To Those Who Support The UAE Ports Deal: Are you willing to stake your life on it?
by Bill Simon
Seriously, I have a question for those who blindly support the President on this deal: Are you truly willing to stake your life on your beliefs that the UAE are our buddies for life? You may be doing just that.
The interesting thing you should take note of is that regime change in the countries of the Middle-East can happen at the snap of your fingers.
At one time, we were best buds with the Shah of Iran. In 1979, he was pushed into exile and was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly established an extreme Islamic regime. Anyone born after 1980 recall something called the “Hostage Crisis?”
The fact that Dubai Ports is owned/controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates should really give ANYONE with half a brain’s knowledge of history a long pause to consider the consequences of turning ANY control over our ports to a government-run company from any Arabic/Islamic state of the Middle-East.
Xenophobic? Puh-leeze. You’re a complete imbecile if all you can muster is that those of us who are against this deal are “racist” in our objections.
We know history, and you don’t. In this case, it won’t be that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It will be that those who ignore history doom others to repeat it.
Technorati Tags: Ayatollah Khomeini, Dubai Ports
March 21st, 2006 at 7:06 am
OK, you want a fact? Ronald Reagan used unrelenting military, economic and diplomatic pressure to bring down the Soviet Union. He did not “trade” our way to victory in the Cold War. Yes, he also made sure the U.S.S.R. and China did not renew their Stalin-Mao era alliance by opening up our market to the Chinese. Reagan knew full well we was strengthening Chinese Communists in the process, but it was the only way to isolate and starve the Russian Communist machine.
Oh, while we’re talking about facts, here’s another one for you; there is no more U.S.S.R. I realize this comes as a great shock to you, but please check this out for yourself. So, why the hell wouldn’t we want to finish the job Reagan started, using the same method, and rid the world of the last great bastion of tyranny?
Going back a few decades, how would history have been written if Henry Ford had not been allowed to help Hitler re-industrialize Germany in the early 30’s? The point is that there are many different ways to coddle evil, and usually, coddling is considered, at the time, to be the most convenient course. It is simply easier to allow others to manufacture our goods, lend us money on a seemingly limitless credit card, do menial labor, run our ports, etc. than do the hard work of maintaining our civilization.
In the end, massive public and private debt, illegal immigration, trade imbalances, and foreign run infrastructure all point to the same thing; a lazy America that has lost its’ way. As a society we are drowning in excess and compulsion, with no real appreciation for sacrifice (we’re talking more than a ‘Support our Troops’ bumpersticker), and no real fear of loss.
I am not saying that an more self-sufficient economic struvture would have no downside; indeed, I can envision quite a few short-term hardships. Without doubt, you could envision more, but growth and maturity are not painless processes, for either the individual or society. That’s another fact, by the way.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:32 am
Bob,
I will give you credit it admitting that NEOCONS like yourself are liberal. You define the split in the Republican party between traditional conservatives and NEOCONS.
The National Journal recently ranked Arlene Specter over fiscal hawks Ron Paul, Walter Jones and Jeff Flake. The Republican party is for less government, personal responsibility and fiscal control. National Journal definition of conservative “became a proxy for how you voted with the administration”- which is no indicator of conservatism at all according to fiscal Republican hawk Jeff Flake
March 21st, 2006 at 8:50 am
Bob,
Leading indicators signal slowing growth
Signs of caution pop up for second half of the year
Aleksandrs Rozens – Associated Press
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
New York — A closely watched gauge of future economic activity declined slightly in February following a sharp rise in January, a private research group said Monday.
The decline, which follows four months of gains, suggested to some analysts that the nation’s economic growth will slow in the second half of the year.
The Conference Board said its Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell 0.2 percent in February, following a revised 0.5 percent rise in January. The January increase had initially been reported at 1.1 percent.
Economists on Wall Street had expected the index to decline 0.3 percent in February.
The Conference Board said its coincident index, a measure of the current economy, rose 0.3 percent in February, following no change in January and a 0.4 percent increase in December.
In the latest report, the largest negative components were consumer expectations, building permits and stock prices. The positive components included manufacturers’ new orders for non-defense capital goods and orders for consumer goods and materials.
“Essentially the story is we have got moderate growth through the first quarter. We may tick up in the second quarter, and we may tick down in the third quarter,” Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, told The Associated Press. “Growth is going to be a little slower the second half of the year.”
Frank Nothaft, chief economist at the mortgage consolidator Freddie Mac, said some of the growth anticipated for the first half of the year is related to reconstruction efforts amid regions hurt by hurricanes last year.
“This pumps more money into the economy, spurring growth,” he said, adding that the slowdown in the later half of 2006 would reflect the series of interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. central bank, concerned about inflation that could hobble the economy, has raised interest rates 14 times since June 2004. The series of rate increases has effectively raised borrowing costs for consumers and businesses.
