Top Republican: Scrap 'buy American' stimulus clause

[Joanne98]

Source: AFP


WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Senate should strip a "Buy American" clause from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, the chamber's top Republican said Monday amid anger at the restriction from US allies.

"I don't think we ought to use a measure that is supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted to set off trade wars when the entire world is experiencing a downturn in the economy," said Senator Mitch McConnell.

Asked whether he would support trying to strip the measure from what is now roughly an 888-billion-dollar economic stimulus package, the Republican minority leader told reporters: "I think it's a bad idea to put it in a bill like this, which is supposed to be about jump starting the economy, yes."

The House of Representatives last week voted to require that public works projects funded by its 819-billion-dollar stimulus bill to use only US iron and steel. The Senate version extends that restriction to all manufactured goods.

McConnell's comments came as Canada Trade Minister Stockwell Day warned that US protectionism "can only trigger retaliatory action" as he urged Obama to fight the provision.


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jNUPcf0GEP_zr3R6QPCU6F3cjgWQ

---

[louis-t]

1. Why does Mitch hate America?

[sasquatch]

21. Becuase he's a confederate deep down inside

[Ticonderoga]

84. I dunno, there were probably some good confederates

This guy's just a complete asshole

[mitchum]

86. He must have had his chin shot off at Gettsyburg

[IntravenousDemilo]

93. Heh

:rofl:

[closeupready]

35. Yeah, that was my first thought, too.

:mad:

[butterfly77]

55. He and his buddies...

have money tied up in overseas investments,are these people the real Americans?

[Wabbajack_]

136. McConnel (R-China)

[MissMillie]

2. hey mitch, if we employ all those U.S. steel workers then they can

go out and buy a bunch of Japanese TVs

[Romulox]

3. Our national economic policy is "free trade", so he's got a point.

Should the US Congress "buy American" so that American workers have more money to purchase Toyotas? How does that makes sense?

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Should the stimulus be used to employ people in other countries?

How does that make sense?

[Romulox]

13. America has the largest trade deficit in the history of humanity.

For this reason, the stimulus money will be directed overseas no matter what we do.

For example, >50% of the vehicles sold in the US are foreign marks. So more money in the hands of workers means more Toyota sales, which means that stimulus money will flow to Japan regardless...

[Hello_Kitty]

16. That's a good point

Still, if the stimulus creates and saves jobs here it's a net positive IMO.

[Vincardog]

49. Yes it does. The point of the package should be to put American workers to work.

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. "Free trade" is a grotesque misnomer. You should know that.

If you were an animal preyed on in the wild by the apex predators, you'd call that "the law of the jungle", "nature red in tooth and claw", not "freedom".

[Romulox]

129. I think "free trade" is a disgusting mockery, but President Obama strongly disagrees (see sig) nt

[MadMaddie]

180. Our current National Economic Policy is a threat

against National Security. If American is dependent on let's say China and India for basic manufactured goods and the world and US economy go to shit...like now...America is at a huge disadvantage.

The US needs to evaluate which industries are essential to National Security and then promote and protect those industries. Industries outside of the protected industries can outsource work and product as much as they want.

[NYC_SKP]

4. You know what, Mitch?

Fuck off.

[truthisfreedom]

5. I love the position this puts the rethugs in. A worthy conundrum. Why do they hate America???

[closeupready]

37. Exactly. That is exactly correct.

Loving it, too. :rofl:

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. As a Canadian, I'm afraid I must concur.

Our economies are intimately connected, so he's right in this case. Even a blind pig gets the occasional acorn.

[Romulox]

9. So, how much stimulus $$$ is Canada sending to Michigan?

Seeing as we're intimately connected, you Canadians wouldn't let something as trivial as an international border determine whom the Canadian government will assist, would you? :eyes:

[IntravenousDemilo]

18. Approximately as much as Washington is sending to Ontario, which is to say, zero.

But we're not also putting a "buy Canadian" thingy in our stimulus package, either.

If you want to bring those industries back home from Asia, the best way would be for Congress to pass a law mandating that all foreign workers in American-owned overseas manufacturing plants be paid exactly the same wage as workers back home. Eliminate the advantage of low-paid sweatshop labourers, and you remove the incentive to outsource American jobs.

By the way, I do look at labels on various goods, and I will buy only Canadian or American union-made goods unless absolutely forced to do otherwise. So I'm doing my part.

[Romulox]

27. Right, but the difference being, Canada is demanding US taxpayer bailout funds

[IntravenousDemilo]

32. I hadn't heard about that. Tell me more. n/m

[pampango]

38. Didn't know that Canada doesn't have "Buy Canadian" in their stimulus package.

I guess the response from many here would be: "Just because you let us compete for projects in your country, doesn't mean we have to let you compete for project in ours." And I don't want to hear the term "hypocrite" escape your lips. :) Actually they are not hypocrites, because many would just as soon wall Canada off from the US - you don't buy our stuff and we don't buy your stuff. And if they want to wall Canada off, you can imagine what they want to do with the rest of the world that really is different from you and us.

[musette_sf]

40. doesn't Canada have laws in place

that say that you cannot offshore all your manufacturing? and so manufacturing stays in place, in Canada, for many items? the way i understand it, Canada wants to be able to be self-sufficient should any event cause a problem in receiving goods from outside of the country, therefore there are laws that require that a certain amount of domestic manufacturing activity remains active in case of that scenario.

if this is the case, then a certain amount of "Buy Canadian" is already baked into your laws.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. IIRC, Canada requires that radio stations play a certain percentage of native artists

But, you know, it's different when they do it. When we protect our jobs and industries that's "protectionism" and it's bad, bad, bad.

[Not a robought]

62. LOL, cultural product is the WORST example you could use

Just as an example, theatrical box office in Canada is 96% US controlled. Culture is not on the table, lol.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. And many movies are made in Canada

I lived in Naniamo, BC from 1995 to 1997 so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with Canada.

I love you guys up there in the Great White North but I'm not in favor of handing you my tax dollars in a time of crisis. Sorry if that seems unreasonable but it's just how I feel.

[Not a robought]

67. It's a crisis of your own making

thus it's a crisis of your own fixing. Else cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. Here we go again

Yes, it is our crisis. Yes, we need to fix it ourselves. The way to fix it is by putting Americans to work in well-paying jobs.

[pfitz59]

182. Yea Naniamo!

Labatts blue hooeeyy!

[treestar]

81. Is this the law in Canada?

Does Canada have the same problem of outsourcing of jobs - or is the US unique with this?

[Hello_Kitty]

87. That's a great idea

If you want to bring those industries back home from Asia, the best way would be for Congress to pass a law mandating that all foreign workers in American-owned overseas manufacturing plants be paid exactly the same wage as workers back home. Eliminate the advantage of low-paid sweatshop labourers, and you remove the incentive to outsource American jobs.

Except the minute it was proposed the corporatists would be screaming their heads off about "protectionism" and "isolation" and "ur killing free trade oh noez!!1!" And of course the globalist chorus of DU would be screaming "xenophobia" and "y do u hate the 3rd world??1?1"

[IntravenousDemilo]

91. And of course, it wouldn't apply to Canada, because...

... our Canadian-based employees of US-owned companies are already paid on a par with US-based workers. No sweatshops here, and the manufacturing jobs are pretty well all unionized.

[Not a robought]

43. Get a clue

Both the Canadian and Ontario governments are going into deficit to put money towards GM & Chrysler operations in Canada - American corporations at that.

And seeing as how the economic collapse worldwide was due to American negligence with credit and subprime mortgages, it's only fair that Americans clean up after themselves, or I guess you're only fine with everyone else shouldering the pain of an irresponsible mess?

[Hello_Kitty]

46. What's your point?

Canada is helping to bail out GM and Chrysler because GM and Chrysler employ people in Canada. It's not that hard to figure out.

