Clark Announces Bold Job Creation Plan

[papau]

http://www.clark04.com/release_02.php
http://www.clark04.com/speech_02.php
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAGVO9PZKD.html

Contact: Clark Campaign Press Office
501-244-9522

Gen. Wesley K. Clark Announces Bold Job Creation Plan to Reverse Three Years of Failed Bush Policies

Plan a Key Component of Clark’s New American Patriotism

NEW YORK – To promote his ideal of a New American Patriotism, Gen.Wesley K. Clark (Ret.) today unveiled a three-pronged, $100-billion strategy to create American jobs and help middle-income families. <snip>

It would:

· Create a Homeland and Economic Security Fund of $40-billion over two years. The fund will both create jobs and boost America’s defenses by improving port security, investing in critical infrastructure and better equipping first-responders.

· Create a state and local Tax Rebate Fund of $40-billion over two years. States and local governments are in crisis, staggering under a projected $80-billion deficit. The rebate fund would return money to localities, lessening the need to raise property taxes, fees and university tuition and giving the economy room to create more jobs.

· Provide $20-billion in business tax incentives over two years. Clark’s plan would give businesses a tax credit of up to $5000 for every new employee hired in 2004 and 2005, helping to end this jobless recovery. <snip>

The deficit-neutral plan will be paid for by rolling back parts of the Bush tax cuts that have benefited the wealthy while protecting families with annual incomes of less than $200,000 from new tax burdens.


http://www.clark04.com/speech_02.php

Gen. Wesley K. Clark Announces Bold Job Creation Plan to
Reverse Three Years of Failed Bush Policies


We're here today in East River Park in New York City - across the river from the Domino Sugar Refinery, in the shadow of the Williamsburg Bridge - to show people the effects of three years of Bush Administration policies and missed opportunities. Mr. Bush has said his tax cuts for the rich will create jobs. The Domino Sugar Refinery across the river is closing; 200 workers are losing their jobs. That is hardship enough. But these workers have to look for new jobs in a Bush economy that is creating none. This bridge is like thousands across the country that should be on a list of critical infrastructure needing reinforcement. Americans should know their government is identifying potential terrorist targets and making them more secure. Doing so will create good jobs. Today, I'm going to outline a three-part jobs plan that I will send to Congress in about 16 months to help protect our critical infrastructure and get America working again.

My name is Wes Clark. I’m running for President. And I want your support. <snip>

Years Protecting the country in the 21st century requires more than a strong military. It requires a strong economy that generates jobs, economic growth, and the revenues we need to defend American lives and property - wherever they are in the world. We simply cannot have strong security without a strong economy. A key source of our strength abroad is the hard work and high employment of Americans here at home.....great inequalities in society...doesn't have to divide us - as long as everyone has a chance...you don't have a chance if you can't find a job. <snip>

Today, I’m announcing a Job Creation Plan that will direct $100 billion over two years to strengthen homeland security, assist states with education and health care and create American jobs. This Job Creation Plan is part of my overall approach – one that I will be explaining over the course of the campaign – to invest in people and economic growth, while returning to a path of long-term fiscal discipline.

My Job Creation Plan is a clear alternative to the failed policies of Mr. Bush. In his first month in office Mr. Bush told America: "A tax cut now will stimulate our economy and create jobs." Two months later, he said: "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.”

He was wrong twice. His tax cuts did not create jobs; they helped create the worst job losses in 70 years. His tax cuts not only created deficits; they helped create the worst deficits in history.

The Washington Post yesterday ran an item that explained how President Bush, urging the country to support his most recent tax cut, went to visit Timken Company, a company that makes steel bearings in Canton, Ohio. Mr. Bush predicted to factory workers that his tax cut would bring "more money for investment, more money for growth, and more money for jobs." A month later, Mr. Bush signed his $350 billion tax cut, and just last week Timken announced it is cutting 900 jobs.

