Well more sad news for workers losing thier jobs again!! It is not bad enough that the republicans have sold this country out to foriegn markets. Now they have abandoned the workers they have been forcing out of work as well.. By taking away TAA and other such programs to help workers losing thier jobs to foriegn trade and giving big business a free ticket to export your jobs away. They are great to the American peoplehelping to distroy what people worked for all thier lives and justflush them all down the drain!!I just have to rant on this one..[:@]I can't help but wonder what the farmers would think if all that aid that has been habded out to them would think if this was to happen to them?
[align=center]Merry Christmas from the Senate Republican Leadership:[/align]Taking Away Vital Benefits to Laid Off Workers and Their Families
The Senate Republican Leadership has refused to agree to an extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, a program that provides financial assistance and training to workers who lost their job due to imports or offshoring. If the Senate Republicans persist, and they succeed in forcing the TAA program authorization to expire, then thousands of workers throughout the country will be denied vital benefits to support their families under this important program !!!
So have a very Un Happy Christmas and an even more Un Happier New Year!!!
Why is it the responsibility for the tax payers to foot the bill for another training prograqm? Americans already have the best free education system in the world (they must because it's been run by the Dems for years) after they graduate there is free job training available, subsidised higher level education and countless other free programs. If that's not enough you can always join the military and get training, education and free room and bord to top it off.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Why is it the responsibility for the tax payers to foot the bill for another training prograqm? Americans already have the best free education system in the world (they must because it's been run by the Dems for years) after they graduate there is free job training available, subsidised higher level education and countless other free programs. If that's not enough you can always join the military and get training, education and free room and bord to top it off.
I have to agree. Everybody says they love freedom and free enterprise. Until it doens't work thier way, now they love socialist values.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,133
RE: Lets Thank the Republicans !!
Lots of the imports come from China and much of the outsourcing is going to the Eastern Rim countries. I understand that China has actually been buying ownership into some of our commercial real estate and even financial institutions. Couple that with the dangerous toys that have come into our homes from China ...I start to wonder about a Communist conspiracy to bring us down from within. The true keys to our nations future are economic not military. I wish a grass roots movement couldgain momentumto "Buy American Only" and don't do any business with companies who outsource abroad. Perhaps it is too late for that. I will offer that it is easier to not be as concerned about outsourcing when it doesn"™t directly affect you. Those living in larger areas do have choices when jobs go south. It compounds when you are from a smaller area without any true options other than to relocate.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
(1) Last time I checked, the Democrats enjoyed a majority in the US Senate. Therefore, if the Senate is doing or not doing something, I think it is pretty questionable to lay responsibilty at the feet of the Republicans.
(2) I don't agree that discontinuing funding for a retraining program is necessarily bad. I guess I would have to look at the particulars of the program, but at a fundamental level I don't believe it is the US government's responsibility to prepare people to participate in the economy. At a fundamental level I believe that is the responsibility of the individual not the government. Not to say peculiar and exceptional conditions may not apply in some special cases, but I would expect the case to be of a transient temporal nature and not a permanent and indefinitely renewed nature.
(3)I think Champlain Islander brings up a very interesting point about how we define "security." Historically we have linked our national security with military strength alone. Champlain Islander astutely observes that this exclusive focus on military strength may divert our attention from a more serious threat to our security, the slow but inexorable decline of our economy.
I would add to this another distinct but perhaps related aspect. I think our economic interests abroad can drive our foreign policy and embroil us in conflicts that we otherwise would not get involved in. For example, I heard an interesting analysis once that the US has long sought an Asian empire -- this extends back to FDR. This analysis suggested that this overarching agenda explains many things, including our handling of Vietnam. It was not a foregone conclusion that the US, when France bequethed their interests in Viet Nam to us after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu (or whatever the name of that place was in the North) about 1955, would handle Vietnam as a colonnial overlord along the lines of the French overlords before them. We could have encouraged and nurtured the nascent independence movement rather than suppressing it. I assume the interest in seeking an "Asian empire" was to profit from this empire. Maybe the economic values are not in place if we have to invest our military assets toshore up those economic values? Additionally, what is the value flow from these economic activities that are enabled by US military resources -- and hence paid for by the US tax payer? The idea that a rising economic tide lifts all boats -- that what is good for GM is good for the American worker -- does not fit the current economic paradigm in the US. In a deeply analytical way, I'm wondering when this kind of connection will be made generally throughout the US population, and the US military find it difficult to obtain quality volunteers. To make my thinking more explicit, if our military is protecting not the sovereignty and security of the homeland but instead making the world safe for US exported capitalism, what is in it for the grunt who puts his hide on the line carrying a rifle in foreign lands?
