Bush pushes Globalization!

[Furious1Auto]

He wants to send more jobs overseas, and expects us to support it! He even recognizes the job loss do to these policies and offers training and schooling. I ask you if he did not sell your job in the first place, would you have to go find one to replace it? Look at congress's facial expressions while he puts his foot in his mouth. Apparantly the congressman and senitors here from our E-Mails and know the position of the public, while Bush is oblivious to it while he lives in an alternate reality! The worst part is that when we was taking a beating over Iraq, I stood with him. I supported him all the way to 05' When he began attacking the middle class openly. First Passing CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). by trying to freeze pension plans for every employer nationwide. Offering to privatize portions of Social security to bolster the dow and by proxy his own personal investments. Then by opening the southern border to Mexican trucks to run all 48 states. By refusing to secure our borders and allowing illegal aliens to work here and further reduce the jobs available to our citizens. And lastly by intending on completeing 3 more free trade ageements before the end of his term! This man is the fool, not us! I need to E-Mail TMZ to let them know that I would pay to see them sick their Paparazzi on him after he leaves office, I'd like to see him get the Brittaney Spears treatment!

Edited February 11, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[soupy]

Bush is a boob. Boob Bush. It will take us decades trying to undue the disastrous consequences of this clown's legacy. Thanks conservative republicans. Hope you feel his nominations to the Supreme Court were worth this mess!

[Mr.Roboto]

Yea but if we send all the jobs overseas, we can all buy products for 30% less at Wal-Mart.

 

Bush appeals to the welfare class, that never had a job to begin with. Note the promise of "tax refunds" that got him elected the first time.

[Imawhosure]

What you guys do not understand is------------>Economists and BOTH partys for the most part, believe this is the way to go. The reason the congress looks so glum is---------->they want to know why this idiot brought it up in an election year, lolol.

 

Use your heads and look back at even recent history!!!!!! When were these treatys passed???? Well, NAFTA was passed right after Clinton took office, as far away from the next election as possible, lololol. (gives them time to mend fences you know with labor) Both partys are in on it!!!!! Oh sure, you have Michigan and a few others standing up fighting it, but the reality is, we have moved from an industrial base to something quite different, so as the opposition has shrunk to where it is almost inevitable.

 

I am not for it, but then it is because it affects me. I can not say it is good or bad for the country as a whole, because I am not an economist. What I can say though is-------------->BOTH partys insured they passed these things so as you weren't voting in the near future on their positions of power. It seems to have worked as no matter WHICH party you choose, they had complicity in passing these treaties. The only difference is----------->I know Republicans helped push it through. I am not dumb enough though to support the other side, lie to myself and claim these people had nothing to do with it and are fighting to help me in the future. At least if you support democrats, use other issues, cause the one about they are for unions and labor is an out and out fabrication................unless you are talking about what they say, and not about what they really do!!!!!

[fmccap]

I didn't agree totally with the SS issue as he had it. You probably need to look further into it though because we need something different then what we currently have.

 

The only problem I had with his was his definition of privatize. My definition would be that it's my money in the first place so when it's privatized that means to me, not the list of choices you give me.

[Trimdingman]

No matter how you try to manipulate the economy, it will always seek the most efficient route. If you want to remain isolated, fine; until everyone else gangs up on you. Free trade cuts beaurocracy and red tape. On the whole, it makes for a bigger pie. You just have to figure out how to get the biggest slice. There are better ways to spend your life than slaving on an assembly line. Why not let someone else do it cheap and profit from his labor?

Anyway, once all of the smoke clears, automotive final assembly will still be here until they figure out a way to get vehicles to the dealers without transporting them. If they have to ship the average finished vehicle over a thousand miles, then the savings from cheaper assembly line labor is lost. The more efficient the assembly line becomes, the more secure it becomes. If an assembly plant is in the best location, that is equivalent to getting much cheaper labor. That is why all assembly plants are not in Mexico.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Trimdingman

[mrballsonya]

He wants to send more jobs overseas, and expects us to support it! He even recognizes the job loss do to these policies and offers training and schooling. I ask you if he did not sell your job in the first place, would you have to go find one to replace it? Look at congress's facial expressions while he puts his foot in his mouth. Apparantly the congressman and senitors here from our E-Mails and know the position of the public, while Bush is oblivious to it while he lives in an alternate reality! The worst part is that when we was taking a beating over Iraq, I stood with him. I supported him all the way to 05' When he began attacking the middle class openly. First Passing CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). by trying to freeze pension plans for every employer nationwide. Offering to privatize portions of Social security to bolster the dow and by proxy his own personal investments. Then by opening the southern border to Mexican trucks to run all 48 states. By refusing to secure our borders and allowing illegal aliens to work here and further reduce the jobs available to our citizens. And lastly by intending on completeing 3 more free trade ageements before the end of his term! This man is the fool, not us! I need to E-Mail TMZ to let them know that I would pay to see them sick their Paparazzi on him after he leaves office, I'd like to see him get the Brittaney Spears treatment!