The workers have no jobs, and this White House has no plan. They say tax cuts for the rich will create jobs. They say drilling in the arctic will create jobs. They say a new energy plan will create jobs. They say easing environmental regulations will create jobs. They are flailing. They are desperate. They know they have a problem, and they know they don’t have a solution. They came into office with one answer to everything. Tax cuts for the rich. But three years later – tax cuts for the rich have made us poor.

The most effective way to help an unemployed worker is not to run out and borrow billions of dollars to give to millionaires. That’s what they’re doing when they pass these massive tax cuts for the rich that deepen the deficit. They’re borrowing billions of dollars to give to millionaires. It ought to be obvious by now – it just doesn’t work. In the area of economics, this White House still needs some basic training.

My Job Creation Plan will directly fund job creation in a fiscally responsible way. Fiscal discipline requires not only reducing the deficit. It requires moving money from areas where it isn't advancing national goals, and directing it to areas where it is. So I will reduce the tax cuts Mr. Bush gave the richest households - those making more than $200,000 a year, and directs that money to three job-creating funds.

First: The Homeland and Economic Security Fund would invest $40 billion over two years to directly fund jobs that immediately improve our security. The Bush Administration has shortchanged vital areas of homeland security. The Council on Foreign Relations released a bipartisan study this summer that said that the nation is dramatically underfunding efforts to prepare police, fire and ambulance personnel for terrorist attacks. This fund would improve our defenses against terrorist attack by paying to train more firefighters and police officers, hire more Coast Guard, customs Service, and law enforcement personnel. The fund would also pay for construction projects to safeguard bridges, ports and tunnels; and fund high-tech efforts to develop ways to detect biological and chemical weapons and materials.

Second: Another $40 billion will go to the State and Local Tax Rebate Fund. Mr. Bush's tax cuts have had a brutal effect on state governments. In some states, their tax code is linked directly to the federal tax code, so a tax cut at the federal level translates into automatic tax cuts at the state level. But the states, unlike the federal government, must balance their budgets - so the Bush tax cuts force state budget cuts in areas such as education and health - even in prisons. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded that state budget cuts could push nearly 2 million people off Medicaid – denying poor mothers the chance to take a sick baby to the doctor.

My plan will give $20 billion to states to help keep tuition increases down and help state and local government train workers for new jobs. Another ten billion will go to states to help them meet the increasing cost of health care. The final ten billion will help states fund important jobs in law enforcement, corrections and social services.

Finally, my plan will set aside $20 billion over two years for Tax Incentives for Job Creation. Businesses are not hiring new employees even though the economy is growing, partly because the growth is weak and businesses aren’t sure it will last. I'm proposing a new job creation tax credit that will reduce the cost for a business to hire a new employee. The plan will offer up to $5,000 tax credit for each additional full-time employee any business hires in 2004 and 2005. The plan will also encourage small and medium-sized businesses to invest in new equipment by allowing these firms to write-off up to $150,000 in investments over the next two years.

If any businesses are thinking of buying major new equipment over the next several years, this tax change will encourage them to do it now, and create the stimulus when the economy most needs it. As President, I will also order an immediate review to determine whether any tax and spending provisions provide manufacturing firms an incentive to move jobs overseas. No tax incentives offered by the government of the United States should harm the workers of the United States. At the same time, we will review trade agreements to make sure our trading partners have opened their markets to our goods. We will insist that China should play by international norms and not set its currency at artificially low levels that give their exports unfair advantage, and we will reverse the cuts Mr. Bush has made to the Manufacturing Extension partnership - a project that is shown to help firms increase or retain jobs.

