. November 17, 2006 SouthAmerica: The United States government is in denial about a lot of trends that is developing in this country â and how the US government is dealing to solve the problems? By creating new categories of people, and by changing its classifications on government reports. Basically, if you create a new category then the problems go away. Problem solved. To keep the unemployment rate low in the United States â the US government had a simple solution: just create a new category âDiscouraged Workersâ and dump in that category millions and millions of people who otherwise would be classified as unemployed. Here is another example. It does not look good for the United States to show to the world (mainly after Katrina) that over 35 million people in the United States are going hungry on a daily basis. How the US government is fixing this problem? By reclassification; instead of describing the 35 million Americans who donât have enough food to eat as âHungryâ â the US government describes this group as âLow food security.â Here we go again: this is another example, and a new success story, of how Americans are solving social problems today. Here is a portion of the CNN report: ROMANS: Now, this government getting some grief for dropping the word "hunger" from its classifications. "Low food security" is how the government wants to characterize what 35 million people experience in this country. Critics say changing what hunger is called for whatever bureaucratic reason it might be, changing what it's called doesn't change the reality that too many Americans in this day and age are still hungry. DOBBS: Well, this administration should be marched straight over to a dictionary, the entire administration, and taught that words actually are important in their meaning, and to take -- create something called food insecurity, I mean, that is disgusting. We're talking about people being left hungry in this country. ********* Transcript of the CNN television show: Lou Dobbs Tonight - November 16 2006 â¦An incredible report tonight, unbelievable to those in this country who believe that five years of so-called economic growth is reaching all levels of society in this country. Today, the USDA reports that tens of millions of people in this country are struggling to put food on the table. Christine Romans reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Last year, 35 million people struggled to put food on the table. And the Agriculture Department reports the number of the poorest, hungriest Americans keeps rising. Five years into an economic recovery, deep concerns that prosperity is not being shared. KATE COLER, DEP. UNDERSECRETARY, USDA: There are some families that do face food insecurity, and that's why we're so aggressive with our programs to reach out to people so that they are aware of the food assistance programs that are available to them. ROMANS: Thirty-six percent of poor families have what the government calls low food security. If it weren't for $33 billion in government assistance, that number would be higher. Living above the poverty line is no guarantee of food on the table. Families on the cusp of the middle class are seeing stubborn hunger rates. Of families earning around $37,000 or more, more than five percent had trouble putting food on the table. JAMES WEILL, FOOD RESEARCH & ACTION CENTER: Some of the middle class are joining working poor families and other poor families in what the government calls food insecurity. And we just see families struggling to not be hungry on a regular basis. ROMANS: Stagnant wages, higher healthcare and energy costs putting a squeeze on the food budget. The government says the typical family of four spends $150 a week for food. A full-time minimum wage jobs earns just $205 a week. Advocates for a higher minimum wage seized on the hunger data. MAUDE HURD, ACORN: I think the minimum wage certainly will help alleviate some of that. You know, people right now have to decide on whether they should eat quality food or put gas in the car to go to work. ROMANS: A choice working Americans should not have to make. (END VIDEOTAPE) ROMANS: Now, this government getting some grief for dropping the word "hunger" from its classifications. "Low food security" is how the government wants to characterize what 35 million people experience in this country. Critics say changing what hunger is called for whatever bureaucratic reason it might be, changing what it's called doesn't change the reality that too many Americans in this day and age are still hungry. DOBBS: Well, this administration should be marched straight over to a dictionary, the entire administration, and taught that words actually are important in