And seeing as how the economic collapse worldwide was due to American negligence with credit and subprime mortgages, it's only fair that Americans clean up after themselves, or I guess you're only fine with everyone else shouldering the pain of an irresponsible mess?

I couldn't agree more. That's why American tax dollars should create American jobs so that Americans can clean up the mess we make. Again, it's not that hard to figure out. Creating more low-wage jobs in other countries ain't gonna do it.

[Not a robought]

51. So who's going to buy those American products and services

with trade barriers up? Who's going to employ those newly unemployed exporters?

I thought we were talking about Canada here, not third world low wage job straw men.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Americans.

And who, pray tell, is buying ANYTHING right now? This is why the Cassandra cries about "protectionism" and "trade wars" are so amusing to me. The entire world has been dependent on the US consumer for decades and now that the US consumer isn't buying anything everyone's economy is in the shitter.

[Not a robought]

60. Oh okay

So then explain the plan on paying down that deficit and making up for the bad debt? :crazy:

I'm not expecting wisdom, the question is almost rhetorical. No one else in charge has been able to.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. Uh, kinda hard to pay down the deficit if Americans don't have good paying jobs.

Isn't it?

[Not a robought]

64. Well guess what,

it's approximately $2 billion in goods and services that crosses the US Canada border - daily.

Strangle that and see how positive that will be towards Americans with good paying jobs.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. Why would that be strangled if Canada doesn't get my tax dollars?

:shrug:

[treestar]

72. So the U.S. consumer must be the ones to get the good jobs because

everyone else needs us to buy the stuff they make?

Americans should buy stuff made in America, and everyone else should buy stuff made in their own countries is what I get from this.

You're against international trade?

[Hello_Kitty]

78. You're against putting Americans to work?

Do tell.

[Romulox]

69. When you "contrast", you compare two DISSIMILAR things...

Both the US and Michigan governments are also going into deficit to save the Big 3, so try again.

(By the way, Canadian content laws are the reason so many cars are made in Ontario! :hi: )

[Not a robought]

75. Ford isn't asking for bailout money

No one's disputing US and Michigan aren't putting in money, but please follow the thread.

[Romulox]

130. Actually, that's not entirely true (Ford has requested a US guaranteed line of credit)

I don't see what ANY of this has to do with Canadians demanding "their share" of US taxpayer bailout monies. In my opinion, Canadians already have their fair share of the stimulus package: $0.00. :hi:

[Lucky Luciano]

199. Not entirely true

England, Spain, and Ireland, among others did a rather fine job of overlevering their consumers causing a massive housing problem over there as well.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. So you think US tax dollars should be used to create jobs in Canada?

Fuck that shit. If y'all want a stimulus pay for it yourselves.

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. No, but the stimulus shouldn't be used to eliminate them either.

We are your largest trading partner, and something like 90 per cent of our industries are US-owned in any case.

We are paying for a stimulus, but our efforts are useless against protectionism.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Sorry but I don't think my tax dollars should go to protecting jobs in Canada

And I have yet to hear a convincing argument against "protectionism". There's nothing wrong with trade. But trade agreements should be fair and even-handed. That is not the case now.

[IntravenousDemilo]

20. OK, but...

Your economy won't get healthy unless ours does too. It doesn't have to be "either/or". It can be "and". You don't become strong by making your friends weak.

And that's especially true if you wish to retain us as suppliers of relatively cheap energy for your industrial stimulus.

[Romulox]

30. I'm sorry, but that's silly.

"And that's especially true if you wish to retain us as suppliers of relatively cheap energy for your industrial stimulus."

Canadians have the hardest time understanding a basic point of economics: oil is sold on the open markets, at the market rate. Canada does not sell oil to the US as a favor, nor could they get appreciably more selling this oil to China or whomever.

In other words, the $33-$200 a barrel you receive for your oil is a fair and adequate compensation for the supply.

[CanadaSam]

95. what you were talking about

Energy doesn't always equal oil. Canada sells US natural gas and hydro electric directly. It is cheaper than you can produce it. So at least get your facts straight before you lecture us on our ability to understand basic economics.

[Romulox]

131. Canada sells energy for CASH, not kudos. It's a market transaction.

"It is cheaper than you can produce it. "

It sells for more than it's worth to you. That makes it an even transaction. There is no residual gratitude flowing from this transaction.

[pampango]

47. You're talking about our two countries working together for mutual benefit.

We used to live in that world, but now we are in the "You're either with us or you're against us" and unfortunately, if you're Canadian, you must fall into the latter camp.

I've been posting on DU for years and this is about the only sustained anti-Canada posting that I can remember. Progressives here used to hold Canada in high regard and had almost universally positive things to say about your country. Heck, many here have indicated a desire to move there - usually after a disappointing election - but for the first time, I see Canada referred to as an unfair trading partner.

[Not a robought]

80. Show me the WMDs that warrant the protectionism

Listen to your border states, none of them want it either as they'll suffer as well.

[Romulox]

132. Perhaps you were in a coma during the primary "naftagate"? nt

[boilinmad]

160. Being in the movie industry...

...ive seen Canada as an unfair trading partner for years. Canadians working in the movie business can work all they want here in the states, but very few American crew members are allowed to work in Canada. Theyve also bribed the studios to shoot all their movies in Canada by giving HUGE tax breaks. They now think that they're the movie capital of the world because they know how movies are made. Actually, its because theyre CHEAP, and thats what does the talking here in Hollywood.

[Not a robought]

185. You sound like a Hollywood best boy grip with a sense of privilege and entitlement

California jumped the shark, maybe focus on fixing that.

Canadians don't have carte blanche to work in the States. They need work permits just as Americans do to work in Canada which are granted all the time to US key talent / department heads that the American producers want on the production. The more they bring in, the less a tax credit they can qualify for.


Not unlike the way the tax credits work in Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana, Australia, Thailand or any other center in the world that competes for a production dollar.

Then the other incentive is the difference on the dollar if the margin is enough. And given how the CDN/US dollar was at parity for most of last year, with the economy already weakening, foreign production in Canada mostly dried up except for the producers who wanted to come up and shoot anyway regardless of the financials just because they preferred to.

[Not a robought]

48. Indeed

NAFTA is currently weighted to the US's advantage. If talks were to re-open they would not be.

No need to work yourself up, protectionism will be off the table before President Obama steps off Air Force One in Ottawa in a couple of weeks. Or would you prefer a prolonged depression?

[Hello_Kitty]

50. NAFTA is currently weighted to CORPORATIONS' advantage

There, I fixed that statement for you.

And the argument that "protectionism" prolonged the Depression is so much debunked bullshit that I can't believe people still bring it up.

[Not a robought]

54. Not true

as an unincorporated professional I've managed to benefit from it.

And regardless, I guess my main point is that it's all a getting worked up about nothing. We won't see any further protectionism no matter what you cry.

[pampango]

89. Debunked is in the eye of the beholder. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

92. About the best debunking you're going to behold is right here on DU

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/unlawflcombatnt

It's got a chart and everything.

[pampango]

98. That's not much of a debunking.

The chart used there shows that the four worst years of GDP during the Depression were the four years that Smoot-Hawley was in effect. Those same four years were also the worst years for international trade.

You can't determine cause and effect from the chart, but it certainly doesn't prove that there is not connection between trade and the health of the economy nor that Smoot-Hawley had no effect on either.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. It's a thorough smackdown.

Correlation isn't causation. The Depression was well underway before S-H was enacted and of course the years 1930 to 1934 were the worst because FDR's programs hadn't been fully implemented. It wasn't international trade that got us out of the Depression. It was putting Americans to work. Notice that exports and imports were never a big percentage of the economy throughout the 30s.

[pampango]

113. I agree that correlation is not causation, as I said in my post.

As you state the years of 1930 to 1934 were the worst years of the Depression. The fact that those were also the years that Smoot-Hawley was in effect do not, as you say, prove that SH caused those bad years, but it hardly proves the SH had no effect on the economy.