The higher rates have already had some impact on housing, where sales of homes have slowed and economists believe the Fed will raise rates again later this month.
While the Index of Leading Economic Indicators dipped in February, the nation’s economy saw gains in the jobs market. That same month employers expanded payrolls by 243,000 jobs, far more than expected.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:11 am
“In all do [sic] respect someone from the credit side of banking would of [sic] understood …”
With all due respect, John, I’ve told you your baseless assumptions about my banking experience were wrong. Are you now calling me a liar?
And if “liberal” means “loose credit standards”, please tell me where on Earth you find any basis in my posts for saying anything at all about credit standards.
“I will give you credit it admitting that NEOCONS like yourself are liberal. You define the split in the Republican party …”
My, my. We do like our labels, don’t we? Now I’m a “NEOCON” as well as a liberal. Is neocon a credit term, too, or are you now admitting that you meant liberal in the political sense after all? And what split did I define? I don’t recall.
John, I strongly suggest, if you are serious about running for office, which I assume you are doing for all the right reasons even if I think you’re wrong in most of what you say, that you refrain from name-calling on public blog sites. You might also want to talk about what your agenda would be in office, on the off chance you were actually elected, rather than just trying to convince people of how bad things are. There ARE real problems in the world, John. You don’t need to make up fake ones.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:13 am
Bob,
You called yourself a liberal. NEOCON is not a negative political term to people who have your views. In fact NEOCONS like yourself actually refer to themselves as NEOCONS. The question I have do you not see that when Arlene Spectra is considered my conservative then Ron Paul that this is NEOCON vs, traditional conservative debate on definition.As far as politics I am not a politician, if you want someone to tell you what you want to hear vote for Tom Price.But do not complain about 9 trillion dollar debt and 720 trillion dollar trade debt.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:43 am
“You called yourself a liberal.”
I guess the distinction between the classical meaning of liberal and the current usage is not one you grasp. Think John Locke and Adam Smith, John. You know who they were, don’t you?
“NEOCON is not a negative political term to people who have your views.”
You really think you know my views, John? You’ve spouted empty rhetoric about how our economy is going to heck in a foreign made hand-basket and I’ve disputed it with hard data. We haven’t discussed anything remotely related to “neocon” ideas. You are merely flailing about, looking for a label that allows you to categorize my views without having to know what they are.
As for you not being a politician, are you not running for office and asking people to give you their vote?
PS: Who is Arlene Spectra?
March 21st, 2006 at 11:14 am
Bob,
Adam Smith would of been a NEOCON. You just made my point. The problem is free market works between western nations. If you have dictatorships were they can in slave workers at $2 a day ,with no moral rules , you end up loosening your middle class.This is why every major religion has spoken out against trade deals like CAFTA that promote slave labor and destruction of the middle class. If you kick a dog it will bite.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:31 am
LOL. Adam Smith a neocon, slave labor in Central America, every major religion against free trade deals, and a “loosening” middle class, whatever that means. On those silly notes, I quit. You apparently aren’t interested in seriously discussing real issues.
March 21st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Bob,
I am sorry you do not take billionaire Warren Buffett, PaulO Neal, Paul Craig Roberts,Bruce Bartlet,Pete Peterson,John Williams,Alan Greenspan…. as having a serious understanding of economics and our economy. You can fire Paul O Neal and Bruce Bartlet for standing up against plug and play # s you quote. But at the end of the day , everyone has to look in the mirror and ask themselves what is the truth.
If you believe the way we fix the trade deficit is by matching or beating the legal,regulatory and tax structure in countries like communist China you should vote for Tom Price. If you believe in big government pork programs driven by lobbyist ,like the highway,energy ,drug prescription…. bills you should not support me. I wish you luck , and I do respect you right to disagree. Thanks jk
March 24th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Bob,
This is what happens when you put all your apples in the plug and play numbers.
Senior Producer
MSNBC
Updated: 1:18 p.m. ET March 24, 2006
John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
A government report Friday confirmed what home buyers and sellers have been finding out recently: The once red-hot U.S. housing market is cooling off. The result is that sellers in many parts of the country have been cutting prices, and buyers are finding they have more bargaining power when they go house hunting.
Sales of new homes plunged in February, while the median price of a new home dropped for the fourth straight month, providing fresh evidence that after five years of record setting sales, the nation’s once-booming housing market is cooling off.
The Commerce Department reported that sales of new single-family homes dropped by 10.5 percent last month — the largest amount in nearly nine years and the second straight monthly drop.
