How did we ever end up with "Buchanan Democrats"?

[Dookus]

I see so many people here espousing the old hard-right ideals of anti-immmigration, anti-free trade, anti-globalism.

Back in my day (when we had nought but rocks and sticks to play with) those were NOT liberal ideals. They were widely recognized as conservative ideals.

In the 70's, we were panicked about Japanese cars ruining American industry. The answer was NOT to put up barriers - it was to build competetive cars.

We won. Japan's been in economic straits for over a decade now.

In very recent times, the left SUPPORTED immigrant workers. Now I see a lot of people who are supposed liberals blaming them for US job loss.

When did we become a party of Buchananites? How did the ideals of right-wing populism take over the Democratic party?

My own take: you and I have no more right to a job than a Mexican peasant. If s/he wants to do the job for the price offered, then more power to him/her. We're not coercing anybody to do it. They do it because it's a better opportunity than they have in their own homeland. I believe we should honor that, and we have an obligation to make sure they make a fair wage and are treated well.

I'm not even gonna put on my flame-retardant underwear. I think I can defend this traditionally liberal position just fine without it.

[Birthmark]

1. It's like this.

Being anti-NAFTA, anti-GATT, anti-WTO is *not* synonomous with being anti-free trade. When the playing field is even, then free-trade can occur. What is happening with these treaties is that instead of raising other worker's standards of living up to the that once enjoyed by Americans, we are lowering our standards towards theirs. This is not a question of competition between Americans and more or less equivalent countries (in terms of wages, environmental protection, etc.) -- as was the case with Japan.

I am against these treaties and practices until labor and environment concerns are addressed by these agreements, and have an equal seat at the table. Until then, I will continue to view them as the slavery of the 21st Century.

You also have a wrong take on immigrant labor, IMV. The answer for an employer who cannot find employees to hire is simple in a free market - raise the wages and benefits offered. The answer is not to illegally import people who will be too scared to report safety/health violations. This is not only a distortion of the free market that most business people claim to want, it is an atrocious mistreatment of a whole class of people.

Does that answer your question?

[Rebellious Republican]

3. Very well said Birthmark, you have hit the nail on the head! N/T

:kick:

[Dookus]

6. No....

it gives me your perspective, which I respect, but don't agree with.

I don't want to repeal NAFTA. I don't want to withdraw from the WTO. I want to make them better.


First, the main reason I'm not a Kucinich supporter is because he so proudly talks about withdrawing from NAFTA on his first day in office. I think that's a mistake.

We need to honor our commitments. Failure to do so would be catastrophic. We hated George W. Bush for pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty. It was wrong for him. It will be wrong for future American presidents.

I believe what Wesley Clark says - that we need to amend it and ensure that workers worldwide are given basic protections.

I really don't see how workers or consumers benefit from the approachers offered by the anti-trade groups. Do you REALLY think the US can just cut off trade with other nations without retaliation? Do you REALLY think Americans will pay $500 for a 25" television set, or $35,000 for a simple, compact car? I don't.

I think trying to impose such conditions would cause an immediate worldwide depression.

We are a global economy. We have to find ways to deal with that. Saying that American workerks are more deserving than foreign workers probably won't solve the problem.

Let's find a way for ALL workers to benefit.

[Birthmark]

10. I don't want to repeal them, either.

However, suspending them until their anti-worker, anti-environmental shortcomings are corrected doesn't seem that big a deal. We could even set a deadline for when the suspension would go into effect to allow for orderly and considered discussion.

I'd kinda like to ask what "we" exactly committed to these treaties? It wasn't the vast majority of Americans. Our interests weren't represented. There wasn't even serious consideration on Capitol Hill for these agreements. They were fast-tracked...for whatever reason. I don't feel a strong obligation to stand behind inside political dealing.

As for a depression, how shall we distinguish it from the current situation? Will we lose another 3 million jobs? Will wages stagnate? Will the middle class disappear? All of these things are happening now.