You will note that the as the the trade decreased as a percentage of GDP (from 11% in 1929 to less than 7% in 1932 & 1933) the economy deteriorated and bottomed (in terms of GDP in 1934). After 1934 as trade increased as a percentage of GDP (from 7.3 % in 1934 to 8.7% in 1937), the economy was also gradually recovering.

One would need much more evidence to prove a causal relationship, but a trade proponent could make the case that as international trade decreased as a percentage of the economy, the Depression got worse. Then when trade increased as a percentage of the economy, the economy itself began to recover. As I said this chart only provide evidence that there is a correlation (not causation) between the importance of international trade and the health of the economy, but it is hardly a smackdown of any criticism of Smoot-Hawley.

[Hello_Kitty]

117. Are you kidding me?

In 1937, 3 years into the "recovery" from that supposedly dastardly Smoot Hawley period, exports were slightly over 4% of the GDP. Note that it was mostly offset by the imports during the time. I'm sorry, but you're just not going to be able to make a convincing case with that. It's rather like McCain arguing that eliminating earmarks (1% of the federal budget) would make a significant dent in the deficit.

Edit: BTW, you don't add imports and exports to determine the percentage of the GDP that trade is. You subract them. In 1937, trade was .01% of the GDP.

[pampango]

118. Actually trade consists of imports and exports. The difference between the two is called

the "balance of trade".

Actually, you do add imports and exports to determine the percentage of GDP that trade represents. If you subtract one from the other you get the percentage of GDP that the balance of trade is.

The chart you referenced clearly shows that the higher the percentage of trade relative to the economy, the healthier the economy is. That doesn't prove a causal relationship, but it doesn't disprove it either (hence not a smackdown).

[Hello_Kitty]

119. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts and math

In 1937 the GDP was $91.9B. 66.8 personal consumption + 12.2 private domestic investment + .1 net exports + 12.8 gov't spending = 91.9

Imports are ALWAYS subtracted from the GDP. At any rate, it's plainly obvious from the chart that trade was simply not a big factor in the economy during the 30s, either before or after Smoot Hawley. Which is why I submit there may have been no need for tariffs at the time. But I'm not buying the bullshit story about them prolonging the Depression either.

[pampango]

121. You, too, are welome to your opinion. I see a correlation between the total amount of trade,

as a percentage of GDP, and the health of the economy. I don't consider 7-11% of an nation's economy to be a negligible factor, but you may do as you wish as far as the importance you give to different statistics. You prefer to focus on the balance of trade which is a much smaller number and, therefore, less consequential.

[Hello_Kitty]

125. It was inconsequential back then.

The current trade deficit, OTOH, is somewhat more consequential. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm

[Hello_Kitty]

120. Also notice the increase in gov't spending that coincided with the growth from 1934 to 1937

That had to be at least as significant as any increases in trade.

[pampango]

126. I have not contended that the increased significance of trade caused an improved economy.

It could be that an improving economy caused a greater significance of trade. All you can tell from the chart is that the level (percent of GDP) of trade in a given year was directly correlated to the health of the economy. There were no years during the period covered by the chart in which the role of trade decreased and the economy improved or that trade increased and the economy worsened.

You may prefer to believe that what appears to be a direct statistical correlation between the amount of trade and the health of the economy is just a series of lucky coincidences and that the two have nothing to do with each other. By all means believe whatever you wish, but neither does anything in that chart prove that Smoot-Hawley, or anything else that hurt trade, ever did anything positive for the economy.

I agree with you that FDR's programs had much to do with the improving economy. Since his programs kicked in at about the same time that Smoot-Hawley was effectively repealed, it is a more muddled picture as to which helped the economy more. Still throughout that period there was a direct correlation between the significance of trade and the health of the economy.

It's been nice talking with you, but I have to get up early. Have a good evening. :)

[Romulox]

139. You can't even DEFINE a "healthy economy". GDP says nothing about *distribution*

The greatest disparity of wealth in the modern America has accelerated along with increased trade. :hi:

[pampango]

142. Granted. I should have used the term "growing economy" since all that chart showed was the

level of GDP, not its distribution, during the Depression.

[Romulox]

143. It's more fundamental than semantics. Our increasing GDP is not shared fairly

The lack of class mobility, income disparity, and stagnant wage growth all have all substantially increased during the same time frame.

But your chart doesn't show that, and I guess it just doesn't occur to you that the way the pie is cut up (not just its absolute size) might be of significance?

[pampango]

146. It's not MY chart. Someone defending Smoot-Hawley used it and I was responding to that

using the same chart which just dealt with the Depression years.

Of course, distribution of the pie is of the utmost importance. I have posted many times that it is our own fault in America that our wealth is so skewed. We can and should correct that. Canada and Europe are prosperous societies, are much better in terms of income and wealth distribution and do not shy away from international trade.

[Romulox]

147. But it IS your argument derived therefrom, and it's faulty for not taking into account distribution

"I have posted many times that it is our own fault in America that our wealth is so skewed. "

Let me guess? Is it laziness that have gotten the poor into their predicament? Indolence? "Shiftlessness"??? You tell me.

[pampango]

151. Fine. If you're saying that I should have done more research on the Depression era and

not just responded to the chart the other poster suggested, I take your advice to heart. I should have done some research on income distribution during the Depression.

What do "laziness", "indolence", and "shiftlessness" have to do with allowing all of the changes to the progressivity of our tax structure with tax breaks for the rich and the dismantling of our regulatory structure? You seem to be blaming the poor for our economic problems. It is "our" fault in the sense that "we" have allowed our government to be controlled by forces that were harmful to the welfare of most of our people. We can correct this domestically through taxation, regulatory and social policy changes without blaming other countries. As I said, many other prosperous countries have much better distributions of income and wealth than we do and are not afraid of international trade or agreements.

[Romulox]

152. No, I am saying you need to observe the basic facts of the world around you before pontificating

on what is or what is not a "healthy economy".

"It is "our" fault in the sense that "we" have allowed our government to be controlled by forces that were harmful to the welfare of most of our people. "

Get real. The same multinational corporations in whose interest you argue buy off every last one of our politicians.

[pampango]

155. You're still on my "healthy economy" term instead of "growing economy" during the Depression?

The same multinational corporations exist in Canada, Europe and Australia. Their citizens seem to be able to force their governments to maintain national health care systems and more equitable income and wealth distributions, while not running away from trade with other countries. Perhaps we should ask some Canadians or Europeans how it is that they are not emasculated and rendered powerless by the evil multinational corporations in their societies and the international trade that they foster.

[Romulox]

165. Yeah, I'm kind of fixated on fairness. Go figure. nt

[Romulox]

168. Canada, Europe and Australia all have PARLIAMENTARY democracy

We do not. We get to vote for either Frick or Frack, and they're both on the take. Voting for an honest third-party candidate is characterized as "throwing your vote away!"

[pampango]

170. Good point. Parliamentary democracies are better. n/t

[digidigido]

23. Hi Rush

If you're going to talk rudely to people who are engaging in a civil discussion but have a
different point of view, then the label fits

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Rush is in favor of corporations

I'm sure he doesn't support any "buy American" movement.

And I'll fucking talk whatever fucking way I fucking want.

[Shaky]

25. Scrape buy American

Don't forget whose electricity the entire eastern seaboard uses, also don't forget where 25% of U.S. oil comes from. We don't want to get into a trade war do we?

[Hello_Kitty]

31. WE want our tax dollars to create jobs here.

That's what WE want.

BTW it's kind of amusing to hear people talk about "trade wars" when there's pretty much no trade going on right now because the US consumer isn't spending money. Honestly, you'd think people would realize that if Americans don't have jobs they can't buy stuff anywhere and since the whole world depends on that, you'd think people would want Americans to have jobs.