The average Joe is being economically marginalized in the US, the "stake" of the average Joe in the US is being taken away. When does the average Joe perceive this? There is a commercial that is current on TV that has a catchy country and western musical theme, I think it goes something like "This place belongs to folks like you and me. This is our country." It occurs to me that this idea can be challenged. Wait, now what belongs to you? Do you own the King ranch? Do you own your church (not those folks attending that church in the SW who want to split off from the Episcopal church because of their electing openly gay bishops -- in that case they can split off, but the property belongs to the national organization)? Do you own the power plant? Do you own the national parks, those parks that you are not allowed to hunt in, only wolves are allowed to hunt elk in those places? Even your home, if you are paying a mortgage, like me, you don't own your home, the bank owns your home and you are hoping someday to complete thepurchase transaction.
It is indeed a complex set of issues, and I do not pretend to understand them well. Personally, I think I am keeping my head above the water economically, maybe improving my standard of living,but I see many others who are stuck in a declining standard of living -- the average Joe. The idea that a rising economic tide raises all boats is extinct, and I see that this disenfranchises, in the most literal terms, the average Joe. To me that seems dangerous to the health and security of the nation. Sure, the average Joe isn't likely to make the analysis I made above of the "This place belongs to folks like you and me" jingoistic car ad (perhaps selling a vehicle built principally with foreign labor -- wouldn't that be ironic?). But maybe someday down the road, we'll have a need to call upon the average Joe to sacrifice for the good of our nation -- as we did in WW-II -- and the average Joe is going to smirk and say, "hey buddy, this ain't my place, I just rent my crib and earn wages while temporarily employed until you can get a third world worker to do the job for less!"
It occurs to me that the above makes me sound like an anti-capitalist. I'm not. I just think there should be a more equitable distribution of the wealth that everyone shares in creating. Back in the 1950s and earlier, the "a rising economic tide lifts all boats" paradigm worked. That was within the capitalist system. Why can't that paradigm work today? I think people at all levels in the economic system should be able to benefit from their contributions. Individual responsibility for having a good work ethic and valuable skills, but when you bring these things to the table the rewards shouldn't be all swept into the pockets of a few.
Note that this phenomenon is NOT the fault of the Republicans and it is not a short term, recent phenomenon. It has been going on for quite some time, perhaps from the mid-1980s. I'm not sure what the cause is. I do think it could be a fundamental flaw of capitalism, and if a solution doesn't exist within or is not compatible with capitalism, that could be tough for capitalism. I think much of the serious intellectual interest in communism in the US in the 1930s was driven by the serious internal flaws of capitalism that appeared as a result of the Great Depression. To some extent, I think this general interest and acceptance, at least at some level, of communism drove big business to offer more attractive terms to workers. There are alternative economic systems -- capitalism, communism, feudalism, perhaps others. We are accustomed to look upon these other systems as if they are insane and unacceptable. We need to remember, capitalism isn't perfect either, and there are alternatives. We look upon feudalism as akin to slavery, and there is some truth in this. But we neglect to observe that the bonds of seftdom were bi-directional. The serf was not free to leave the manor and seek higher wages in the city or to ply some trade that he chooses. On the other hand, the lord of the manor was obliged to share out of the production of his lands to feed his serfs. Just as the serf was bound to the lord of the manor and to the land; the lord of the manor was bound to the serf and could not dispossess the serf -- unlike the landowners in "The Grapes of Wrath," for example. We associate communism with the political oppression of Joseph Stalin, but that is an accident and not a necessary element of communism. We rightly remark upon the problem of communism lacking the strong incentive to vigorous personal initiative that exists in capitalism -- work hard and get more money -- but communism also has some benefits lacking in capitalism. Clearly we won't return to feudalism as an economic system. But capitalism is still an economic construct that is subject to the acceptance of everyone. Revolting circumstances cause revolutions. We arent' there yet, but is this the trend that our economy is on? What will be the share in the US economy of the average Joe in 2050? What will be the strength of the self-interest of the average Joe in 2050 to advocate and maintain either capitalism or the free-market form of capitalism that was strongly adopted with the Reagan administration in 1981?
