Kerry's talk on trade is honest

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Dayton Daily News Editorial:

Though the crowd was there to cheer him on, he didn't give the audience everything some might have liked.

One of the hot topics of 2004 is "outsourcing," which results in foreigners getting work from U.S. firms that Americans once did. Sen. Kerry said there's not much any politician can do to prevent companies from moving business overseas; it's a free country, firms can't be required to do business here. But he insisted there shouldn't be rewards for shipping out work, and no tax incentives to do so.

<snip>

He also embraces the fashionable talk these days of "fair trade." This is partly a reference to efforts to get foreign countries to adopt environmental standards, safety rules and wage rates that would raise their costs and foreign employees' standard of living. That is going to be a very tough effort, though. To his credit, Sen. Kerry does not promise miracles. Yet he did well with this union audience. That suggests that workers are not asking for miracles. On the other hand, though, it is not clear that Sen. Kerry could have won a debate before this particular audience with a candidate who was taking a more aggressive position against recent trade agreements.

Sen. John Edwards may be emerging as that kind of candidate, which is a little strange. In the early months of the campaign, candidates Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt were seen as representing the hard-line labor view on trade, not so much Sen. Edwards. (And Rep. Gephardt has endorsed Sen. Kerry.)

Nevertheless, there's a legitimate debate to be had. As the trade issue ripens — and as Ohio finally gets the attention of the national candidates — one candidate has made a fundamentally responsible case right in the heartland of manufacturing-job loss country.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/0219kerry.html

[hedgetrimmer]

1. Kerry, the one trick pony...

the movement of jobs overseas comes from free-trade agreements...
Kerry supports free-trade agreements...

Cheap labor is only good for big business, it is not good for the countries getting the work, it is not good for the countries losing the work, it is not good for the economy or the environment, it is not good for the consumer... all it does is help "trickle up economics".

Further, this countries economy is teetering on a precipice into a fincacial chasm that threatens the lives of people around the globe where the likes of the world bank are afraid of the outcome and Japan has almost collapsed it's economy holding ours afloat....

The only thing Kerry can do for the Democrats is win the election, his platform does not differ greatly from that of bush... He is a one trick pony or in this case he is a one trick donkey...

If it is ABB why not Kucinich?

Try this one, ACBB (anybody can beat bush)...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. Kerry LIED

Kerry is being very deceptive by promoting falsehoods like this:

"not much any politician can do to prevent companies from moving business overseas; ... firms can't be required to do business here"

That is obviously not true, and flies in the face of reality. What planet is Kerry on? The Democratic party - all the way back to FDR - asserted the authority of the democratically elected government to regulate private corporations - FDR himself said anything less was "the essence of fascism".

Kerry's wrong, and he's being dishonest.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. How would you require firms to do business here?

What is your candidate's plan for forcing companies to 'do business here'?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. a federal regulation can require US firms

to hire US citizens - in fact in some cases already do. There are many ways to regulate business for the benefit of Americans - Kerry is showing his true colors by trying to demoralize reformers with his "inevitable" rhetoric.

If Kerry can't do anything - why the hell is he running for president?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Which candidate plans to make it illegal to hire non-citizens?

Is what you are saying true, or is it false?

Is there a candidate who wants to make it illegal to hire non-citizens?


And is that really a good idea?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Again

Which candidate plans to make it illegal to hire non-citizens?

Is what you are saying true, or is it false?

Is there a candidate who wants to make it illegal to hire non-citizens?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. PLEASE RESPOND

Which candidate plans to make it illegal to hire non-citizens?

Is what you are saying true, or is it false?

Is there a candidate who wants to make it illegal to hire non-citizens?

[kiahzero]

22. And?

The company doesn't have to be a US firm... it can always incorporate in another country.

The fact of the matter is that you can't close all loopholes, because the United States government is not all powerful, nor does it's soverignity extend around the world. If a company no longer is incorporated in the United States, it's no longer bound by US law.

There are things you can do to prevent companies from *wanting* to do that, but you can't magically lock all companies inside the US.

Besides all that, Kerry isn't lying here... I think you are misinterpreting his statements. His point was not that there is no way to regulate business - that interpretation can only come from someone bound and determined to see it that way. Rather, he's saying that there is no strict way to force companies to locate within the United States.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Thank you.