Story continues below ↓
——————————————————————————–
advertisement
——————————————————————————–
“The housing market is in a downturn, there’s no doubt about it,†said Scott J. Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. “It’s just a question of how severe.â€
The answer to that question: A lot depends on where you live. In the West, where sales had been booming and prices rising rapidly, the government’s figures showed a nearly 30 percent drop in February sales from the month before. Sales in the Northeast fell nearly 13 percent. The slowdown was more modest in the Midwest and South, where sales and prices had been moving up more slowly,
‘The housing market is in a downturn, there’s no doubt about it.’
— Scott J. Brown
Raymond James & Assoc.
With demand weakening, new home prices are also falling. The median price of a new home sold last month dropped to $230,400, down by 1.6 percent from January and 2.9 percent lower than this time last year. (The median is the mid-point where half the homes sold for more and half for less.)
The latest government data seemed to contradict a report Thursday that sales of existing homes rose by a stronger-than-expected 5.2 percent last month after falling for five straight months. The National Association of Realtors, which issued the report, said the February numbers got a one-time shot in the arm from warm weather and lower mortgage rates in January. But the longer-term trend is still downward, according to the realtors group’s chief economist.
“What we have here is still the soft landing scenario we’ve been predicting,” said NAR chief economist David Lereah. “The increase we experienced in this report is an aberration because of warm weather.”
Economists said the discrepancy in the two reports may also be the result of statistical variations in the way the two reports are assembled. Sales of existing homes are reported when those sales close, while new home sales record the initial contract of sale. As a result, the report on existing homes tends to lag current market conditions, analysts said, and may not reflect the impact of the slowdown.
Seasonal adjustments to the data often overstate month-to-month changes in winter months, when the number of homes sales and pace of construction is usually slowest, analysts said.
CONTINUED: Backlog building
——————————————————————————–
1 | 2 | Next >
.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Bob,
More news from the real world.
An Economy On Thin Ice
By Paul A. Volcker
Sunday, April 10, 2005; Page B07
The U.S. expansion appears on track. Europe and Japan may lack exuberance, but their economies are at least on the plus side. China and India — with close to 40 percent of the world’s population — have sustained growth at rates that not so long ago would have seemed, if not impossible, highly improbable.
Yet, under the placid surface, there are disturbing trends: huge imbalances, disequilibria, risks — call them what you will. Altogether the circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember, and I can remember quite a lot. What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it.
We sit here absorbed in a debate about how to maintain Social Security — and, more important, Medicare — when the baby boomers retire. But right now, those same boomers are spending like there’s no tomorrow. If we can believe the numbers, personal savings in the United States have practically disappeared.
To be sure, businesses have begun to rebuild their financial reserves. But in the space of a few years, the federal deficit has come to offset that source of national savings.
We are buying a lot of housing at rising prices, but home ownership has become a vehicle for borrowing as much as a source of financial security. As a nation we are consuming and investing about 6 percent more than we are producing.
What holds it all together is a massive and growing flow of capital from abroad, running to more than $2 billion every working day, and growing. There is no sense of strain. As a nation we don’t consciously borrow or beg. We aren’t even offering attractive interest rates, nor do we have to offer our creditors protection against the risk of a declining dollar.
Most of the time, it has been private capital that has freely flowed into our markets from abroad — where better to invest in an uncertain world, the refrain has gone, than the United States?
More recently, we’ve become more dependent on foreign central banks, particularly in China and Japan and elsewhere in East Asia.
It’s all quite comfortable for us. We fill our shops and our garages with goods from abroad, and the competition has been a powerful restraint on our internal prices. It’s surely helped keep interest rates exceptionally low despite our vanishing savings and rapid growth.
And it’s comfortable for our trading partners and for those supplying the capital. Some, such as China, depend heavily on our expanding domestic markets. And for the most part, the central banks of the emerging world have been willing to hold more and more dollars, which are, after all, the closest thing the world has to a truly international currency.
The difficulty is that this seemingly comfortable pattern can’t go on indefinitely. I don’t know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars.
I don’t know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change.
It’s not that it is so difficult intellectually to set out a scenario for a “soft landing” and sustained growth. There is a wide area of agreement among establishment economists about a textbook pretty picture: China and other continental Asian economies should permit and encourage a substantial exchange rate appreciation against the dollar. Japan and Europe should work promptly and aggressively toward domestic stimulus and deal more effectively and speedily with structural obstacles to growth. And the United States, by some combination of measures, should forcibly increase its rate of internal saving, thereby reducing its import demand.
But can we, with any degree of confidence today, look forward to any one of these policies being put in place any time soon, much less a combination of all?