 

WOW, I can't believe it took you that long to figure out that the Bush administration is not conducive to the average working middle class American. In a way... I feel sorry for you, but at the same time, I'm glad you've finally had your epiphany.

 

I'd like anyone to refute the fact, that the oil companies have never made more money, than under the Bush regime.... Exxon $120 billion profit over the last 3 years. Bush has been a proponent of Big business since day one. I guess the silver spoon moron, bought hook line and sinker into the trickle down economics philosophy. This is a great philosophy, as long as the wealth and subsequent job creation trickles down to U.S. citizens, unfortunately for the rust belt, the Corporations are no longer investing in the (HIGH LABOR COST U.S.), they are sending their money to other countries. This a complex economy we currently reside in, I don't pretend to understand all the facets, all I know is that the Rust belt is in a sustained DEPRESSION... DEF. (a long-term economic state characterized by unemployment and low prices and low levels of trade and investment), I don't know what else we can call it.

 

Bush has done nothing for the middle class, other than to tell us to go shopping after 9/11, and give all his rich buddies and corporate cronies huge tax cuts. Oh I forgot, I did get a $1200 tax cut a couple of years ago, but I've gave that all back to the BUSH LOVING oil companies 3 years ago, when gas went from $1.30 to $3.00 a gallon.

 

Bush is the WORST president we've ever had, and we've had some bad ones in the past.

Edited February 12, 2008 by mrballsonya

[mettech]

World stability requires the job transfers.

 

The poor countries in the world with nukes and/or fanatics needs jobs too. Those counties have nothing to loses if they are unable to provide work for their population. The only option left for them is to hit the G8 countries and try to destabilize the world to their standard of living.

 

The U.S. will be high tech and the 3rd World Countries will be the labor. A few manufacturing jobs will remain in the U.S. for a few of the top High School grads. The vast majority of our jobs will require a 2 year + degree or a professional trade.

 

The Mexicans will tend to our fields. :shades:

 

No matter who the next President will be, the trend will and must continue.... for World stability. The poor around the world have to eat too.

 

The days when a High School grad can make the same as a school teacher or nurse will soon be over.

Edited February 12, 2008 by mettech

[Furious1Auto]

WOW, I can't believe it took you that long to figure out that the Bush administration is not conducive to the average working middle class American. In a way... I feel sorry for you, but at the same time, I'm glad you've finally had your epiphany.

 

 

Bush is the WORST president we've ever had, and we've had some bad ones in the past.

That's a little insulting, you should go back and read the thousands of posts I have written on this subject. And in many of the threads I was replying to you. So obviously I have been aware for some time. To include knowing about the new trade agreements that he intended on passing, but of coarse did not have a Link to a clip with him saying it openly, the 08 state of the uion address changed that!

Edited February 12, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[kpc655]

No matter how you try to manipulate the economy, it will always seek the most efficient route. If you want to remain isolated, fine; until everyone else gangs up on you. Free trade cuts beaurocracy and red tape. On the whole, it makes for a bigger pie. You just have to figure out how to get the biggest slice. There are better ways to spend your life than slaving on an assembly line. Why not let someone else do it cheap and profit from his labor?

Anyway, once all of the smoke clears, automotive final assembly will still be here until they figure out a way to get vehicles to the dealers without transporting them. If they have to ship the average finished vehicle over a thousand miles, then the savings from cheaper assembly line labor is lost. The more efficient the assembly line becomes, the more secure it becomes. If an assembly plant is in the best location, that is equivalent to getting much cheaper labor. That is why all assembly plants are not in Mexico.

 

Good post. i think of the next generation in situations like this...do we want them stuck in these uncompetetive jobs or pursuing new jobs/industries where we still have an advantage.

[Furious1Auto]

Good post. i think of the next generation in situations like this...do we want them stuck in these uncompetetive jobs or pursuing new jobs/industries where we still have an advantage.

