• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Obama And Romney Both Favor A One World Economic System That Kills American Jobs
 

Obama And Romney Both Favor A One World Economic System That Kills American Jobs

on

  • 406 views

Either way this election turns out, American jobs are going to continue to get slaughtered by the ...

Either way this election turns out, American jobs are going to continue to get slaughtered by the
millions. During this campaign, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have both attempted to portray each
other as the “outsourcer in chief“.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
406
Views on SlideShare
406
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Obama And Romney Both Favor A One World Economic System That Kills American Jobs Obama And Romney Both Favor A One World Economic System That Kills American Jobs Document Transcript

    • Obama And Romney Both Favor A One WorldEconomic System That Kills American JobsMichael SnyderEconomic CollapseOct 22, 2012Either way this election turns out, American jobs are going to continue to get slaughtered by themillions. During this campaign, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have both attempted to portray eachother as the “outsourcer in chief“. Unfortunately, they are both right. Barack Obama and Mitt Romneyhave both participated in the outsourcing of American jobs, and both are openly admitting to theAmerican people that they favor the emerging one world economic system which will continue todestroy millions of American jobs. In fact, they argue with each other about which of them will bemore aggressive in pursuing more “free trade” agreements over the next four years. Unfortunately, the“free trade” agreements that the U.S. government enters into are never “fair trade” agreements. As aresult, over the past decade we have lost tens of thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and trillionsof dollars of national wealth. This year alone, we will buy about half a trillion dollars more stuff fromthe rest of the world than they will buy from us. This trade deficit will be about 7 times larger than thetrade deficit of any other nation on earth. Our economy will continue to bleed jobs at a horrifying pace,but Obama and Romney insist that the answer to our problems is even more “free trade”. What makesall of this even more dreadful is that most Americans continue to fall for this nonsense.It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that merging our labor pool with the labor pools of nations whereit is legal to pay slave labor wages was going to kill American jobs and drive down wages for the jobsthat remain in the United States.Why should some giant predator corporation pay you 15 dollars an hour plus benefits when they canpay a worker on the other side of the planet a dollar an hour with no benefits to do the same job?During the second presidential debate, when Obama was asked why high tech products such as theiPhone could not be made here in the United States, Obama openly admitted that there are somejobs that aren’t ever going to come back.
    • But why does that have to be so?Why can’t those jobs come back to America?It seems to me that if you cracked down on nationsthat are cheating such as China, imposed a system ofcommon sense tariffs and cut the corporate tax rate toa level more consistent with the rest of the world thatyou could get a lot of those jobs flooding back in bythe end of next year.But Obama is so blinded by his faith in the emergingone world economy that such measures areunimaginable to him.In recent years, the Obama administration has entered into new “free trade” agreements with Panama,South Korea and Colombia. In addition, the Obama administration is making the Trans-PacificPartnership (“the NAFTA of the Pacific“) a very high priority.Considering what a nightmare the first NAFTA was, do we really need another one?The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a treaty that would essentially ban all “Buy American” laws. It isbeing touted as one of the most comprehensive “free trade” agreements in history, and it would open upthe door for millions more good jobs to be shipped out of the country.The workers of America simply cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama.In fact, the Obama administration has actually spent billions of taxpayer dollars to create jobs in othercountries. The following is from a pro-Republican website… Over his four years in office, Obama promised that he would focus on creating “jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.” However, as he racked up trillions in new debt, billions of dollars did go to create jobs that were outsourced or spent overseas. Whether it is electric cars made in Finland or solar panels in Mexico, taxpayers would be astonished to learn that their hard earned money went abroad for jobs that weren’t created in the United States.You can get all the details right here. Needless to say, the Obama administration has been an absolutedisaster on these issues.So would Romney be an improvement when it comes to trade? That is very doubtful. The truth is that Mitt Romney was involved in outsourcing jobs while he was at Bain Capital. The following is from a recent article posted on Forbes.com…