[treestar]

74. We both belong to NAFTA, so it is not inconceivable that jobs

in Canada might help stimulate our economy.

If you want the US to operate on its own without trading partners, you could find that to be a disadvantage down the road. The rest of the world would be trading with each other. The US couldn't export things.

The stimulus would be meant to work to get the US participating in the international economy again, not cut it off from it.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Do you have any idea what our trade deficit is?

This is NOT a healthy situation and it shouldn't be continued. Trade is fine, but it needs to be fair. And this US taxpayer stimulus needs to put a priority on American jobs and American products. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument against "protectionism". Every one I've heard so far is thinly veiled wage suppression apologia.

[treestar]

101. We'd have to get other countries to buy our products to fix that deficit

We have to make better products at better prices, too. We're not so great as we claim to be if the consumer chooses someone else's products. Which includes the American and the nonAmerican consumer.

[Hello_Kitty]

109. Excuse me but our market has been FLOODED with cheap foreign made goods

How do you compete with countries where people are paid 25 cents an hour? As for big ticket items like cars and TVs, we put no tariff or a very small ones on goods from countries that slap a massive tariff on our products. I lived in Japan for 3 years and certain types of American cars were actually hugely popular there. However, a US made car cost nearly double what a Japanese one cost due to the tariffs. That's the so-called Invisible Hand of the Market at work. :eyes:

[pampango]

17. Sorry buddy. Canadians may look like us and sound like us (well pretty close

anyway, eh? :) ), but your passports are a different color. In the US we try not to discriminate against people when it comes to race, gender, ethnicity, age, etc., but we still have the right to discriminate on the basis of the color of your passport. (Perhaps if the War of 1812 had gone differently, we wouldn't have different colored passports and we wouldn't be having this discussion.) ;)

[Romulox]

133. I'm < 1 hour from Windsor, Ontario, CA. Do you think I could just pop over for some free medical?

Lemme guess: "but that's different!" :hi: :eyes:

[pampango]

135. Good point. At least Canada never agreed to provide Americans with free medical care then

reneged on that agreement. They have an agreement with the US that each can participate in the government projects of the other. They have not put a "Buy Canadian" provision in their economic stimulus plan, probably because they know they agreed not to do that to us. We seem to have no such commitment to our agreement with them. :hi:

[Romulox]

138. Neither did America agree to provide Canadians with stimulus dollars.

BTW, your post is a fairly verbose way of saying, "but that's different!" :rofl:

[pampango]

141. No, I believe you are saying that our stimulus dollars are "different". We agreed to allow

each other to participate in government projects. They have not gone back on that commitment even in their stimulus plan, but your position seems to be that our stimulus plan is "special" and "different" so that our agreement does not apply to it.

[Romulox]

144. Er, no we didn't. The stimulus legislation hasn't even passed the Senate. nt

[pampango]

148. I know we haven't specifically allowed Canadians to compete for projects in the stimulus bill.

When we agreed to allow them to compete for our government projects (and us to compete for theirs), they may not have realized that we have to renew that commitment with each new project that Congress authorizes. Silly Canadians! They thought an agreement with us was a real agreement.

[Romulox]

149. Link to this alleged agreement? It's the first I've heard of it. nt

[pampango]

153. If that means that you agree that we should honor the agreement, if it exists, I'll be happy to.

(I only hope that the argument then doesn't shift to "Well, even though we did agree to allow each other to participate in each other's government projects, the stimulus bill is special and different, so the agreement really doesn't count.)

I'll get back to you. :hi:

[Romulox]

154. Just provide the link and discuss this honestly, k?

"(I only hope that the argument then doesn't shift to "Well, even though we did agree to allow each other to participate in each other's government projects, the stimulus bill is special and different, so the agreement really doesn't count.) "

In other words, you don't want to submit this allegedly controlling agreement for my consideration, because you fear I might read it? :eyes:

[pampango]

156. If that's what you want it to mean, then by all means go with your gut.

Of course, I could take your "Just provide the link and discuss this honestly" means that even if there is such an agreement, we still need to discuss whether we have to abide by it or not. One might think that if there is such an agreement, that would be the end of the discussion, not the beginning.

[Romulox]

167. My gut proved correct. Quelle surprise. nt

[pampango]

157. NAFTA - Part 4, Chapter 10, Section A. Let the "honest discussion" begin.

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/texte/chap10.aspx?lang=en#Article1003

Part 4, Chapter 10 - Government Procurement, Section A

Article 1001.4: No Party may prepare, design or otherwise structure any procurement contract in order to avoid the obligations of this Chapter.


Article 1003: National Treatment and Non-Discrimination

1. With respect to measures covered by this Chapter, each Party shall accord to goods of another Party, to the suppliers of such goods and to service suppliers of another Party, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that the Party accords to:

1. its own goods and suppliers; and

2. goods and suppliers of another Party.

[Romulox]

166. You've either misunderstood, or misrepresented, the text you've quoted

Nothing you've quoted applies to the stimulus.

"With respect to measures covered by this Chapter"

Please learn what a "proviso" is... :hi:

[pampango]

169. Why does it not apply to the stimulus?

"With respect to measures covered in this Chapter"

For federal government entities: Covered are goods and services in excess of $50,000 and construction services in excess of $6.5 million;
For government enterprises: Covered are goods and services in excess of $250,000 and construction services in excess of $8 million.

"No Party may prepare, design or otherwise structure any procurement contract in order to avoid the obligations of this Chapter."

Sounds like government procurement contracts in excess of those amounts are subject to the measures in the chapter. Unless the stimulus involves projects and contracts below those amounts it would seem that you misunderstood, or misrepresented, the proviso. :hi:

(I liked the way you threw in that "or misrepresented". It's very effective at implying that a poster is a nefarious agent of some kind; not just someone with whom you disagree. I'll try to remember that tactic. It's a good one.)

[Romulox]

171. Because the United States Congress is not enumerated in Annex 1001.1a-1.

You're just cherry-picking the parts you think support your argument, and ignoring the ones that don't.

"I liked the way you threw in that "or misrepresented"."

Well, it's possible you don't understand how provisos ("provided that")/pre-conditions work, but I think it is equally possible you are just misrepresenting the contents of the agreement, knowing as you must that not many will even attempt to verify. :hi:

[pampango]

172. I believe that is because all of the entities listed in Annex 1001.1a-1 are executive entities not

legislative ones. They would be the ones that would have to comply with the procurement rules, not the legislative body that authorized and funded the projects. That's why neither the US Congress nor the Canadian parliament are listed in that annex.

By your interpretation no government projects would ever be subject to the open bidding from both country provisions, since all government projects in either country are authorized and funded by the legislatures, which indeed are not listed in the annex. If true, you have found a major loophole in these NAFTA provisions. You have a future in international trade negotiations should you be so inclined.

[Romulox]

186. The point being, the treaty applies to enumerated entities engaging in enumerated activities

Legislative bodies disbursing stimulus funds are not listed.

"By your interpretation no government projects would ever be subject to the open bidding from both country provisions"

You don't seem to understand how legal construction works. You can't assert that NAFTA "probably" covers an activity and demand others disprove it. You are the only person that I've heard on the blogosphere or otherwise asserting that NAFTA controls in this case, and yet you can't explain how or why.

"If true, you have found a major loophole in these NAFTA provisions."

Nonsense. NAFTA doesn't mean that US citizens are entitled to National Health service in Canada, for example. So pretending that somewhere in NAFTA lies a requirement that any government monies disbursed by either government must be given to the others' nationals is silly, and not supported by anything you've presented.

