Sunday, October 19, 2008
Why I Like John McCain: The Free Trade Edition
I was not in favor of NAFTA when it first came around. I thought that it would result in lost jobs for Americans and everyone could see the writing on the wall as far as jobs being lost to cheaper, overseas production. But, NAFTA is here, as are other global trade agreements; we are a global economy and it's here to stay - unless Mr. Obama is elected.
It is true that American jobs have, for the most part, gone overseas. Face it, if you check every item of clothing you are wearing right now, I doubt one item was made in America. A recent check of my own person shows pants made in Honduras and other items made in China, Mexico and Vietnam. For the most part, America is a service economy now - food service, hotels, casinos, retail, etc. The upside is that you can buy a DVD player for a cheap price. You can buy clothes at a fairly reasonable cost (depending on where you go!) Another upside is that we now have friends and allies where we did not before.
Why I like John McCain today is because he has always fought for free trade. I didn't ALWAYS like this, but now I see the wisdom of his foresight and experience. McCain saw early on that China was a growing power and fought to open trade with them. In 1994 he fought to open trade with Vietnam - the very country that held him prisoner and tortured him. Country first.
John McCain has fought for and voted for trade with Columbia Mexico, Canada, Central America, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Peru, Singapore, Oman, Morocco, Jordan, and Israel. Overall, this has been GOOD for our economy, which we all know, needs a bright spot right now. NAFTA, for example has opened trade between U.S., Mexico and Canada by eliminating almost all tariffs. This makes the product available at a lower price.
Since 1994, trade between these three countries has increased more than 200% and in fact, U.S. manufacturing was up 44% and employment grew.
In contrast, Mr. Obama has voted against virtually every single free trade agreement that has come across his desk, with the possible exception of Cuba (no wonder Castro endorsed him.) If Mr. Obama has his way, we will lose most of our free trade agreements in renegotiation which will result in higher costs for Americans. American unions drive up American costs which is part of the problem. If Mr. Obama restricts us to only American made products, you will be paying a lot more for that DVD player. Not to mention the $9.70 minimum wage he wants to impose. You think costs won't rise with that one? And jobs won't decline? Think again. NOT good for the economy.
Mr. Obama wants to GIVE billions of dollars to poverty stricken countries via his Global Poverty Act, yet he wants to shut down the jobs that have been made there through free trade agreements. The jobs that our trade agreements have created in Vietnam and other countries, for example, have led to a growing middle class in those countries. What will happen to that progress when Obama closes those trade agreements? Do you think WalMart will still be in business?
So why I like John McCain today is his wisdom of foresight; for his support of free trade and his concern for the American worker and the American economy; his concern for the American citizen.
how do jobs decline if you're only buying USA made products?
ReplyDeletenot that I think for one second that Obama is going to eliminate free world trade - which that word "only" would imply
Jobs will decline with the $9.70 minimum wage hike.
ReplyDeleteGo back to the last debate; Obama said he was against free trade. Also, check his voting record. It's true.
I think this is one of my favorite posts you've made! Someone needs to sign up for a Townhall blog ;-)
ReplyDeleteNot only is it NAFTA that is causing the loss of jobs.
ReplyDeleteCorporations make money, that's why they exist. Their sole purpose is not to create jobs so people can have jobs. If a job in the corporate world does not help create revenue, that job is eliminated.
Governments create jobs to get the job done, but those jobs create no revenue, there for it is a negative balance against the ledger.
What concerns me about a government take of the free enterprise system, like the one the have in China and other socialistic countries, is there is no private companies. They all belong to the government. Everyone works different jobs, regardless of how hard they work, won't get any more than what the government tells them they can have, and the pay is equal across the board.
So, Joe gets assigned to a novelty producing company that makes fake plastic dog poop, while Jack gets to work as a scientist for the government. They both get the same amount of pay and a government apartment. Mean while the ones who live in the big dachas (fancy homes) are the government officials.
People like Henry Ford, who was extremely rich, wanted to get richer, but he also knew in order to get richer, he had to put money into the pockets of the people who worked for him.
Henry Ford, and people like him, knew that his workers couldn't afford to buy the cars his company was making, so he gave them a wage that would allow them to buy the car.
In order for people to buy tires to put on those cars Harvey Firestone gave his workers a wage to allow purchase tires.
Then people were allowed to buy into theses companies, and earned money from their share of the company.
That's the free enterprise system. I participate in the free enterprise system, and I like what I get out of it. Although it's not much, but that's my choice. The more I put in, the more I could make.
With government owning the business, what chance would I have making any money? Am I greedy? I don't think so. I think it's called by the grace of God I was born in a country where it's possible and by God's grace I can. Is it fair, maybe not in the eyes of those who can't, but the opportunity is there for them if they had it and want it.
With socialism, peoples' chances to participate in personal economic growth would be like the chances of a styrofoam dog chasing an asbestos cat through Hell.
So when labor asks for higher wages and government asks for higher taxes, businesses look for places where they can make money. Louisiana has lost numerous businesses to places like Alabama.
Why? Well, Louisiana is a place where politicians believe raping corporations and taking their earnings through taxes to spreads the wealth.
While the states that help businesses by giving tax breaks are raking in the dough.
So, while the United States is raping businesses a taking their earnings through taxes..., and countries who don't get the jobs.
"For far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Sen. McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.
ReplyDeleteAnd what I said was we should include those and make them enforceable. In the same way that we should enforce rules against China manipulating its currency to make our exports more expensive and their exports to us cheaper.
And when it comes to South Korea, we've got a trade agreement up right now, they are sending hundreds of thousands of South Korean cars into the US. That's all good. We can only get 4,000 to 5,000 into South Korea. That is not free trade. We've got to have a president who is going to advocate on behalf of American businesses and American workers and I make no apology for that."
That does not equate "NO" free trade. What is up with the extremes - the absolutes - the "democrats BAD" "republicans PERFECT". I give up!
Woah, you lost me (or I'm just dense, which is also a possibility!) but where did that quote come from? I'm lost.
ReplyDelete