Again, this $100 billion, two-year Job Creation Plan will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it to job creating funds that will help middle-income and working class families. <snip>


Sep 24, 2003
Democratic Hopeful Clark Outlines Economic Plan
By Sara Kugler
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Wednesday outlined an economic plan that he said would move $100 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy into "job creating funds."
"My job creation plan is a clear alternative to the failed policies" of President Bush, the retired Army general told supporters and reporters in Manhattan. "Tax cuts for the rich have made us poor."
Delivering a 20-minute policy speech at a park along the East River, Clark said he would take the money that Bush gave the wealthy in tax cuts and create three funds: for homeland security, business tax incentives and relief for state governments.Clark, who declared his candidacy last week, said he would allocate $40 billion for improvement of homeland security and the creation of security-related jobs such as police, fire and the Coast Guard.
Another $40 billion would be earmarked for state governments struggling under federal tax cuts, and $20 billion would be used as tax incentives for businesses who hire new employees. The plan, Clark said, "will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it into job-creating funds that will help middle income and working class families." <snip>

[qb]

1. Oooh! This guy's good!

"New American Patriotism"
"Homeland and Economic Security Fund"
"State and Local Tax Rebate Fund"
"Job Creation Plan"

He's ripping the neocons' favorite catch phrases right out of their slimy Orwellian paws!

[StephNW4Clark]

3. It was never their phrases to begin with...

...they're just wolves dressed up in Dem clothing. Compassionate conservatism??? What the hell is that?

[boxster]

5. I have to say that

this really is a nice comeback to his apparent unpreparedness last week.

The debate should be interesting.

[Pltcl_jnky]

2. so his plan

is to create federal government jobs....and give tax incentive to business' which is ripe with looholes allowing corporations to recieve millions in tax incentives by hiring people and then turning around and firing them.....

it is a plan and gives him a start

but face the facts that even republicans do not understand Government DOES NOT CREATE JOBS!!!!!

People, businesses the free market creates jobs....the government usually just screws shit up

[StephNW4Clark]

4. Um...FDR's New Deal

"Government DOES NOT CREATE JOBS!!!!!"

Please see FDR's 3-term presidency

[Don Galt]

16. The basic fallacy...

This is the basic fallacy that too many liberals and republicans both fall into.

FDR Destroyed far more jobs than he created.

So will Clarks plan.

When you take money from taxes and put it into job creation, you always destroy more jobs than you create.

This is because the money that was taken in taxes would haveo therwise gone to create jobs.

Instead its diverted to the governments job creation program which is going to be less efficient because it will tend to benefit areas where the government thinks jobs should be created-- not necessarily areas where the jobs are viable. Thus jobs get created in the program, and then when the program ends, the jobs go away.

If the money had been left in peoples pockets, the money would have been used to, ultimately, create jobs in areas where the market needed them-- and the market would have kept thos jobs around indefinately.

FDRs "great works" created lots of temporary construction jobs... but prevented the creation of far more permanent jobs with the taxes taken out of the economy to pay for his "great works". And then the construction jobs went away... but the jobs that would have been created would have lasted a long time.

The great depression wouldn't have happened without FDR. Stock crashes don't create depressions... they create recessions, but to really screw up the economy, you need the government moving tax money around and preventing the market from recovering.

This is an example basic economic fallacy called the broken window fallacy.

This same fallacy is why government too often increases poverty with aid programs that are poorly designed.

[TrogL]

18. Oh, kewl, a supply sider

Can we keep him as a pet?

[BigBadVodoDaddy]

6. Clark's da man to beat!

But I like Dean also. I will bash no dem before its time.

[_NorCal_D_]

7. This

is a very well thought out plan.

I like it!

[StephNW4Clark]

9. Clark is a solid econ guy...

He taught economics at West Point. He was also a White House Fellow in the Office of Budget & Management (something like that, can't remember exactly). And he had to manage the budget of the entire US military stationed in Europe - including healthcare, education, etc. I know most people think he's "just" a military guy and that's it - but his intelligence extends far past the battlefield.

[Code_Name_D]

14. West point?

I didn't know West Point had any relivence withen the feild of Economics. Douse Clark have any academic titles?

[ewagner]

8. Bummer

He just gave Bush some ideas.