For too long, the mantra "jobs" has been on the lips of the politicians. Whatever happened to opportunity? They don't talk much about that anymore. They are most definitely not the same thing.

And when it comes to price, is it better to pay a lower price (knowing that the people making goods are getting screwed) or a somewhat higher price that is fair and appropriate to the free market? For too long, corporations have been able to artifically lower prices by shenanigans like "free trade" while real people are hurt - both here and abroad. The sad thing is that all of this is temporary no matter how one looks at it. They are hurting people to satiate their own greed.

[izzie]

7. I do like your answer better. Some thing is off on the statement.

Also what about coming in under the law and having you hired under the law?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. "competition between Americans and more or less equivalent countries"

Thanks, that's the point, and we have been saying it for years. In return, we get trashed by very deceptive and slick PR.

[Guaranteed]

2. Personally, I don't care how we do it-

I'd rather not bring race into the issue- but we need to keep the labor pool small. We're going to end up with pre-1900-type wages if we keep going like this.

[Gulf Coast J]

48. What about immigration since 1900

There was much more immigration after 1900 than before. But our country was able to take in all those people and still improve the lives of the vast majority of people at an unprecedented rate. Wages will be slightly lower will immigration than without. But why are Americans entitled to higher wages than Mexicans? Because we were born here?

[GOPBasher]

4. I'm just happy that

the Republican base is up in arms about this immigrant thing. Of course, we that in the end, they'll hold their noses and vote for Bush -- regardless of immigrant policy, record spending and record deficits.

[La_Serpiente]

9. that's all very nice and dandy

but the backlash coming from them is huge. And they are not just backlashing at labor instruments - they are backlashing against human beings.

I don't want immigrants to be the brunt of racism because of this backlash. There was a guy from the American Rennisance spewing all this negative stereotypes about mexicans on Scarborough Country. I don't want any human being receiving the brunt of his outrage.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Unless you are 100% Native American

you or your ancestors were immigrants. Imagine what this country would look like if the Wampanoags had had immigration quotas. They might have allowed Stephen Hopkins to stay, since he liked the natives and sort of lived like them, but I doubt if Miles Standish or the rest would have stood a chance!

[w4rma]

80. "Free" immigration will work no better than "free" trade, right now, IMHO

They both hurt regular Americans for very simalar reasons.

[PsN2Wind]

5. In your defense of traditional liberalism

do you think Roosevelt could have pulled the country from the depression by bringing in foreign labor for the WPA and CCC?
I feel you are confusing idealism with liberalism.
The free import of labor and the free export of jobs will only exacerbate the diminution of the middle-class and this country will more and more return to one of the Haves and Have-nots that the wealthy enjoyed so much for the first century and a half of this country's existence.

[Dookus]

8. Please don't think I'm ignorant of your concerns...

because I share them.

But do you think trade barriers will improve the situation?

I don't.


Do you think if we put tariffs on imports, the world's workers will benefit? I don't.

Do you think if we demand that US companies manufacture in the US, those companies, and their employees, will thrive? I don't.

It's a very complicated problem. I prefer to find ways to ensure that workers worldwide are given basic protections.

I don't think forcing companies to use only US worker is plausible. I don't think most Americans will pay $500 for a 25" television set in order to show their patriotism.

[PsN2Wind]