You admitted as much when you were reluctant to identify NAFTA as the treaty that allegedly controls in this situation. :hi:

[pampango]

189. Legislative bodies approve and fund. Executive agencies implement legislation and spend funds.

When a government project is bid out, the bids don't go back to Congress, they go to the Department of Transportation, Interior or whatever. The agreement simply requires these executive agencies to treat companies from either country equally in deciding which bidder wins. It does not require "that any government monies disbursed by either government must be given to the others' nationals". That would be silly. It just give nationals from either country an opportunity to compete on an equal basis. It does not determine the nationality of the winner.

"You are the only person that I've heard on the blogosphere or otherwise asserting that NAFTA controls in this case, and yet you can't explain how or why." Allow me to try. Perhaps you will agree that NAFTA has a provision that member countries will not discriminate against each other in the awarding of government procurement contracts. All government projects, including the stimulus bill, are funded by Congress. You are saying that since Congress is not listed in the NAFTA annex that the stimulus (and by extension - all government projects, since they are all funded by Congress) is not covered by the nondiscrimination provision.

The drafters of NAFTA included a long list of executive agencies in both countries which would be governed by the provisions of the agreement when it comes to awarding government procurement contracts. Presumably they did this, because the executive agencies would be the ones spending the funds that were appropriated by Congress, hence would be the ones that would have to follow the nondiscrimination provision. Since all funds come from Congress, however, they kind of wasted their time listing all those executive agencies, since the fact that Congress is not listed means, according to you, that none of the procurement rules apply anyway.

"You admitted as much when you were reluctant to identify NAFTA as the treaty that allegedly controls in this situation." There was a poster in another thread who claimed to be from Canada and convincingly, to me, said there was such an agreement. He never said where the agreement was from. When you asked me to locate the source of the agreement, I looked. I'll assure you that if I hadn't been able to find it (and the Canadian poster was full of hot air), I would have come back and told you. I'm not here to trick you or bullshit you. When I found out that the provision was part of NAFTA, I put that fact in the title of my post so as to make it as obvious as possible.

I don't envy you being as suspicious of everyone as you are. :hi:

[Romulox]

190. Cite the language that makes a stimulus disbursement subject to NAFTA

else give it up. You can't work your way there, ala Descartes, via "first principles". You must cite the precise language supporting your case.

"I don't envy you being as suspicious of everyone as you are."

What a pathetic duck! Put up or shut up, as the young people say. :hi:

[pampango]

191. Hey, I've been trying to "put up".

To be precise, the NAFTA provision applies to "procurement...by a federal government entity...a government enterprise...or a state or provincial government entity..."

"This Chapter applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party relating to procurement: by a federal government entity set out in Annex 1001.1a-1, a government enterprise set out in Annex 1001.1a-2, or a state or provincial government entity set out in Annex 1001.1a-3 in accordance with Article 1024"

There is no exception in the agreement for a stimulus, so why would it not be covered? The stimulus will be passed and funded by Congress and disbursed by executive agencies, just like any other government project. The chapter does not say "some" government procurement, it precisely states that it applies to government procurement. If the stimulus results in a procurement by a federal or state government entity, then it is covered by this provision. Just because we think the stimulus is "special", doesn't make it immune to the provisions of the agreement.

On the other hand, if you are right that since NAFTA does not mention "economic stimulus" specifically (just government procurement in general), the stimulus is an exception to the provisions of the treaty, fine. The drafters of the agreement must not have realized that when they said "government procurement", they weren't covering government procurement resulting from specific legislation that they did not list in the agreement. (Though I'm not sure how they could list legislation that would occur in the future.) In that case, we can keep NAFTA from affecting government spending in the future, by just giving each spending bill a new name that isn't mentioned in NAFTA, e.g. "bridge building stimulus", "road building stimulus", and NAFTA provisions will never come into play because they are not mentioned in the treaty. That should be pretty easy since politicians like to invent fancy names for their legislation anyway. ;)

"No Party may prepare, design or otherwise structure any procurement contract in order to avoid the obligations of this Chapter."

[Romulox]

192. No, you have to start at the BEGINNING

You're still trying to form a "it MUST be covered!" argument. But the preamble you cited upthread starts with a "proviso" limiting the applicability of its provisions to enumerated entitites engaging in enumerated activities as listed in the annexes.

You must find the appropriate entity that you allege is bound by NAFTA in the first annex. Then (and ONLY then) you must find the enumerated activity. That's how laws, treaties, and contracts work.

"There is no exception in the agreement for a stimulus, so why would it not be covered?"

The law does not work this way.

[pampango]

193. Fine. You believe what you wish and so will I.

The enumerated entities are listed in the annex. We've been through that. You contend that since Congress is not listed, the provisions don't apply. I contend that using that definition the provisions are meaningless, since all government procurement is funded by Congress. I'm not saying you are wrong, since I am no attorney, but it would mean that the drafters wasted their time drawing up the provisions because they don't apply to anything.

Do you believe that the NAFTA provisions that we've been talking about apply to government procurement other than the stimulus or that they don't apply to any government procurement at all?

And thanks for the time you have spent trying to educate me on the intricacies of international trade agreements. I'm afraid I have no future in the field, since the words I read in the agreement don't mean the same things to me that they do to you. The poor drafters seem to have wasted a lot of time drawing up provision that don't apply to anything.

[Romulox]

194. Treaty interpretation has nothing to do with "belief".

If you had no ability (or no intention) on identifying the provision in NAFTA that controls in this instance, why waste everyone's time?

You do understand that it is dishonest to assert you know that something is true when you do not indeed know that it is true (e.g. that NAFTA is controlling in how we disburse stimulus funds...)

"Do you believe that the NAFTA provisions that we've been talking about apply to government procurement other than the stimulus"

My belief is immaterial. Either the treaty lists the stimulus as an enumerated activity coming under its ambit, or it does not. This is a treaty, not a bible. :hi:

[pampango]

197. "Either the treaty lists the stimulus as an enumerated activity coming under its ambit, or it does

not." Problem solved. The stimulus isn't mentioned in the treaty, so the treaty does not apply. For future government projects all we have to do is call them "stimulus" and we won't have to worry about the provisions of the treaty.

When I read the provision regarding not discriminating between Canadians and Americans in the awarding of government procurement contracts, I thought it meant what it appeared to say. If you think that it was dishonest of me to misconstrue that as requiring that the provision be applied to the procurement contracts resulting from the stimulus, then I apologize. I was honestly stating what I thought to be true from what I read.

[pampango]

201. Looks like the stimulus is covered by NAFTA's provisions after all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5135MN20090205

"Senators, on a voice vote, approved an amendment requiring that provisions that upset Canada, the European Union and other trading partners be "applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.""

"The underlying Senate bill had required that all public works projects funded by the stimulus package use only U.S.-made iron, steel and manufactured goods -- potentially putting the United States in violation of its commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization's government procurement agreement ."

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama supported Buy American provisions already in U.S. law that give preferences to domestic manufacturers in public works projects, but wanted to avoid an expansion that violates trade commitments ."

Sometimes things mean what they say, even to the untrained observer. Someone up high must have agreed with my interpretation that NAFTA's rules on nondiscrimination in awarding government procurement contracts apply to the stimulus. Perhaps they need your help at interpreting the provisions of international trade agreements.

You do understand that it is dishonest to assert you know that something is true when you do not indeed know that it is true (e.g. that NAFTA is controlling in how we disburse stimulus funds...)

BTW, I do not question your motivation. I am sure that you have been expressing your honest opinion as to how you interpreted this particular provision of the agreement. As have I. Hey, we all get a little smarter every day. Have a good evening. :hi:

[CHIMO]

124. Some Numbers

Might help put things in perspective.

http://economics.about.com/cs/analysis/a/trade_canada.htm

From Oct 2003 US monthly deficit with Canada $4,907.4 million.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Nov 2008. US import of oil per day 2,028,000

Now the years are different but do some math.
At $50/BBL for oil. And for 30 days in a month the US bought $30,000 of oil from Canada.

That makes Canada a net importer from the US of other goods.