their meaning, and to take -- create something called food insecurity, I mean, that is disgusting. We're talking about people being left hungry in this country. ROMANS: That's what a lot of the advocates are saying here today. They say hungry is hungry, period. DOBBS: It's -- what are they -- food insecurity? ROMANS: There's low food security. DOBBS: These are just abject idiots. I don't even want to -- and the fact that we have this problem in this country in the 21st century, it's reprehensible, whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, no matter what. Thirty-five million people. ROMANS: And the Bush administration has set a target to cut that number in half by 2010. And so far, there is still a long way to go. DOBBS: Cut it in half? ROMANS: Cut the rate of low food security in half. DOBBS: So 17.5 million should be feeling better about their prospects. Unbelievable. All right. Thank you very much, Christine Romans. ********** SouthAmerica: In the same program Lou Dobbs mentioned the military challenge posed by communist China. I wonder how China can be a military problem for the United States when the United States is spending 10 times the amount that China is spending in defense spending in an annual basis. It does not make sense to me. The program also mentioned the following: âIf the Chinese government wants to be taken seriously as a responsible partner in global affairs it must learn to balance its narrow self-interests with the greatest interest of the world community. SCHIAVONE: From currency manipulation to a secretive military buildup to supporting oppressive regimes in exchange for natural resources, the report finds China is a bad actor on the world stage.â I wonder if these people were talking about China or the United States in last few decades. *** DOBBS: More evidence tonight concerning the rising economic and military challenge posed by communist China. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in a critical report tells Congress it must increase pressure on the Bush administration to hold communist China accountable for its unfair trade practices and military buildup. Louise Schiavone reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The words are bureaucratic, the delivery bland, but the message is unmistakable. China is a problem. CAROLINE BATHOLOMEW, VICE CHAIRMAN, USCC: If the Chinese government wants to be taken seriously as a responsible partner in global affairs it must learn to balance its narrow self-interests with the greatest interest of the world community. SCHIAVONE: From currency manipulation to a secretive military buildup to supporting oppressive regimes in exchange for natural resources, the report finds China is a bad actor on the world stage. LARRY WERTZEL, CHAIRMAN, USCC: Its sense of responsibility in the way that American political leaders envisioned it has not kept up with that expanding power. SCHIAVONE: The commission calls on Congress to press the Bush administration for World Trade Organization penalties against china for currency manipulation and intellectual piracy, call for more effective intelligence gathering about China's military buildup and development. Resist Chinese efforts to isolate Taiwan and call on the White House to pressure China to use its influence in Sudan to help end the slaughter in Darfur. WILLIAM HAWKINS, U.S. BUSINESS & INDUSTRY COUNCIL: So they are using every device and every method they can to build up their industry, their military capabilities, amass money, amass technology, to be the next great power. SCHIAVONE: The commission is concerned about what appears to be China's intention to project power not only in the Pacific, but also in space, with sophisticated weapons that can take out U.S. command and control satellites. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The chances of making a mistake that could lead to a conflict are greater. The Chinese are spending a lot on defense, a lot more than they say publicly and they have upgraded their military. SCHIAVONE: In China's raw self interest, preventing nuclear proliferation in North Korea, the commission calls for a formal agreement whereby China would inspect ships at sea bound to or from North Korean ports. (END VIDEOTAPE) SCHIAVONE (on camera): Lou, the Bush administration defends its approach to China and agrees with the commission that China must be held to its commitments, but the commission is clearly concerned that China perceives its only commitment to itself. Lou? DOBBS: Well, that's usually the case with nation states and should not come, as it apparently does, a shock to this administration or any other for that matter. Louise, thank you. Louise Schiavone from Washington. .