    • David Corn of Mother Jones reports that “according to government documents . . . Romney, when he was in charge of Bain [Capital], invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.” This didn’t happen after 1999, when Mitt Romney says he left Bain Capital to run the Salt Lake City Olympics (Corn was one of the first reporters to raise questions, now gaining wide exposure, of whether Romney really left Bain then), but the year before. On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate of which Romney was the sole shareholder, sole director, president, and chief executive, invested an estimated $14.2 million in Global-Tech, an appliance maker in Dongguan, China. Global-Tech made products for American companies like Sunbeam, Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, and Proctor- Silex. In September 1998 Global-Tech’s CEO announced that the company was postponing a factory expansion because Sunbeam was slowing its rate of outsourcing, and said, “Although it appears that customers such as Sunbeam are not outsourcing their manufacturing as quickly as we had anticipated, we still believe that the long-term trend toward outsourcing will continue.”Since Romney left, Bain Capital has become even more aggressive with outsourcing jobs. In fact, BainCapital has been forcing American workers to train their Chinese replacements even in the midst of thiscampaign. Aren’t they concerned that they are making their former boss look bad? The following isfrom an article written by an American worker that is having his job shipped to China by BainCapital… On Monday, November 5th Bain Capital is outsourcing my job to China. On Tuesday, November 6th I’m casting my vote against Mitt Romney. Yes, I blame Mitt Romney for the loss of my job. Here’s why. I’ve worked at the same factory in Freeport, Ill. for thirty-three years, making sensors and controls for the auto industry. It’s tough work, but it pays a living wage with health benefits that folks can count on, and it fuels our town’s economy and tax base. That’s been changing since Bain Capital came to town. Two years ago, our factory was sold to Sensata Technologies, a company created by Bain Capital, and they told us that by December 2012, all 170 of our jobs would be shipped to China. They even made us train our Chinese replacements. Layoff notices have been sent out, and some folks have already been laid off. Where there was once lots of people and energy and life, now there’s only the discoloration on the floor where the machinery used to be. It’s depressing. They’re not just dismantling the equipment and the plant; they’re dismantling our community.
    • All of this outsourcing is killing America. Back in 1950, the population of this country was less than half of what it is now, and yet there were more Americans working in manufacturing back in 1950 than there are today. The decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States has been really dramatic since the year 2000. In 2000, there were more than 17 million Americans working in manufacturing, but now there are less than 12 million…I think that it is interesting to note that China joined the WTO in 2001. Since that time we have beenlosing jobs to them at an astounding pace. According to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute,U.S. trade with China “cost more than 2.7 million jobs between 2001 and 2011″.The Chinese slap huge tariffs on many of our goods, they manipulate currency rates to make sure thatU.S. companies cannot compete, they steal our intellectual property and they deeply subsidize theirown businesses.And yet Obama and Romney insist that this is “free trade”.What a joke.And our tax structure is absolutely killing us as well. The following is from a recent article by ErnestF. Hollings… A U.S. manufacturer exporting to China pays the 35% Corporate Tax and a 17% VAT when its exports reach Shanghai. A China manufacturer exports tax free to the U.S.Are you starting to get the picture?Our trade policy is a complete and total disaster, and yet Obama andRomney continue to insist that we just need to become even moreintegrated with the emerging one world economic system.Well, in a previous article I listed 22 statistics which prove that thecurrent path that we are on has been absolutely disastrous for Americanworkers…#1 One professor has estimated that cutting the U.S. trade deficit in halfwould create 5 million more jobs in the United States.#2 The United States has a trade imbalance that is more than 7 timeslarger than any other nation on earth has.