So maybe we should have a buy canadian in Canada?

This whole thing looks like a loose loose situation.

[Nickster]

8. Nickster: Scrap Mitch McConnell

[radfringe]

10. and this is from the party that promoted "Freedom Fries"... n/t

[WriteDown]

14. Don't necessarily disagree.

Every American needs to want to buy American. But it has to be an individual decision. The Japanese are fiercely loyal to the products their countrymen make. Why aren't we? Easy, Americans would rather pay 100$ less for flat screen TV or 10$ less for a chisel set.

[sybylla]

19. This is different

The "Buy American clause" Meathead McConnell wants stripped requires our government to buy from American companies first. Our tax dollars, the dollars going into this stimulus package ought to go to American businesses first, IMHO.

[WriteDown]

97. Got it...

Thanks!

[Joanne98]

22. Here are the details...

FACTBOX-U.S. Senate's "Buy American" provision

Feb 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate is on Monday set to open
debate on a nearly $900 billion economic stimulus bill
containing "Buy American" language that aims to ensure spending
on projects funded by the bill would create U.S. jobs. A bill passed by the House of Representatives last week
contained a similar, but less-sweeping provision. The Obama administration has not yet taken a formal
position on the Buy American provisions, viewed by many trading
partners as a move toward increased U.S. trade protectionism. The following are key details of the two bills: -- The House bill bars the spending of any economic
stimulus funds on projects "for the construction, alteration,
maintenance or repair of a public building or public work
unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is
produced in the United States." -- The Senate bill expands the provision to require that
"all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the
project(s) are produced in the United States." -- Both bills contain language allowing the Buy American
provision to be waived if the head of a federal department or
agency overseeing a specific project determines that it would
be "inconsistent with the public interest." -- Both bills also allow the provision to be waived if
U.S.-made supplies are not available in sufficient quantity or
quality, or if requiring U.S.-made goods would boost the cost
of the project by more than 25 percent. -- Projects covered in both bills include airports,
bridges, canals, dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, multiline
mass transit systems, roads, tunnels, harbors and piers.
(Reporting by Doug Palmer; editing by Gary Crosse)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/motoringAutoNews/idUKN0251082820090202

[sasquatch]

24. Mitch the Bitch is more loyal to corporations than his own country

Then again that's very Southern though.

[DrDan]

26. huh????? I cannot believe grass-roots repubs would go for this

[sasquatch]

29. The grass root repubs will do what they're told though

[DrDan]

42. so time for someone to tell them to do what is in the best interest of the country

as they have been saying for the past 8 years.

Puts people to work. Brings jobs back from overseas. It is the right thing to do.

[8 track mind]

39. exactly!

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The wife and i went to a small eatery this weekend and they had Faux news playing in the background. They were bitching that the buy american clause would casue the price of everything to sky rocket instantly.

Bullshit.

This will create jobs, which means more money back into the economy. It's that fucking simple.

[DrDan]

41. and this is exactly the spin Obama should put on it

time for everyone to chip in - so you pay a little more. It puts people ot work.

Time to get over the greed. Time to start calling people on their greed.

[SpiralHawk]

33. Why do republicon homelanders want America to FAIL?

Haven't republicon homelanders done enuf damage to America & Americans already?

[defendandprotect]

34. McConnell is slime -- money man for GOP --- "Buy American" . .Yes!!!

[CanadaSam]

36. A thought from the great white north

What does the US get from Canada, a whole lot of cheap energy and lumber. I am a big Obama supporter however this protectionism could bite him in the ass.

[NOW tense]

45. How do you think we should handle this problem then?

Not doing anything about the massive loss of our manufacturing is not an option. I personally think that health care for all would go along way in stopping our bleeding of jobs overseas.

[IntravenousDemilo]

53. As to the bleeding of jobs overseas, see my post #18 in this thread. n/m

[CanadaSam]

56. As opposed to everyone here

I am not an expert and it is a complex issue. I am an expat american and I do not want to see job shipped overseas either but it isn't as simple as shutting down our borders. Supporting counties and governments that pay their workers a fair wage, safe working conditions etc should not be penalized. I wonder how many people here that support this buy american thing go out on a daily basis and but cheap crap from china etc. You can't have it both ways!

[Hello_Kitty]

88. I go out of my way to buy American but it's not easy to find stuff that's made here in the stores

I have to order a lot online.

Of course right now I'm unemployed so I'm not buying much of anything. But hey, let's use the taxes I paid back when I was working to create jobs in other countries. I mean, I'd prefer if they created a job for me but I wouldn't want to be "protectionist" or anything. :sarcasm: :grr:

[CanadaSam]

110. I (Canada) is not the enemy here

I am really sorry you are unemployed. I am as frustrated as you that my friends & loved ones on both side of the border are hurting and looking for work. All I am saying is that it is complex situation. It is not as simple as creating jobs for Americans and life will be beautiful, their are consequences to this. Say you get a job making wickets and the company actually pays you a living wage. That is great except someone in Taiwan can make that wicket for 1/10th of what you can make it for No one will want to buy it outside the US because the price is not competitive which leaves you with selling the wicket within the U.S. Now in your ideal world good jobs will be created in the U.S. and Americans will lose their taste for buying imported cheap crap and will buy your wicket.

So will all be well in this closed loop system? Before you blast me yet again I am just trying to see the logic.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. And that's why many of us want to bring back tariffs

It's total bullshit that we put a 2% tariff on Chinese products while they slap a 20% tariff on ours.

As for Canada, it's unfortunate that so much of the discussion has revolved around it because Canada is really not the issue. Believe me, the pundits and corporate tools whining about "protectionism" all over TV right now are NOT thinking about Canadians. Furthermore, there's a substantial difference between foreign investment (I want to sell socks in Canada so I open a sock factory there) and outsourcing (I have all the socks I sell made in a 3rd world country because I can pay the 10 year olds in my factory 25 cents an hour).

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Continued unemployment in the US will bite you in the ass

Along with every other country in the world.

I'm just gobsmacked by people's inability to get this. The US consumer has been the primary driver of the world's economy. I'm not saying it should be that way but it is. If Americans are out of work, then Canada is fucked.

[CanadaSam]

73. Yes you are correct

America is king

[whistle]

44. What a toad!

[Blue_Tires]

58. teh stoopid makes my brain hurt

As a kid in the 80s, I vividly remember the GOP being the protectionist, "Save our American industries against the japs!" jingoists..am i the only one who remembers this??

[Wabbajack_]

137. I guess you are, I was just a widdle kid

[zbdent]

Rush Limbaugh said that?

Oh, wait ... he's NOT the "TOP REPUBLICAN"?

who knew ...

[Tansy_Gold]

59. Is this asshat aware that "protectionism" is what just saved his

fucking friends on Wall Street?


:grr:

[totodeinhere]

70. I thought that the "my way or the highway" attitude that shrub's administration had with other...

countries would be changed by Obama. We need to take into consideration the feelings of other countries if we are ever going to repair our standing in the world. The last thing we need right now is a trade war. It's time that free trade Democrats stand up and oppose the temptation to turn xenophobic in our trade relations with other countries.

[anonymous171]

76. Not when it comes to the American economy.

[Tansy_Gold]

108. We've been in a trade war for the past 30 years.

Problem is, we've been losing it.

The corporations that have shipped our jobs overseas and propagandized us into buying more and more and more cheap shit from China (and other nations) and suckered us into energy dependence on Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, etc., have been our traitorous generals. They do not WANT us to "win" this war. They want themselves to be the victors, and we are merely the cannon fodder.

when the U.S. has a vibrant and vital and viable domestic economy, we will not only be ABLE to buy from other countries, but they will be able to buy from us.

Remember, if the only way we can have friends is to buy them, they aren't really our friends.


Tansy Gold

[Doremus]

123. Free trade Democrats? You can find them at DLC dot com.

And for the love of god can we PLEASE slice, dice, burn and bury the word "xenophobic"???

