Is it time for a Dem President ...... to call for a form of protectionism?

[Stinky The Clown]

Threats to a country come in many forms. It is currently argued that our biggest threat is in the form of some act of terror by some vague Middle Eastern group or by a state sponsored proxy.

But I think the far greater threat to our very way of life is economic in nature. That war is being waged on us on many fronts ..... and mostly by entities of our own making. Between the corporations and the government they've bought and paid for, we face an enemy within.

If we retake the white house and at least one house of congress by 08, is it time for a Democratic president to institute some heavy duty controls on our economy? I know that can sound socialistic. And here I am, a capitalist, asking about it.

Between undue influence over our government, unfair media consolodation that has trumped our right to know, to a govenment that depends to extraordinary degree on the not altruistic 'largess' of the body corporate to keep it in power, ours in a country run, essentially, by corporations.

Outsourcing does us no good. A hugely imbalanced trade deficit helps only the corporation, not the person. I'm not talking about the corporation that has Mom as the chairman and Pop as the board, and the kids as the stockholders and employees and who makes its way mowing gas station lawns. I'm talking about the megacorporations. My own capitalism favors the small guys, but finds the predatory big guys anti-American, if not by intent, then certainly by action.

FDR had his New Deal to address issues related to a worldwide Depression. Our new president might be forced to institute a similar large scale set of programs - not to combat depression, but to preserve our very way of life. Instead of the New Deal, might it be time for some kind of America First protectionism and economic regulation?

I think it may well be.

What do you think?

[Harper_is_Bush]

1. I'd pay your duties if that dem Pres did something about global warming.

[Redstone]

3. Damn good answer. There are a LOT of things I'd pay more taxes for,

if only the Government would spend the money on things that are really important:

-Global Warming

-Hungry kids

-Battered women

-Working homeless

-Rational public transportation.

-Using the military to stop wars instead of starting them.

And the list goes on.

Redstone

[enid602]

2. defense

No, it's time for an administration that will scale back military spending from half a trillion a year, so we can compete globally. Our spending slightly more than 50% of the world's defense outlays is not sustainable, and over time will equate to a drastically lower standard of living.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Your bias is obvious .... but I'll provide a response nonetheless

There's no reason whatever that a substantial cutback is counter to what I'm suggesting. As a matter of fact, if one were to apply actual, honest critical thinking skills to the posit, one would see that the first target could well be a huge part of the military industrial complex.

But you're free to see whatever fantasies you wish to see.

[enid602]

13. Thank you.

How kind. But anyone who thinks we're getting some sort of benefit proportional to the huge military outlays should look at the Katrina response, or wait until we face a real external threat, and see what resources are left with which we can defend ourselves. You cannot have true capitalism with such huge military contracts, so many of which are no bid. Globalism will stay with us, and the winners will be those who best manage scarce resources. Ask India or China.

[gully]

4. I think so.

Outsourcing is on the mind of every American, along with "insourcing."

[Donnachaidh]

6. we especially have to stop the handouts to companies who outsource

The automakers who have done NOTHING to bring out alternative fuel cars.

They were in Washington a minute and a half after the global warming discussions started -- asking for AID.

They've taken jobs from the American public - but they still expect corporate welfare?

Kick them to the curb. Allow imports that have already done the work - allow the American public a chance to buy these autos. Stop the welfare teat and protectionist policies that screw the american citizens who've lost jobs.

I'd also nationalize the oil companies. They've raped the american driver enough. And stop waging war for oil profits.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Idiots or Liars? Protection is Absolutely Needed!

Let's face it - anyone who says that our workers can compete against $2-a-day Chinese labor is a liar or an idiot. (Yes, that includes you Mr. Clinton). We cannot compete with $2-a-day workers.

"Free trade" with low-wage countries is simply a race to the bottom, and our workers will lose - and the Rich will win. The median American worker make half of what he or she made in 1970 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), and the fraud of "free trade" is one reason why. What we need is a level playing field, not an invitation to catastrophe.

Much better to do what the Europeans do - charge high tariffs against goods from low-wage nations, so that we can preserve our jobs rather than impose poverty on the working-class.

The idea is to maintain a level playing field, not to simply protect American jobs. As the low-wage nations start to increase their wages, we can lower our tariffs to maintain an "equality of cost" between American-made and foreign-made good.

[nealmhughes]

15. I agree completely. Why should we lose our manufacturing base without

a fight? Does outsourcing really make a tremendous cut in prices? I didn't see the price of Canadian or Mexican beer come down a cent after NAFTA. For every dollar saved by labor, the corporations gain a dollar.

Unfair labor practices affect both sides: lowering American and European living standards while promoting a neo-serfdom in other lands.