The answer is no. So I think we are skating on increasingly thin ice. On the present trajectory, the deficits and imbalances will increase. At some point, the sense of confidence in capital markets that today so benignly supports the flow of funds to the United States and the growing world economy could fade. Then some event, or combination of events, could come along to disturb markets, with damaging volatility in both exchange markets and interest rates. We had a taste of that in the stagflation of the 1970s — a volatile and depressed dollar, inflationary pressures, a sudden increase in interest rates and a couple of big recessions.
The clear lesson I draw is that there is a high premium on doing what we can to minimize the risks and to ensure that there is time for orderly adjustment. I’m not suggesting anything unorthodox or arcane. What is required is a willingness to act now — and next year, and the following year, and to act even when, on the surface, everything seems so placid and favorable.
What I am talking about really boils down to the oldest lesson of economic policy: a strong sense of monetary and fiscal discipline. This is not a time for ideological intransigence and partisan posturing on the budget at the expense of the deficit rising still higher. Surely we would all be better off if other countries did their part. But their failures must not deflect us from what we can do, in our own self-interest.
A wise observer of the economic scene once commented that “what can be left to later, usually is — and then, alas, it’s too late.” I don’t want to let that stand as the epitaph of what has been an unparalleled period of success for the American economy and of enormous potential for the world at large.
The writer was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987. This article is adapted from a speech in February at an economic summit sponsored by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Bob,
More news on how the plug and play numbers about employment.
Additional Slack in the Economy:
The Poor Recovery in Labor Force Participation During This Business Cycle
Public Policy Brief No. 05-2
by Katharine Bradbury
This public policy brief examines labor force participation rates in this recession and recovery and compares them with the cyclical patterns in earlier business cycles. Measured relative to the business cycle peak in March 2001, labor force participation rates almost four years later have not recovered as much as usual, and the discrepancies are large.
Among age-by-sex groups, the participation shortfall is especially pronounced at young and prime ages: Only for men and women age 55 and older has participation risen more than is usual four years after the business cycle peak.
The brief examines explanations and different recovery scenarios for various groups—older workers, women, teens. Depending on the scenario, the current labor force shortfall ranges from 1.6 million to 5.1 million men and women. With 7.9 million people currently unemployed, the addition of these hypothetical participants would raise the unemployment rate by 1 to 3-plus percentage points. Current low rates of labor market participation thus potentially represent considerable slack in the U.S. labor market.
This brief is based on materials presented in briefings to the President and Academic Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in March and April 2005.
Full-text brief
March 25th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
“This is what happens when you put all your apples in the plug and play numbers.”
Sorry, John, but that comment makes zero sense. What, exactly, has happened as a result of someone putting apples in plug and play numbers? What on earth could putting apples in any sort of numbers possibly mean?
BTW, if you’re worried about the housing market, and if you actually want to be a congressman, perhaps you should share with us, in your own words, just what it is about the housing market that worries you, what policies you think are responsible for the conditions that worry you, and what you think ought to be done to remedy the situtation.
The same goes for your Paul Volcker column. What point are you trying to make that it supports? What exactly is wrong and what do you propose doing about it?
When you can answer those questions rather than posting nonsensical comments about apples and plug and play numbers, then this conversation might be worth having. Absent that, it’s not.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Bob,
The posting were to demonstrate that your rosy out look on the economy is not shared by Pete Peterson, Alan Greenspan ,Paul Volcker,Warren Buffett,Paul Craig Roberts…………… The following press release explains my position.This is similar view as two Former Republican Treasury Secretaries Pete Peterson and Paul Craig Roberts.
Rep. Tom Price Digs a Hole to China
Congressman Tom Price recently held a Telephone Town Hall to discuss the economy and taxes. He opened by calling the economy “relatively strong†and said he was “befuddled†by the media’s negativity regarding consumer confidence.
The 1st Caller Asked About Trade
She reminded her Congressman about the rapid and widespread loss of America’s manufacturing base to foreign companies. She reminded him that our national debt is “astronomical†and shared her deep disappointment with the trade deficit. She reminded him that our great nation was based on technology and manufacturing, which we are losing. She concluded by saying: “I’m all for participating in a global economy, but at what cost?â€
That last line is what Tom Price should have been telling her—not the other way around! Unfortunately for working Americans, that’s no where near what he said.
Tom’s Answer Neatly Summarizes Why He Must be Removed from Congress
He said: “The fundamentals of our economy—and why jobs move away from our shores—are no different than the economic costs for any business. Primarily, the things that drive economic costs for business are: taxation, litigation, and regulation. And so it’s important that we get a handle on those three things.†That’s it; end of answer.
Translation: to be competitive America should model its taxation, litigation (i.e. liability/legal), and regulatory systems after the countries that are taking our jobs, such as China and India.
Tom Price Wants Americans to Win the Race—to the Bottom!