12. I'm old enough to remember

when most of what was consumed in this country was also made in this country. I also remember when a person could graduate from, or even drop out of, high school go down to the plant, mill,or foundry where the old man worked, hire on and in four years be making a wage where he (and it was usually he) could marry, start a family and maybe start looking for a home for that family. I had little problem with that time in our history. Most of those jobs have been exported to other countrys so now everyone is expected to go to college. Well we are now seeing that those jobs are subject to export or the importation of workers also. This country will not survive by everyone taking in someone elses laundry.
Social Security is going broke because of job export. Many of those factory jobs paid a wage where the individual was paying near the maximum FICA contribution. Social Security was flush now it's looking at insolvency.
I just fail to see where the common person has gained a lot from the trade agreements we've entered into in the last several years. And as someone living 30 miles from Mexico I can attest that NAFTA benefited few of them either, hence the continued illegal and legal immigration.
Some years ago while still living in Oregon, I got in quite a heated discussion with a gentleman in a shoe store that overheard me grousing about the difficulty in finding American made shoes. He told me that Phil Knight was forced to move the manufacture of Nike off-shore due to the pay demands of American workers. I had to tell him I couldn't feel too damn sorry for a man that would have had ONLY one or two billion had he stayed in the USA rather than the reported eight or nine billion he had at that time. Which brings up the thought. You say people won't pay $500 for a 25" TV. Why will they buy their kids shoes for $125 that cost $5 or $6 to make?
I consider myself a person of average compassion but that compassion is first to my family, then to my friends, then to acquaintances, then to my fellow citizens. Anything left over from that goes to the rest of the world.
Your compassion seems mostly for the rest of the world. The common folk in this country, the wealthiest of country's, you seem to feel should have to compete with the rest of the world for their very survival. Those that don't make the cut,well, tough luck. they should have tried harder or been willing to work for less.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

57. You missed his point completely.

He was talking about a time when jobs existed. You might not like the job - so don't take it. But, at least those jobs were there for the people who didn't mind working for a living. And Marx said technology would free the workers because he thought the workers would be in charge. He didn't mean free them from any employment, at all, and let them starve and live in a box under the bridge.

[PsN2Wind]

60. Those terrible factory jobs.

Perhaps you would like to go up to the rust belt and explain to those folks just how fortunate they are to no longer have to go punch that time clock and make a decent wage. I think it will be a very tough sell.
You say you have immigrants in your area. I'm assuming you also have blacks. Ask those people in the black community how they feel about amnesty for illegal aliens, but be prepared to run.
Had to go do something productive for a bit so am late on my reply.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PsN2Wind]

77. Once again had to do something productive

I would guess you have never worked in any kind of manufacturing and if you have it was likely "upstairs" rather than on the "floor". You would be surprised at the number of people that get satisfaction from work that entails some physical effort. There a lot of people that would rather NOT sit on their ass all day and be forced to join a health club for exercize.
And I think that just about 100% of those former factory workers that have had to take menial jobs at half or less their former pay would very much like that factory or steel mill job that you dismiss as of no significance.
That's my opinion but then I'm just one of those factory dullards but one that would get great pleasure if an immigrant takes your job.

[Jane Roe]

25. It sounds like you are for trade restraints

Using trade policy to coerce a nation to have a minimum wage is a form of trade restraint.

Using trade policy to coerce a nation to have good environmental laws is a form of trade restraint.

Using trade policy to coerce a nation to have a maximum hours is a form of trade restraint.

Using trade policy to coerce a nation to have safe working conditions is a form of trade restraint.

Let's face it: we all support these kinds of trade restraints and we should not be afraid to call them "trade restraints" because that is what they are. I think any eupemisms that we may choose to give these coercions hurts our common causes, rather than helping them. Eupemisms, in this context, make it seem like we can't admit to ourselves what we really stand for. Speaking personally, I've got no problem with what I stand for -- I proudly stand for the trade restraints listed above!

If Pat Buchanan also agrees with all this, then I say: even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If Pat Buchanan was quicker than me (and the Clinton administration) to understand the nature and severity of the issues raised above, then I say "shame on me and I will use the best of my mental faculties to make sure that never happens again."

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

31. I don't think the trade restrictions with Cuba are imperialism

They may be ill-advised or ineffective -- I don't know about that. (but I'll consider that tonight when I have my Friday night cigar here in the GTA)

I do think the Spanish-American War and its aftermath involved a lot of imperialism. In fact, I don't think the US should have engaged in that war. We did bad.