The only ones who win are the neo-liberal free traders who are also the corporatists, the crappy repressive governments that urge their people to move to slums and become new wage serfs, and those who advocate a "living wage/fair trade" policy.

The entire agricultural culture of Mexico and Haiti are being destroyed through subsidized US and Canadian grown wheat, maize and rice. Entire populations of indigenous men and young women in Mexico move north to work in the border zones or Mexico, DF, leaving the kids and the elderly behind in the villages. It is cheaper to buy a 50 kilo bag of Texas rice in Port au Prince than to grow it in Haiti and then thresh and sell it in the country!

The corporatists' fetish of free trade is that: a fetish. They use some Adam Smith, some Austrian School of economics, and even the Bible to come to what is effectively a socio-politico-economic policy. There is a class war afoot, and I shudder at the thought of the masses being armed. For a while it looked as if Marx had been trumped by Jefferson and nationalism, but it was a mere blip on the long range screen...

[NMDemDist2]

8. we're due for a major labor movement like americans did against

the Gettys and the other robber barons of the 1900s

I agree we won't make many strides against poverty, global warming and the myriad other needs the people have until we figure how to rein in the mega-corps

[BillZBubb]

9. It is WAY PAST TIME.

It doesn't have to be protectionism, just true fair trade.

Here's my proposal: place tariffs on each item coming into the US market based on the difference in standard of living for the average worker. Standard of living would include pay scale adjusted for currency, benefits, environment and worker safety, pensions, etc. The tariff would cover all services and material. The only exception would be for crucial raw materials.

Twice a year the US could assemble the data and determine the tariff rates for each country of origin for the next six months. Countries with high worker protection would pay no tariff. That would include most of western Europe and Canada. There would be a sliding scale after that. I see the scale going from 0 to 100% of value.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Those are good ideas. But it is SO much more than just trade issues.

I'm not arguing with, or intending to diminish, one word of what you said. I agree with all of it.

But I can see 'protectionism' as being about far more than just trade.

Getting our debt under control is a form of protectionism. being a debtor nation is not a 'protection'.

Wresting our citizens away from cars and into reasonable, dependable, available mass transit is not an inconvenience. it is a basic protection - for our economy and for our environment.

How about having a (lets say two year) mandatory service period for each and every young person? I am NOT talking about just military service here. Any service to the nation's interest would suffice. Working for two years in an impoverished day care center. Working for two years to restore a wetland. Working for two years on a road project or a mass transit project or ... or ..... or ...... And then pay these kids what they'd earn in the military (for lack of any better standard, but willing to consider anything else as a standard) and guarantee them some form of seed money or seed loan guarantee to pay for college, start a business, buy a home ... etc.

Controlling competition within our own economy. I have often thought that once a company grows to dominate its market, it ought to be broken apart so as to allow others to compete. I don't know what the details of such a policy might be, but conceptually, I like it. It would help the little guys out.

And there's so much more that would 'protect' our country ..... and not be military in any way, shape, or form. And would not be just about trade outside our borders.

[Donnachaidh]

12. Our Debt

Why don't we start looking into the no-bid contracts, and auditing to see where the billions have gone?

How about hitting companies like Halliburton and it's subsidiaries with massive fines for going 400% over budget?

How about imposing fines on companies who submit contracts to build 140 or so hospitals and then only deliver 20?

How about fining representatives that push through earmarks specifically for companies like Halliburton, et al?

[enid602]

14. military

What most people don't realize is that spiraling military spending (just like spiraling health costs) will eventually add to the price tags of our goods, even though our government has thus far decided to finance the outlays rather than pass them on to corporations and citizens. How long can that last? We continue to up spending on starwars and various low- and high-tech aircraft programs which have no direct bearing on the types of future warfare we're likely to face. And yet there's never any money for veterans' benefits. Fact: military sapending (which is based on government numbers and does not include everything, I've heard) has gone up from $150BB yearly to $500BB yearly in the Bush administration. Housing prices in the DC area might suffer if we start scrutinizing these expenditures, but it may just be the only way to save our economy.

[enid602]

18. 'DEPENDS'

'DEPENDS' are a great form of protection, as well.

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. We have some protectionism, just none for workers.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Yanno .... its funny how the answers to the OP question devolved into

shrieks of 'stop the military spending'.

Don't misconstrue that comment. I'm am in no way espousing increased - or even steady - military spending. What I *am* commenting on is how this thread went off in a whole different direction than the OP's posit.

Is there no more room for creative, critical thinking? Must everything be a time to jump on a soapbox that does NOTHING to add to the discussion at hand?

At the same time, I want to thank those of you who actually answered the OP's topic.

[Sparkly]

17. "Military?" Did you say "MILITARY?!?"

Omigawd, I feel my knee jerking!!!