I do like the idea of providing tax incentives for hiring employees.


Is this similar to some other democratic plans?

[Code_Name_D]

10. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

I have been looking for a chance to size up some of Clark's economic goal, strategies, and his understanding of the problems that we face. According to many however, Clark has strong ties to the DLC, and there is plenty of evidence to back up this claim. If this is so, that we need to be extremely suspicious of the specifics of the plan, because the DLC is on the record for wanting to preserve the statuse qou.

My readings of Clark's Job Creation program.

First: 40bill to "Homeland Security." Now I have to be extremely leery of any one who wants to continue this "war on terror." And at first glance, this would raise that flag. But the things he wants to spend it on however, doesn't sound like the fascist model of "security" put foreword by the administration. Additional police, fighter fighters, EMT's, Emergency response and other such personnel and recourses are truly eliminates you would need for a strong defense, with or even with out a "war on terror." But defenses set aside, this time of basic investment into infrastructure is just what the economy needs. I say he earns a PLUS (+1) here.

Second: Another $40 billion will go to the State and Local Tax Rebate Fund. Any thing to close the budget gap with the states has got to be a good thing. And Clark is right about the tax cuts automatically reducing state revenues. PLUS, PLUS (+3). Unfortunately, this doesn't speak to the true nature of State budget short falls. The relentless cutting of taxes, exposing the remaining tax bases to risky and unpredictable revenue streams (such as sales taxes, lotteries, and market investments) and an absolute refusal to raise taxes. The writing is on the wall. Taxes must be restored. Any thing short of this will fail to stabilize the economy, let alone begin its recovery.

Three: 20bill to states to keep tuition increases down. Red Flag here! Careful note of the wording; "keep tuition increases down." NOT to reduce tuition. This isn't a bad thing, or a sign of deception, but not every one will catch this subtly, and may mistakenly conclude he seeks to reduce tuition. NEUTRAL.

Also, part of that same 20bill will go to local government job retraining programs. While I am not against job retraining. But the problem isn't moving the work force from an over populated field, but the reliability of jobs in any given field. The fact is that no job is safe in America, save those of the CEO's. Wages are being cut across the board, over time pay is threatened, whole factories are being moved overseas, and "service sector" jobs, jobs that can not be moved, can now be taken by foreign workers who are imported into the US on mass to take our jobs at 1/3rd the pay. Job retraining fails to address the reality, and I fear his mentioning of this, is nothing more than a sound bite intended to appeal to the publics ignorance of the recent changes in the economies structure. MINUS (+2)

Finally, my plan will set aside $20 billion over two years for Tax Incentives for Job Creation. Businesses are not hiring new employees even though the economy is growing, partly because the growth is weak and businesses aren’t sure it will last. I'm proposing a new job creation tax credit that will reduce the cost for a business to hire a new employee. The plan will offer up to $5,000 tax credit for each additional full-time employee any business hires in 2004 and 2005. The plan will also encourage small and medium-sized businesses to invest in new equipment by allowing these firms to write-off up to $150,000 in investments over the next two years. ... If any businesses are thinking of buying major new equipment over the next several years, this tax change will encourage them to do it now, and create the stimulus when the economy most needs it. Red Flag here!

This is a clasic DLC talking point. Repugs yak about tax cuts. DLC dems yak about "tax incentives." But not only that, but much of this is patently wrong. Let us count the ways.

1. The economy is NOT GROWING. It is contracting. The "growth" is little more than slight of hand through statistical manipulation, market manipulation, with a side of incompetence. (All though he did note that "growth is weak", but that is STILL one of the Bush talking points.)

2. Companies are not "failing to higher workers" but are looking for cheap labor in all sectors. Near slave labor over seas and the importing of immigrant workers for 1/3 US wages. The only way tax incentives can reverse this is if these incentives provide more funds than the use of cheap labor. Will a one time $5,000 tax credit fit that bill? Not a chance. I'll be generous, let us suppose he suppose he means 5,000 per year, per employee. That is only the equivalent of $2.60 per hour advantage to your own wages.

