we all should be outraged at the bush admin right now

DKSuddeth

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
5,175
61
48
North Texas
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04041/271362.stm

WASHINGTON -- The movement of U.S. factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said yesterday.

The embrace of foreign "outsourcing," an accelerating trend that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years and become an issue in the 2004 elections, is contained in the president's annual report to Congress on the health of the U.S. economy.

"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, which prepared the report. "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that's a good thing."

The report, which predicts that the nation will reverse a three-year employment slide by creating 2.6 million jobs in 2004, is part of a weeklong effort by the administration to highlight signs that the recovery is picking up speed. Bush's economic stewardship has become a central issue in the presidential campaign, and the White House is eager to demonstrate that his policies are producing results.

In his message to Congress yesterday, Bush said the economy "is strong and getting stronger," thanks in part to his tax cuts and other economic programs. He said the nation had survived a stock market meltdown, recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and was finally beginning to enjoy "a mounting prosperity that will reach every corner of America."

The president repeated that message during an afternoon "conversation" on the economy at SRC Automotive, an engine-rebuilding plant in Springfield, Mo., where he lashed out at lawmakers who oppose making his tax cuts permanent.

"When they say, 'We're going to repeal Bush's tax cuts,' that means they're going to raise your taxes, and that's wrong. And that's bad economics," he said.

Democrats who want Bush's job were quick to challenge his claims.

Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, supports a rollback of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and backs the creation of tax incentives for companies that keep jobs in the United States -- although he supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many union members say is responsible for the migration of U.S. jobs, particularly in the auto industry, to Mexico.

Campaigning yesterday in Roanoke, Va., Kerry questioned the credibility of the administration's job-creation forecast. "I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq," he said. "I don't think we need a new report about jobs in America. I think we need a new president who's going to create jobs in America and put Americans back to work."

In an evening appearance at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., North Carolina Sen. John Edwards mocked the Bush administration's economic report.

Edwards, also a Democratic presidential nomination candidate who also supports repealing tax cuts for the richest Americans and offering incentives to corporations that create new jobs in the United States, said it would come as a "news bulletin" to the American people that the economy is improving and the outsourcing of jobs overseas is good for America.

"These people," he said of the Bush administration, "what planet do they live on? They are so out of touch."

The president's 411-page report contains a detailed diagnosis of the forces contributing to the U.S. economic slowdown and a wide-ranging defense of the policies Bush has pursued to combat it.

It asserts that the last recession actually began in late 2000, before the president took office, instead of March 2001, as certified by the official recession-dating panel of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The report repeats the administration's contention that the Bush tax cuts must be made permanent to have their full beneficial effect on the economy.

Social Security also must be restructured to let workers put part of their retirement funds in private accounts, the report argues. Doing so could add nearly $5 trillion to the national debt by 2036, the president's advisers note, but the additional borrowing would be repaid 20 years later, and the program's long-term health would be more secure.
 
Our founding fathers were afraid of the power that corporations might gain. At that time, corporations were a new creation, and were chartered to exist for a short period of time to achieve a certain goal.
Quoted:


Those who won independence from England hated corporations as much as they hated the King. For it was through state-chartered corporations that the British government carried out some of its most pernicious oppression. Governments extending their power by means of corporations, and corporations themselves taking on the powers of government, are not new problems.

Because they were well aware of the track record of government-chartered corporations, and because they guarded their freedom so jealously, citizens of the newly independent United States of America chartered only a handful of corporations in the several decades after independence.

On those few occasions when states did charter a corporation, "the powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed."

But inevitably, the generation that had fought against injustices perpetrated by corporations like the British East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company was followed by others whose memories of corporate oppression were less vivid. Still, the warnings against corporations continued.

On the eve of his becoming Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Supreme Court, Edward G. Ryan said ominously in 1873,

"[There] is looming up a new and dark power... the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power.... The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine, which shall rule --wealth or man [sic]; which shall lead --money or intellect; who shall fill public stations --educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital...."

The feudal serfs of corporate capital made a lot of headway during the next fifteen years. But in 1888 President Grover Cleveland echoed Justice Ryan's sentiments:

"Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Thanks for your talking points. We will file them appropriately.

obviously that would be right alongside your head, firmly planted up your ass?
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Our founding fathers were afraid of the power that corporations might gain. At that time, corporations were a new creation, and were chartered to exist for a short period of time to achieve a certain goal.
Quoted:


Those who won independence from England hated corporations as much as they hated the King. For it was through state-chartered corporations that the British government carried out some of its most pernicious oppression. Governments extending their power by means of corporations, and corporations themselves taking on the powers of government, are not new problems.

Because they were well aware of the track record of government-chartered corporations, and because they guarded their freedom so jealously, citizens of the newly independent United States of America chartered only a handful of corporations in the several decades after independence.

On those few occasions when states did charter a corporation, "the powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed."

But inevitably, the generation that had fought against injustices perpetrated by corporations like the British East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company was followed by others whose memories of corporate oppression were less vivid. Still, the warnings against corporations continued.

On the eve of his becoming Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Supreme Court, Edward G. Ryan said ominously in 1873,

"[There] is looming up a new and dark power... the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power.... The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine, which shall rule --wealth or man [sic]; which shall lead --money or intellect; who shall fill public stations --educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital...."

The feudal serfs of corporate capital made a lot of headway during the next fifteen years. But in 1888 President Grover Cleveland echoed Justice Ryan's sentiments:

"Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."

Corporations are very constrained by corporate law, and are honest about operating for profit. Governments are contrained by nothing and purport to conduct themselves for the people, which is often a lie. I choose privatization everytime. Government officials are not immune from the temptations of power, and, in fact, their corruption is much worse, because of their absolute power.