I was starting to think I was the only person around here willing to have an real discussion of the issue.

[snoochie]

85. Let them go

We know they won't. Where will they go? Huh? Please tell me so I can debunk it. They are here for a reason. If they don't want to contribute to the environment they enjoy let them leave.

It's too bad Americans don't understand solidarity. We decide with our dollars. No one is under the impression that the US gov't is all powerful. However it is hard to understand how someone could fail to realize the bargaining chip we hold as the world's greatest consumer market.

No candidate is saying that it should be illegal to outsource. I'm wondering if people saying that are being deliberately disingenuous or if they're really just not understanding the situation.

What Kucinich is saying is that in order to enter into a trade agreement with the US, that you agree to force companies located in your country to pay workers a living wage, whatever that may be in that area. This approach will realize the goals we reached in this country after the labor rights movement. Without that, we're destined to join the 3rd world's status.

Take your pick. I know who I'm voting for.

[idlisambar]

8. No candidate that I know of is talking about that...

... but we should press them on it. Clearly some form of taxes on outsourced work or an outright ban would do the trick.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Clearly?

No, that isn't clear at all. In fact it is just plain wrong.

[Walt Starr]

15. Make the cost in taxes double what it would be to keep the jobs here

Punitive taxation for outsourcing is the only answer.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. What would keep the company from just moving out of the US altogether?

And avoiding taxes altogether?

[idlisambar]

20. tariffs

preferential treatment to domestic industry through tariffs. If they don't make it here, they have to pay extra to sell it here. It would also revenue for our government.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Does your candidate support tariffs like that? Who is your candidate?

What about the retaliatory tariffs our trading partners would introduce? Wouldn't this just start a trade war?

And why would that keep companies from moving overseas? A company could still go overseas if they thought it was beneficial to their bottom line. What about a company that mostly exports goods, whose market is mostly outside the US? How would you keep them from moving overseas?

[w4rma]

49. Dean supported tarriffs in certain situations.

I'm positive that Kucinich does also and probably Edwards. Tarriffs have worked for thousands of years. This free trade crap is a short lived and failed experiment.

You can't have free trade unless all parties are on somewhat equal footing. Japan, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, U.S., these countries are on somewhat equal footing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Who?

[Nicholas_J]

54. Tariffs on produsts of foreign nations

sinmply result in them placing tarriffs on U.S. products and services, and the result is simply reduced sales, reduced production, and in the end, fewer jobs.

What happens when tariffs are placed on steel from overseas may help the steel industrry, but it has adverse effects on other sectors of the economy, such as auto production, so auto workers get layed off. Protectionism only works in cases when an industry can sell all its products within the U.S., and does not need foreign markets in order to increase prodctivity and create more jobs. If all we did was sell to ourselves that would be fine. But that doesnt create a middle class. For example, India has a rather great motorcycle industry, and makes a rather good product. But all they can produce is sold within India itself, so it can place tariffs on foreign products without any effect on its own industry. If it reaced the point that they produced enough for an export market, they would have to drop their own tariffs on other countries motorcycles before they could be prices competitively enough in other countries for them to make any sort of inroads in other markets.

[idlisambar]

61. I am not advocating autarky

What I am advocating is greater government regulation of trade, not willy-nilly imposition of tariffs. Such important economic decisions should not be left to multinational corporations and their advocates in the WTO, whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the public.

You said yourself that protections can be of good use in certain cases, so perhaps we are not in fundamental disagreement. But you also point out the negatives of tariffs while neglecting the positives -- domestic producers enjoy greater access to domestic markets increasing the number of jobs in that industry, and the tariffs on imported goods are collected as revenue for our government. To truly judge whether a tariff results in "fewer jobs" one would have to do some cost-benefit analysis for that particular tariff. In reality it may be pretty complex judgment to have to make, but just because it is hard does not mean that we should be biased against tariffs and make sweeping statements about ill effects.

Putting generalities aside, given the fact that our trade deficit is currently at 500 billion dollars, our manufacturing sector is slowly but determinedly being gutted, our IT and much of our service sector is headed to India, etc. it seems to me that the very structure of our economy is changing for the worse -- particularly for the middle-class.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. The answer is for America to out-compete.

That's why I posted Kerry's manufacturing plan. "If we build it, they will buy it" -- if we are building what the world wants to buy.