But even that set aside, its another give the money to the rich man approach, the employee. Do we really need to bribe companies to higher American companies?

3. "The plan will also encourage small and medium-sized businesses to invest in new equipment by allowing these firms to write-off up to $150,000 in investments over the next two years." Oh please. This is right out of the supply sider's lay book. And is repeating the same mistakes presented by Bush's tax cuts. The tax cuts argued that this would free up more money for investments. This is EXACTLY what Clark is proposing, freeing up more money through tax incentives for more investments.

The problem is that the demand side of the equation is not addressed. If you encourage investments without any increase in demand to support it, you have a bubble economy.

These are not "minuses", but systematic flaws.

As President, I will also order an immediate review to determine whether any tax and spending provisions provide manufacturing firms an incentive to move jobs overseas. No tax incentives offered by the government of the United States should harm the workers of the United States.

Oh yay. "Lets study it some more." Hay Clark, if you truly want to address the deportation of jobs, look no further than the NAFTA GATT agreements, as well as immigration regulations and "guest worker" programs.

I also find it ironic that he wants to install one set of incentives, while removing another set of incentives.

Unfortunately, I don't think he is going to challenge NAFTA GATT.

At the same time, we will review trade agreements to make sure our trading partners have opened their markets to our goods. We will insist that China should play by international norms and not set its currency at artificially low levels that give their exports unfair advantage,

Okay. Not this is getting down right embarrassing. We have problems with the US economy, and we want to blame some one else. Corporations are moving whole factories over seas, and he wants to "open new markets."

Clearly we see Clark thinks that it is the CEO's who need the fiscal help, even while the rest of us go digging in garbage cans for our meals.

Again, this $100 billion, two-year Job Creation Plan will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it to job creating funds that will help middle-income and working class families. BIG BIG Red Flag here!

This is not just false, but logically absurd. If it can be argued that the $100bill in tax cuts increases the deficit, and Clark would tell us that he is simply moving the $100bill from the tax cuts to his jobs growth program, than logically, the jobs growth program ALSO increases the deficit.

Sorry Clark, I am less than impressed. The more I here of him, the more connived I am that he is yet another Republican light candidate.

[German-Lefty]

11. Corrections

Hey Code_Name_D, I'm not a big Clark supporter, but I think you made some errors. So for the sake of arguement I'll take Clark's side on a few.

Also, part of that same 20bill will go to local government job retraining programs. While I am not against job retraining. But the problem isn't moving the work force from an over populated field, but the reliability of jobs in any given field.
Every coutry has got a few industries that are going the way of the DoDo where people need to be retrained. Look for things subsidised like farming, or coal mining (in Germany). Of coarse pulling things like this off is hard, so I'm dubious too that the 20bill is going help.

Finally, my plan will set aside $20 billion over two years for Tax Incentives for Job Creation. Businesses are not hiring new employees even though the economy is growing, partly because the growth is weak and businesses aren’t sure it will last. I'm proposing a new job creation tax credit that will reduce the cost for a business to hire a new employee. The plan will offer up to $5,000 tax credit for each additional full-time employee any business hires in 2004 and 2005. The plan will also encourage small and medium-sized businesses to invest in new equipment by allowing these firms to write-off up to $150,000 in investments over the next two years. ... If any businesses are thinking of buying major new equipment over the next several years, this tax change will encourage them to do it now, and create the stimulus when the economy most needs it.
Will a one time $5,000 tax credit fit that bill? Not a chance. I'll be generous, let us suppose he suppose he means 5,000 per year, per employee. That is only the equivalent of $2.60 per hour advantage to your own wages.

I believe the 5K is one time. Here's the deal. Employers have to a financial risk when hiring someone. They have to interview, train, establish trust, and pay the guy a few months before he's useful. Giving them some money to offset some of this cost is the idea.