Let’s ignore for a moment his shocking failure to include wage differences on his list of reasons that “jobs are moving away from our shoresâ€. Does he really believe that an endless supply of $2 per day foreign labor isn’t a factor?
He (and too many others in Congress) are willing to move America toward:
Communist China (which embraces child and forced labor)
Mexico (with its justice-for-sale legal system)
India (home to four of the world’s most polluted cities)
Tom Price will avoid the mess he’s creating by relaxing in his multi-million dollar home and raking in his first-class, tax payer-subsidized retirement and health insurance benefits. The rest of us, however, will be left to fend for ourselves.
A Formula for Economic and Social Disaster
Unfair trade policies like NAFTA (and CAFTA, which Price voted for) are forcing American companies to reduce wages; hire cheap legal and illegal immigrants; outsource jobs; move operations overseas; and eliminate medical and retirement benefits—just to survive.
Every major religion has spoken out against these unfair trade agreements—Tom Price, however, turns a deaf ear in favor of multinational corporations and their high-priced lobbyists.
We Must Level the Playing Field
John Konop’s answer is to negotiate fair trade deals that benefit the majority of Americans (not just an elite few). If a trade deal lowers the standard of living for most Americans, why do it?
Please vote for John Konop for U.S. Congress and forward this email to your friends. Thank you…
March 25th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Bob,
This is part of another press release.
Federal Deficit:
Rep. Price claims he supports a “balanced budget amendmentâ€, yet he votes for (or approves of) virtually every bloated spending bill in Congress: the Transportation Bill (with its bridge to nowhere); the Energy Bill (with its oil company give-aways); No Child Left Behind (though he was not in Congress at the time this was passed, he has repeatedly voiced his strong supprt for this legislation), and the Medicare Prescription Bill (BIG supporter of it).
I believe a balanced budget is absolutely vital to our country’s future. The time for talk has passed; it’s time for action. We need representation that’s not bought off by lobbyists and that’s strong enough to stand up to misguided party leadership.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
“The following press release explains my position. This is similar view as two Former Republican Treasury Secretaries Pete Peterson and Paul Craig Roberts.”
Pardon me, but I don’t see the similarity. Are you telling me that these guys like to prop up straw men, too?
Had Tom Price actually suggested me model our tax, legal and regulatory systems after China or India, then I’d be worried about him, too. Fortunately, he didn’t.
And I challenge you to find any of them saying that NAFTA or CAFTA are “unfair trade policies.” Furthermore, to say that “every major religion” opposes these trade agreements is absurd.
Here’s a tip for you, John. Repetition does not create its own truth.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Bob,
Mr. Price on numerous occasions has made the point , when asked how we can compete with countries like communist China, that we need to change our tort system,regulations and tax structure.
As far as trade many conservatives do not support the destruction of the middle class trade deals.
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and a prolific and popular journalist.
[edit]
Affiliation
He is considered part of the paleoconservative wing of conservatism. In recent years, he has become increasingly known as an opponent of government regulated “free-trade agreements” like NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization
As far as major religion you can find statements like the one bellow in almost every major religion.
CAFTA: HOW ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED AMERICA
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
August 5, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
Most of us are aware that Congress has passed and President Bush has signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) into law. CAFTA is the latest in a series of international trade agreements to which the United States has committed itself.
Sold to Congress as promoting “free trade,” international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and now CAFTA are actually huge compromises of American sovereignty and independence for the benefit of wealthy international corporations.
Consider that since President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole collaborated to pass NAFTA, nearly 400 manufacturing plants have been closed, tens of thousands of American jobs have been exported overseas, and the American people are now strapped with a gargantuan federal trade deficit. But that is just the beginning!
NAFTA and CAFTA are precursors for an even more egregious “trade agreement” called The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). FTAA would, in effect, all but erase our national borders, establish a European Union (EU)-style international government, and even pave the way for a multinational currency.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that many of the mostly Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted for CAFTA knew they were defying the will of the majority of their constituents and were passing legislation dangerous to America’s very security.
Consider the words of my own Congressman, Jeff Miller. Jeff is a conservative Republican representing the First Congressional District of Florida. Before his initial election to Congress, I interviewed Jeff on my radio talk show. He forthrightly articulated his opposition to NAFTA and similar trade deals. In that interview he said, “NAFTA itself may be the death-knell of American agriculture.”
In a letter to a constituent dated June 1, 2005, Congressman Miller said, “I do not believe CAFTA is good for Florida.” He further said, “CAFTA is an outsourcing agreement.”
