Here is what bothers me about this "Buy American" Hoopla

[Oregone]

Here we stand, up in our ass in unfair trade agreements that are exacerbating wealth disparity, causing global catastrophe, and decimating the economy. And in response, there is a single, mild, one time exception promising to combat this mess with a unilateral act of "protectionism" (which can, by many means, be ruled as a violation of these trade agreements). Yet, we will not do anything to fundamentally change the current trade system into a more fair system for American workers, as well as for the exploited workers and environments of the third world.

To be honest about this, the workers, the fundamental drivers of the economy, are going to take their taxpayer-funded paychecks and buy their Shampoo at Walmart, their cars at a Toyota dealership and their TVs from companies that outsource to God-knows-where-istan (because, hell, its cheaper). But in essence, nothing will be done to shift our economy from a service economy to a manufacturing economy, so when the money dries up, so go the jobs it paid for. In fact, the only thing this does is pay lip-service to the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs' fan club. Is this what bi-partisanship smells like? Is this what appeasing the rabid masses, those driven by fear and emotion, produce?

For almost a decade, we stood shouting for a president to take a reasoned, diplomatic approach, and abandon America's cowboy, go-it-alone reactionary diplomacy. But is this Cowboy diplomacy in a different form? A unilateral, non-diplomatic violation of trade agreements that impacts the entire world? This is Obama's first true test: is he to make Rush happy or Stephen Harper, or reach out somewhere in the middle?

As people on the left, how can you be satisfied with this solution, despite it pulling upon your "America, Fuck Yeah" emotional roots? Mark my words, this action will change nothing in 5 years, other than further alienating a lonely United States. And by nothing, I am referring to long term job and industrial growth, post the "Buy America" stimulus money.

Did you people vote for this? Unilateral reactionism?

Or did you vote for a man to examine NAFTA for its benefits and faults, hold an international economic/diplomatic conference, and renegotiate it or absolve it multi-laterally. Did you vote for a man to ban foreign products for certain domestic projects (except IT) temporarily without negotiations, or did you vote for someone to slowly phase in reasonable tariffs that will forever protect American workers and industry?

Look, if this isn't the long term liberal solution, this very well may not be the short term cure-all. In fact, it could be a short term clusterfuck by removing America's ability to sit at that negotiating table down the road and make sure any other agreement or deal actually works in our favor.

No one needs to tell me about how unbalance and screwed up trade is in America (as well as the impact it has on exploited nations and environments). But remaining in agreements that you are violating, but not intent upon changing, seems like a shitty method of fixing the problem in the first place. But hell, maybe I got it backwards.

For anyone who is on the edge, just read some of the "America, Fuck Yeah" posts around here. Its an insanely sad and unreasoned approach to this issue. Are we an insane and unreasonable people? Did we ever want someone like that leading us? Whatever did we vote for? What have we opposed for 8 years?

Maybe this will throw a bone to the anti-globalists for a decade and make them happy. Be assured, thats not going to fix the problem. Hopefully it won't satisfy those masses either.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. I disagree that it's just a bone to anti-globalists

I fully agree with everything else you say about the larger need to revise trade pacts but stripping the Buy American clause will turn the stimulus package into yet another taxpayer funded boondoggle for greedy pig corporations. Look what happened with post-Katrina rebuilding: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/15/halliburton_katrina/ They were using undocumented workers and then cheating them out of wages! Even with a Buy American clause we need to watch them like hawks because businesses have gotten really good at getting around employment laws.

[Oregone]

3. The reason I say it seems like its just lip-service...

Is that when the funds "trickles down" to consumers, they are just going to blow it on foreign goods anyway, because thats all the stores carry. Yes, it may stimulate temporary domestic production (perhaps at the cost off pissing off our neighbors), but beyond that, it'll have limited control on overall domestic production.

Its sort of like micro-managing the first level in a food chain. In the end, you have no control what happens down on the next notch, when an exponential amount of creatures start feeding. We need to focus on fixing the chain, and I always saw Obama as the guy who could cooperatively, carefully do it with a reasoned approach, without making more enemies and starting trade wars. Ive had enough Cowboy diplomacy in the last 8 years to last lifetimes.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I'm really starting to find the comparisons to Bush offensive.

