dissonance in constitutional logic, agreements, and rights.

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Presumably, the meaning of State is one of the 50 within the United States. Those non-referenced agreements you write of would seem to extend the same constitutional concept to other states and or countries. A different logic appears when juxtaposed against the reasoning expressed in the recent FISA debate in the House bill (that I believe passed), that allows warrantless wiretapping against those individuals communicating in and from foreign countries to foreign countries.

It's curious that if constitutional principals are to be 'exported' beyond the 50 states in the realm of imports with respect to Taxes or Duties, then why should constitutional principals and rights such as the 4th Amendment not also be 'exported'?

[Fovea]

23. I think what you quote specifically is about

interstate, but intra-national commerce, like the I.C.C.

I can't charge Texans or Oklahomans more for my widgets than Californians or Vermonters.

[Trillo]

27. Oh, I'm quite certain that legislative compromises,

Executive Orders, and Signing Statements have created a rubbish maze of loopholes infested with vermin.

[xxqqqzme]

19. Clinton was the nail in the coffin.

When st ronnie took office, we were the leading exporter in the world - 8 years later, we were not. All the free trade foundation bullshit was laid during that giddy neo-con administration. They discovered their economic lies worked so well that they were expanded into pre-emptive wars. Now THAT gets trade moving and puts wads of cash in crony's pockets,

[monktonman]

20. Protect my family, protect my country, protect our way of life.

Ok I guess I'm a protectionist.
Sue me.
Edit to add: ooops! almost forgot protect the environment.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

22. Hmmm...let's do the math on Bush's plan.

From the text of the Radio Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071013.html).

I know many Americans feel uneasy about new competition and worry that trade will cost jobs. 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.

1). Americans feel uneasy about new competition and worry that trade will cost jobs

2). the Federal government is providing substantial funding for trade adjustment assistance that helps Americans make the transition from one job to the next (in other words, the worries are justified and the "new competition" will cost jobs because you don;t need help "transitioning from" something you haven't lost)

3). We are working to improve Federal job-training programs

"Just as soon as we create a few, we'll improve them."

4). America's community colleges, where people of any age can go to learn new skills for a better, high-paying career

Same crap he's been spouting since he took office. When your job gets sent overseas, go to junior college and learn some new skills.

On a scale from 1 to 10, ten being that the Bush plan is utter genius and 1 being that it's utter horseshit, my final score is:

1.

:patriot:

[robcon]

24. It's been obvious that protectionism will cost U.S. jobs for decades.

Economics 101.

[Quantess]

25. As if Bush EVER gave a sh*t about good jobs for Americans?!

F*ck him.

[rodeodance]

26. i do not think he knows how to govern

[HughBeaumont]

28. Can he be even MORE insufferable?

Here is a man who obviously DOES NOT CARE about anybody except the donor and handler class.

Free trade is a moldy bill of Reaganite goods that benefits the CAPITAL of the country, not the labor. It's long on theory and short on real results for the working poor and middle classes, who continually get left behind, especially if they're not college educated.

"Retraining" is a crock when you don't even know what you're re-training for, nor do you know that the career you choose isn't going to follow it's predecessor offshore or be subject to the wage-ravaging phenomenon spawned from . .. er. . . "competitiveness".

"Competitiveness" . . . yeah. It's not competition when Indian workers are always going to be cheaper. It's not competition when you're giving them the R&D future that we should be getting our hands on. It's not competition because we don't MAKE anything HERE anymore. It's not competition because they're already getting the jump on sciences such as nano- and Bio-technology while were trying to destroy science to believe a story and appease a bunch of toupeed wackjobs with crosses. It's not competition when you enable corporations to displace thousands of American workers either by offshoring or inshoring via tax breaks and loopholes. It's not competition when you have nothing on the near or far horizon to replace the outgoing jobs but piddly-waged, underskilled service positions, as the past six years have proven.