. November 17, 2006 SouthAmerica: This portion of the program also it was interesting. ********* Transcript of the CNN television show: Lou Dobbs Tonight - November 16 2006 â¦Well, Jacob Weisberg of slate.com recently wrote a column calling last week's winning Democrats the Lou Dobbs Democrats. He used the term to describe many of those who won on November 7th. In his article he says that I'm not an independent populist, but rather an economic nationalist. Here is the quote. "The leading economic nationalist today is probably Lou Dobbs who natters," natters, Jacob, "on against free trade, outsourcing, globalization and immigration." Jacob Weisberg, editor of slate.com, joins us here. Jacob, good to have you here. JACOB WEISBERG, SLATE.COM EDITOR: Thank you, Lou. Sorry about the "nattering." But now I'll natter a little bit as well. DOBBS: We'll have a natter off as it were. The idea of this issue of economic nationalist versus the idea of -- Whatever the label may be, why is economic nationalist your take on my position, on immigration, outsourcing, off-shoring, free trade? Why would that be? WEISBERG: Well, I mean this really as a descriptive term. An economic populist is someone who tends to blame the rich for problems. An economic nationalist tends to blame foreigners or foreign countries. You do both. I think you are a populist and a nationalist. DOBBS: Thank you very much for expanding my world. The truth is I don't blame the poor of the world. I don't believe I ever have on this broadcast. What I have blamed are the idiot elites in government and in business in this country that put our middle class in direct competition with the poor in those countries, and I have certainly blamed fully and frequently the CEOs in this country are making in a day what it takes two parents if a household is fortunate enough to have both parents, all year for both them to earn. I think I blame pretty squarely the elites in this country, the wealthy, CEOs, senior executives that would do that. WEISBERG: Where I think are you most wrong is to think that free trade hurts the middle class. There are people in specific, affected industries who are certainly losers from trade in a very specific way. But overall, it helps everyone, and that's the economic logic of free trade is both sides win. I make a deal with you and we're both better off. The problem is the specific industry, you may lose out to foreign competition and we haven't done enough to help the people who have been the losers from not only free trade and globalization, but from technology gains and so forth. DOBBS: To put a metaphor together, what you are really saying is we should serve up our middle class, some of them will be cannon fodder in the free trade contest, but we'll bring bandages for their wounds and try to carry out triage. WEISBERG: Not at all, but ... DOBBS: Here is the reality, though. Just see -- as we look at the facts of this, and that's all I'm interested in here, the facts. How many trade deficits have we run since the day Congress ceded its constitutional authority to the president on trade, 1976? How many consecutive trade deficits? WEISBERG: I'm not sure I have the answer to the quiz question. DOBBS: I'm sorry. I shouldn't put it as a - I don't mean to do that at all. It's 30 consecutive years. Over the course of the past 10 we've run up $5 trillion in trade debt. We've lost 4 million manufacturing jobs in this country in the past six. We've lost 3 million middle class jobs to outsourcing. We have allowed our elites to put our middle class in direct competition with the cheapest labor in the world. WEISBERG: Running a trade deficit as opposed to running a significant fiscal deficit over time isn't necessarily bad. We now exist in a globalized world. A very large number of middle class jobs are dependent on exporting. And we have jobs in this country that come when Toyota starts a plant here decides to employ 30,000 people to build cars in the U.S. If you cut yourself off from globalization, you make everybody poor. DOBBS: See, you are starting to sound -- and this is what bothers me. You are starting to sound like a Bush administration economic spokesman. And I don't mean to insult you ... WEISBERG: That's the first time I have been accused of that, but go on. DOBBS: It's almost like - because this administration is trying to define me as an economic isolationist, a protectionist, because I want mutual, reciprocal, balanced trade. I want to see the United States export as much as it imports. I want to see those jobs created by exports. Instead, what we're witnessing is a rising dependency in this country, not only on foreign oil, which is a great focus, but have a great dependency in this country on everything. From consumer electronics, computers, technology equipment, to the clothing we wear on foreign producers. We can't even clothe ourselves in this country. WEISBERG: Well, first of all, there is some advantage to that. You did a report earlier in your show about people who are hungry in this country and I share your deploring food insecurity. DOBBS: They are not hungry, they are food insecure. There are only 35 million of them and I am waiting to hear how free trade is going to solve that. WEISBERG: My point is that everything would you do would make food more expensive, would make clothes more