Miller went on to say, “CAFTA will be a market for ‘turnaround’ exports-products shipped south for assembly and then final sale in the U.S.- particularly textiles and semiconductors. Fabric will be sent to the region, stitched into final apparel and home furnishing products, and shipped right back to the United States. That’s not traditional job-creating exports at all. Rather than servicing new foreign markets, these ‘exports’ serve the same domestic market U.S.-based factories once supplied. The only difference: American workers are removed from the equation. Due to Central American turnaround trade that currently exists, the U.S. trade deficit with CAFTA-6 countries rose nearly 60 percent from 1997-2004.”
Congressman Miller then said, “Still further, at a time when the U.S. is rapidly outsourcing both its service and manufacturing jobs, CAFTA will make it illegal for any state or federal agency to adopt a ‘Buy American’ policy.”
Sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it? It should. Everything Miller said is true. But guess what? In spite of everything he said, Jeff Miller voted for CAFTA! Yes, my friends, after rightly outlining many of the dangers and draconian elements to CAFTA, he turned right around and voted for it! How could he do this? How could he betray his home district, his state, and even his own conscience?
You can rest assured that Jeff Miller was not the only Congressman to sell out America’s workers and farmers (not to mention our sovereignty and security). The arm-twisting that went on behind the scenes smacks of all that’s wrong and rotten in Washington, D.C.
According to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), “Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.”
Paul continued, “Yet even after months of unprecedented wheeling and dealing by corporate lobbyists, congressional leaders, and the White House, the Washington establishment still failed to pass CAFTA in the U.S. House. That’s right, when the 15-minute voting period expired last Wednesday evening, CAFTA seemingly had been defeated. But pro-CAFTA forces were so determined to get what they wanted, they broke the rules. House leadership ignored the time limit and kept twisting arms and making deals until they finally had the votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later.”
Ron Paul then said, “Rest assured that you will pay dearly for these bribes used to buy votes. One of my colleagues estimated that the price tag for buying the CAFTA vote will be at least $50 billion. That’s right, $50 billion to win a vote. Is that what you want from your representative in office
March 26th, 2006 at 11:09 am
OK, so Paul Craig Roberts has lost his free markets edge since he was in the Reagan administration – at least according to the unattributed quotation about him that you posted. But you said Alan Greenspan, Paul Volker and a bunch of others oppose NAFTA and CAFTA, but have yet to provide a direct quote from any of them that supports that assertion.
As for religious opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA, do you really think one opinion piece from one preacher/talk radio host/2004 minor party VP candidate/vocal opponent of the Republican party, who describes Islam as “a religion of violence and hatred”, proves any point about “every major religion”?
Sorry, it doesn’t. But at least we now know where you get your xenophobic world view and reflexive opposition to Republicans in office.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Bob,
I will give you many more examples from Baptist,Methodist,Catholics,Jewish………. Who all oppose CAFTA based on moral grounds.
http://www.tradejusticeusa.org/issues/trade_agreements/cafta-main.htm
http://www.ajws.org/index.cfm?section_id=8&sub_section_id=12&page_id=413
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-141.htm
http://www.tradejusticeusa.org/issues/trade_agreements/documents/OCBC-soc-2004-final.pdf
http://www.lwr.org/advocacy/tradejustice/CAFTA/index.asp
http://www.pcusa.org/trade/cafta.htm
When Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan , Paul Volcker …. are all issuing warnings,about are trade deficits , what trade deals do you think they are talking about ? When Warren Buffett is proposing a his new trade policy deal it is about reforming NAFTA, CAFTA WTO…. Bob you are a smart guy , do you really want to argue that they are not talking about reforming are current failed trade policy ?
Do you really want to become part of the NEOCON group that has declared war on respected Republicans economist like Bruce Bartlet, Paul O Neal, Warren Buffet,Pete Peterson,Paul Craig Roberts, Lou Dobbs John Williams………. just because they are telling the truth about our economy. “The truth will set you free”
March 26th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Actually, John, only two of the five organizations you linked represent religious entities – the Presbyterian Church and the Confederation of Catholic Bishops, the latter of which doesn’t actually oppose CAFTA. As they stated in July 2005, “USCCB and CRS do not oppose or support CAFTA. Rather, we seek to create a climate in Congress for moral dialogue and evaluation of CAFTA, which places the human person at the center of all economic activity.”
The others are actually international relief (2) and political (1) organizations that just happen to operate under a banner of religious faith.
More importantly, none of the four groups you cited that actually took a position against CAFTA did so on the basis of US trade balances, foreigners taking American jobs, a “race to the bottom”, making the US “more like China and India”, or any of the other nonsense you are talking about.
In some cases, they actually want to protect jobs in Latin America from competition from the US. In others, they want us to force other countries to adopt stricter labor laws or other regulations (on humanitarian or other non-xenophobic grounds) as a condition to free trade, want to remove provisions that knock down barriers to investment in those countries, or want to allow other countries to engage in restrictive trade practices to protect specific industries from competition in the interest of either economic development or cultural heritage.