But of course I am not, and Kerry is not, arguing that there should not be any regulation of trade.

[idlisambar]

63. What about outsourcing?

In the long run we can't compete with India here. Consider the IT sector. For every engineer we produce they produce 10, each as qualified. Their wages are peanuts compared to ours and will continue to be for the indefinite future. Our IT is relatively mature, but there's they are just getting started; our main advantage now is that we are entrenched and that they don't have a critical mass of experienced engineers and managers to challenge us at the highest level, but that will change.

If you don't mind giving up on the IT sector, that's fine, but we cannot out-compete without protections. Clark said so much in a debate a while back.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. "In the long run we can't compete with India here." WRONG

As an IT professional, I completely and thoroughly disagree with your statement.

My clients could probably hire someone in India to do the equivalent work that I do for them, for less money. But sometimes you get what you pay for.

I have also seen, from the inside, cases where companies outsourced their phone support -- and lost multitudes of dissatisfied customers as a result.

[idlisambar]

68. false comfort

As an IT professional myself, I disagree. There are problems but the undeniable trend is toward more outsourcing, the only question is how fast it takes hold -- the wage differences are just too great for these little kinks to get in the way. If you are relying on poorer quality from them indefinitely, just take note that this is not something that is under our control.

I am sure you are aware that a huge percentage of the people who work in this industry here are already foreign-born and an even greater percentage of the new folks are foreign-born. Nothing that I see prevents them from doing the same quality work in their home countries.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Now you are knocking people for being 'foreign-born'?

:eyes:


And no, I'm not relying on my competition to provide poorer quality - I'm relying on my ability to provide higher quality.

[idlisambar]

74. Nope, don't know how you got that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. I read your post.

:eyes:

[idlisambar]

78. read it again

I'll spell it out...

I am saying that as opportunities grow in their home countries and the lure of American salaries lessens, more will choose to do the same thing they do here in their home countries -- some will go back, but most will just not come here in the first place anymore.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. So?

"I am saying that as opportunities grow in their home countries" - in other words, as wages rise in their home countries.

As wages rise in their home countries, outsourcing jobs from America to those countries becomes less attractive.

America CAN compete - and we compete best, on the cutting edge. Innovation, new industries, new energy technologies, new, greener manufacturing techniques -- that's the direction we have to move.

Protectionism isn't the answer, and a disingenous appearance of protectionism isn't the answer, just as unrestricted free trade isn't the answer.

[RichardRay]

66. I'm an IT manager who's looked at outsourcing

and decided not to do it for a variety or reasons, including pure cost. The kind of devleopment work I can get done cheaply and well in India isn't what my firm (or most otheres) need. To make it work really well I need to provide the code jockeys in Bangalore with a complete and unchanging specification. If you've ever tried to write software professionally you know just what a laughable idea THAT is.

Some folks have tried it. The IT journals are full of anecdotes from managers for big and little firms about the pitfalls of IT oursourcing. We're starting to figure out that outsourcing is just another one of the myriad chimera people try to sell as the silver bullet to solve IT problems. It may take a bit to find a new equiblibrium, but it's coming....

[idlisambar]

69. and yet it continues...

... it won't be just code jockey's and contract work forever, outsourcing is only a start. The groundwork is being laid for a strong independent software industry that can compete at the product level -- they'll write their own specifications. A lot of the people you work with right now will no doubt return to their home countries and help make it happen.

Not all of the jobs will just collapse under our feet, for a while the increased competition will just depress wage gains, making it less desirable to work in the industry, making it less likely that the foreign talent we depend on will come here, and on it goes...

Outsourcing is no silver bullet, and it is overhyped right now, but over time the reality can only move closer to the hype, the question is how fast.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. "over time the reality can only move closer to the hype"

an unsupported assertion.

[idlisambar]

76. I've supported it throughout my posts

... but I'll give you one more reason. Ironically, the more enabling IT becomes the more vulnerable we make ourselves to ceding the industry to lower-cost competition. Physical distance is going to mean less and less in this industry, the more successful we are.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. I'm not saying your aren't consistent in your beliefs.

I'm saying that "over time the reality can only move closer to the hype"

is an unsupported assertion.

If instead, you had said "I believe that over time the reality can only move closer to the hype" I would have made a different comment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. The voice of experience. Thank you.

