In the News on March 28, 2008 > FreedomsWatch

Friday, March 28, 2008

In the News on March 28, 2008
By Eric Livingston :: 9 Comments :: Email to a friend

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published today, Pete Du Pont argues that the most troubling liberal trump card thus far in 2008 is economic protectionism and the anti-trade rhetoric coming from the left.

As liberal leaders, they are of course for higher income taxes, greater federal spending, and rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. But passionate protectionism illustrates the pro-government, anti-market philosophy that is the core of their beliefs, and it reflects the seriously wrong direction in which they will take America if one of them becomes our next president.

International trade is good for the U.S. economy. It creates jobs to produce the products America exports, provides workers for foreign companies that produce goods here, and broadens the choice of goods and services available to us. ...

...Opposing free trade and believing NAFTA has not "been good for America" is a serious misunderstanding of an essential truth: trade agreements that open market opportunities with other countries are very good for America. Limiting our country's participation in world trade would be an economic catastrophe, costing us revenues and jobs and reducing the choice of products for people and industries.

And yet limiting free trade is the chosen public policy of the Democrat Party and its candidates for president. That would be a harmful and depressing national public policy.

Government-run health care, protectionist economic policies, higher taxes on working Americans - all liberal policies, proven to fail in the past, centered around more government involvement in our daily lives. Bill Clinton once told us the era of big government was over. Apparently, the left is doing its best to ensure it makes a comeback. If successful, it would set our economy back and undo all the gains we've made since the Reagan Revolution.

Comments

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, March 31, 2008 2:04 PM

Nothing wrong with lowering the corporate tax rate...as long as taxpayer paid incentives (legal bribery, corporate welfare) to corporate fat cats gets disallowed concurrently. I take it you have no objection to corporate welfare. I'd guess you only get apoplectic (look it up) over welfare for the homeless.

By Bane @ Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:42 PM

Yo K. What happened to the Patriot & co.?
Did their contract expire? Huh. I'ts just not as lively around here with only one commentator.

Well Kemosabe, we might as well "hijack"* this whole blog.

*(Ah Aiem Naught ah Terrrist. THank Yaul)

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, March 31, 2008 10:44 AM

Thanks for your support, Bane and Shannarree. I'm not here to hijack anything, but I do like to have folks able to see that there are two sides to every story, and so I will respond to the Lush Rimbaugh, and Sean Insanity Hannity type of ultra whacko demagoguery that I see on the righty sites and stations. (Did you see the ultra slant od FixedNews this last week? Every day, 4 to 5 hours was dedicated to Obama's Rev Wright. Not a peep about the General in the Mideast forced to retire because the Bushwhackerdid not want to have to hear So much for listening to his generals, eh?) his "negative" views about attacking Iran. To have "News" in its name is ridiculous, Their motto should be "All rant all the time."

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, March 31, 2008 3:06 PM

>>>>>>>In order for negotiations to be effective<<<<<<<<<
Ha. Another figment of your imagination. Bushie's and Chickenhawk Cheney's official position is not to communicate with Iran, much less to negotiate. Where did that nugget come from? Your behind?

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, March 31, 2008 1:40 PM

>>>>>>>>>how was life for the middle class back in the days of Carter when the top tax rate was 70%? Using your logic, it must have been great.<<<<<<<<<<
1st. the middle class did not ever pay a 70% top federal marginal income tax rate. That is just typical righty obfuscation on your part,,,no doubt straight from Lush's EIB network. Top rates were around decades before Carter and US workers did quite well. Part of Carter's problem was purely cyclical and part was a tsunami of foreign policy issues thaat the whole US was unaccustomed and systematically unready to deal with. And Reagan's team was busy undermining official foreign policy by cutting arms-for-hostages deals with Ayatollah Khomeini. Such behavior would cause howls of treason from the right today...if they could find a Dem to pin it on. Since Ray-gun is a icon, righties have amnesia about that now. And only bring up Carter's failures, whilst purposefully omitting their idol's failures. Same ol' Same ol'......................
Actuall;y I waspart of the middle class then, and I did very well thank you. The pain began around Rewagan's time. Iremember thinking I can't stand much more of this Reagan prosperity they kept touting. Whil he lowered the top tier tax rates. the rates on the middle class rose to replace that income. Any Reagan cuts were replaced by higher rates on the middle class and shifted taxes to the local level from the federal level.........I was there... I know. You just get your bs from Lush's site..right?

By Aetius728 @ Monday, March 31, 2008 12:50 PM

Whoa! Now we have more uneducated, vitriolic lefties on this site! How amazing.

I hope you other people are more receptive to facts and logic than Keeeemosabe here, though Shannaree's post displayed the same level of incoherence and absolute economic ignorance as Keeeemosabe's.(I'm not holding my breathe, you can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can't make him think.)

Now, lets get to the issues. First, if you actually paid attention at all to what conservatives are saying, you know that one of our greatest complaints about the Bush administration is that it has grown government and spends way to much.

