Pabst, I'm not a liberal in any way, shape or form. I hate high taxes, am for a flat tax, and am for free markets.
I'm also not a neocon, by any stretch, as the GOP has been twisted and contorted and discredited by neocon fantasies.
I am a libertarian, and always have been. You err when you make assumptions, especially of the kind that libertarians can't believe, on a good faith basis, that the the GOP has been hijacked by special interests that seek not to implement Laissez-faire policy, but policies that cater to special, vested interests, at the expense of the free market and Laissez-faire capitalism.
The question you should ask yourself is whether government subsidies to outsource jobs is in keeping with the spirit of free markets.
Also, what about foreign governments subsidizing wages of workers so that multi-nationals can hire an employee who is less productive than their American counterpart? Do you not understand that this is going on?
Thunderdog, it is true that the Bush Admin at least contemplated the notion that hamburger workers were being employed in the "manufacturing" sector:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04073/285078.stm
"
Editorial: McJobs mistake / Sorry, but burger flipping isn't manufacturing
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Since George W. Bush became president the economy has lost 2.8 million factory jobs, but his administration is floating an idea that could dramatically boost manufacturing jobs overnight. It sounds too good to be true. And it is.
The presidential proposition wouldn't actually create any new jobs but would reclassify them and thereby swell job statistics in a declining sector of the economy. Poof! Problem solved.
Incredible as it seems, the Bush administration is pointedly questioning whether flipping hamburgers should be included in jobs associated with factory work or remain classified as part of the service sector.
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, observed one parody, Mr. Bush is angling to become the "Manufacturing McJobs" president.
In the recent Economic Report of the President sent to Congress, the issue of whether fast-food enterprises like McDonald's and Burger King should be reclassified as manufacturers was prominently highlighted for discussion.
The annual report by the President's Council of Economic Advisers claimed the current system for classifying jobs was "not straightforward" and invited confusion into the equation about whether an industry could be classified as manufacturing.
While most clear-thinking individuals would consider it a stretch to compare the assembly of pickle, patty and bun with the assembly of a new Jeep, the presidential report on the health of the economy nevertheless pondered the possibility.
"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example," the report asks, "is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture a product?' " Care for some input with those fries? Speaking of ketchup, didn't another administration try to reclassify it as a vegetable for school lunches in an early federal regulatory proposal?
The chairman of the president's economic council stresses proper job classification is "an important consideration" when setting economic policy and deciding which businesses ought to receive tax relief. True enough, but is Gregory Mankiw -- the same person to suggest that the expatriation of service jobs could be beneficial to the economy -- the one to clarify the manufacturing category?
Imagine a fast-food factory promised on every other city block during a presidential election year. It won't fool folks in Pennsylvania who are trying to retain what's left of real manufacturing jobs."