It has NOTHING to do with inanimate objects shipped to our shores for consumers to buy.

:eyes:

[Romulox]

150. Question: How are "free trade Democrats" different from "free trade Republicans"?

Other than the fact that it's "not cool" to be a Republican at the moment, the ideology seems identical. And you must be joking to suggest that the "feelings of other countries" with regard to international trade were neglected during W. Bush's term; he opened the gates wide for Chinese poisons of all varieties, for example :eyes:

[nodehopper]

211. it's true. neoliberal ideology is the same across the parties.

[totodeinhere]

176. Duplicate post self deleted

[AzDar]

71. Republicans hate America.

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Republicans? Shit, there are people on this thread who hate America.

Read some of their posts.

[treestar]

83. No, they are just pointing out some perhaps uncomfortable truths

We made this mess, but we won't get out of it just by assuming that international trade harms us.

Isolating ourselves could make things worse. People on the thread are merely thinking that possibility through.

[Hello_Kitty]

85. I never claimed that international trade is harmful

And I have yet to see a valid argument on this thread against the "protectionism" and "isolating ourselves" that you guys fear so much.

[treestar]

103. Because we want other countries to buy our products

You'd leave us with just ourselves as the market.

There are multinational companies. There are companies with both US and Canadian owners.

We don't have to freak out just because stimulating our economy may help a Canadian at some point.

[Hello_Kitty]

106. I'm not freaking out over helping out a Canadian at some point

If you're wondering why this is a bit of a sore subject for me, it's because I'm currently unemployed. I don't want MY stimulus tax dollars going to create jobs in other countries before people like me get them. Why is that so hard to understand?

"Globalism" is the sister of "trickle down", IMHO. Putting more money in rich people's pockets doesn't create jobs, despite what the supply siders say. Similarly, having more opportunities to trade doesn't put any money in your or my pocket to trade anything.

[Not a robought]

115. Sorry to hear that

I hope your situation changes soon. I got caught in the last changing of the guard from the Clinton economy to bush. It took a couple of years to recover but am in better shape now than I was then even though the climate now is worse. These boom and bust cycles are fatiguing, best we can do is hedge against them somehow.

But indeed, having an opportunity to trade skills was mutually beneficial and enriching, at least from my experience. :fistbump:

[Hello_Kitty]

116. Thanks. It's unfortunate that this became an argument about Canada

Canadians getting hired before me is probably the least of my worries. ;)

[brentspeak]

104. Spoken like a DLC-loving lawyer

[pampango]

114. If you can't make an argue, call 'em a name. That will put him in his place. n/t

[IntravenousDemilo]

94. I do hope you're not including me in that number. n/m

[Not a robought]

96. So full of straw for making strawmen today

I remember a time when if you questioned chimpy and the wars you hated America, but now...

What will it take to finally demonstrate an involuntary servitude of love?

[Hello_Kitty]

105. And I remember a time when if you sounded like Mitch McConnell you were a jackass

Some of the arguments on this thread also sound just like the RW think tank douchenozzles testifying before the Senate Republican Pollicy Committee right now. They've brought up Smoot Hawley and the "dangers of protectionism" several times already.

[Not a robought]

107. The Obama administration has not taken a position on the clause

yet. Should they decide against, will you claim they are "jackasses" too?

Considering every economist including Paul Krugman that pipes in about protectionism doesn't have good things to say, prove that protectionism won't harm the US economy.

[Hello_Kitty]

111. Can't prove a negative.

But I'm sure you already knew that.

[Mari333]

79. and they wonder why they lost. nt

[Ian David]

90. Canada can build their own wind turbines for their own country and sell electricity to us.

We're already buying a fair amount of electricity from Canada already.

[GinaMaria]

99. Since it is we the taxpayers who are footing the bill how

about we decide? We have burdened future generations with Bailouts etc. We should get something in return for stimulating the economy and American Businesses. It's a two way street. Give and Take. We'll scratch your back if you scratch ours. Isn't this the basics of business negotiation? The people representing us in this discussion are not representing us at all. Hell yeah, buy American or don't take a dime of the economic recovery stimulus package.

/rant

[fascisthunter]

122. GOP: owned by transnational corporate interests.

There's your proof...


I guess national pride takes a back seat when it comes to personal wealth... so much for the jingoism.

[Optimistic]

127. He is guilty of Treason

Arrest him. Put him on trial. Convict him and then put him and all the Anti-American Republicans in jail

[ryanmuegge]

128. So are the Democrats.

[Psephos]

134. lol - read through all the faux outrage on this thread, and then ask yourself...

...how many of these outraged posters have a UAW-assembled car parked in their driveway?

If it's as high as one in five, you could knock me over with a feather.

[Marrah_G]

145. I do !

Mine was assembled in Fenton MS, I do believe. My ex-husband is also a Teamster, so we are big on unions in my house.

[Psephos]

158. you rock! :) n/t

[GinaMaria]

164. I think I do

we have an 05 Mustang. Love that car.

[Psephos]

173. great car n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

140. Isn't the point of stimulating our economy to stimulate OUR economy?

Fucknut.

[whosinpower]

159. I am canadian

And I do completely understand some folks desire for the stimulus to create and sustain american jobs - if it is american taxpayer dollars that are being used to stimulate that industry.

I have a question though.....about 80 percent of the corporations up here in Canada are foreign owned - none of our steel plants are owned by a canadian firm. So.....if you have an American firm operating up here in Canada - does that mean that that firm is not "qualified" to bid on some contract if it is using stimulus dollars? Your protectionism would then imperil an American firm.....

And the other thing, I want you guys to consider is that our wages up here are not third world rate. Our products that we send down to you are not outcompeting american made because of salary differences. I don't really think that is the case - our dollar is worth less than yours - and sometimes this is seen as a positive thing for say American firms seeking a product to develop - but not that much less.

Simple fact is that we, in Canada, have commodities and products that you, in America need. If you had them in America - you would not import them. If you did not need them - then American firms and companies would not be operating in Canada and then selling down into the US.

I totally understand the desire to create and sustain American jobs. We both need to understand that Nafta was created at the behest and desire of multinational corporations - not for the benefit of America or Canada particularily. We both suffer. I am not sure what the answers are - but a kneejerk reaction is not the answer. As a Canadian, I do not want, nor seek any part or parcel of the stimulus package - but because so many of us, are, in fact, employed by Americans - we might end up with some of it anyways.

Flame away if you wish.

[Waiting For Everyman]

162. The "need" is created artificially by shutting down our manufacturers.

[Romulox]

188. There's no such thing as "an American firm". There are private owners, and there are mulitnationals

No corporation or private individual acts on behalf of the American people as a whole.

[Waiting For Everyman]

161. I just knew it! That this was their REAL sticking point.

If Obama insists on this provision and doesn't cave to them, their party is toast.

[guitar man]

163. bite it, asshole

It's time we looked after our own for a change. :grr:

[EndersDame]

174. Patriotism means more than wsearing a flag pin Jackass

[Zorra]

175. "Top Republican" means "Top Globalist Tool" in American English. n/t

[totodeinhere]

177. Obama backs down on "Buy American" in the face of threats from EU.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece

[josh paleo]

178. Another cave-in

[ProgressIn2008]

179. Yeah, I read this thread thinking "what will they say when Obama caves?" nt

[Not a robought]

184. Of course

Reagan voodoo economics was not the answer but neither is protectionism the antidote.

[Unvanguard]

181. And, for once, he's right. Economic nationalism is not the solution.

In any case, most of the benefit from government spending occurs through the "multiplier", the spending of people who have received government funds (or who have received government funds from people who have received government funds, and so forth), so this clause wouldn't actually be that effective in encouraging US employment anyway.