Privatize. Privatize. Privatize.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
obviously that would be right alongside your head, firmly planted up your ass?

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
 
I choose privatization everytime.

I don't disagree with this.

are honest about operating for profit

I don't disagree with this, either.

Governments are contrained by nothing and purport to conduct themselves for the people, which is often a lie.

I certainly agree with this statement.

Corporations are very constrained by corporate law

I don't see microsoft or SCO being restrained much at all. I certainly don't see IBM being constrained, nor HP or any of the others. These corporatioins are not constrained because they have the capital to buy influence from the government yet we continually elect lawyers, doctors, and wealthy businessmen to these corruptable offices.

I'd dearly love to see the data, projections, and estimates that bring out statements that outsourcing is going to strengthen the US economy as it relates to me.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Boy, after 6 years as a marine you haven't even come close to hearing what I'm capable of saying. Your best advice would be to take what I said with a smile and hope it doesn't get any worse.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I don't disagree with this.



I don't disagree with this, either.



I certainly agree with this statement.



I don't see microsoft or SCO being restrained much at all. I certainly don't see IBM being constrained, nor HP or any of the others. These corporatioins are not constrained because they have the capital to buy influence from the government yet we continually elect lawyers, doctors, and wealthy businessmen to these corruptable offices.

I'd dearly love to see the data, projections, and estimates that bring out statements that outsourcing is going to strengthen the US economy as it relates to me.

They are constrained. they are all finished if we decide not to use their products and services. Businesses must have our voluntary support; governments do what they want, with guns. They're contrained relative to governments. What do you want exactly? Communism?
 
capitalism would be nice instead of this fascist corporatism we're developing now. It won't be much longer until the people have had enough of the BS we're starting to feel and you'll see the fastest 180 ever. We'll soon be back to chartered corporations instead of constitutional right to survive corporations.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
capitalism would be nice instead of this fascist corporatism we're developing now. It won't be much longer until the people have had enough of the BS we're starting to feel and you'll see the fastest 180 ever. We'll soon be back to chartered corporations instead of constitutional right to survive corporations.

The problem you're discussing is GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED corporations. The problem in that recipe is the government part, not the corporation part. Why are you railing against corporations then?
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The problem you're discussing is GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED corporations. The problem in that recipe is the government part, not the corporation part. Why are you railing against corporations then?

I see where you're going with this, and I don't totally disagree. Government is a larger portion to blame than the corporations, obviously, for if a government isn't corrupt then it wouldn't be bought by corporate capital.

My issue with corporations is this; walmart, because of its capital and global ability, sees a small city and rural area of about 40,000 people who are currently being serviced by a dozen different small retail, grocery, and service business's. So walmart decides to build a 'supercenter' using its global ability to purchase 5 times the product that its competitors can so it can deliver a cheaper price while it denies the smaller competitors access to the same product by virtue of contractual clauses of exclusion and primary vendor status. While the first part of that is a bitch, the second part is not competing but is forcing anticompetitiveness.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Corporations are very constrained by corporate law, and are honest about operating for profit. Governments are contrained by nothing and purport to conduct themselves for the people, which is often a lie. I choose privatization everytime. Government officials are not immune from the temptations of power, and, in fact, their corruption is much worse, because of their absolute power.

Privatize. Privatize. Privatize.

I believe corporations were appropriatly constrained by public regulation and corporate law.I think since Ronald Reagan that has become less the case.You would have to be blind not to have seen the damage caused by deregulating the savings and loan industry.How can a non- human entity such as a corporation have a character trait such as honesty.That word should be used to describe the people that manage the corporations.All I'll say about that issue is ENRON,A. ANDERSON,ETC.ETC.

You know we can vote out scummy politicians.What can a private citizen do about the likes of K.Lay.

I don't like paying into SS and getting the minimal return on my investment any more than I'm sure you do.But god help us man if any or all of it ever gets put into the hands of corporations.I'm not
expecting much of a return on my SS investment,but I guarantee it's
going to be more than Enron investors got.

Privatize Privatize why don't we just go ahead and incorporate,
United States of America Inc.

Sorry not for me.
 
Perhaps I am being naive about this, but it seems to me that the economy is not as simple as so many people think it to be. The complexities between taxes, corporate laws, governmental regulations, etc. is not painted by the same brush now as it was in colonial times. To simply say that the founding fathers were skeptical about corporations belies the fact that they also thought that government should be kept to a minimum. The more regulation we have over commerce, in its entirety, the more the cost to everyone.

Secondly, democrats say that Bush "caused" this economic downfall- it's ludicrous. The economy started going south because it simply could not sustain the enormous spike of the 1990's...simple as that. Whatever turmoil caused by Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tyco, et.al. is exacerbating an already declining economy. Bush was not president when Enron and Tyco and the rest had their problems. He had nothing to do with Arthur Anderson's failure to report the irregularities. I don't remember any president, republican or democrat, who created a stricter set of enforcement guidelines than Bush.

Lastly, I'll leave it at this. If every citizen in this country made decision based upon "what can my government do for ME" than this country will cease to exist. The economic strategies used by my government may not immediately put money in my pocket, but is that really the reason for the federal government to begin with??????????
 
The problem is we continue to let these corporations operate tax-free in America. All they have to do is move their mailing address to the Cayman Islands, etc. The Bush administration has not only allowed this to continue, they have encouraged it. Then we allow them, once again scot-free, to export American jobs to sweat shops in India, China, Mexico, and other poor countries where they can pay workers less than $1.00 a week. Companies that export jobs should face massive tax sanctions. No corporation should be able to simply move it's mailing address to 1 Tax Free Boulevard, Cayman Islands 00000, while continue to have it's entire operation in the U.S.

And don't even get me started on those bastards at Wal-Mart.

acludem
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top