If you make the incentive too high though you're right companies will just hire and fire to keep collecting the money. This isn't profitable for most "good" jobs. If you hire a programmer to work on a project, the first few months will be spent teaching him about the code he'll work on. That'll cost more than 5 grand.

As President, I will also order an immediate review to determine whether any tax and spending provisions provide manufacturing firms an incentive to move jobs overseas. No tax incentives offered by the government of the United States should harm the workers of the United States.
I also find it ironic that he wants to install one set of incentives, while removing another set of incentives.

Managing an economy means using the carrot and the stick, to get companies/people to do what you want. I know you're not some libertarian, who argues it should never be done.

At the same time, we will review trade agreements to make sure our trading partners have opened their markets to our goods. We will insist that China should play by international norms and not set its currency at artificially low levels that give their exports unfair advantage,
Okay. Not this is getting down right embarrassing. We have problems with the US economy, and we want to blame some one else. Corporations are moving whole factories over seas, and he wants to "open new markets."

Dude, China keeps it's currency low to take US manufacturing jobs. This is basically a subsidy on China's exports by the Chinese government. If they would float thier currency those industries might be able to compete here in the US. The flip side is the high stable dollar makes them want to invest in the US debt and so intrest rates will shoot up, if they do float it. Either way the US is screwed.

Basically the Chinese are screwing the US manufacturing jobs like the US screws 3rd world agricultural industries through subsidies. Are you saying we should let them keep doing this?

I've also heard there are issues where the US government is insuring investments made in China. This should be seen as foriegn aid and made public.

Again, this $100 billion, two-year Job Creation Plan will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it to job creating funds that will help middle-income and working class families.
This is not just false, but logically absurd. If it can be argued that the $100bill in tax cuts increases the deficit, and Clark would tell us that he is simply moving the $100bill from the tax cuts to his jobs growth program, than logically, the jobs growth program ALSO increases the deficit.

Deficit = the rate of change of the debt per fiscal year.
US deficit = 0.5T$
US debt = 6+T$ (see national debt clock)
So he's proposing changes that don't change the deficit. It'll still stay around 0.5T$, unless of coarse the economy does summersaults causing tax revenue to increase (arguement abused supply siders).

It's politically a very good idea to propose something which "doesn't raise taxes" on average. If people complain about the deficit, hey that's Bush's fault, we'll take care of that after you pass this bill. Nobody is going to blast him for taking money from the rich to create jobs. If he balanced the budget and did these other things, they'd call him a tax and spend libral. It is often important in politics to divide two issues and conquer them seperately.

[Code_Name_D]

13. Welcome to the Devils Advocate.

Jobs Retraining.
Every coutry has got a few industries that are going the way of the DoDo where people need to be retrained. Look for things subsidised like farming, or coal mining (in Germany). Of coarse pulling things like this off is hard, so I'm dubious too that the 20bill is going help.

But that is the lie, isn't it. Textiles and other forms of heavy manufacturing has already gone the way of the Dodo. But if that is true, then where are all the textiles and other products coming from? If their is a new jacket for sale on a rack some where, than textiles has NOT gone the way of the Dodo. They have instead gone to sweat shops in other countries, using slave or near slave labor. Jobs are only being displaced not ended.

Of course, some retraining is necessary. And Clinton did push through a strong retraining program with vary persuasive arguments behind it. Clinton presumed that globalization was here to stay, and that we should expect low tech jobs to continue migrating to 3rd world countries. That we should adapt to this new reality. The jobs retraining programs was that adaptation. Clinton argued, and quite convincingly might add, that we should retrain the low tech labor force into a high tech one. Move from textiles and manufacturing, to service and technical position such as electronics and IT.