I don't know how many times I have explained those points to clients. Ironically I've even tried to convince companies to hire employees instead of contracting with me, because it was more appropriate to their needs, sometimes unsuccessfully, lol.

Sometimes a company needs to get bitten before it becomes shy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. What would keep the company from just moving out of the US altogether?

Taking ALL the jobs and tax revenue with them?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Because they know it is an illegal, unworkable idea.

The fact is, Kerry is being honest - brutally honest.

[idlisambar]

21. Illegal?

Our government makes the laws, right?

The question is whether our leaders serious enough about this problem to do something or not.

[kiahzero]

23. Punitive taxes are illegal

You cannot use taxes for anything other than raising revenue. Hence why you need additional justification for things like cigarette or alcohol taxes - in those cases, it's the cost incurred by the government because of those products.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Not only that but

it is illegal to force people to work at a job they don't want to work at. You can't force someone to run a business, you can't force someone to start a company, you can't force someone to hire workers.

Can the government force me not to move to Mexico if I want to?

What if I'm self-employed? Does that mean the government can force me not to move to Mexico?

What if I also own a factory employing 200 workers? Can the government force me to not close the factory? After I've moved to Mexico, can the US government force me to not open a new factory?

:eyes:

[idlisambar]

32. People are free to do what they want, sure

...but if you have a tariff on imported goods, that company is less likely to go to Mexico because it will cost them that overhead to sell to our large domestic market.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. You haven't answered my questions.

What about a company that mostly exports to other markets? How would you keep those jobs here?

And why wouldn't our trading partners impose retaliatory tariffs?

And who is your candidate, and why is his position better than Kerry's?

[idlisambar]

40. OK

What about a company that mostly exports to other markets? How would you keep those jobs here?

Investing in (subsidizing) domestic industry like Kerry proposes would help.

Some form of Capital Controls could also help -- make it more difficult for the American investor to profit from foreign ventures, thus encouraging domestic investment. The devil is in the details here of course, and I'm no expert.

And why wouldn't our trading partners impose retaliatory tariffs?

They might, but if it is in both of our interests to trade we should negotiate together and make it happen. Under the system we have the corporations do whatever they want, public interest be damned.

And who is your candidate, and why is his position better than Kerry's?


My candidate was Dean, his position was not much better than Kerry's really with respect to trade, but he was much more aggressive in his rhetoric against corporate power -- he, like Edwards was opening uup the issue to public debate which is good.

My problem with Kerry is that he hasn't shown that he has it in him to seriously challenge our corporate power structure.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Interesting.

What about a company that mostly exports to other markets? How would you keep those jobs here?

Investing in (subsidizing) domestic industry like Kerry proposes would help.

Some form of Capital Controls could also help -- make it more difficult for the American investor to profit from foreign ventures, thus encouraging domestic investment. The devil is in the details here of course, and I'm no expert.

You are right that Kerry has a good plan that will help keep jobs in America. But Kerry is right that firms can't be required to do business here -- which is why you've been reduced to citing Kerry's own plan as the best way to go.

As far as banning foreign investment or making it more difficult for Americans to invest overseas, that could very well cause a global depresson. Severe enough and it could result in the starvation death of millions.

[idlisambar]

44. My mission is not to slam Kerry

I don't take issue with Kerry's approach of investing in domestic industry -- that's a fine idea, but I doubt Kerry's plan will be sufficient to really solve the problem. The point is that he is not willing to use all of the tools in the toolbox that will really solve the problem. Trade regulation is the proven strategy to building prosperity, but Kerry basically seems to subscribe to the tenets of neoliberalism.

As far as banning foreign investment or making it more difficult for Americans to invest overseas, that could very well cause a global depresson. Severe enough and it could result in the starvation death of millions.


You sound like Lieberman. You are just speculating, I didn't even give specifics or timetables or anything, and you are talking about people starving. The reality is that 10-15 million people starve to death each year under the current system of corporate control, and many more are undernourished. Its gotten worse in the 25 years or so that neolibaralism has been the dominant ideaology.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. I'm not characterizing your 'mission',

please don't insult me by saying I 'sound like Lieberman'.



This is a conversation that started with your comment:

No candidate that I know of is talking about that...
... but we should press them on it. Clearly some form of taxes on outsourced work or an outright ban would do the trick. "


The 'that' being the idea that firms can be required to do business here.