Again, I personally feel I'm staying ahead of the economic tide and maybe rising a little. But I see others -- my sisters -- who aren't fareing so well. Long term, I wonder what the consequences of this may be. I wonder if this might represent a more powerful threat to our security and stability in the US than foreign threats?
Alsation , Thank you for putting into wordshow many of us are feeling, loyalty and trust are not words I would use when describing my feelings for todays government or itspolicies.
CI, why shoot yourself in the foot with a Buy American policy? Competition is what makes everything better. We are the most productive workforce in the world and as long as we stay that way our wages will continue to rise. Sure jobs go away, but you being a retired phone man know back in the day when 5-6 people would work the frame, there were tons of operators for 411, then again long distance cost a fortune both in state and out of state.
The second thing I'll point out was a post about the shrinking value of the dollar. That should have got a thumbs up by a lot of people on this board. With the dollar shrinking, goods coming from China costs more, our exported goods are cheaper and investment into factories become cheaper. I don't recall too many thumbs up though.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
and the average Joe is going to smirk and say, "hey buddy, this ain't my place, I just rent my crib and earn wages while temporarily employed until you can get a third world worker to do the job for less!"
Excellent post, Alsatian, probably the best I've read on this forum in many moons. In fact, it would make a great cornerstone for its own thread.
There is a sellout taking place and part of what is being sold out is the American worker...without regard to the color of his collar.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Lets Thank the Republicans !!
We also have a mind set of ; Why work for little money when I can not work and make just as much. Jobs Americans wont do crack me up. What happens when illegals become Americans and enjoy the same social benefits?
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
I read CI's comments more broadly. I don't object to foreign trade or a free market on its face. I think, however, that other nations slant the tables favorably in their direction, and it behooves us to exert great self-control and persistence to remedy this imbalance.
For example, South Korea clearly employs protectionist measures with respect to some agricultural products and yet has free market access to the US market -- I'm using a Samsung Blackjack phone, and Samsung is a South Korean company. US farmers from Louisianna would love to sell their rice into the South Korean market and can sell at a very competitive price there, but I think protectionist measures prevent that. Similar protectionist measures are applied in ***an. Why is it that we in the US trumpet a free market, but it is only the US market which is free and other markets are pretty darn protectionist?
Additionally, many regulations apply in our US borders with respect to providing a safe working environment for workers and paid overtime and vacation time and benefits. In some sense it is undermining these provisions for our workers to accept goods from countries without these same provisions. I don't know what the correct action is on this issue, perhaps add a compensating tarrif? On the other hand, such a compensating tarrif could be accused as protectionist.
In some cases foreign companies "dump" products in the US at below production costs to gain a toe hold in our market. In many cases, these foreign companies are subsidized by their home governments in many ways. For example, Samsung might establish a beachhead with phones sold at loses in the US and make up for this loss with construction projects given to Samsung by the South Korean government, all with a view to helping Samsung grow its cell phone business as a national economic project to make South Korea strong and create more jobs IN SOUTH KOREA.
In each of these cases, the US government is a babe in the woods among wolves when it comes to government economic policy. We have several disadvantages. The first disadvantage is that US foreign economic policy is a political football that varies with each administration change. There is little professionalism and depth of experience in this area. The second disadvantage, in my opinion, is that our foreign trade policy leaders have precious little cultural understanding of the Asian nations that are most adept at besting us in these trade negotiations. They need to learn the cultures involved (lots of similarities among them, so this is less difficult than it would at first seem) and the economic histories involved.
Anyway, I took CI to be saying that we ought to invest some substantive thought in how our economic policies -- both foreign and domestic -- impact our security concerns. I think that is right, absolutely on the moeny. Security isn't just about how many guns, how powerful bombs, what aircraft you have.
Lets Thank the Republicans !!