But last year, the critical flaw in that resonating was revealed when high tech electronics, engineering, IT, bio-tech, and other high end jobs fields began moving from the US to places like India, China, and Russia. To take advantage of highly training and educated workers who still had few personal liberties or options but to take these low paying, yet highly technical jobs. Other jobs that can not be transplanted are being taken up by immigrant workers who are recruited on mass at home, and brought in to take over these jobs at a fraction of the pay given to US workers.

The short coming of jobs retraining is the fact that no job is safe. And in this "lightning speed" economy, a thriving field when a displaced worker enrolls in retraining, may be on the way to being depopulated when he or she graduates within two to six years. But that worker may only get a few years of productivity out of his training, before job transplantation inevitably hits his field, and forced him or her to repeat the process.

Tax Incentives for Job Creation.
I believe the 5K is one time.

You are correct. I concede my error here when I tried to argue that this plan was to compete with foreign workers, but is in fact an incentive to higher new workers.

Here's the deal. Employers have to a financial risk when hiring someone. They have to interview, train, establish trust, and pay the guy a few months before he's useful. Giving them some money to offset some of this cost is the idea.

If you make the incentive too high though you're right companies will just hire and fire to keep collecting the money. This isn't profitable for most "good" jobs. If you hire a programmer to work on a project, the first few months will be spent teaching him about the code he'll work on. That'll cost more than 5 grand.

It is interesting to note that that CEO's are paid vast sums of money because they take risks and manage risks, but that the risk to higher new workers need to be off-set to encourage new highers. If this is truly a risk, then why are proven workers not retained, minimizing the risk? The opposite is happening as corporations now use a "just in time" work force model. But to make maters WORSE, it seems that the corps have their own retraining program, using the current labor force to train the near slave labor force to take over the jobs.

Step one: pay for workers retraining. Step two: subsidize new highers. Sounds increasingly like a managed economy.

Review trade agreements.
Dude, China keeps it's currency low to take US manufacturing jobs. This is basically a subsidy on China's exports by the Chinese government. If they would float thier currency those industries might be able to compete here in the US. The flip side is the high stable dollar makes them want to invest in the US debt and so intrest rates will shoot up, if they do float it. Either way the US is screwed.

Basically the Chinese are screwing the US manufacturing jobs like the US screws 3rd world agricultural industries through subsidies. Are you saying we should let them keep doing this?

I've also heard there are issues where the US government is insuring investments made in China. This should be seen as foriegn aid and made public.

The same can be said of Malaise, S. Korea, Mexico, Chili, Madagascar, and so on. The list is vary long of other countries that do the same thing. As it was designed to be by the NAFTA GATT agreements. The reason many countries are tied to the dollar is to prevent speculative currency attacks.

And the problem isn't that China is not open to foreign products as much as the fact that America doesn't manufacture any thing to sell. And the few exceptions to this are manufactured in third world countries.

Dose this deal suck for America? You bet it dose. Because NAFTA GATT doesn't serve America, but instead serves the American corporations.

My point here is that I am unimpressed by Clarks intentions to review trade deals. Trade deals which are enforced by the NAFTA GATT accords. And what makes my teeth crack with rage is the fact that President Clark doses not have the authority to even challenge these trade agreements. Not "legally" any way.

Tax cuts vs Jobs creation program.
Clark:
Again, this $100 billion, two-year Job Creation Plan will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it to job creating funds that will help middle-income and working class families.

Me:
This is not just false, but logically absurd. If it can be argued that the $100bill in tax cuts increases the deficit, and Clark would tell us that he is simply moving the $100bill from the tax cuts to his jobs growth program, than logically, the jobs growth program ALSO increases the deficit.

German Lefty:
So he's proposing changes that don't change the deficit. It'll still stay around 0.5T$, unless of coarse the economy does summersaults causing tax revenue to increase (arguement abused supply siders).

Only if one respects the Bush tax cuts, and considers them to be the working standard. This is not the sign of some one prepared to challenge Bush.

It's politically a very good idea to propose something which "doesn't raise taxes" on average.