If you are no longer espousing that idea, we have no disagreement.

[idlisambar]

47. I was never recommending that idea exactly...

I was thinking along the lines of restricting access to domestic markets unless they contract out to Americans or at least some nation with good labor/environmental standards.

P.S.
Sorry about the Lieberman comment, that was a low blow. It was in reference to that debate in which Lieberman charged that Dean's supposedly protectionist position on trade would move the country from a "Bush Recession" to a "Dean Depression".

[Nederland]

37. Stop Making Sense!!!

Don't you realize that all we need is a person that supports labor rights in the Oval Office? If we get that, all our problems will be solved by appropriate legislation. The fact that US workers make an unsustainably higher amount of money than the rest of the world has absolutely nothing to do with anything so stop saying that!

</sarcasm>

[idlisambar]

46. The problem is...

...that foreign workers are not helped all that much under corporate globalization as well, and in many cases are hurt. The chief beneficiaries are wealthy investors.

Worldwide inequality has actually increased as corporate globalization has taken hold.

[Nederland]

67. Sure

Like higher tariffs and other barriers help foreign workers? Sorry, but I find your concern for foreign workers a bit feigned.

[idlisambar]

28. I see what you are saying...

... but there are LOTS of ways to regulate outsourcing that would not be legally construed as a punitive tax. The effect would be the same however -- a tax on outsourcing, or tariff on outsourced goods and services, whatever you want to call it. The basic idea is make it more expensive to outsource than do business here.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. What's to keep the company from moving overseas altogether?

And taking ALL the jobs and tax revenue with it?


Tariffs wouldn't do it. How would they keep companies from moving overseas? A company could still go overseas if they thought it was beneficial to their bottom line. What about a company that mostly exports goods, whose market is mostly outside the US? How would you keep them from moving overseas?

Wouldn't tariffs like that actually destroy our economy and plunge us into a recession.

[kiahzero]

31. Or...

You could give small tax breaks to companies that do business here... this has the advantage of lowering, rather than raising, the price of goods. It also dodges the issue of punitive taxes.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. An incentive based plan

like Kerry's manufacturing plan (see post #3) is the only thing that makes any sense.

[idlisambar]

35. Right

There are two ways to go, invest in (subsidize) domestic industry or discourage imports through tariffs and the like. You've pointed out one problem with the second option, but the first option also has issues. For one, you will need to raise taxes/reduce government services to compensate for the reduced taxes/increased subsidies to corporations.

It is impossible to argue in the abstract which is "better", but don't dismiss tariffs out of hand, they can be a useful tool.
Ultimately, some combination of both approaches will be necessary.

[kiahzero]

39. You may not need to cut services

Clark's plan called for closing several corporate tax loopholes to fill the gap.

[idlisambar]

43. Can't argue with that

Closing corporate loopholes is good. In this case we would basically be transfering money from presumably profitable enterprises and giving it to troubled industries that need the help. I support this in the abstract.

The big issue is whether the numbers add up, is the help they are proposing enough help? If not, how willing are they to do more and will the damage be reversible? Clark himself said in a debate that he would surrender the IT sector to India, so I guess he is not willing to do what it takes there.

Think of the WTO, NAFTA, and the like as an international corporate bill of rights. It eliminates the ability of governments, accountable to the people (ideally), to use all of the tools at its disposal to regulate its own economy including tariffs, capital controls, etc. Dangerous are the politicians who are willing to play by the rules of corporations, either through ignorance or corruption.

[Walt Starr]

14. It's simple

If a comany in the U.S. moves jobs overseas, they should have to pay double the salaries and benefits of the workers they outsourced in taxes. Make it cost a company more to outsource than to keep the jobs here.

Punitive taxation is the only thing corporations understand.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. That is an illegal, unworkable idea.

Which is why NO CANDIDATE has made or will make such a proposal.

Certainly not Edwards, who is smart enough to know better.

[Walt Starr]

36. Taxing anything is not illegal

Taxes are a part of the legal code, ergo, all taxes are legal.

[Nederland]

38. Brilliant Plan

If your goal is to get corporations to leave the US entirely.

[Nicholas_J]

53. FDR did not prevent corporations from

Leaving the U.S.

The regulations that FDR placed upon U.S. corporations had to do with the kind of speculation that resulted in the Depression, and not one regulation that came about during FDR's terms as president restricted corporations from leaving the U.S. and setting up shop anywhere they pleased.