If you are suggesting we give up being a producing nation to become a service nation you are out of your mind. China is the next big industrialized nation and who is borrowing money from whom? A country that does not produce does not work period!

[kpc655]

If you are suggesting we give up being a producing nation to become a service nation you are out of your mind. China is the next big industrialized nation and who is borrowing money from whom? A country that does not produce does not work period!

 

not what i'm suggesting.

[Furious1Auto]

not what i'm suggesting.

So what did you mean by "stuck in these uncompetetive jobs". The jobs that people hold currently pay for them to live and likely will be replaced with lower income jobs, some will even have to work through temp services and will never have any kind of job security!

[davdog]

WOW, I can't believe it took you that long to figure out that the Bush administration is not conducive to the average working middle class American. In a way... I feel sorry for you, but at the same time, I'm glad you've finally had your epiphany.

 

I'd like anyone to refute the fact, that the oil companies have never made more money, than under the Bush regime.... Exxon $120 billion profit over the last 3 years. Bush has been a proponent of Big business since day one. I guess the silver spoon moron, bought hook line and sinker into the trickle down economics philosophy. This is a great philosophy, as long as the wealth and subsequent job creation trickles down to U.S. citizens, unfortunately for the rust belt, the Corporations are no longer investing in the (HIGH LABOR COST U.S.), they are sending their money to other countries. This a complex economy we currently reside in, I don't pretend to understand all the facets, all I know is that the Rust belt is in a sustained DEPRESSION... DEF. (a long-term economic state characterized by unemployment and low prices and low levels of trade and investment), I don't know what else we can call it.

 

Bush has done nothing for the middle class, other than to tell us to go shopping after 9/11, and give all his rich buddies and corporate cronies huge tax cuts. Oh I forgot, I did get a $1200 tax cut a couple of years ago, but I've gave that all back to the BUSH LOVING oil companies 3 years ago, when gas went from $1.30 to $3.00 a gallon.

 

Bush is the WORST president we've ever had, and we've had some bad ones in the past.

 

Holy crap, manufacturing has been leaving this country for the last 50 years, starting with the textile industry, and you're pinning the blame for that on the last 8 years. I'm not a GW fan but if you think he's got anything to do with your jobs NEEDING to be moved to cheap labor markets then you need to reread history.

[Imawhosure]

Holy crap, manufacturing has been leaving this country for the last 50 years, starting with the textile industry, and you're pinning the blame for that on the last 8 years. I'm not a GW fan but if you think he's got anything to do with your jobs NEEDING to be moved to cheap labor markets then you need to reread history.

 

While I hate to admit, Mr Davdog is correct. The exodus started long ago, but will probably stabilize some as salarys fall. The race to the bottom has been going on for decades, its just it is now hitting more industrys, so more people are noticing.

 

Lonesome George did not have alot to do with it. I will agree with you though, he didn't do anything to stop it either.

 

As far as the oil companys, Lonesome also had nothing to do with that either. You can thank China, India, the green liberal machine, and the terrorists.......along with a little help from daytraders to boot.

 

It really is ok to dislike GW in my book, as I am not really thrilled with him either. But at least understand who is really screwing you so as if the opportunity comes along to screw them back, you don't end up screwing the wrong person because you believe some fantasy out of Alice in Wonderland.

 

To much blame is put on the President and congress when things go wrong. Not enough blame is put on the President and congress for raising taxes, and spending to much of your money. I suppose it is the American way, lololol. Complain about prices rising and wages falling, but don't give a damn about taking a paycut cause your taxes went up. Illogical, totally illogical; especially since you obviously can't control the free market, but you can control your government by being involved, and educating yourself about what really is going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 12, 2008 by Imawhosure

[methos]

Holy crap, manufacturing has been leaving this country for the last 50 years, starting with the textile industry, and you're pinning the blame for that on the last 8 years. I'm not a GW fan but if you think he's got anything to do with your jobs NEEDING to be moved to cheap labor markets then you need to reread history.

 

 

Bush has allot to do with job creation, or in his case, lack thereof. Government policies on trade, taxation, federal job creation, and retraining programs all make a substantial difference. The Bush administration has cheered job loss in favor of cheaper goods. It may bode well in the short term, but the consequences for the long term isn't nearly as rosy.

 

While I am not a socialist, the Libertarian/Conservative logic of allowing the free market to dictate our path seems nuts. Shareholder wealth creation and what's good for the country aren't synonymous.

