Bush Is Accused Of Favoring Chinese Over U.S. Interests

This is actually last year's news, but I doubt if it was too publicized when it came out, and I doubt all of you have read it, unless it was posted here last year, when I was never in here.

It came to mind when I saw Kerry's new ad about 3 million new jobs coming about due to Bush's administration.

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/03/0603/art1.html

Did I mention the new jobs were in China? http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/banghead.gif

I wonder how many of those millions owe their living to Anthony F. Raimondo? http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/disappointed.gif

Another group screaming for protectionism. Repeat news.

I hate it when government creates jobs - it just means they put more people on the tax roles. Its a whole lot better to have private businesses create jobs. And that can be a lot easier with less bureaucracy and lower taxes.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Another group screaming for protectionism. Repeat news.

I hate it when government creates jobs - it just means they put more people on the tax roles. Its a whole lot better to have private businesses create jobs. And that can be a lot easier with less bureaucracy and lower taxes.

I have an objection to that idealism though. When the government does the job, yes, it comes out of the tax payers pocket. When the privateer does the job, who's pocket does it come out of? The people who need the service, who are ultimately the taxpayers. It just so happens the burden shifts from who makes the most money, to a per use fee, which everyone else has to pay. The overall fee increases, because the privateer is aiming to make a profit, and will charge the highest possible price that the market can bear, so they can make the most money.

My province has government run insurance and electrical companies. They charge the lowest possible price, basically enough to keep their books balanced, and a small profit that is added to the budget of the government. It's very useful to have that small surplus, because every year, something unexpected happens that the government must pay to deal with, such as forest fires, or unexpectedly heavy snowfalls. Instead of having to borrow money from a financial institution with interest, the gov't has a slush fund they can tap. If it's not used, it goes into the next years budget.

A private company would have to charge just as much for the same service, just to break even. To make a profit, they would have to charge more, and the end result would be the tax payer paying more anyways.