Please can the "cowboy diplomacy" references, if you would, because they are not adding anything productive to the discussion. This is about a U.S. taxpayer stimulus package that is intended to create American jobs, it's not a unilateral invasion of another country. Despite the frantic cries of possible "trade wars" we're not advocating starting a real one. If a country does try to retaliate against us because we're not sending our stimulus tax dollars to them I guess that's a risk we have to take. And frankly, if stimulating domestic production "pisses off our neighbors", they'll just have to get over it. Maybe it's a sign they need to develop their markets beyond simply depending on us.

[Oregone]

8. Good. Thats my intention.

I hope its making you uncomfortable.

"Cowboy Diplomacy" isn't only about invading. Its about unilaterally making decisions that effect the entire world, without a damn care about what the world thinks. No one, and I mean no one, EVER predicted President Obama would display that characteristic. It sure as hell makes me uncomfortable.


"Despite the frantic cries of possible "trade wars" we're not advocating starting a real one"

No one advocates trade wars. They just sort of happen when things fall in place. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs act wasn't 'designed' to create a trade war, but that it did, as well as finalize a depression.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Bzzzt!!

Smoot-Hawley Myth: Debunked by a fellow DUer. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x48462 About as good a smackdown as you're going to find. Has a chart and everything. Also, you do realize that you are repeating RW think-tank anti-New Deal propaganda with that, don't you?

You know what makes me uncomfortable? People wanting to send MY tax dollars to other countries when I don't have a job right now.

[Oregone]

11. What is sort of fallacious about that counter-argument...

Is that the 66% decline in exports (due to trade war conditions) is being counted on its face value against the drop in GDP during that time (I think the cited figure was only 3.8% of the total GDP drop). But, the workers who used to work on that 66% of the exports were also paid, and purchased products & services, and stimulated other parts of the economy. The real effect on the economy from a drop in exports goes beyond the dollar amount of the exports, because economies are very complex and intricate. Those same workers were not still investing as consumers in the economy in the same way during that time. It has a similar impact on the consumption patterns of workers that were involved in retailing imports (which dropped a similar amount). In fact, it is very difficult to really account for the true damage to the GDP.

What we do know is there was a "trade war". Exports dropped 66%, as did imports. Some may claim this is benign, as this person did. Would it be now?

By the way, I don't want to "send {YOUR} tax dollars to other countries when I don't have a job right now". I want a reasoned approach where we implement sensible tariffs, suspend H1Bs, and only stick by advantageous trade agreements that are well thought out (all done with multi-lateral diplomacy). If we did that, we wouldn't have to worry about it.

-----

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all. What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world, and we can compete with anybody. And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us. But what I did say, in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we've been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what's good for multinationals, and we haven't been looking at what's good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country.

And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward.

[Fire1]

14. Exactly what I recalled. NAFTA needs to be revisited and

revised if this stim package is to be effective.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. How do you know it didn't work the other way around?

How do know that the substantial drop in domestic investment and gov't spending didn't impact exports in the early part of the 30s? That seems more likely since you need to have infrastructure in place to make anything that you can export. This kind of thinking is where I regard "Free Trade" to be sort of a cousin to "Trickle Down". The supply siders have told us that if you put more money in rich people's pockets, they create jobs and that money trickles down to the rest of us. The globalists tell us that more opportunities to trade puts more money in our pockets.

[Oregone]

19. Look, no one knows anything, especially when this is being revistited for dogmatic progression

But before the law act was signed, the world went nuts with political protests against this. Canada imposed tariffs on a huge amount of US products, and started trading with Europe more closely (which helped them throughout the depression). Europe developed new trade models in response also.

It seems intuitive that if the price of US products increased massively due to tariffs, less people around the world would consume them. Or do you continue to consume the same products regardless of price?

There was a trade war, and it is a fact, and this coincides with a decline in imports/exports.

But there was also a global economic depression, which would intuitively lead to a decrease in consumption anyway.

All we know for fact is tariffs were put in place on US products, and countries developed new models that did not include heavy trade with the US. That may or may not be an effect you prefer to have during economic strife. Being that America doesn't make a damn thing anymore besides fraudulent securities, then maybe losing market share in foreign countries is the least of our concerns during a depression.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. You brought up Smoot Hawley, not me.