 

Sure, jobs have been leaving for some time, but that doesn't mean we should sit idly by and root it on. It should mean we develop tax incentives to make production here more favorable. While the government might not be able to directly invest in industry, they can invest in research. In the case of the auto industry, investment in the development of hybrids, batteries and other alternatives would not only benefit the industry, but the country as a whole. It never ceases to amaze me that we are both fighting and financing our enemies. What I mean by that is that due to high gas prices, the arabs are awash in money.

 

Also, we shouldn't allow our trading partners to contiunue to manipulate their currency. It's not just blue collar jobs that we are losing, but also, the technology that goes hand in hand with the manufacture of those autos, circuit boards, and chips. We not only lose the capacity to work, but the ability to produce those items, period.

 

Free trade is good, and there is no stopping it. Why would we want to? However, the type of trade agreements we are making now is just nuts. There needs to be some provsions for the protection of labor and the environment. Instead of a race to the bottom, I'd settle for meeting them in the middle.

[fmccap]

Bush has allot to do with job creation, or in his case, lack thereof. Government policies on trade, taxation, federal job creation, and retraining programs all make a substantial difference. The Bush administration has cheered job loss in favor of cheaper goods. It may bode well in the short term, but the consequences for the long term isn't nearly as rosy.

 

While I am not a socialist, the Libertarian/Conservative logic of allowing the free market to dictate our path seems nuts. Shareholder wealth creation and what's good for the country aren't synonymous.

 

Sure, jobs have been leaving for some time, but that doesn't mean we should sit idly by and root it on. It should mean we develop tax incentives to make production here more favorable. While the government might not be able to directly invest in industry, they can invest in research. In the case of the auto industry, investment in the development of hybrids, batteries and other alternatives would not only benefit the industry, but the country as a whole. It never ceases to amaze me that we are both fighting and financing our enemies. What I mean by that is that due to high gas prices, the arabs are awash in money.

 

Also, we shouldn't allow our trading partners to contiunue to manipulate their currency. It's not just blue collar jobs that we are losing, but also, the technology that goes hand in hand with the manufacture of those autos, circuit boards, and chips. We not only lose the capacity to work, but the ability to produce those items, period.

 

Free trade is good, and there is no stopping it. Why would we want to? However, the type of trade agreements we are making now is just nuts. There needs to be some provsions for the protection of labor and the environment. Instead of a race to the bottom, I'd settle for meeting them in the middle.

Well of the four you mentioned he did two, taxes and federal job creation. When he lowered taxes half of the people cried he gave tax cuts to the rich. Do you know any poor people that own buisnesses??? Now federal job creation, DHS, SPP and other agency's that waste more money than they do good. What good do they do anyway???? It would seem more like a wash wouldn't it??? Sure it creates jobs but how do they pay the people, tax dollars.

 

So you are suggesting the government dictates our path???

[mettech]

Well of the four you mentioned he did two, taxes and federal job creation. When he lowered taxes half of the people cried he gave tax cuts to the rich. Do you know any poor people that own buisnesses??? Now federal job creation, DHS, SPP and other agency's that waste more money than they do good. What good do they do anyway???? It would seem more like a wash wouldn't it??? Sure it creates jobs but how do they pay the people, tax dollars.

 

So you are suggesting the government dictates our path???

 

I know people that own their business that don't make any money and they live in the same building.

 

I would say that is poor.

[fmccap]

I know people that own their business that don't make any money and they live in the same building.

 

I would say that is poor.

Now what is the reason they don't make any money???? Is it the governments fault??? Is it there fault???

[Imawhosure]

Now what is the reason they don't make any money???? Is it the governments fault??? Is it there fault???

 

 

That is a very good question Mr Cap. the only thing you forgot was to ask one more question, and that would be----------------->or is it a combination of both!!!!

[fmccap]

That is a very good question Mr Cap. the only thing you forgot was to ask one more question, and that would be----------------->or is it a combination of both!!!!

Actually it is both. Government brings excess regulations that cost money and excessive taxes. Now the buisness owner has his responsibilities also. Being competative, keeping costs inline, finding better ways to do things.

[methos]

Well of the four you mentioned he did two, taxes and federal job creation. When he lowered taxes half of the people cried he gave tax cuts to the rich. Do you know any poor people that own buisnesses??? Now federal job creation, DHS, SPP and other agency's that waste more money than they do good. What good do they do anyway???? It would seem more like a wash wouldn't it??? Sure it creates jobs but how do they pay the people, tax dollars.