As for the rest, expressing concern about the size of trade deficits and suggesting we find ways to increase personal savings to reduce consumption, as Volcker was talking about, is not the same as opposing free trade deals.
And BTW, Paul O’Neil, Warren Buffet, Pete Peterson and Lou Dobbs are not economists. Peterson comes the closest – he’s an investment banker. And I have no idea what John Williams you might be talking about.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Bob,
You really do not want to argue that Jesus would support U.S. dollars to build child labor sweatshops overseas at the expense of the American middle class? I can give you more sources but I would think the association of Baptist churches in Massachusetts would be a good start.
Catholic
Central American and U.S. Bishops Joint Statement
Catholic Relief Services
Maryknoll Association fof the Faithful
Missionary Oblates Justice & Peace/Integrity of Creation Office
Pax Christi USA
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Testimony of Guatemalan Bishop Alvaro Ramizzini
Jewish
American Jewish World Service
Protestant
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Association of Baptist Churhes of Massachusetts
Lutheran World Relief
Association of Baptist Churches of Massachusetts
American Friends Service Committee
Bob, You really do not want to argue that Investment bankers , CEO’s and Treasury Sectaries do not qualify as economist ? You sound like the Attorney for Ken Lay at ENRON. You may disagree, with billionaire Warren Buffet, Treasury Secretary and former CEO of ALCOA Paul O NEAL, Treasury Secetary Pete Peterson, Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts………. are all qualified as experts by any rational standard. Please stop attacking the messenger and deal with the issue. Thanks jk
March 26th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
“You really do not want to argue that Jesus would support U.S. dollars to build child labor sweatshops overseas at the expense of the American middle class?”
Oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense. Or not. If you’re going to try to put words in my mouth, at least have the decency to make me coherently evil.
“You sound like the Attorney for Ken Lay at ENRON… Please stop attacking the messenger and deal with the issue.”
Enron? LOL. What issue would you like me to deal with, John? You’re the one running for office and you have yet to articulate a single coherent policy proposal, never mind an agenda. All you’ve done is prattle on vaguely about how bad things are and how much worse they are going to get, dismissed government statistics that contradict your claims, blamed Tom Price, George Bush or the Republican party generally for it all, and dropped names of public figures you claim agree with you.
You sound like most of the angry left, John – all finger pointing and alarmism, but no viable solutions. “Everything’s going to heck and it’s that guy’s fault” is not an agenda and, as Kerry/Edwards showed, it’s not a great campaign strategy either.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
PS: You aren’t going to convince me now that your opposition to free trade was all about your moral/religious concerns about child labor in other countries. You’ve made it clear from the begining that your objective is to keep out foreign made goods – and immigrants – based on the misguided notion that doing so would be good for this country. It wouldn’t. Nor would it do a thing to reduce child labor overseas.
And remember, too, that this whole argument started because you wanted to paint Dubai as some cross between a Chinese labor camp and a haven for terrorists. In fact, I asked you once what China had to do with a Dubai company unloading ships here. You never answered. You just changed the subject.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:37 am
Bob,
Conservatives like myself are speaking out due to poorly negotiated trade deals by both parties. To call us Isolationist and racist only shows we are right you have no argument. We are also upset about the out of control spending driven by lobbyist clients needs and not the American people. Bob, you are a smart guy, to attack conservatives , by distorting their positions and life work is wrong.
I will give you the difference between Tom Price and I.
He feels that we can out tax structure,regulate and tort reform countries like communist China to fix the trade in balance. I think we need to level the playing field, and if we do not we will destroy the middle class. If you read Pete Peterson former Republican Treasury Secretary book “Running on Empty” he claims that we used this strategy while he was in office.
On spending , Tom Price has voted and or supported pork bills Highway, Energy, No Child Left Behind, Drug Bill……. Instead of blaming everyone in Congress for forcing him to sign the pork bills, Why not just vote NO.
Pete Peterson is right, a tax cut is not a tax cut unless you are willing to cut spending at the same rate. If you cut taxes and do not deal with spending all you are doing is deferring the bill in the future with interest. Bob if you keep supporting guys like Tom Price do not complain about 9 trillion dollar debt or interest rates going up.
I will be happy to deal with the UAE deal after you have time to deal with this last post. Thanks jk
WASHINGTON – From the moment George W. Bush began campaigning for the Oval Office in 1999, White House watchers have wondered what kind of president he would be: The Ronald Reagan of his generation? Like his father, the first President Bush? Perhaps even, in some ways, similar to Bill Clinton?