[Dhalgren]

54. Who's talking about trade barriers?

I know that Kucinich talks about having negotiated trade treaties with every country who wishes to trade with us. And the treaties would be worked out to assure humane treatment of all peoples and fair trade to both parties concerned. We don't need NAFTA and the WTO in order to trade fairly with our partners. Those organizations are there to enrich the rich and control the poor.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. FDR didn't specifically IMPORT immigrants

to work on the WPA projects. He gave jobs to the immigrants who were already here legally.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

58. The WPA saved the lives of two entire generations of my family

on both sides. And none of them were immigrants. If immigrants benefitted from WPA, good, they needed the work and so did we.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Confusing, isn't it?

Times have changed, and very few of us have kept up with them. I sure don't know what to think any more.

For many years job growth outpaced population growth here, and we needed immigrants to cover the jobs. The same thing happened in Europe and other places where "guest workers" were normal. In many countries, including, the US, immigration is necessary to cover the low birth rate and aging population in the country, assuming a normal economic growth. It can be argued that with an aging population, immigration is necessary to maintain economic growth. we need young workers.

Us libruls went like ducks to water defending the rights of these immigrants, but we really don't have a clue how to address what's going on now.

Which brings me to trade.

I'm in favor of any international trade agreements for the simple reason that they don't allow or accelerate the bad trends as much as much as they try to control them. Without NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc, things would likely be worse that they are now with no controls whatsoever. We would be endlessly litigating with each other over dumping, labor, tariff, and whoknwswhatall rules each country has. Smoot-Hawley gave us a great lesson. I'm not even against trading blocs, with Japan, North America, Europe, China, and South America becoming the great trading "nations" and setting up rules for trade.

These organizations and treaties are not even close to perfection, of course, and there are gaping holes in every agreement. Such is life in the real world outside of think thanks and discussion boards.

So, we now live in a world where the "comparative advantage" of Ricardo's time no longer exists. Trade is often not that zero-sum game we all want, but can be a race to the bottom. We are hemorrhaging jobs at a fantastic rate, yet still bring in immigrants to do grunt work at a pace not seen for a hundred years, simply to drop US wages.

For the first time in history, capital and labor are instantly transferable all over the world, and each wants its maximum return. Capital, the purchasers of labor, has figured out how to take maximum advantage of the situation.

Labor hasn't a clue what to do except jump on whatever jobs are available.

[PsN2Wind]

14. Just wanted to add

in regards to your statement about cars. When Chrysler was bailed out by the government many years ago and brought in Lee Iacocca to save them. Iaccoca said "American auto makers will never be able to compete in the world market as long as the UAW continues with their demands". Chrysler paid him eight million bucks that year.

[Junkdrawer]

15. How about Gephart's International Minimum Wage...

with slave/prison labor produced goods subject to import restrictions.

Want access to our markets? Pay your people a decent wage.

[Birthmark]

16. Yup.

I agree with Gep on this. One world labor force, one world wage. I think that the American worker is capable of outperforming any one on Earth, but they will not live in tents or sleep 12 to a room. So, bring the rest of the world up to our standards.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Yeah, I thought this was one of the best ideas I've heard in a while...

While I don't agree with the rest of his foreign policy, this was a gooder.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

56. We chose trade policies for other countries

So why can't we get an agreement on a living wage? We can negotiate tariffs and investor'r rights and protectionism for intellectual property, but not on wages?

That's seems a little hypocritical don't you think?

[Junkdrawer]

78. In today's world, sooner or later we all will live at the lowest standard.

we allow. The details of an international minimum wage will obviously need a lot of work. But first we need to generate the will to go down that road.

[corporatewhore]

61. I really appluad gep for this

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

29. Disagree

when a nation controls its imports and exports, that is not imperialistic -- that is and always has been considered part and parcel of autonomy.

If you coerce other nations to trade or not trade with some given nation -- that is where trade restriction based imperialism can creep in. I don't want to spread false rumours, but I think FDR may have gone out of his way to stop other countries from trading in oil with Japan prior to WWII. If I have my facts right, the Japanese considered this as an act of imperialism and retaliated in a sneaky and cruel way in Hawaii.