On to free trade. It does create jobs. It causes some to be lost as well, and these are usually quite public. The benefits, however, are not as easily discernable and packaged into a news segment, although they far outweigh the losses. I bet you didn't know that the U.S. economy destroys roughly a million jobs a week-though more often than not it creates even more. This is a sign of a dynamic, healthy economy-inefficiencies are eliminated, and activities that were once profitable but have ceased to be(indicating that the resources being used for them are now more useful elsewhere) are eliminated as well.

Something else I bet you didn't know-U.S. manufacturing output has increased 66% since the passage of NAFTA. Manufacturing employment, however, is falling? The reason? Increased productivity. We are now making more with less people. In fact, 2006 was a record manufacturing year, and it appears that 2007 will break the previous years record.(Not all of the data is in yet) What makes workers more productive? Capital! This is why someone who digs a basement with a backhoe gets paid more than someone who uses a shovel. This is why despite the political rhetoric, the plans of Hillary and Barack to raise taxes on capital(along with everything else under the sun) will actually have an adverse effect on workers. They are just lucky that like yourselves, the American public is largely ignorant on this issue.(Thank you teachers unions. Americans have almost no economic knowledge.) Something else you might not know-China is also losing manufacturing jobs as well due to productivity.(though they are still far behind us when it comes to productivity)

You want to keep more American manufacturing businesses here anyway? How about lowering the corporate tax rate, which at 35% is the second highest in the developed world. Add state taxes on to that and it is around 40%. Speaking of states, lets look at states-where are most of the jobs within the U.S. going? To the South and West, where taxes and regulation is low. Texas in particular is booming, and it has no state income tax.

On to more issues-the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. What a sham! What is most often forgotten is that the categories that people are divided into, rich, middle class, poor, and so on, are not static. People move between them. Most of the people in the lower bracket are young people just entering the workforce. As people are get older, they move up the ladder. I have some great statistics somewhere(I'll try to find them) on the amount of people who make it to the top, only to fall back. And so what if the rich get richer? If the poor are getting richer as well, who cares? The quest for equality has had disastrous results.(This should be obvious)

Ok, on to bailouts. The only thing I can think of is the Bear Stearns deal. I oppose government bailouts as a matter of principle, but one must understand that more was at stake here-its collapse could have had terrible systemic consequences that would have had adverse effects on everybody.

One more item of thought-how was life for the middle class back in the days of Carter when the top tax rate was 70%? Using your logic, it must have been great. The problem with this line of thinking is that wealth is not zero sum-the accumulation by one person does not automatically imply that somebody else is losing it.

OK, Bush does not want to listen to his generals who council against a strike on Iran. Hmmm. Why does he keep around a Secretary of State who opposes one as well? Or a Secretary of Defense that is at the very least very skeptical of a strike? This ranting misses the point. In order for negotiations to be effective, the Iranian leaders have to believe that they eventually will face consequences if they don't settle the issue diplomatically. When a general is running around saying we won't strike Iran, this messes with that strategy.

OK, I'm off to Chinese Class. It's been fun correcting your flawed notions.

By keeeemosabe @ Friday, March 28, 2008 3:01 PM

Right, let's follow the G.W. Bush model of small gov't!
And we want more extra bonus porkbarrel wars too!
Vote McSame.

By Shannaree @ Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:49 PM

Oh, by all means, let's follow Bush's plan to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Let's rally 'round the trade agreements; they do create jobs ... for everyone but Americans.
Let's get behind this war and rebuild Iraq ... while our sons and daughters die, our own country crumbles and our treasury goes bankrupt.
Let's get behind the banks and big businesses, let's bail them out. Hey, with so many Americans losing their homes, there won't be as many mortgage payments to make.
The "tax cuts" should be made permanent so the "trickle down" will glean more money for "small government" to make more money for the rich.
After all, the foreclosed houses are being bought by foreigners who don't pay taxes but it's good for the economy ... not OUR economy but who cares!
Maybe some of the bailed out businesses will give their executives even larger bonuses so they go into even higher tax brackets ... soon they won't be paying any taxes at all!

Oh yes ... let's keep the Republican policy's for another 4 years ... and watch our country totally self-destruct!

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, March 31, 2008 1:15 PM

>>>>>>>>>Thank you teachers unions. Americans have almost no economic knowledge<<<<<<<<<
Thank you for that tripe. Teacher unions have NOTHING to do with cirriculum (do you know what curriculum means?) It is administrators and legislators who have everything to do with subject matter. GET A GRIP Get Your HEAD OUT!!!

Hey you hypocrite::: You misspelled breath as breathe. But you criticise my typos and you misspell yourself.
>>>>>>>>>Texas in particular is booming, and it has no state income tax.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Zero sum game, So you would play states against each other to pay corporatists to plunder their backyards. And hey, anybody can work for low wages as in Texas and the South (hillbilly heaven)...the trick is to get the higher pay as in the Yank north and
Collie-fon-yaa. (Think AArnold)

Click Here to post a comment