 

So you are suggesting the government dictates our path???

 

First, I only mentioned some of the ways government can play a role in job creation. What I didn't do was relate that to current doctrine, outside of trade policies. On that note, I hardly agree with anything Bush has done. On Bush's economic policy, I have tried to find some semblance of sanity, where none seems to exist, but to date, have been unsuccessful.

 

Secondly, I was a longtime proponent of non-governmental interference, however, it's a brave new world, and someone has to lead the way. Am I comfortable with government doing so? Not really, but if not the government who? Microsoft, IBM, and Wal-Mart’s sole purpose is to enrich their shareholders not striving for the betterment of the U.S. citizenry. The two does not go hand in hand.

 

For the last half century we enjoyed relative supremacy. Unfortunately, the next 50 years won't be so easy. There has to be some cohesion and direction in our policies.

 

I don't have the answers, I am not sure of anyone that does. But, I do know that there are better alternatives to what we are doing.

 

Am I suggesting socialism? Hardly.

 

It's not that I think we should expand government. In fact, I think the size could be dramatically reduced to run more efficiently. That said, it's the quality of government. I also don't think we need a great deal more regulation. There is allot that can be done, some of which will cost a great deal, for instance, self reliance on our energy needs, but the benefits of such an undertaking far outweigh the costs.

 

Tax incentives for new business. What about more cooperative relationship with the government. Asian companies and their respective governments have a symbiotic relationship, why can't we? There is allot that can be done, all of which is not.

[fmccap]

First, I only mentioned some of the ways government can play a role in job creation. What I didn't do was relate that to current doctrine, outside of trade policies. On that note, I hardly agree with anything Bush has done. On Bush's economic policy, I have tried to find some semblance of sanity, where none seems to exist, but to date, have been unsuccessful.

Hey I hardly agree with anything he has done either. How does government really "play a role" without being a controlling factor??? I agree about the trade policies. Now the only other true one of the three you mentioned is taxes. Federal jobs: Ends up at the same result because you have to pay them which means you have to tax somebody, right? Second factor is nothing in Washington is efficient so it's really going to cost more. Forget federal jobs and just let the people keep there money. I'd say the same about retraining programs.

 

Secondly, I was a longtime proponent of non-governmental interference, however, it's a brave new world, and someone has to lead the way. Am I comfortable with government doing so? Not really, but if not the government who? Microsoft, IBM, and Wal-Mart’s sole purpose is to enrich their shareholders not striving for the betterment of the U.S. citizenry. The two does not go hand in hand.

For the last half century we enjoyed relative supremacy. Unfortunately, the next 50 years won't be so easy. There has to be some cohesion and direction in our policies.

How about the people?????? I don't think it's really a brave new world, it's just we changed our ways and how we do things. Why did you say the next 50 years??? If it's because you also believe with a country this big things as far as changes this big take a real long time. All I ask you is look at early last century at the size of government compared to "relative supremacy". Find a graph and watch how the further the size of government grows we also see a decline in our supremacy.

 

It's not that I think we should expand government. In fact, I think the size could be dramatically reduced to run more efficiently. That said, it's the quality of government. I also don't think we need a great deal more regulation.

I think your answer would go a long way. Now along with the size being dramatically reduced so would the costs resulting in you, I and everyone else having more money in our pocket to save, spend or invest, right? The quality of government should also improve because there is dramatically less places to throw the blame. Puts you in more of the spotlight so you better do your job or we will get somebody else to. Now with less regulation you have the costs of business going down. Some might just worry about profit but with a country full of people with a lot more money to spend there is going to be somebody doing R&D who is going to put you out of business so you better think twice.

 

That's just my 2 cents that most consider fantasy world, it used to be that way though.

 

One more thought why this seems "extreme" to so many. This started say in the first quarter of last century. How many generations has it been slowly changing??? We have no idea what it's like so that might be why some consider it "extreme".

[kpc655]

So what did you mean by "stuck in these uncompetetive jobs". The jobs that people hold currently pay for them to live and likely will be replaced with lower income jobs, some will even have to work through temp services and will never have any kind of job security!

 

 

Quite simply, our resources (land, labor & capital), are best spent where we have a competitive advantage.

[fmccap]

Another classic example of passing the buck. The Fed and our Government do no wrong.

Did terrorists cause the housing mess?

The link may not seem obvious at first. But if you look at the Sept. 11 plotters' goals -- and at what has happened in the US since the attacks -- it's hardly far-fetched.