Kerry is correct, there is nothing constitutionally that can be done to restrict these corporations from moving overseas. But there is plenty that can be done to create disincentives taxwise from them doing so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. John Kerry's Plan to Revive the Manufacturing Sector

(1) TAX BREAKS TO ENCOURAGE MANUFACTURERS TO STAY IN THE U.S. AND TO CREATE NEW JOBS. The Bush Administration has done nothing to end incentives that encourage manufacturers to move their jobs overseas. John Kerry believes that we should not only get rid of these incentives, but that we should give new tax breaks to companies that stay in the U.S. and create new jobs. He would:

Stop Incentives to Move American Jobs Abroad. John Kerry will save jobs by ending the unpatriotic practice of U.S. corporations moving jobs offshore (known as inversions) to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. He also believes that these inverters should not get government contracts or any other perks or incentives from the government.
Give Tax Breaks to Manufacturers in America. John Kerry supports efforts to promote manufacturing and provide incentives to keep manufacturing in the U.S. That's why he supports the Crane-Rangel-Hollings legislation, which provides a corporate rate reduction to manufacturers who produce goods in the U.S.
A New Manufacturing Jobs Credit. John Kerry has proposed a new jobs tax credit to encourage manufacturing companies to stay and expand in America. When a manufacturing company creates jobs above their 12 month employment average, the payroll taxes of the new employees will be refunded for two years.

(2) STRONG ENFORCEABLE TRADE THAT WORKS FOR AMERICA. The Bush Administration has not cracked down on countries that are avoiding trade laws or manipulating currency. President Bush has supported cutting funds for trade enforcement, despite the fact that we need more enforcement of trade laws to stop the manufacturing job drain. Some Democrats pretend that we can close our doors to the global economy. John Kerry believes we need strong leadership to assure that the global economy works for America.

Assure Trading Partners Play by the Rules. Some nations have consistently violated agreements by the World Trade Organization. They have taken unfair actions to block U.S auto companies from selling in their markets. Many products from China are counterfeit or don't meet industry standards. While this Administration has not used the remedies available under the World Trade Organization to crack down on these violations and help U.S industries, John Kerry would.

Stop Countries from Manipulating Currency. China, Japan and other nations have purposely kept their currency undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar to promote exports in the United States and undermine U.S. products abroad. John Kerry believes we must use the full force of the World Trade Organization to take on countries that are manipulating their currency to undermine U.S. exports.

Enforce and Strengthen Intellectual Property Protections. In the 21st economy, the U.S. relies more heavily on international partnerships and joint ventures. Intellectual property protections are essential in this environment so that companies can share their technology without losing control of it.

Break Down Barriers in Key Export Markets. This Administration has done little to open key export markets in places like Japan and Korea. Some countries use non-tariff barriers, such as making it difficult to access finance or have obscure investment requirements, to undermine U.S. exports. For example, auto exports to Japan are still essentially blocked by complicated rules. John Kerry would use all the available tools, including Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, WTO remedies, and diplomatic measures to open these markets.

Review Existing Trade Agreements. John Kerry will also order an immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure that our trade partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America's workers. He will consider necessary steps if they are not. And John Kerry will not sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations put in place. He believes all new trade agreements must have strong labor and environmental standards.

(3) ASSURE A STRONG MANUFACTURING SECTOR FOR THE FUTURE. John Kerry believes we must keep manufacturing strong, as it is one of our most productive sectors and it is critical to the U.S. economy. In fact, every $1.00 in final demand for manufacturing products creates $2.43 in output, including demand for intermediate goods and services in other sectors.

Tax Incentives and Subsidies to Develop Energy Efficient Products: Kerry will create hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs by investing in the new energy opportunities of the future. Kerry has a plan to provide tax credits and subsidies to manufacturers to develop the next generation of automobiles and new energy efficient appliances for homes and businesses.

Double the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). We know that the MEP helps make American manufacturers competitive. Yet this Administration has proposed to cut it nearly 90 percent. John Kerry believes we should invest in things that work, and has proposed to double funding for the MEP. John Kerry would also create Manufacturing Development Centers to help improve manufacturing. Finally, he would make it easier for small manufacturers to get loans and encourage investment by getting rid of capital gains tax for equity investments in small businesses.