    • #3 Overall, the United States hasrun a trade deficit of more than 8trillion dollars with the rest of theglobe since 1975. That 8 trilliondollars could have gone to supportU.S. businesses and pay the wagesof U.S. workers. Federal, state andlocal taxes would have been paidon that 8 trillion dollars if it hadstayed in the United States.#4 When NAFTA was passed in1993, the United States had a tradesurplus with Mexico of 1.6 billiondollars. In 2010, we had a tradedeficit with Mexico of 61.6 billiondollars.#5 In 2001, American consumersspent 102 billion dollars onproducts made in China. In 2011,American consumers spent 399billion dollars on products made inChina.#6 The Chinese undervalue theircurrency by about 40 percent inorder to gain a critical advantageover foreign competitors. Thismeans that many Chinese companies are able to absolutely thrive while their competition in the UnitedStates goes out of business. The following is from a recent Fox News article…. To keep Chinese products artificially inexpensive on US store shelves, Beijing undervalues the yuan by 40 percent. It pirates US technology, subsidizes exports and imposes high tariffs on imports.#7 According to the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United Statescosts about $85,000 in China thanks to all the tariffs.#8 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 295.4 billion dollars. That was the largest tradedeficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.#9 Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was only about 6 million dollars (million with an “m”)for the entireyear.#10 U.S. consumers spend about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar thatChinese consumers spend on goods and services from the United States.#11 The United States has actually lost an average of about 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month sinceChina joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.#12 According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing about half a million jobs to Chinaevery single year.
    • #13 The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001. #14 During 2010 alone, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities closed their doors in America every single day. #15 Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States. #16 As I have written about previously, 95 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were middle class jobs. #17 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue. #18 The percentage of working age Americans that are employed right now is actually smaller than it was at the end of the last recession. #19 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000. #20 Due in part to the globalization of the labor pool, only about 24 percent of all jobs in the UnitedStates are “good jobs” at this point.#21 Without enough good jobs, more Americans than ever before are falling into poverty. Today, morethan 100 million Americans are on welfare.#22 In recent years the U.S. economy has embraced “free trade” and the emerging one world economylike never before. Instead of increasing the number of jobs in our economy, it has resulted in the worststretch of job creation in the United States in modern history…. If any single number captures the state of the American economy over the last decade, it is zero. That was the net gain in jobs between 1999 and 2009—nada, nil, zip. By painful contrast, from the 1940s through the 1990s, recessions came and went, but no decade ended without at least a 20 percent increase in the number of jobs.At this point, more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job, and the vastmajority of the new jobs that are being created are low paying jobs.Median household income has fallen for four years in a row. In fact, median household income isdown by more than $4000 since Barack Obama entered the White House.One recent survey found that about 40 percent of all Americans have $500 or less in savings. We are acountry that is full of broke people.What we need are more good jobs. But Obama and Romney are both determined to keep shippinggood jobs out of the country.The path that we are on will only lead to disaster. Please wake up America.