The trade embargoes against Iraq in the 90s were imperialism, but I think there is a strong argument the imperialism was "just imperialism" (similar to "just war") in that situation.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

44. Is there some reason that Japan shouldn't have . . .

been allowed a functioning Navy?

Did Japan do to the Chinese something like what Saddam did to the Kurds and the Kuwaitis. (I am not trying to be argumentative -- I don't know and am curious.)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

46. How much of this slaughter occurred . . .

prior to Pearl Harbor? I seem to recall that at least a big part of this slaughter occurred prior to Pearl Harbor, but I am not sure.

Related movie recommendation: "Red Sorghum," but close eyes and ears for the torture scene.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

79. Sorry to be so inquisitive

feel free to ignore my continuing questioning, but this is easier than trying to look this stuff up:

Did Japan have a colorable excuse (or worse yet a good reason) for invading China in the late 1930s?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Historical correction here

During the 1980s when the Japanese automakers were eating Detroit for breakfast, it was the Democrats who indulged in Japan-bashing and kept railing about Japan's trade surplus, while Reagan was playing best buddies with Yasuhiro Nakasone, the then-prime minister.

Now that was the one case that I can recall when the Republicans were correct. Detroit had gotten lazy and had been making lemons for years. Ultimately, that was the fault of management for approving bad designs and inefficient manufacturing methods and shoddy quality control, not the fault of the line workers, who just do what they're told.

However, what has happened with "free trade" is that managers in other industries, whose designs, manufacturing methods, and quality control standards were just as bad decided that they would compete not on quality but on price. Their attitude was that they didn't have to modernize their plants or rethink their product lines or do any other of that hard work if they could just find some desperate peasants somewhere who would do the work for a couple of dollars a day. (Ironically, modernizing their plants and conducting intensive R&D would have lowered their taxes, since such expenditures are deducted from income for tax purposes.)

Ultimately, this outsourcing leads to a downward spiral. The workers who are fired and replaced by Mexican or Chinese workers in unregulated sweatshops go from a middle class income to a working poor income. Because they have less income, they can no longer afford to buy American-made clothes and shoes, so that American manufacturers of clothes and shoes (and the midlevel department stores that carry them) can no longer make any money.

With their former customers no longer able to afford their products, the clothing and shoe manufacturers also move offshore, throwing their workers into the ranks of the working poor and forcing the department stores to cut staff and operate on a "perpetual sale" mode or, increasingly, go out of business.

WalMart attracts the working poor because of its low prices, and locally-owned businesses cannot compete. They fail, throwing yet more people into the ranks of the working poor.

If the DLC propaganda about the benefits of "free trade" were true, I'd support it. In fact, while it provides some benefit to Third World companies (although not as much as the proponents claim, especially if the Third World government in question deliberately tries to attract business with lack of health, safety, labor, and environmental laws--and I have seen countries advertising these "advantages" in the New York Times), it indisputably hurts the American worker.

Now companies are outsourcing the jobs of the white collar workers who formerly benefited from the cheap merchandise available at the discount stores.

If you are concerned about your own future and the future of your children, I hope you rethink this blind devotion to "free trade."

By the way, all this talk about "American companies" prospering is nonsense unless the majority of the workers in the company are American. If you have a couple dozen American executives and hundreds or thousands of Third World workers, that is NOT an "American company."

[PsN2Wind]

21. Excellent letter Lydia

Was just reading a synopsis of the proposed bill. Seems that these"guest workers" could bring their families to this country.
Knowing the size of most Hispanic families as witnessed here in Southern Arizona, I'm wondering how many more schools will need to be built to educate the children of these "temporary workers" and how will they be funded. I've some doubts that the taxes paid by these workers will pay the cost, at least in the foreseeable future (read my lifetime) but instead will be paid by current taxpayers. But there is a good chance that the schools will be built by contractors using this new source of cheap labor, enhancing their bottom line.
My guess is that the altruistic individual starting this thread is someone that doesn't see him or his (she or hers) impacted in a NEGATIVE way by the influx of cheap labor. In fact, the argument is one I would expect from, Oh say, an agricultural labor contractor.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PsN2Wind]