FAIR trade would include labor protections and safety regulations for foreign workers, something that doesn't exist under the unbridled capitalist model now. FAIR trade would include corporate regulations of some sort and eliminate corporate personhood. FAIR trade would have to include a better plan for re-entering displaced workers into equivalent wages at equivalent careers. Maybe FAIR trade should also include provisos that no worker should have to fend for their damned selves when they're axed through no fault or choice of their own, but because they simply weren't cheap enough.

All FREE trade does is plunge the middle classes of ALL nations to the bottom of the well, especially ours. Indian wages are already rising, leaving corporations to look for even cheaper nations. Even with the wage increase, it isn't like they live in astounding conditions. Their infrastructure and pollution problems still exist, as does the overcrowding and outdated utilities.

A strong economy is supposed to accommodate EVERYBODY at a liveable wage, not just the heavily degreed and privileged.

[Strelnikov_]

32. Even with all the growth in Chindia

There are still 700+ M in India and 800+ M in China untouched by the boom and living in abject poverty. And in China, most of those with jobs from the boom are simply modern day coolies.

Between just these two countries, there is a bottomless pool of cheap labor.

[pampango]

33. "Between just these two countries, there is a bottomless pool of cheap labor."

Sounds like we should be very afraid of large numbers of very poor people, which is what I often hear from repubs referring our own poor.

As liberals, our goal should be what? To wall off these millions "living in abject poverty", until they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, so that they do not affect us in the meantime? (Again, that has a familiar, and not progressive, ring to it).

Interesting statistics on the millions of Indians and Chinese still living in abject poverty, as well as the observation about that most with jobs in China are simply "modern day coolies". Any particular source for these statistics and observation? If 800 million Chinese still live in poverty, 300-400 million must have emerged from poverty in the past 20 years. If true, that would probably be the largest reduction in world poverty in such a time period in history.

There should be some middle ground in terms of protectionism/trade that would provide protection for American workers without freezing out the products of the Third World.

[Strelnikov_]

34. "our goal should be what? To wall off these millions "living in abject poverty"

Our goal should be to act as responsible global citizens. This includes greatly reducing our consumption to sustainable levels. This includes not offshoring production to avoid labor, workplace safety and environmental laws.

Our governments responsibility is to address the interests of its citizens while adhering to the concept of being good global citizens. This includes dealing with the needs of our poor first. If this requires tariffs to preserve living wage jobs in this country, so be it.

And, yes, considering the working conditions most of the newly employed workers in China toil under, I consider them to be modern day coolies. And considering the pittance they are paid and the masses available to replace them if they ask for higher wages, they will always be coolies.

"There should be some middle ground in terms of protectionism/trade that would provide protection for American workers without freezing out the products of the Third World."

I agree. But all we are seeing today is a rush to exploit cheap overseas labor, and that is the status quo the Chimp is defending.

[pampango]

35. Agree with everything in your first paragraph.

Deal with our own poor first, but not to the exclusion of dealing with world poverty as well. They are not mutually exclusive, after all. Telling one group of deserving people to wait and endure their poverty while you help another group first, is a difficult sell. We would not do that domestically, so why should we do it internationally.

WTO/GATT rules do not allow individual countries to raise tariffs unilaterally. We can withdraw from these trading organizations and raise whatever tariffs we want or we can negotiate with other members to change their trading rules. In any case if we increase tariffs, other countries will retaliate and increase tariffs on our exports. Since we are the third largest exporter in the world, after Germany and China, a tariff battle could be a painful thing.

If you believe that the Chinese people are worse off now than under than universally shared poverty of Mao, then we disagree, but I would respect your position that international trade is bad thing for China and the US.

[DBoon]

29. I would hope it causes some Americans to lose their jobs

Starting with Bush, Cheney, then to the rest of the cabal

[depakid]

30. Up is down, black is white

Bush and the corporate media will say anything....

[bemildred]

31. Protectionism is about protecting US jobs, dimwit. nt