And your last post perfectly demonstrates why it is a bogus apples-and-oranges comparison, regardless of the actual merits of the S-H act. This is not the 30s.

[Oregone]

25. It doesn't matter what the time period is

A unilateral trade act can create global animosity leading to a trade war.

If you are pro trade war, thinking they are benign, then what difference does it make to you? None.

It is a fine example of how a small act snowballed, and in perfect place within this argument.

[girl gone mad]

18. But what's REALLY fallacious..

is any analogy between the effects of Smoot-Hawley and our current situation.

We are not in the same position we were during the 1930s. China is the country that presently comes closest to resembling our then-status. Our economy is more like England's was then. Protectionist policies would hurt China, Japan and other export-dependent economies far more than us.

[Oregone]

20. No, thats true, and I wasn't trying to draw a direct analogy

What I was doing is providing an example of how a unilateral trade act can cause global calamity. Pissing off neighbors isn't always a benign act, you know?

[Hello_Kitty]

39. It works both ways

Why must we always worry about how our trade policies are received while other countries are free to do whatever they want?

[Oregone]

43. So unilateralism is the answer?

Was that the promise Obama brought to the table, because he hasn't said anything close to the same that Ive heard.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. How is it unilateralism to demand the same tariffs that other countries put on us?

That seems more like recriprocation to me.

[Oregone]

50. But that isn't what is being done here and you know that.

Were still in the same shitty trade deals.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Are you serious?

The only tariff situation that benefits us that I'm aware of is on agricultural products. And by "us" of course, I mean, speculators.

[Oregone]

55. Yes, I am serious. No one is talking about instituting tariffs.

This provision is a single, one time provision that has NOTHING to do with our "free trade" agreements and tarrifs. How are you confused about this?

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Hold the phone!

Are we talking about the stimulus package? Because if we are, then we are talking about a U.S. government spending measure that is intended to CREATE AMERICAN JOBS. What provision "that has NOTHING to to with our 'free trade' agreements and tariffs" are you talking about? :shrug:

[Oregone]

59. Read back a few responses....

You ask: "How is it unilateralism to demand the same tariffs that other countries put on us?"

My response is that demanding "the same tariffs that other countries put on us" IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT what is happening here. The stimulus package has a ONE TIME, TEMPORARY "Buy American" provision ONLY attached to the stimulus funds and will expire with them.

This has NOTHING to do with creating tariffs or renegotiating free trade agreements. Not a damn fucking thing. It DOES NOT fix the long term problem, and does not even address it. Any job it creates will expire with the funds if the market is not fixed in the favor of the American workers. It is just lip service and pandering if you look at it in a long term context.

Im not sure why people are so damn confused about what this actually does. As far as creating long term American jobs, its going to miss that mark completely. But in the manner it is being done, it may certainly piss people off. There are articles every day, many, in the papers here with people railing against it.

[Hello_Kitty]

60. The stimulus bill is funded BY AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS

How, pray tell, is it going to "piss people off", unless those people felt they were entitled to American tax dollars?

[Oregone]

61. Well it most certainly has...

And you would know if you read international news sources.

It was a unilateral act of protectionism, that many countries were not expecting and did not reciprocate in their own stimulus bills. It could have been handled a tad bit better, but nevertheless, its clear you see that they can do no wrong in this area.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Other countries were planning to give us their tax dollars?

Really? Do you have a link to that?

[pampango]

72. Canada allows us to bid equitably on their government projects as a part of NAFTA.

I don't know if that constitutes "giving us their tax dollars", but I hope that they are only expecting the same treatment in return; not more.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. Oh I'm sure Canada's projects are going to be equivalent to ours

:eyes:

Oh yeah, that's a real good deal we got ourselves into there. :sarcasm:

[Oregone]

81. They are only running a $60 billion federal deficit to deal with this all

They are convince their country is economically as fucked up as the States. They are partially correct.

[SergeyDovlatov]

52. In absolute numbers, US exports more goods per year than China

US exports in 2007 are 1.560 trillion dollars out of 13 trillion GDP
China exports in 2007 are 1.3 trillion dollars out of 3.42 trillion GDP

http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2008&Freq=Qtr_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

[girl gone mad]

16. What you fail to acknowledge..

is that every other industrialized nation is already engaging in beggar-thy-neighbor policies and many are enacting their own protectionist stimulus programs.