27. My friend

I have in my checkered past worked in a packing house, I worked for years in construction as a roofer, it doesn't get much harder than that, and I've worked in manufacturing. These jobs are now done to a great extent by immigrants, both legal and illegal. Please don't give me that tired argument that "they only do jobs that people here don't want". As for the blacks, I worked with many of them, so the implied bigotry doesn't hold water, as they were able to work everywhere I did.
There are many organizations in my area that aid illegal immigrants. If you are so altruistic, you and like minded persons could send them the money to transport you up a few thousand ( a day) so your area could share in all the benefits you see arising from this exodus of Mexicos unemployable.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Some of the agricultural jobs in Oregon

used to be done by students on vacation. My cousins, who are now in their forties and fifties, earned money during high school by berrypicking.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Actually, it was the export of unprocessed logs

that was hurting the sawmills.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. GOP Talking Point: "come here to do jobs people here don't want to do"

Warning, this is a "Cheap Labor Conservative" talking point.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. The very small business and working class Americans who are

being thrown out of work by the corporate giants' practice of management by cost cutting?

Of course, they can't afford the higher prices. Their incomes have fallen due to losing well-paying manufacturing jobs or having small businesses that can't compete with the conglomerates on price and being forced to work in fast food, convenience stores, and other low-paying companies.

The constant offshore outsourcing of jobs is penny wise and pound foolish. Cutting jobs has become the one-size-fits-all answer to companies' structural problems. How about modernizing plants, streamlining production procedures, and instituting better quality control? How about cutting executive compensation and bonuses back to merely incredibly wealthy levels instead of stratospherically wealthy?

Trading with Japan was not such a problem, since Japan is an industrialized country with a high standard of living. However, the U.S. also made some pretty outrageous demands about how Japan should run its internal economy. For example, it actually fought against requirements that products sold in Japan be labeled in Japanese. It demanded exemption from design regulations that limited the size of stores. It put pressure on Japan to adopt American business practices.

The results have hurt the Japanese economy almost as much as the banking crisis. The mom and pop stores that have been the backbone of middle class Japan and the emotional anchors of its neighborhoods cannot compete with the big box stores. The adoption of American business practices has meant wholesale layoffs in a country that has never needed much of an unemployment compensation system.

When I first went to Japan in the 1970s, sure, prices were high, but they were not unaffordable, and the general mood was upbeat and proud. Homelessness was limited to a few obvious late-stage alcoholics. Everyone felt that life was getting better and better all the time.

The Japan I've seen in recent years has huge tent cities of homeless people, a rising crime rate (although still low by U.S. standards), and a generation of young people who think they have no future, because companies just aren't hiring many permanent workers anymore, and Japan, like the U.S. has started outsourcing manufacturing jobs and flooding the country with cheap imports from China and SE Asia.

The mood is much different than it was 25 years ago. I can honestly say that apart from a slightly greater variety of goods and services available, corporate-style "free trade," in which one country can demand changes in another's economic practices, has NOT been beneficial to Japan.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. or because they're undersold by WalMart and the like

which can afford to sell at a loss at individual stores just long enough to drive local sellers of appliances, mass-market clothing, and CDs out of business. (That's what I saw in the small town in Oregon where I lived for seven years. Regrettably, people don't think about the implications of their purchasing decisions.)

[blindpig]

52. define small buisness

when I think of "small" I see one that provides a good living to the owner's family and decent wages for up to, say, 2 dozen workers. It's bullshit to call a company with 200 employees small. I guess that just shows my low bred, working class origin.
My small buisness is having trouble because the price of products from China is so low that they have little value for resale used.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Oh, and may I add that China

which in many ways has benefited from "free trade" is also seeing vast discrepancies between the rich and the poor (between rich people who live as well as any rich people in the world and, for example, construction workers who have to camp out at their construction sites because they can't afford a place to live) and the almost complete loss of the old social safety net.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. You think they BRAG about having

homeless workers and no social safety net?