    • Romney Is a LiberalPaul Gottfriedlewrockwell.comOctober 22, 2012For once in a blue moon, I find myself agreeing withDana Milbank of the Washington Post (October 18)when he observes that “conservatives are mum aboutMitt’s moderation.” Making allowances for Milbank’sideologically colored view, when he says that in recentweeks the Republican presidential candidate “sprintedtoward the center,” this columnist is correct on twopoints. One, Romney has abandoned just about every“conservative” social position he took during theprimaries; and two, “conservative” commentators andGOP regulars don’t seem to mind. They’re too busycelebrating Romney’s ascent in presidential polls, orelse complaining that Romney hasn’t savaged Obama’sforeign policy furiously enough.Photo: Gage Skidmore.GOP media celebrities may be receiving theirworldview as well as money from neoconservative fatcat Rupert Murdoch, who is an ardent Americaninterventionist. They seem to be oblivious to the factthat most Americans are not complaining aboutObama’s insufficient aggressiveness in internationalrelations. How many women voters or even old-timeconservatives, like me, do Republican mediacrats thinkthey’ll attract by continuing to scream about Benghazior, as Ryan did in his debate with Biden, gripe that our president didn’t get tough enough with Putinover Syria? Contrary to something else Ryan suggested in his debate with Biden, it’s not at all clear thatthe anti-government side in Syria is any more freedom-loving than those Alawi Muslims who are nowin power and whom the Russian government backs. Are we really eager to jump into another Near Eastern quagmire, particularly while we’re still involved in the occupation of two Muslim countries? And allow me to express (for a person of the Right) two other heretical ideas: I’m not sure whether Obama is more to blame for what happened in Benghazi with the attack on our embassy than was George W. Bush for 9/11. Although Obama and his staff misrepresented the facts afterwards, I can’t figure out how they were responsible for the terrorist attack itself. I’m also not sure what Romney intends to do to stop Iran
    • from developing a nuclear device. Will he join theIsraelis in launching an attack on that country? Idoubt his foreign policy advisors would hold backPresident Romney if he decided on this course.Such warlike positions may drive away far morevoters than Romney’s adherence to whateversocial positions he took as a primary candidate. Inthe primaries and once or twice since, he’s claimedto be pro-life but when Obama stated during thedebate that Romney does not support PlannedParenthood, Romney predictably tried to weaselout of the charge. What he should have answeredis that he heartily endorses all the other activitiesprovided by Planned Parenthood, but wishes this organization would restrict its activities to thoseendeavors and not facilitate abortions. But being a consummate opportunist, Romney wouldn’t takethis straightforward position. Perhaps it’s because it’s not the one that he’s consistently held throughouthis political career. When Obama accused his opponent of supporting those tough measures introducedin Arizona under Governor Jan Brewer against illegal immigration, Romney again switched colors.Although he had enthusiastically backed this law and although, as Obama correctly pointed out, hadput the person who wrote it on his advisory staff, in the second debate, Romney tried to align hisposition with Obama’s. Here too he was clearly equivocating in order to reach out to potentialDemocratic voters. And I found even more egregious his answer as to whether he supports legislationenacted by Obama and the Democrats allowing women to bring suit against employers for unequal pay(relative to what men were receiving) without time limitations. For someone who supposedly believesin a free market economy and who should not want to saddle employers with endless, expensivelitigation by groups of women claiming to have been given unequal pay in the past, Romney shouldhave explained why he opposed this legislation. Of course he did no such thing. He answered insteadby boasting about how he had recruited lots of women for his administration in Massachusetts. WhenRomney decided to outdo Obama on the subject of who could provide more student loans, I yelled outthe answer that he should have given: “They drive up tuition and leave students with debts that many ofthem will default on.” One knows more or less what four more years of Obama will bring, but Romney seems harder to figure out. He looks nice enough and does have a photogenic family. He probably would manage the economy a bit better than the present administration and would please the Right and center by probably appointing (but who knows!) less left-leaning judges to the federal courts than those favored by the Democrats. But this guy changes his positions the way Beyoncé switches her hair styles. Even worse, his supporters have been so conditioned to hate Obama that they don’t even notice.