This year’s State of the Union address, which was panned by a chorus of conservative commentators, has intensified the debate about Bush’s political philosophy.
In the Monitor
Monitor, 03/27/06
Paradoxes of immigration hit US Senate
Latin leaders balk at US ‘wall’
Israeli right nips at Kadima
A joint obligation
Editorial: Universal preschool, universal benefits
More stories…
Get all the Monitor’s headlines by e-mail.
Subscribe for free.
E-mail this story E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
The Wall Street Journal editorial page accused President Bush of playing “miniball,” code for a Clintonian love of “small political ideas.” Robert Novak reported private concern among congressional conservatives that Mr. Bush was moving toward bigger government. George Will called Bush’s most memorable line – that America is addicted to oil – “wonderfully useless.”
“He’s conservative by temperament; many of his policy positions, such as cutting taxes, are on the right side of the political spectrum,” says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio. “But he doesn’t have a consistent set of conservative principles. That’s what a lot of the complaint has been about, especially after the State of the Union.”
Specifically, Bush’s education initiative, No Child Left Behind, and the expensive new prescription-drug benefit for seniors have left many conservatives wondering whatever happened to the party’s commitment to small federal government. Bush’s immigrant guest-worker program also divides Republicans. And as the Iraq war drags on, so, too, are conservatives increasingly conflicted.
Columnists, of course, aren’t usually running for election, or trying to protect their party’s slim majority in Congress, as Bush is doing. And they often don’t represent the views of rank-and-file voters. A Gallup poll of State of the Union watchers, two-thirds of whom were Republicans, showed a 75 percent positive rating, including 48 percent who were “very” positive.
But pundits can also be the canary in the coal mine. When Bush nominated his counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, conservative columnists raised doubts about her reliability on key issues. Her nomination was withdrawn.
Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail guru who helped fuel the Reagan revolution of 1980, asserts that Bush’s inconsistency as a conservative has alarmed many of the most active members of the party – the donors, fundraisers, and grass-roots activists who drive turnout on election day. A recent online poll by Mr. Viguerie of more than 1,000 conservative activists found that 67 percent say Bush is not governing as a conservative, and 64 percent give him a D or an F on government spending.
Even though Bush won’t be on the ballot, conservative disappointment in him could hurt the Republican Party in this November’s midterm elections, he says.
“The party has been hijacked by big-government Republicans,” says Viguerie, hinting that it might be good for the party to lose congressional power later this year. “The importance of losing elections is greatly underrated,” he adds. “There’s not any way Ronald Reagan would have been elected in 1980 if [Gerald] Ford had been elected in ’76.”
Among conservative columnists, perhaps one of the president’s staunchest admirers is Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard. In his new book, “Rebel-in-Chief,” he delves into the tricky terrain of defining Bush’s philosophy as president. “Big-government Republican” doesn’t capture Bush, he suggests, nor do comparisons to recent presidents.
“His strategy is to use government as a means to achieve conservative ends,” Mr. Barnes writes. Thus, instead of trying to abolish the Department of Education, the Reagan-era position, Bush has sought to achieve the conservative goal of accountability in public education by requiring testing and then sanctions for schools that fail to meet standards.
Mr. Barnes separates presidents into two categories – those who govern and those who lead. He places Bush in the latter category, observing his penchant for far- reaching initiatives. Looking at the issue of presidential temperament, Barnes writes, “Bush is actually a mixture of FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] and TR [Teddy Roosevelt], with FDR’s cool optimism and TR’s pugnacity and determination.”
Drawing any sort of comparison between Bush and the Roosevelts strikes some presidential historians as off-base, but on one score, at least, even Bush’s critics credit him with a level of political pragmatism that keeps him in the game. Take the failed initiative to partially privatize Social Security. While conservative columnists scolded Bush for taking his top domestic priority of 2005 and reducing it to a call for a bipartisan commission on entitlements, other analysts say he was just being realistic.
“He’s going to go back and try pushing his Social Security idea again?” asks historian Robert Dallek. “It won’t go anywhere. It was a political blunder.”
Another factor that may hurt Bush somewhat in the eyes of conservatives is the memory of Reagan, which grows more positive as time passes. Even though Reagan never actually succeeded in shrinking the federal government, his campaign against big government delighted libertarians and fiscal hawks, who now complain that Bush has abandoned that legacy. Federal spending leaped 35 percent during Bush’s first term, the Cato Institute notes.
“We hoped [Bush] would be more like Reagan than his father, but clearly he is not like Ronald Reagan,” says Viguerie. “Reagan was no pure conservative – he wandered off the conservative reservation here and there. But there was such a massive reservoir of goodwill for Reagan, because he was one of us. He walked with us and came to our meetings and receptions and dinners and sat with us.”