Look, I've got to go meet someone, but you're not making a lot of sense anyway.

[cryofan]

47. historically, the people have ALWAYS been against immigration

How would you feel if I moved into your house today, saying that you had not always lived there and therefore you were also an immigrant, and so therefore you have no right to keep me out.

The people of the USA have always been against immigration, and the rich people and the merchants have always bribed the politicians to get in more cheap labor. Ocassionally, the people get really mad (in bad economic times) and rise up and enforce their will through rioting and so forth, or just get in some honest politicians.

Often the business and investor interests use the power of the people to propagandize and romanticize for pro-immigration purposes.

Most people fall for it.....same as it ever was.....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. uhh, CRAP!

"I see so many people here espousing the old hard-right ideals of anti-immmigration, anti-free trade, anti-globalism."

Anti-globalism? I've never seen it on DU - sure, many of us don't like the new anti-democratic international institutions like the WTO and the anti-democratic trade pacts like Nafta, but Democrats are more internationally-focused than anyway. Anti-"free trade"? We know ALL about the "free trade" scam.

Anti-immigrant? That's crap too - we want EQUAL, honest immigration, not exploitation like H1B visas and Bush's new second-class (non)citizenship.

[drdigi420]

51. Are you ignoring the difference between

LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration?

This is not about the 'right' of ppl to immigrate, this is about CHEAP LABOR FOR CONSERVATIVES! It's about destroying the middle class. It's about creating third world environments in which corporations can exploit the poor.

You completely ignore these facts.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporatewhore]

55. when was being pro SLAVERY and anti union considered liberal

I am not anti immigrant i think that if undocumented workers where given full workers rights then that would promote treating everybody right and strengthen our rights to work and organize for benefits
But You are way off on nafta and wto i dont think privatising everything from water to electricty (which the "free" trade agreements are trying to do) is considered liberal either

[denverbill]

59. Frankly, I think you have liberalism confused with something else.

When the hell did it become liberal to support the rich at the expense of the poor?

Since the dawn of the industrial age, employers have been demanding loose immigration laws to depress the price of labor, while employees have demanded tight immigration laws to protect their jobs. While it is liberal to be open and welcoming to immigrants, it is even more liberal to protect the poor from exploitation by the rich. I favor immigration, but only legal immigration, and only when US employment can handle more workers.

Would you support giving your next door neighbor's job to an illegal immigrant who was willing to do it for less money?

Don't buy into the conservative argument that the only jobs Mexican laborers are taking are ones that Americans don't want and wouldn't do. Americans will do anything if the price is right.

---------------
And regarding the Japanese cars...

In the 70's Detroit was making monster gas-guzzlers which were pieces of enormous shit. Then came the oil embargo and OPEC, and Americans demanded better fuel economy, which only the Japanese provided, so Americans started buying Japanese cars. Detroit responded by demanding that quotas be placed on how many cars could be imported from Japan, then proceeded to produce such miracle cars at the Vega and the flaming Pinto.

Since then, Detroit has improved quality markedly, and American cars can very nearly compete with Japan again. In the meantime, all US carmakers bought interests in the Japanese carmakers, and Japanese carmakers opened plants in the US. The Nissan Altima I bought in the mid 90's was built in Tennessee. The Ford Contour I bought in 1999 was built in Canada.

If you were using the auto industry as an example of why quotas don't work, you failed miserably. The quotas imposed on Japan #1) allowed Detroit to recover and design better cars and #2) forced Japan to build manufacturing plants in the US. Sounds to me like the trade barriers were a resounding success.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[economic justice]

68. Unfair trade policies hit the poor the hardest

It sends their jobs overseas. Make it in Indonesia and send it back in to America -- and do it with tax breaks that make it even cheaper! Tariffs protect American workers. Always have, and could today. Look what has happened!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[denverbill]

73. I didn't say anything about tariffs.

When it comes to tariffs, it depends what you're talking about.