    • US and Iran: Could Romney be tougherthan Obama? UnlikelyRoshanak Taghavicsmonitor.comOctober 22, 2012Short of conducting a unilateral military strike ordeclaring war against the Islamic Republic, aRomney administration would be faced with thesame legislative options on Iran as PresidentObama, who has already administered them.In the run-up to Monday’s debate between BarackObama and Mitt Romney, the most disputed foreignpolicy issue hasn’t been Afghanistan, where roughly68,000 US troops are still based in the fight againstAl Qaeda, or the contentious decision by the Obama administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq. As moderator Martha Raddatz said at the Oct. 11 vice-presidential debate, the biggest national securitythreat faced by the United States is now considered to be the Islamic Republic of Iran.“Every American is less secure today because [President Obama] has failed to slow Iran’s nuclearthreat,” Mitt Romney said at the Republican National Convention in August. The Republican candidatehas since argued that Mr. Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Tehran, and he has vowed to institute adifferent, harsher sanctions program that will be sure to cripple the Islamic Republic.But analysts, legal experts, and US-allied diplomats say that when it comes to sanctions on Iran, USlegislation isnt expected to differ much from one administration to another. Short of conducting aunilateral military strike or declaring war against the Islamic Republic, a Romney administration wouldbe faced with the same legislative options on Iran as President Obama, who has already administeredthem. Obama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on IranFormer President George W. Bush began implementing legislation for harsher financial sanctionsagainst Iran during his last two years in office. After the 2008 presidential election, the Obamaadministration instituted and expanded those sanctions at a speed that has made current US sanctionspolicy on Iran the harshest in contemporary history. This leaves a potential new Romney administrationwith few policy alternatives. “The only thing Romney can really do to get to the right of Obama on Iranpolicy is to say hed bomb Iran if elected president, or would actively promote and pursue a policy ofregime change,” says Karim Sajadpour, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace. “Given the misgivings Americans have about the Iraq war, I dont think those are winningtalking points for him.”Since Obama became president in 2009, his administration has used a carrot-and-stick approach withthe Islamic Republic, practicing a policy of limited engagement while boosting the implementation ofBush-era financial sanctions against Tehran and enacting new, tighter financial restrictions.Iran’s economy began feeling the bite of new US and United Nations sanctions during the last twoyears of former President Bush’s second term in office. When Obama became president, the USTreasury Department upped the ante on Iran sanctions, accelerating their implementation and obtainingconcrete commitments from US allies and private international entities to institute them as well.
    • Obama’s administration has also been tougher on US allies, particularly in Europe, flanking traditionaldiplomacy with direct pressure for collaboration on Iran policy, according to interviews with westernEuropean diplomats.“A lot of what has come out on sanctions is a result of what Congress is passing,” says Erich Ferrari, aDC-based lawyer specializing in US Treasury legislation and author of the first comprehensive guide toUS transactions regulations on Iran. “What Obama did was continue Bush-era policies and put them onsteroids.” Western European diplomats say Obama has been less willing than the Bush administrationto engage in “multilateral conversations” with Europe on sanctions, opting instead to directly pressuresome governments and private institutions to agree with and implement Washington’s unilateralsanctions laws.As a result, US financial sanctions against Iran – now considered the harshest in recent history – haveduring the last four years been integrated into the global banking system much more quickly anddeeply.The US now sanctions foreign companies that do not significantly cut or completely stop purchases ofIranian oil, and it penalizes banks engaging in financial transactions with the Islamic Republic.Coupled with a European embargo on Irans oil imposed in July, the country’s oil exports have fallen bymore than 50 percent since last year, forcing Tehran to continue reducing oil production as a result ofdeclining demand. This summer, Iraq out-produced Iran for the first time in more than twenty years,according to data from the International Energy Agency.US banking sanctions have also hindered Tehran from accessing its foreign exchange reserves heldoverseas, constraining the ability of its central bank to defend the value of Iran’s national currency,which has fallen by roughly 80 percent since last year.The European Union intensified its sanctions against Tehran last week, formally barring all trade andtransactions with Iranian banks (except those with specific EU government permission), and tighteningrestrictions against Iran’s central bank, the National Iranian Oil Company, and the National IranianTanker Company.In addition to sanctions, Iran has dealt with breaches to its security.Since January 2010, Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, has reportedly conducted covert operations leading tothe assassinations of at least four Iranian nuclear scientists, according to intelligence officials citedanonymously in a Time Magazine report. A wave of damaging cyberattacks targeting Iran’s nuclear-fuel centrifuges started in mid-2009.“After this level of sanctions, the only thing left would be a real blockade of all communications,” saysRoberto Toscano, who served as Italy’s Ambassador to Iran for five years until 2008.Aside from a military strike on Iran by either the US or Israel, which could drag Washington into aregional war, the only policy option left beyond sanctions is diplomacy, Ambassador Toscano says,adding: “If we think sanctions alone will make them cave, this is not going to happen.”Follow Roshanak Taghavi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/RoshanakTObama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on Iranhttp://www.infowars.com/