"...avoid calls for isolationism and protectionism at home"?

[Deja Q]

In other words, shippin' jobs to countries' whose wage standards are so much lower is fully allowed."


“The American economy is pre-eminent but we cannot afford to be complacent... in a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India.

Bull. China has been given and maintained MFN status since 1980. They are by now means new. India is about 5 years old from our perspective. Worst of all, YOU CANNOT COMPETE UNLESS YOU DROP WAGES AT HOME. The problem is, the corporate elite see no reason to drop prices on good OR necessities. This means their wealth rises and the economy is SEEN as good. In the REAL WORLD, this creates an imbalance which threatens to cause collapse. World collapse since everything is riding on the dollar. A situation nobody disagreed with in 1980, but sure as hell are skeptical about now!

Worse, complacency for what? Precise words, we deserve precise words because anyone worthy of being a President has the maturity to BE precise and upfront.

"This creates uncertainty..."

No, it does not. It's quite obvious what WILL happen if the offshoring status quo is maintained or massaged.

Yes, we need our children learning maths and science. We also need to show them what it will do. Right now, our children are seeing that learning these things means them absolutely NOTHING because all the jobs are going bye-bye. Of course, since isolationism and protectionism (which * has been doing in other areas!!) are wrong when it comes to money!

As for terrorism, it's amusing how we offshore jobs to foreign regions... but then go into the neighboring regions and introduce chaos, saying terrorists need to be fought on their soil and not on OURS (aka an inverse form of isolationism?!). The newly made terrorists begin seeking out US-interests OVER THERE and attack them. India need not slander America and Americans anymore; that doesn't seem to stop the terrorists from eyeballing their country - and don't forget they've already been attacked once...

Regarding liberty and freedom, cut the wiretapping bit or adding subjective laws to the Patriot Act. Anything that is written as "intent to ____" is very subjective and can easily be spun. Someone who votes "D" does not make them a suspect terrorist. It IS possible to have some security while not going overboard and psycho over it. And the wiretapping stuff not only makes people feel less at liberty (duh), it's being done outside the Rule of Law the Constitution forces us to live under.

As for oil: Bush said more or less what Carter did in 1980 about reducing consumption.

True, the speech last night SOUNDED hopeful. But until actions replace words, nobody should be taking the words at face value. After all, Bush is a politician - just like every other.

[stepnw1f]

1. "...avoid calls for isolationism and protectionism at home"

= World dominance.

[donco6]

2. Thank you.

I wasn't quite sure what he was talking about with that, but now it's all clear. ("Protectionism? Are we setting up tariffs?"/Duh). I don't know why I didn't see this right off.

[Deja Q]

3. If I read the entire transcript, it'd be clear that * doesn't know

what he is talking about either.

What I posted already has some discrepancies and flip-flops.

I'm hazy on a couple others, but if I could be bothered enough, I'd scour the thing and show how his previous actions don't tally with his newfound goals, regardless of how benign they sound.

In short, "I'll believe it when I see it" is what a large number of Americans are currently thinking.

[Just Me]

4. Well, actually, in other words, we exploit them abroad AND at home.

The robber barons are in charge. They've exploited all over the place. Now, they are exploiting their own.

They are economic cannibals and have not only the blessings of the US Government but also the firepower of our military.

This is reality, folks. Butler told us, "war is a racket", and that is precisely what this war is,...a racket.

[Idioteque]

5. I would agree with him, with one addition...

He should have said ...avoid calls for isolationism, protectionism, and unilateralism at home"?

We need to work with the rest of the world and open our markets to competition but * has no right to call others 'isolationists' when he shows no respect for the UN or our allies.