If you slap a tariff on oil, then yes, it unduly hurts the poor the most. If you are talking about a tariff on new cars, then no, a tariff doesn't hurt the poor the most, because the poor don't generally buy brand new Lexuses and LandRovers, or even brand new Toyotas.

As to tariffs on basic material like steel and lumber (the ones Bush implemented) it's a mixed bag and it depends more on when they are implemented. If they are implemented quickly to counter a new development, they work fine. For example, if China decides to try to dump steel on the US market at below market values, if the US IMMEDIATELY implements tariffs, steel jobs in the US are protected, and no jobs are lost. If the US lets them dump cheap steel on us for 5 years, THEN imposes tariffs, many jobs will be at risk, because businesses in the US have adapted to the cheap steel, sold more cheap goods, and hired more workers. So you would lose jobs due to decreased demand for the steel products, in addition to the jobs already lost in the steel industry.

[corporatewhore]

75. So if Tarrifs hit the poor the hardest then why did steelworkers

converge en masse in miami protesting bushs decission to lift them risking arrest and beatings why did i see a couple of steelworkers engage in direct action

[w4rma]

81. The Republican Party *used* to be the more liberal party.

They supported (and seem to still support) these aspects that many associate with liberalism.

I consider myself a liberal/progressive. But, I don't support *anything* that harms regular Americans to benefit a few profiteers.

[economic justice]

62. About Buchanan

Unfortunately, too many Democrats are in the pockets of the wealthy......The fact that Pat Buchanan has been outspoken on these issues doesn't bother me in the least....at least SOMEONE is! I find myself agreeing with Buchanan more often than not, actually. He is socially a bit conservative for my tastes, but on foreign policy and trade - Pat's just simply right!

Bill Press was on a radio show the other night and was asked by a caller what he thought of Buchanan. He said that he went into Crossfire prepared to hate him, but said that he was so likable that there was no way to not like him. When they both ended up doing their show at MSNBC he said that they really came to appreciate what each brought to the table. He said that Pat and his wife had his family over for dinner and that they genuinely found they liked each other. He also said Pat is a different stripe of "conservative" than the gang in the White House now. He also said something that was SO true....they were proud of their show for being a political talk show that stayed away from the screaming and yelling that is so prevalent on cable these days. He liked the fact that they could discuss issues without Pat acting like he was Satan or something, saying again, that Pat respected his views even when they disagreed. Rare, indeed, these days.

[KoKo]

71. Your post would make it seem that you are a 60's kind of person.

However, it ends with saying: "you and I have no more right to a job than a Mexican peasant. If s/he wants to do the job for the price offered, then more power to him/her. We're not coercing anybody to do it. They do it because it's a better opportunity than they have in their own homeland. I believe we should honor that, and we have an obligation to make sure they make a fair wage and are treated well."

Pat Buchanan, is a bit like a cross between DixieCrat/White Supremist with a big dose of "Populism" thrown in.

I always considered myself as a "Populist" Democrat. So, there are a few things I can have in common with Buchanan about International affairs and Jobs/Growth. However, Pat needs to come closer to my now Radical Left position rather than me moving closer to his position.

Hey Pat Buchanan....Wake up and Smell the Coffee! If you are rejecting the Repug party being taken over by the "NEO-CONS." You need to come over to the DLC Wing of the Dem Party. As for ME....I'm no longer any DLC/Buchanan Populist.....I lean further towards Socialism.

Welcome aboard Pat...if you ever get here. Until then...it's fun to read about your political rationalizations.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. NAFTA and PROTECTIONISM

I see people posting FREE TRADE and immigration as issues. Historically until NAFTA and GATT, we were mostly concerned with FAIR trade, which INDEED was the issue with Japan during the Reagan years, especially since they subusdized industries in order to undercut our prices abroad while INCREASING prices at home to make up the difference..especially on our imports.

Buchanan has consistently been a protectionist and also made a great deal of friends with his vehement anti-Kyoto Treaty stance during the last election.

[mot78]

76. Nothing wrong with Buchanan Democrats

as long as they say their "Conservatives" to the media ;)