Assure Better Training and Retraining Programs for Manufacturing Workers. To keep the manufacturing sector healthy and strong, America needs a workforce with cutting edge skills, training, and knowledge. Kerry would: (1) in order to assure that are sufficient numbers of highly skilled workers, Kerry supports providing assistance for workers in declining industries to upgrade or develop necessary skills, and providing community-based grants to help train or retrain workers; (2) assure adequate Trade Adjustment Assistance to help workers transition; (3) encourage students studying engineering, computers, and other high-tech fields to work in the manufacturing sector by repaying a portion of student loans if they do; and (4) encourage better math and science instruction in our schools to assure more students have the skills to help the manufacturing sector grow.

(4) RELIEF FOR MANUFACTURERS THAT PROVIDE QUALITY HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT. Simply having employers absorb rising health care costs puts U.S. manufacturers at an impossible competitive disadvantage with overseas producers. General Motors estimated that as much as $1200 of each car sold goes towards health care costs and often labor negotiations are consumed by just maintaining health care coverage. John Kerry's health care plan takes on the cost of health care by:

Supporting a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit That Rewards Retiree Coverage. Prescription drugs coverage consumes about 40% to 60% of the cost of retiree coverage. But under the drug benefit plan before Congress, employer coverage would not count towards the expenditures needed to reach the catastrophic cap. CBO has estimated that will cause about one-third of beneficiaries who would otherwise have coverage to lose it. John Kerry believes we need a quality affordable prescription drug benefit to relieve employers and employees from high drug costs by counting retiree coverage toward any cost-sharing.

Controlling the Cost of Health Care - Saving Workers Up to $1,000 on Health Care. John Kerry believes that we need to stop the spiraling cost of health care to assure our employers can stay competitive in the global economy and so our families can afford health care. Four-tenths of one percent of claims accounted for nearly 20 percent of expenses private insurers. John Kerry has proposed a new 'premium rebate' pool that will give companies and insurers that guarantee a pass-through of the savings to their workers through reduced premiums, a reimbursement for 75 percent of catastrophic costs above $50,000. This would save up to $1000 for a family premium.

Cutting Greed to Bring Down Rx Prices. Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) process hundreds of millions of pharmaceutical claims per year, giving them a great deal of leverage in the market. They often get financial rebates or other savings they do not pass on to consumers. John Kerry's plan would require transparency rules for PBMs that do business with the Federal government to clearly show what savings they are receiving from the industry and from bulk purchasing.

Don't Penalize Manufacturers With Pension Laws. Many manufacturers provide their employees with defined benefit pension plans – which assures workers dependable predictable income at retirement. However, under current law, manufacturers are required to set aside unrealistically high reserves to meet future obligations to their workers. These are resources that manufacturers could use to invest in new technologies, new plants, and hiring or advanced training for workers. John Kerry supports basing the law on a realistic long-term rate.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0922b.html

[rockymountaindem]

7. Sounds good to me.

[Paulie]

12. Are you sure you read the same thing as me?

:wow:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. What is it that you don't like in the plan? What is your candidate's plan?

[corporatewhore]

26. this sums up my feelings

"Just last year, the Massachusetts senator tried to position himself as the leading Senate proponent of measures designed to preserve the ability of American states to protect workers, farmers, the environment and consumers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement the Bush administration is crafting in closed-door negotiations with other countries in the western hemisphere. While Kerry sounded like a good player, he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreement.

The signals Kerry has sent on trade issues are deeply disturbing. He is starting to sound like 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore, who tried to talk a pro-worker line but consistently supported the free trade that has devastated the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy...... voters simply stayed home. They didn't see the point of choosing between a Republican who backed bad trade policies and a Democrat who backed bad trade policies." http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0930-09.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. What is your candidates plan to force companies from moving jobs overseas?

[eridani]

50. Cancelling NAFTA and WTO

and replacing them with bilateral trade agreements conditioned on workers' rights, human rights and the environment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. How would that keep companies from moving jobs overseas?

[idlisambar]

56. NAFTA and WTO

Getting out of the WTO and NAFTA will not by itself preserve jobs, but it will unshackle our government so that it no longer has to abide by the whims of trade tribunals and can take measures to protect vulnerable industries (not to mention the environment). Public citizen has a good run-down of NAFTA and itseffects on jobs...