On the other hand, as well as causing diplomatic problems and pitting countries against each other that would be better off cooperating, this kind of protectionism also impairs development by reducing exports from developing countries. Hurting people abroad isn't my idea of the best way to protect people here.

[DainBramaged]

196. Economic Nationalism IS the soultion for the steel industry and

Construction workers, are you nuts? Another Reagun economics apologist spews on the boards.

[Unvanguard]

202. Perhaps, but not for the economy as a whole, national or global.

I think people should have good jobs and good incomes. I don't particularly care in which particular industry they work. Those workers who will encounter trouble during the transition should receive government help--investing extensively in job retraining, for instance, would be a good idea--but it makes no sense to forever prop up an inefficient economic pattern for the sake of avoiding the payment of short-term costs.

(Your suggestion that I am a Reaganite is, um, amusing. Reagan remains the only president in all of US history that I cannot even think about without becoming enraged; the cultural idolatry of that blood-stained mass murderer and bigot is a despicable expression of our society's understanding of people who matter and people who do not.)

[DainBramaged]

204. RETRAINING TO DO WHAT, WAIT TABLES?????? What industry is left?????

Throw shit at the wall and you think it will stick. Not while I'm breathing. The 'experts' here think retraining is the answer. Retraining in what, computer IT services? Makeup artists? Barbers? Curtice specialists? Prostitutes? Sorry, outsourced and in-sourced to nothing. Manufacturing base, zero. I guess people who lost their jobs will be getting McJobbed. What bullshit, retraining. Nice cop out.

[Unvanguard]

206. Global trade involves, um, trade.

We do not get foreign goods and services for nothing--we trade American goods and services for them. It is thus impossible for imports to destroy US industries; imports depend on exports. They can only shift our production, toward our comparative advantage and thus toward (in the long run) a stronger national and global economy.

It is true, of course, that labor and capital are not perfectly flexible, and the consequence is that this transition becomes painful for many people--but the solution to this problem is not the infinite continuation of protectionist policies, but rather the easing of the shift through government funds to offset transition costs.

[DainBramaged]

207. You don't have a grasp of Global economics

do you understand what kind of a trade imbalance we have? Since the Seventies?


Never mind. Stay asleep and keep thinking grand cheap labor thoughts.

[Corey]

183. Treason

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/treason


"a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state."
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason


Seems to me that, anyone in power that acts in anyway that could be percieved as detrimental to the USA as a whole, is guilty of 'Treason'!

Too bad there is too rules of law;

1. Those for the Kings....I mean Congress and their friends.
2. Those of the common folk...slaves....I mean, the rest of us.

[Waiting For Everyman]

187. Seems to me...

our trade agreements are all treasonous too. And so is our whole financial system and its laws. But we overlook that because it's too big for us to consider. So we tinker at it, instead of dumping it. And prosecuting any who created it.

[DainBramaged]

195. Let's quit the WTO, fuck 'em

I don't see the Chinese or France or Germany or japan using any of our steel for infrastructure projects. Oh, and Fuck Mitch McObstruction.

[katty]

198. Outsource Mitch to China/India/anywhere-STAT!

[and-justice-for-all]

200. What a fuckwad....

but I have come to expect such trite from those goons.

[MellowDem]

203. He's right...

I hate to admit it. It's not just him, it's the Canadians and the whole EU (you know, the most liberal countries in the world) who are upset with it as well.

"Buy American" is a sham, just as tariffs and trade protection always has been and always will be. It costs us more American jobs than it creates and hurts overall output and lowers overall standard of living for Americans.

[DainBramaged]

209. WRONG

If we stopped shipping industry overseas we wouldn't have to worry about losing jobs. That's just a Cheap Labor Con talking point you spewed. What was our trade imbalance for the past decade, and let's take out petroleum. We can't ship McJobs overseas and that's all we have left.

[MellowDem]

210. That's not how economics works...

it's not so simple. For example, when we had heavy trade tariffs on our steel industry, trying to protect it, what ended up happening was that our steel industry became complacent and no longer competitive for one, the price of steel went up artificially for another, causing American businesses that bought steel to have to make cuts to compensate, including jobs, which of course effects a whole other slew of industries.

Think of it this way. Free trade has been instrumental in the metoric rise in the standard of living around the world we see today. It has even increased American standards of living, though relatively less than for China, which obviously started off much lower.

With free trade there is always a tradeoff between labor and capital though. US labor has been losing out for a while now, with other labor around the world being cheaper. You can hate this process, but you might as well hate the rain, it's just natural and there is nothing we can do to stop it, least of all tariffs or protectionism. These things have proven to do nothing to keep more American jobs than they cost.

Like I said, it reminds me of McCain's and Clinton's idea to cut gas taxes for a "holiday" to ease the pain at the pump. Of course, what that would actually do is hurt us overall more by cutting transportation funds, not to mention lowering artifically the price of gas when we need higher prices to begin weening ourselves off of it. Plus, it would have next to no effect for individual drivers, overall coming out as a net negative for us in the end. The same happens with protectionism.

I do agree with you that America is perhaps one of the best propenents of free trade and somewhat the least hypocritical when it comes to it. The EU and Canada, not to mention Japan and China, are some of the worst free trade hypocrites at times. But all the protectionism those countries have not only hurt the US economy, it hurts their domestic economies even more. But, when you have an organized interest, it can cause politicians to back a few people at the expense of the many (see: the corn industry, steel, auto industry, Cuban exiles, etc. etc. infinite.)

As for the trade imbalance, those figures only take into account physical goods, they don't measure things like human capital, which the US has in spades, and is part of the reason we are a net importer rather than exporter of goods that only require cheap labor. As long as the world has an imbalance in labor and capital, there will be trade imbalances. They are not necessarily bad, rather just a sign of the differing capabilities of countries. The good news is that all these imbalances naturally equalize over time. For example, before long businesses may start shipping from China to other, cheaper labor sources, as the standard of living rises in China and labor standards go up.

[DainBramaged]

212. Oh, so you say that our $500+ BILLION trade imbalamce with China will balance out over time?

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

Another Reaganomics apologist tries to make his case on DU.

[MellowDem]

213. I'm not for Reaganomics...

and is that all you have to say? How long did it take us to get where we are with China? Not long, right? Things change fast in the world. Yes, 500 billion will balance out over time. Obviously, you have nothing to say about protectionism or how it is a good thing...

[DainBramaged]

214. I'm still at freaking work till 9, been here since 9:30

when I have some spare time in the next day or two I'll give you an earful about how I feel about proteting AMERICAN jobs. Oh PS, I'm UAW, and I despise anti-American cheap labor cons.

Glad your day isn't busy like mine.

[MellowDem]

215. Don't blame me...

I don't know you, this is the internet after all. If you respond to a post and don't respond to any substantive matter, it seems like you're ignoring it. Sorry if that was lost upon you. I don't need your guilt trip. Nor your stupid labels.

[DainBramaged]

216. Bite me, how's that for a label

goodbye dickweed, sorry I didn't jump to answer when you beckoned.

[MellowDem]

217. I never "beckoned"

If you want to make up stuff to be angry, go ahead. And please, keep calling me a Reaganite, cheap labor conservaitve dickweed. After all, that's how progressives have discussions with each other. I'm on your side, so stop shooting the messenger.

[pampango]

218. Don't take it personally. The poster often uses labels rather than addressing ideas and opinions.

We all come to DU for our own reasons. Some to join in discussions with other progressives. Some to yell at and label those they don't agree with. :)

[Generator]

205. Who knew Obama was a top Republican?

JEEZ. Of course he's not. But he agrees with the top Republican on this. And did anyone notice his commerce pick-not just a Republican but a rabid loves all NAFTA hates labor Republican. GO DEMS!

[AyanRand Is Dead]

208. Sadly so.

Both Republicans and Obama have been quite disappointing on this matter. I have hope that Obama will find his way out from under the giant corporate foot of governemnt though.