Like it or not, you live in a nation. As a nation, we have economic interests and our leaders are constitutionally required to protect those interests.

[Oregone]

22. Well, my point is, then go to the damn table and protect those interests

We aren't sitting at a table laying down our concerns, renegotiating, and fixing/killing these shitty deals. We are in a closed room, drafting policy (which falls short), and telling people how its going to be. We are taking a unilateral cowboy approach to appease certain factions in the US (right wing factions) while ignoring others (anti-globalists or anti-free trade).

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Oh jesus god!

We aren't AT the table at ALL. The shitty deals are done by multi-national corporations who are only interested in funneling the profits into the pockets of their CEOs and shareholders. When U.S. workers and unions object, we are called "protectionists". Shit, here on DU there are people who claim that voluntary movements to buy local and American are "xenophobic".

[Oregone]

42. Yes, and despite this provision, we still wont be there

Whether or not this thing passes, it doesn't take the US any closer to fixing this trade crap. That to me is a problem. More than anything, it is just making people all emotional. Thats really it as far as I can tell.

[fasttense]

2. For crying out loud they are merely Trade AGREEMENTS

NOT TREATIES, like say the Geneva Convention.

They are poorly written, badly designed, give aways to corporations, with absolutely no repercussions for turning an entire nation's citizenry into slaves and their land into a garbage dump. (Ever wonder why the Somali Pirates are, well, pirates and not fishermen?)

A little buy-American wont even put a dent into the corporatist free ride as spelled out by these ridiculous "free" trade AGREEMENTS.

[Oregone]

5. Then absolve them with a reasoned international approach.

I have no respect for them. But a unilateral Cowboy violation, while keeping them in place, is more of the same shit.

Hell, at least Bush went to the UN (for show) before unilaterally invading Iraq. Do you understand this point?

Why the hell can't we diplomatically discuss these? Why ignore them for now, go it alone, and then stick to them in the future?

Bush would of been just as effective at doing this as Obama, right? Other than term limits, did we really need a new president? Is this what an era of new reason and global responsibility is about?

Am I the only one with an issue with this Cowboy diplomacy shit? In the end, it doesn't accomplish anything in terms of fixing or getting rid of these agreements.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Because this is a one-time stimulus intended to create AMERICAN jobs.

This "cowboy diplomacy" crap comes straight from the cheap labor shills. Again, please explain to me why other countries are entitled to my tax dollars for a domestic stimulus package? The projects that would ensue from the U.S. TAXPAYER STIMULUS are NOT projects that would occur on their own. They are projects that are deliberately undertaken to build up our infrastructure and, pay attention, CREATE AMERICAN JOBS! For the love of all that is holy what is so FUCKING hard about that for you to understand?? What saddens me is that Obama and the Dems in Congress will probably buckle and strip the Buy American clause, which means that more than half the money from the stimulus will go overseas and/or into the pockets of greedy plutocratic pigs. Yay Globalism! :eyes:

[Oregone]

56. Look, this all could of been done without the cowboy diplomacy...

We could of discussed this diplomatically and made sure all the other nations were on board with domestic buying. But, while other nations are already finalizing and passing their budgets (Canada passed theirs today with no "Buy Canadian" provision), we are going to go ahead and stiff them and put this pandering shit in? Im not sure how you don't see this as Cowboy Diplomacy. Going and doing things that affect the world without giving a damn is something the left has been pissed about for some time.

And the bottom line is, this doesn't fix the fucking problem AT ALL. Its just lip service for the Lou Dobbs fan club.

[OHdem10]

4. Not an anti-globalist. However, I have a problem with our Leaders

and those Free Traders who have sold us out so to speak.

Every other county practices some "protections for their own country's)
interests. China and the Tigers tell companies, bring your plant here
(their country) or no deal. This is absolute Protectionism.
France( and I love France) protects their farmers plus subsidizing them.

Our country looks like we are a bunch of fools. We just lay down
and roll over. permitting our jobs to be sent out of country . No
concern given to the fact that we are losing our manufacturing base.
We are in a downward spiral economically due to these unfair trade
deals. Not me, Sommers, Rubin, Blinder know this and have admitted
that the Trade Deals have not worked outas planned.

Not a protectionists---Just a fair trader who happens to lover her
country enough not to watch it deteriorate.

It is time to Buy American and turn this disaster around.

[Oregone]

7. But "Buy American" wont "turn this disaster around"

Renegotiating or dropping the trade agreements will. Thats an issue I have with this, and further, how tactlessly it is being done.

[OHdem10]

10. All Buy American means is: The stimulus(taxpayers money)

should not be used to buy steel from overseas, buy equipment parts overseas. Our stimulus money should be used here in America.

No it will not turn things around but putting money into our economy
surely helps more than sending our stimulus money overseas.

[DireStrike]

12. Furthermore

If this clause was excluded, the stimulus bill would be hammered in the media because "all the money is just gonna go overseas anyway".

I don't doubt it would pass anyway, but we would look the worse for it.

This dynamic can be explained to other countries who are offended through diplomacy.

[Oregone]

13. "all the money is just gonna go overseas anyway"

Well, eventually, at some point, it is anyway. This bill wont create the environment for American made TVs, cars, clothing, etc, to be competitive again. Thats just the sad truth. All it does is make Lou Dobbs have an orgasm, and we could do that with a stimulus bill requiring an 80 foot high concrete fence be built around the country.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. That's why need to slap the same tariffs on foreign made products that they slap on ours

It is long past time for America to make its own stuff again. If for no other reason than the environment. The cheap hair dryer you buy from China is shipped across the ocean and then loaded on a railcar or truck to go across the country. It's yet another cost that corporations externalize.

[Oregone]

24. I completely agree

This, uh, just doesn't do it.

Personally, I would phase tariffs in (so domestic investors have time to gauge ROI in needed industries and the economy can adjust) and would prefer we first sit at a table, if not for anything but symbolism.

You know, a 500% tariff on a hairdryer (to make it competitive with a domestic product) to me is less beneficial than a smaller tariff and a trade agreement specifying they can't create cheap products by exploiting workers and the environment. We have to sit down and talk to get that stuff done.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. 500%? Shit, as if. We can't even get a tariff that's EQUAL to other countries. eom

[4 t 4]

21. But can't we just try and get the

manufacturing base back a bit and try and just buy from our own country until we fix ourselves somewhat.. What if everyone that owes it to their people to take care of them took care of them, what shape would we be in. If we are in dire straights how can we help anyone. America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to donations. We owe it to the world to fix ourselves.

[4 t 4]

26. Am I so off base here or what

I need your approval- please

[Oregone]

27. No one else want my approval today

But just to correct you, the United States ranks last among developed nations for aid given per Gross National Income. Among that measure, many European countries give 4X what the US does. So, as far as being generous... :)

But thats not part of the argument anyway.

[4 t 4]

28. I don't believe that for a second

links please and I will provide you with mine.

[Oregone]

29. Here is one....

http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf

Look at the graph on page 14.

Sourced from the OECD Development Co-operation Report, 2005.

Aid from the US is cited at .17% of its GNI while Norway leads with aid of .87% of its GNI.

As to this trade argument, this is neither here nor there, very tangential and independent of "belief". Here is the following year I think.

[4 t 4]

32. per capita the US donates

more than any other country in the world your chart is irrelevant

[Oregone]

33. So per GNI is irrelevant? Why?

Its a great indication of who is most "generous" (somewhat ambiguous term in the first place).

If a man has $20 dollars and gives $19, is he less generous than another who has $100 and gives $20? Proportional giving, per the amount one has, has been a cornerstone of how societies measure generosity for many ages. I guess that is irrelevant. Im sorry.

Remember, Per GNI is the damn standard the UN uses and sets their aid goals by in the first place (which is targeted at .7% of GNI). Why did they pick an irrelevant measure? Why are you more of a judge of what is relevant than other people?

[Oregone]

34. Actually, regarding per capita, that doesn't quite work out...

Correct me if I am wrong on my math...

The US ODA is 20,000 million dollars

Norways ODA is 2,200 million dollars

The US has 300 million people, meaning a per capita ODA contribution of $66 dollars per capita

Norway has 4.6 million people, meaning a per capita ODA contribution of $478 dollars per capita

Am I missing something here? A decimal place?

[Hello_Kitty]

49. I agree we should get that higher

In order to do that, we need higher wages and a better social safety net.

[Still Sensible]

44. If in fact that is what "Buy American" means, I can support that

--assuming the materials and parts can be acquired here--but as for the big picture I think the OP is right.

[mdmc]

30. As one that shops locally, I see nothing wrong with a political entity

protecting part of its economy.

This should be allowed for a multiple of purposes. Defense, culture, economic stability. All of these reasons justify "protecting" part of the economy.

These trade deals are bad, globally bad. Bad of all. To the benefit of only a few wealthy people. They should be dumped.

[Oregone]

31. Head, meet wall.

Of course there is nothing wrong with protecting the economy and workers. Of course these trade deals should be dump (or reworked until recognizable). Im all for that. But you don't accomplish all that by throwing the right wing a single temporary provision in a one time stimulus bill. You cannot look after the long term interests of the American economy by unilaterally violating a trade agreement you have no explicit intention of renegotiating or leaving. Thats absurd. Get on the damn phone with other countries' leaders and solve this mess for good in a diplomatic, careful and thoughtful way that doesn't alienate the country as it is entering a massive economic downturn.

I see everything wrong with no diplomacy, or unilateral cowboy diplomacy that doesn't fix the real problem. That is what is happening with this provision.

[mdmc]

35. I don't see how this clause violates any of the trade agreements

It won't make it harder or more expensive for an American company to buy Canadian steel.
But I am not a lawyer.
And I have very low expectations for this administration. In fact, sad to say out loud, but I could care less what Obama does, as long as it gets him re-elected. Because the other corporate party is worse then the worst dem.

There is something wholeheartedly unAmerican in what you propose. I like it. I think that these agreements can be reworked and be beneficial for all. Fair trade.

But I, my friend, am just one poor man. I am only tryin to get by. I feel like I can either support Obama, or not. My opinions might not get Obama re-elected. So I just go along for the ride.

Man, I'm bummin myself out.

[Oregone]

36. As far as I am aware...

Even government projects are not allowed to favor domestic suppliers (in these agreements), and it is an issue that has been visited in the past. I don't believe there is a case ruling that contradicts this, but if anyone could point me to it, Id be willing to take a hard look. Ill see if I can find any links.

My thoughts on the administration, sadly, are somewhat similar to you. I hope I am wrong though, but regardless, the alternative party is devastating.

[Oregone]

37. So from what I can tell, it depends on how the monies are used

And perhaps how much privatization will be used in the projects. If a materials are sourced in such a way that a government body is procuring them, there is an exception written in some agreements. But if private companies are given these contracts and sourcing materials, they may be open to be sued under these agreements from what Ive briefly read. I think there are some cases Canada lost where it did this and was claiming it was protected by means of the government procurement clause. There are basically clauses against favoring nations in these agreements, and thats what this essentially does.

If they are going to do anything to violate them, lets just do away with them already or fix them (and at least communicate with the world regarding this). Otherwise, what's the damn point of treading this line?

[mdmc]

45. agreed

but all in all, do you agree with the idea of having part of the strategic economy protected under national security?
I do.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. The stimulus bill presents a perfect opportunity to revise them

I can't think of a more pressing cause to protect American industries from having to compete with foreign bidders for contracts. WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Government projects SHOULD favor domestic suppliers

Good gawdalmighty, if ANYONE should support domestic industries it should be the government! And if trade deals have been written to require the U.S. government to accept foreign bids, they need to be changed IMMEDIATELY.

[cynatnite]

38. To the greatest page with you. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

54. You're right, any and all protectionism is wrong.

We should allow foreign corporations to bid on ambulance contracts and other emergency services. It hardly seems fair that all of our police and firefighters are Americans either. We need to get some H1Bs in there. But we shouldn't worry about any of that until we fix the most glaring issue: that xenophobic constitutional issue requiring the President to be native born. What an outrage to all of the fully qualified unemployed Canadian politicians who deserve a fair shot at governing our country.