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. In other words, it won't.

[Nicholas_J]

55. This is the reverse of the logic

That resulted in the European Common Market. It was the creation bilateral trade agreements that prevented Europe from becoming as powerful an economy as the U.S. TO have to make separate agreements with every nation simply allows for differnt standards to be set from one treaty to the next, rather than set a standard which all nations have to comply with, or meet within a certain set period of time.

Even in the E.E.C. the newer nations being allowed in from Eastern Europe have lower wages, different human rights situations and in the case of some nations simply abysmal environmental conditions. If ou have ever been at the Black Sea end of the Danube, you will agree that the environmental conditions in Eastern Europe are terrible compared to those in Germany.

Bu setting up a single body, the E.E.C. and setting up the same rules for all members, but giving differing lengths of time to comply, the European Economy has become much stronger, to the point wherethe Euro, not the dollar is rapidly becoming the defacto world currency standard.

IF you look at the differnces between NAFTA, and our trade agreements with China, the differnce is clear. The agreement with China is far less subject to terms set for Mexico under NAFTA. Or were until the Bush Administration began to ignore the time frames and consitions set for Mexico to begin to improve its working conditions and environmental regulations. Mexico is far furtther ahead in meeting those obligations than China is.

[eridani]

57. Mexico is far furtther ahead in meeting those obligations than China is.

That is not a function of NAFTA vs. bilateral agreements. It is a function of whether our government has the gonads to stick up for its citizens.

[idlisambar]

58. You don't think that...

... our 500 billion dollar trade deficit is a major factor in the emergence of a highly valued Euro?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. The way to decrease our trade deficit is to increase exports

not to decrease imports.

[Paulie]

70. Another way is MAKE things again, so we don't have the need for IMPORTS

Why isn't THIS the focus???? Aaaarrrhhhhhggggg, what's the use. :mad:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. That IS the focus of Kerry's policy. Please see post #3

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0922b.html

Except the result will never be 'not needing imports'.

[Nicholas_J]

41. You cant have free trade

Without some sort of pre-determined set of rules and agreements.

NAFTA is virtually a duplicate of the set of rules set up to establish the European Economic Community. They first set up the general framework, and then deicde later to set up environmental standards, health standards, labor standards for all of the nations that decide to join the E.E.C. THe only way the U.S. could maintain any sort of economic strength was to set up a trade agreement in ist own economic sphere, and just like Europe, they set up the basic framework first, and then over time build up the details of agreements.

THe E.E.C. did not set up all sorts of wage and labor standards, or environmental standards on the inception of the commmunity. If they had attempted to do so, the community would not exist at this time, as there were, and are still many points of disagreement, such as using the Euro as standard currency. many members of the E.E.C. are still E.E.C. members and still have not taken part in the currency standard. Without NAFTA the U.S. economy would be further in the tank than it already is. In fact, under CLinton. NAFTA was largely responsible for the massive expansion in the economy and the creation of many many jobs. The Bush Administrations failure to keep the ongoing requirements of all parties to harmonize the environmental and economic standards required under NAFTA going, are responsible for the problems that have occured since BUsh came into office, not NAFTA itself.

Without NAFTA, the UNited States would currently be significantly far behind the E.E.C. as an economic power, and the national debt significantly larger.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[atre]

65. In my opinion...

Honesty would mean, "I'm getting too much in campaign contributions from big companies to do anything about the outsourcing of American jobs."

This issue is what scares me the most about a Kerry candidacy: how is he going to make jobs an issue when he supports all the same destructive policies that Bush supports?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. Opinions that aren't based on reality aren't worth much.

[atre]

84. Is that supposed to add anything to the discussion?

I do not appreciate the personal insult. You aren't making Kerry supporters look good to the rest of us.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. I pointed out

that when someone bases their opinion on things that aren't true, that opinion is worthless.

I'm sorry if you chose to take it personally.

[Meldread]

75. The word "Honest" and "Kerry" shouldn't be used together.

I'm sure it has to violate a law some where, other than the laws of logic of course. The guy hasn't said an "honest" thing since he started running for President.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. Your baseless insults are duly noted.

:eyes:

[snoochie]

86. Why are Democrats around, again?

Obviously it's not to present an alternative to cheap-labor conservative propoganda or policy.

:eyes: