Why did Obama go to Asia? It’s called the National Export Initiative

Many of us watched the networks and cable looking for news concerning President Obama’s trip to Asia.  Lots of silliness was blabbed about how this trip was costing a ridiculous about of money ..the blatant lie was that it was costing $200million a day. Pundits and talking heads didn’t even bat an eye or give a rebuttal to that nonsense.  And no matter how many stations you flipped to no one ever discussed the purpose of the trip.  Could that be because it was for jobs?  Yes, President Obama went abroad to Asia to complete negotiations on trade deals to bring jobs to America.

See, when President Obama works on the economy…that is not news.  When President Obama makes deals resulting in 300K new jobs for America that is not news.  And when President Obama is working on the National Export Initiative..that is not news.

Even though the only thing we hear day in and day out from the insipid politicos mouths is President Obama needs to work on the economy he needs to do something about jobs.  So, why then is the American public clueless about his efforts to grow the economy?  Well, if you want to know how President Obama is going to turn around the economy it’s called the National Export Initiative. And that is why President Obama went to Asia

The National Export Initiative is an ambitious goal for the USA to grow export shares over the next 5 years.  For the pass 10 years other nations have focused their economic growth on exporting goods while the USA under the Bush administration focused solely on spending here in America. Whereas German, China, India and Japan doubled their exports and as a result they have recovered from the global recession much faster than America.

America has the most productive workers in the world but we need world markets to open and Obama is pressing to level the playing field. This is why President Obama went to Asia to reach accord on his economic growth strategy for our nation.  President Obama understands that 95% of the customers in the world are not in the U.S.  East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Association for Southeast Asian Nations) will be the world’s largest economic bloc by 2015, surpassing the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. If America wants to sell we have to go where the customers are and that is how we will grow this economy and regain economic power.

Don’t take my word for it listen to Austan Goolsbee as he explains the National Export Initiative and its significance to the America’s economy…and he does it in only three minutes.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Economy, Jobs, President Obama and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Why did Obama go to Asia? It’s called the National Export Initiative

  1. opulent2 says:

    The problem is that the GOP is not willing to accept the FED dollars for stimulus …so while I appreciate Stielitz’s commentary…he already knows this has been tried and it met with obstructionism.

    “Mr. Stiglitz said.

    Rather than just looser monetary policy, the Columbia University economist urges more government spending by countries whose low borrowing costs make it affordable—notably the U.S.

    “We really should learn the lesson from China,” he said. “If you take money and spend it on investments, then you grow the economy in the short run, but you also grow the economy in the long run.” He says China’s massive infrastructure investments over the past two years have “changed the economic geography” of that country, setting it up for strong growth in the years ahead.

    The U.S. should do the same, he said, adding that because it has funded infrastructure so poorly over the past 20 years, projects will likely have strong positive return on investment.

    “We have a big list of what we need to do,” he said. “We could begin with high-speed railroads. On the list of infrastructure that was drawn up in 2000, at the top of the priority was New Orleans levees. It was public knowledge that New Orleans needed new levees; $5 billion invested in New Orleans levees would have saved $200 billion. Figure out the rate of return on that.”


  2. opulent2 says:

    “Leaders of 20 major economies on Friday refused to back a U.S. push to make China boost its currency’s value, keeping alive a dispute that raises fears of a global trade war amid criticism that cheap Chinese exports are costing American jobs. A joint statement issued by the leaders including President Barack Obama and China’s Hu Jintao tried to recreate the unity that was evident when the Group of 20 rich and developing nations held its first summit two years ago during the global financial meltdown. But deep divisions, especially over the U.S.-China currency dispute, left G-20 officials negotiating all night to draft a watered-down statement for the leaders to endorse.”

  3. Ametia says:

    12 November 2010 Last updated at 06:53 ET
    G20 to tackle US-China currency concerns

    Leaders of the G20 group of major economies have agreed to avoid “competitive devaluation” of currencies after talks concluded in the South Korean capital, Seoul.

    Leaders agreed to come up with “indicative guidelines” to tackle trade imbalances affecting world growth.

    Tensions had been high between some delegations over how to correct distortions in currency and trade.

    But the agreement fell short of a US push to limit trade deficits.

    Some fear the conflict, chiefly between China and the US, may threaten global growth.

    US President Barack Obama said there should be no controversy about fixing imbalances “that helped to contribute to the crisis that we just went through”.

    “Exchange rates must reflect economic realities,” he said.


  4. opulent2 says:

    If you know EugeneRobinson’s email…send him this…it’s a good slap in the face to what he said about elitism/common man Bush vs. Obama. He needs a beatdown for that.

    we’re also told that President Obama and the Democratic agenda are somehow “anti-business.” It’s so drastic, in fact, that fat-cat conservatives and corporate lobbyists spent the entire year furiously raising money to elect Republicans. They were, apparently, outraged by the scourge of corporate prosperity.

    “What’s remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn’t anti-business, it is fair to say that he’s not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart’s desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it’s aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it’s someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There’s no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it’s quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich. “

  5. opulent2 says:

    According to Bloomberg:

    Investors around the world say President Barack Obama is bad for the bottom line, even though U.S. corporations are on track for the biggest earnings growth in 22 years and the stock market is headed for its best back-to- back annual gains since 2004.

    That’s certainly one of the classic sentences of the year. The Obama White House is bad for profits, according to those making lots of money in the Obama era.

    Indeed, we learned just two weeks ago that corporate profits since Obama’s inauguration that have risen faster “than during any other 18-month period since the 1920s.” All told, profits have surged 62% from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. “That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous ’50s, the Go-Go ’60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.”

    Obama’s bad for the bottom line? Are these people serious?

  6. Ametia says:

    That photo of PBO and the diverse miliarty troops is stunning!

    Yes siree, folks, America’s not going to play second fiddle to anyone. Bring on those jobs for Americans, Mr. President. You had Chris Matthews screaming about POTUS leaving the week of the Midterm where Dems lost seats. That bitch was implying that POTUS left dodge in shame and defeat.

    See how fucked up the cable talking heads are?

    Thanks for keeping the focus on what is REAL DEAL, Opulent!

    • Chris Matthews damn well knows what the truth of that trip is about. If they don’t, then isn’t it a journalist duty to find the truth? Journalism has gone to hell in this country.

  7. Ametia says:

    And Goolsbee explained the initiative in 3 minutes. Why that’s just not long enough to make the cable network.

    Do your thing Mr. President, while the talking heads continue spinning, distorting, and reporting their scripted dramas and comedy acts. Rachel Maddow interviews Jon Stewat tonight. Why? Jon’s going to bring jobs to America, right?//Snark

    • opulent2 says:

      Yes, that was amazing to me to Ametia. Just 3 minutes with Goolsbee and we have the substantive reasons for the Asia trip. News that no broadcast could be bothered to tell. Seems Americans need not know the purpose for POTUS going to Asia…they just get to whine and rant about the bad economy while this POTUS wastes tax dollars taking expensive junkets!


      • Well, the GOP water-carrying pundits want the trip to seems as if the President is on some vacation spending tax -payers money on a luxury trip. They want to purposely mislead the public and then say the President has failed. I see them. They’re no good mofos.

Leave a Reply