[Oregone]

57. Thats straw man bullshit

Clearly my OP states Im against H1Bs, against NAFTA as it stands (and maybe period), and pro-tariff. Is that the best you can do?

[ContinentalOp]

62. Right.

You're against those things. You just don't want us to do anything about it. Gotcha.

[Oregone]

63. And this doesn't do anything about those things. Not a damn thing

And that is one thing that has me pissed off.

Find in this "Buy American" provision one thing about abolishing or renegotiating NAFTA, about regulating or revoking H1Bs and just a single thing about creating tariffs. Go ahead...I challenge you.

This provision does nothing to address the problem. Any job it creates will be gone the minute the money dries up. All it does it make Right wingers (and apparently others) have orgasms and forget the real issues. Of course I would like the US to do something about these issues, but this stops far short in its attempt to pander.

[orleans]

64. it is environmentally more sound to buy and trade within this continent. n/t

[Oregone]

65. Yeah?

And that factoid has what to do with changing the status of trade agreements?

Don't you get it? The minute these funds dry up, its trade as normal and as environmentally unsound as normal. Status quo. All at the cost of just stirring the pot, with none of the benefit.

[orleans]

66. "Yeah?"

don't want to get into a pissing contest--i'm tired, and just added a thought i had to your post. so KILL ME!

[Kellen RN]

67. Gotta agree with the OP here...

He's not saying don't buy american. He's saying this is one giant hand job for the right that accomplishes almost nothing long term. Buying american is a great concept, but if we made more than fast food and reality tv then it would be a little easier to buy american. Maybe he's just a little pissed at a benign attempt to fix the problem and would like a little NEGOTIATION of our tariffs that outsource jobs and export american dollars. Thus, we have his zealous use of the term "cowboy diplomacy". Just what I'm getting from the OP. And for the most part I agree.

[Waiting For Everyman]

68. Do you fucking realize this is an EMERGENCY?

...from your shores of This-Isn't-Burning-My-Own-Toes-Yet-istan?

You want to sit down and have a fucking conference about this? Now? Are you nuts?

In case you don't know it, the black hole vortex is accelerating fast: 500K jobs lost per month the last few months of 2008, now it's 700K in January. Does that tell you something? We'll soon be up to 1 million per month.

Get a grip. This should've been passed, and bigger, a week ago. If we don't "act unilaterally" and God-help-us hope it's effective enough, we're going down the drain...

And by the way, the rest of the world is going after us. Do you get that now?

The Stimulus isn't big enough, or far-reaching enough. It'll need to be MUCH bigger because WE HAVE WAITED THIS LONG TO DO ANYTHING. And the bankruptcy/foreclosure machine fueled by the credit strike by the banks has not been stopped. It rolls on, chewing up more companies (those still ok and not outsourcing) and individuals by the DAY. (Each month's unemployment stats are how many went into the machine that month. 700K pre-loaded in January for foreclosure a few months from now.) THAT machine (the bankruptcy/foreclosure laws, and other "financial transaction laws" which ALL need a moratorium and changing, along with across the board debt and interest reductions) is at the heart of this job disaster too, just as much as outsourcing and trade. Nothing is being done about it. Nothing at all.

It's attitudes like this in the OP, that we have time or the option, to fiddle around with policy now, or contracts, that has caused this and still is. Contracts aren't going to mean a DAMN in few months. None of them.

They will all be unpayable and unenforceable. It'll be enforcing empty air when all of us are bankrupt by our definitions in use now. We're going down the hopper for that kind of technical crap, financial and legal technical crap, instead of changing the definitions and terms in one swoop for everybody, which is what it will take. THAT CAN be done by law. But we'd rather dig in our heels and enforce contracts. Good luck with that. Assholes.

[Oregone]

73. That sounds like the whole "Well if the house is on fire" line the GOPers ran with...

When they shoved a shitty bank bailout down our throats. There is ALWAYS time to stop a minute and figure things out. Just because there is an emergency, it doesn't justify a frantic, unmeasured response. And as for this specific provision, considering it alone cannot create one long-term, post stimulus job, it might be just like pouring gasoline on the fire.

As you say: "The Stimulus isn't big enough, or far-reaching enough."