I am aware of this political reality. But that in and of itself is part of the problem as the only real solution that fits the problem is denied to us by ideology. Any government that sacrifices the practical to the ideological can not long survive. The only solution to this is to educate the general population about basic economic principals. If Clark is truly the "Second coming Clinton" as some Clark Cluckers would have me believe, than he should be out their trying to educate the public, not bowing to public misconceptions. To do the later, insures that nothing will change.

[German-Lefty]

15. Come back

Jobs Retraining
Subsidizing education is also a good idea if
a) workers can't afford to pay for their education themselves
and
b) buisness can't expect employees to stay with them after they foot the bill.

The whole white collar outsourcing to India is in part because their government pays for thier training and ours doesn't. Of coarse if Indians programmers get brain-drained to the US, they loose money, but many of them don't and so now they're cashing in on the whole "trickle down".

Of coarse, if you have too much labor but not enough aggregate demand, training doesn't help.

Tax Incentives for Job Creation.
Step one: pay for workers retraining. Step two: subsidize new highers.
Sounds like something you can do only if there are guys standing around needing to be trained and hired that will work just as well for less (or you're really expanding).

Of coarse, if you have too much labor but not enough aggregate demand, giving tax incentives to hire poeple doesn't help.

Review trade agreements.
And the problem isn't that China is not open to foreign products as much as the fact that America doesn't manufacture any thing to sell.
Right because the at 1$ a day, there's no reason to pay an Amerian to do what a Chinaman can.

Because NAFTA GATT doesn't serve America, but instead serves the American corporations.
Hmm, my guess is that though the deals may seem neutral, the politicians push the WTO to do what corporations want, not the public.

And what makes my teeth crack with rage is the fact that President Clark doses not have the authority to even challenge these trade agreements. Not "legally" any way.
Our country has a hell of a lot of claut when it comes to trade. Compare us to all the 3rd world countries combined. The problem is that this claut is used in smokey back rooms to push corporate agendas instead of national ones let alone ones for fair trade and a better world.

Deficit Neutral
I am aware of this political reality. ... The only solution to this is to educate the general population about basic economic principals.

Right, I'd give Clark a couple more months to try and do that.

Though, I aggree with you, I would have much rather heard the man rant "We need to be fiscally responsible. We need to repeal the dividend tax give-away. We should just repeal every financial law that based in Shrub's term."

[TrogL]

12. I didn't follow all this

so I'll address a single point.

He's planning on giving incentives to business to hire people to do.....what???

A friend of mine runs a store. He has two employees. The economy is a wreck and nobody's buying. They're just managing to tread water. The employees spend their days wandering a empty store dusting furniture. Hiring another person to dust furniture isn't going to increase sales.

I do, however, like his idea of fixing the infrastructure. It's classic Keynes and waaaaaay overdue. Nova routinely runs shows on the woeful state of American bridges (which is probably where he got it from). My understanding, though, is the highways are a wreck as well and I shudder to imagine the state of the sewers.

Clark, as a military man, could easily run on a platform of retrenching the military and rebuilding the infrastructure and get away with it.

NOw if we can just find a way of keeping Halliburton and Bechtel from bidding the contracts and we'd be all set.

[German-Lefty]

17. aggregate demand vs. labor

He's planning on giving incentives to business to hire people to do.....what???

If you have too much labor but not enough aggregate demand (demand to buy goods/services), the economy sucks. This is my personal theory. If the people that have jobs can produce enough crap to keep them happy from each other and then some, then it's hard to get the economy to make more jobs. Also there may be a bidding war between workers which may make salaries decrease more.

"Working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need." -- fight club

This pretty much sums up what I think is wrong with the captialist economy. Productivity is so high you don't know how to piss it all away to justfy making people work.

It'd probably be better for quality of life, the enviroment, and every thing else, if we'd stop working so damn much and enjoyed life. Of coarse this is a really unintellectual theory of the economy. It's just what my gut says.