expensive, would make toys more expensive. And you would make those people worse off. DOBBS: Wait a minute. I'm lost. What would I do? WEISBERG: If for example, you pulled out of NAFTA or didn't pass another trade agreement. DOBBS: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I have never said I would pull out of NAFTA. I have said I would reshape it and reform it. I have never said that I would put up a single tariff. What I have said is that no free trade agreement would exist unless it were free trade. This is faith-based economics you and I are watching and all of us are feeling in this country, so that Wal- Mart can become the third largest export market for China's exports is absurd. While inflation is rising in this country, while a pair of sneakers that cost $4 to build is being sold for $70 in this country. There are some huge disconnects. Meanwhile, we have had stagnant wages for 30 years in this country. This is not an economy that is benefiting all Americans. WEISBERG: For one thing, if you have stagnant wages and I agree, that's a very serious problem and cheaper goods, people are doing better, not worse, because they are making the same amount of money and goods cost them less. But that's only part of the argument for free trade. It's that these jobs depend on ... DOBBS: Do you really suggest this is free trade being practiced by this administration? WEISBERG: I do. Well, I'm not a defender of the administration. But I think all of the trade agreements, the World Trade Organization, free trade with Vietnam, all of these things will make us better off and they will make the countries we deal with better off. It's happening all the time. DOBBS: Do you know that the U.S. Trade Representative's office has said on two separate occasions, once with its trade representative and secondly with the deputy trade representative, acknowledged that each one of our free trade agreements has resulted and will result in higher surpluses for our trading partners in every instance. So when you talk about bilateral trade, the cumulative effect is an ever- increasing deficit. WEISBERG: These aren't deals that say we'll buy as much as we sell. These are deals that say we're going to have free trade, and if we're competitive, you will buy us from and you'll sell to us. DOBBS: Yes, it says all of that and what we have seen is the outsourcing of 3 million jobs, 14 million more in jeopardy right now. We have seen wages stagnate, not rise. Prosperity not expand across this society, but narrow. Thirty-thousand dollars. Do you know how many people make less than $30,000 in this country? Half. Half of the people. And when here, orthodox people either on the left or right, and I'm not going to suggest that you're either one, but the idea of not looking at the facts completely confounds me. WEISBERG: What are the facts? I'm not a defender of Bush economic policy but 4.4 percent unemployment is hardly an economic crisis. DOBBS: It is in your judgment. For 35 million people who are hungry, not food insecure, for 48 million people who do not have health insurance in this country, this is ... WEISBERG: The problem is I agree with you those are the problems, but if we took your prescription, those numbers would go up. DOBBS: What is my prescription? WEISBERG: Your prescription, I think, is to pull back from globalization and free trade agreements. DOBBS: No, my prescription is to engage in globalization, to engage in mutual, reciprocal and balanced trade. WEISBERG: Balanced trade is not free trade. Free trade agreements ... DOBBS: I'm sorry. What would you call then what's being practiced by China, Germany, France, India? What would you call what they are practicing? WEISBERG: Well, one thing, fast growth led by exports and competing in the world economy. DOBBS: What it is, is balanced, reciprocal trade. It's being practiced even by communist China. WEISBERG: You can't find a trade deal that says we're going to have balanced trade. DOBBS: No, I can't find a trade agreement carved by this administration or the previous that makes any sense on any basis for the economic interests of the United States whatsoever. And by the way, I am an independent populist, not an economic nationalist. Jacob, I enjoy talking with you. Come on back soon and we'll take this up. WEISBERG: Thank you for having me on. DOBBS: Do me a favor. Think about the facts. The facts ... .
We have the George Bush administration to thank for the current economic situation in the US, Lou Dobbs has been pounding on the subjects for years and there are special interests who think that its ok as long as China and India keep supplying us with the goods and services; and they are the one who pocket the special interests money... Social economic conditions has less significance to them than keeping our nation safe from terrorist attacks or engaging the US from oil acquisition through any means neccessary. If you feel the need to change you would have to look ahead to election year 2008, I think that a lot of American have already made up their minds, and hopefully we can see a better future for all.
I despise Bush, but let't be fair. I liked Clinton, but he did get Nafta going didn't he? BTW Lou Dobbs is a great nationalist. Lou for president in 08! Even if he got elected the special interests would have him assassinated in 2 weeks or less.