It is also extremely flawed, by offering tax cuts and tax incentives for buying cars (and not firmly addressing homeowners and consumer debt). Yes, it should probably be doubled too. Why are they all sitting around churning out a bullshit stimulus bill just so they can be seen doing so? Its all a tad ridiculous.

BTW, convincing people that everything is a dire, no-time-to-stop emergency, is a damn good way to manipulate them.

[Waiting For Everyman]

78. Fiddling while Rome burns.

Nothing would come out of talking about this, except time-wasting. Our "trading partners" can't even stay out of the one-time Stimulus program, much less renegotiate the agreements. If they had any sense, they'd be showing it by cooperating with that little bit. Obviously not.

[OneBlueSky]

69. just what does America still make that you can buy? . . . n/t

.

[Waiting For Everyman]

70. Concrete and steel.

Is that ok with the world?

Maybe they'd like those plants closed too. Well pretty soon, they will be, so the world will be happy. Why don't we just close all the businesses we all work for right now, and get it over with? How's that world? If we're all getting laid off anyway, why waste our time going to work for a few more months for nothing?

And then you (the rest of the world) can try to come here and garnish all our stuff, to fulfill your "contracts". But if I were you, I'd watch out for the highly armed and rather angry millions of people with nothing else to do. That might be a problem for you.

Cheerio,
WFE

[Oregone]

74. "watch out for the highly armed and rather angry millions of people with nothing else to do"

Nothing to do? What, are their flat screens and Playstations broke? :)

[Waiting For Everyman]

76. I guess you don't know that they don't work without power, smart guy.

Tons of people are losing utilities every day. But until it's you, why worry?

[Oregone]

77. My power wont be going out any time soon

Its only $10 to $15 bucks a month. All hail socialized utilities!

So, other than a massive loss of power, yeah, probably wont see people on the streets.

[Waiting For Everyman]

79. This is real funny, keep laughing.

[Horse with no Name]

85. I saw some faux Lincoln logs at Walmart

that were "made in the USA".
I bet there is a run on them. Better get while the gettings good.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Fortunately, Obama backed off the protectionist flagwaving.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090204/pl_nm/us_obama_trade_2

Obama says U.S. can't send protectionist trade message

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he did not want to send a protectionist message on world trade and would look at altering "Buy American" language in an economic stimulus bill coming out of Congress.

"I think it would be a mistake ... at a time when worldwide trade is declining for us to start sending a message that somehow we're just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade," Obama said on the Fox television network.

That built on a $825 billion stimulus plan passed last week by the House of Representatives that required the use of U.S.-made iron and steel in public works projects. That provision raised concerns among U.S. trading partners that the United States was moving toward increased protectionism.

The governments of both the European Union and Canada sent letters to Congress on Monday urging the provision be dropped.

In a separate interview on the ABC television network, Obama said any parts of the bill that could spark retaliation from U.S. allies should be removed.

"I think we need to make sure that any provisions that are in there are not going to trigger a trade war," he said, referring to the "Buy American" components.

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. Then he's likely to get a political war.

Because the "proletariat" is going to be outraged and rightly so - both Dem AND Repub.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. You'd prefer flagwaving and empty nationalist slogans?

Although they worked well for Mussolini and Peron in rousing the "proletariat"...for a while.

[Waiting For Everyman]

84. Unlike you globalists, this is no game to working people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Globalists? Are you goiing to start singing "God Bless Amurka" at me?

Or, just call me a dirty commie?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Waiting For Everyman]

87. You're a nitwit.

But not alone. Staring into the face of total economic disaster from ideas like yours, and you still don't bother to sober up. Awesome.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. And, your fix for the economic disaster is to "Buy American"?

A slogan?

[Waiting For Everyman]

89. If it was a slogan, the free traders wouldn't be fighting it, would they now?

Is this the best you can do - ludicrous petty deceptions?

[Kansas Wyatt]

90. The free traders and the anti-American Worker Club knows damn well...

That Buy American used to be the rule, back when the United States was really BOOMING, which was post WW II to the Great Republican Fraud. Which is not to be confused with the republican version of 'gusher everything up to the top booming.'

The Free Traders have their spiny claws dug into the American Workers' backs, still trying to shove them under water to get their way.