$5 trillion deficit and counting, Millions of lost jobs, American blood being spilled on Iraqi sand, No end in sight - "GO BUSH!!!", please.

 

Yes GO BUSH!! the country HAS to go into a recession some time, there is no other way, unless we take away free trade. What goes up must come down, it has been going up fast, along with our standard of living, now it must come down, at the same rate.....so buckle up and get ready.

 

But what if it doesnt come back up? The economy is driving off the bridge, and when the car is sinking, you are gonna wish you didnt have your seat belt on.

 

The economy does go up and down with normal cycles. What determines the length of time at the top or bottom is responsible fiscal policies. Wether your an individual or a 300 million person country you have to operate within a budget. It is irresponsible to spend more than you bring in.

 

Jimmy - your grasp of economics underwhelms me - there is no such thing as "free trade".
Dono

 

Maybe that's a new definition by foreign competitors where we export nothing but money and US lifes and import everything else.

 

Now, lets not get personal. We all know what he meant by "free trade." I assume he meant that countries trade without additional taxes or money's imposed for certain products simply to bolster US products by taxing forien competition......

It's not that hard to be reasonable........

 

Also, I see some of you continually bashing our leaders, making judgements strickly along party lines. It's very obvious. You know who you are.

Two things:

1. If the present leadership is, in your eyes, doing such a terrible job, nominate someone who can do better. And VOTE...

2. Next, if its so bad here in the US, by all means, leave. Don't let us hold you back. Go to France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, China. I'm sure they have it better over there.

What ever happened to National Loyalty and pride in your country?

 

Under that definition, we certainly don't have any free trade to take away. That's one of the problems with our foreign policy, we nail everything and foreign competition can still undersell us due to our labor and compliance costs. So the competition simply retaliates to our politically motivated isolationist tactics by increasing their import duties, resulting in pricing our products even farther out of the market. Its almost a joke when you see a federal politician shaking hands with a union official and/or local politician because a new tarrif has been legislated to 'preserve American jobs'. I believe the political spin is creating level playing fields.

On topic, consider the tax revenue consequences of no-bid Bechtel and Halliburton Contracts after our little attack. Taxpayer money used to pay them, no US taxes to employees after 18 months abroad, and no corporate taxes. Employees will use that income to stimulate the US economy? Calculate how much thay'd have to spend just to recapture the tax money, much less stimulate the economy.

 

I like it fine here, better than all of the other places I've been. I just don't want to see it further financially torn apart because of egotism and personal aggression. That has nothing to do with party lines, its just common sense.

If national loyalty means blindly following what I consider unsound financial policy decisions, last I heard we can still speak our minds, have our opinions and remain US citizens. Unless Patriot II has banned that. Maybe some feel they have more to lose than others. I've watched the net worth of people I know take some real beatings before they got out of equity markets in a ' consumer stimulated' economy. National loyalty may sound good when used in speeches, but it currently doesn't put food on the table, pay bills or establish reserves.

 

George,

You are absolutely right on the forien point. If I understand you correctly, the trade duties on certain products are not really helping us. They are just creating a government subsidized part of the economy. Example; the farming community. If we raise tarrifs on cheaper forein fruits, we force US consumers to by American grown fruits. Which helps the fruit farmer but puts a strain on the consumer.

OR; we keep wheat farmers in business by buying wheat with tax money, that will just rot in elevators. Which helps the wheat farmer, buts uses up some valuable tax revenue.

Does this sound right?

 

Farm subsidies in one form or another have been around since Valley Forge. When the US was primarily an agrarian society, something like 2/3 of the population was on farms prior to WWII, it was the easiest way to buy votes. That was all well and good as it was all the same dollar until we started facing lower-priced imported goods. However, old habits are difficult to break and politicians still want those votes, so little changes. As an example, we've been paying out-of-proportion legal settlements for tobbaco consumption while still providing government subsidies to grow it.

Now, when we attempt to protect our over-priced products with severe import tarriffs, it has a negative effect that not only costs the consumer more, it actually limits our economic growth. Maybe a few steel workers keep their jobs, but when you artificially raise the price of steel, it adds to construction costs. That increases the amount of equity required to develop a building or housing development, increases the development financing costs, and increases the finished cost on a compounded basis (we started with just raising the price on steel), raising the bar for qualification to finance the individual units to individuals or rent them to businesses. The tarriff doesn't trickle down into the economy, it just pays for government.

Big smiles for the cameras when they shake hands after saving a few jobs and angering yet another trading partner, but its basically vote buying and not limited to any one party or administration.

 

Lets make sure we're all showing respect for each other.....

 

What it boils down to!

We need to produce goods we can sell at reasonable prices. We cannot depend on the Fed to continually subsidize. If rice is cheaper to buy from Louisiana farmers, buy it there. If oranges are cheaper from Columbia, buy them from Columbians.

If labor cost are cheaper in Mexico, so be it. We should buy from Mexico.

Some people will lose jobs, but that is the price for getting into a field of employment with no light at the end of the tunnel.

What we need to truely think about is making our industry more efficient, so we can drive the cost down and compete. For example; We produce enough rice in Louisiana to feed the world, We produce enough wheat on the great plains to feed most of the world, but because of our political arrangements, we do not undercut the producers in India, Indoneasia, China, and Russia. Our production in these particular arena's is very efficient and overwelmingly productive. But, the US government decides how much we can export, thus keeping less efficient forien markets viable.

 

Nothing is personal or unreasonable. Jimmy and I have traded barbs before and remain friends - we're both big boys.
Re "free trade", the agriculture products you alluded to in your post to George is a good example of why I made my statement. Out of every $100 that American farmers make (by selling products at prices not set by market dynamics) $21 is government subsidy. In Europe it is $31 and in Japan it is $60 - how is that free trade? Many products flow from country to country at less than or near the cost of production because of subsidies as countries (including us) try to tilt the playing field.
As for "party lines", I (a registered Republican) say what I believe to be true and I don't give a tinker's damn what line it falls on. I have served in the Army and the Marine Corps and I believe that considered dissent on policies of my government is my right and is neither disloyal or unpatriotic. I continue to support our troops and this support includes questioning what puts them in harm's way.
I'm going to shut up now and go eat some chili.
Dono