What do you think about the Buy American Clause?

[cynatnite]

Poll question: What do you think about the Buy American Clause?

[RB TexLa]

1. Saddle up, Cowboy trade policy.

"Ifin Old Europe don't like it, fuck'em, we's Mericans we do what we want."

Hummm, heard that before.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. So you think US tax dollars should be used to create jobs in other countries?

[Oregone]

6. Should the tax dollars of Oregonians be used to create jobs in Michigan

Does the Oregon economy depend upon a successful economy in Michigan? Does the Washington economy depend upon a successful economy in British Columbia? Do we live in an intricate reciprocal world?

[Hello_Kitty]

9. No.

I'm against all those stupid tax incentives and subsidies. My state is bankrupt, in part because they lavished all kinds of tax breaks on big corporations that didn't end up creating half the good jobs that they promised.

Should British Columbia get MY tax dollars to create jobs there? No.

[Oregone]

10. So no, federal Oregonian tax dollars shouldn't go to Michigan?

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Well, it's not like an Oregonian can't relocate easily to Michigan to get a job

Is Canada going to welcome me with open arms and a job after MY tax dollars go there for a project? I doubt it.

[Oregone]

17. Well, you can easily move to Mexico.

If thats the Litmus, should Californian tax dollars go to Mexico?

[Hello_Kitty]

18. I can easily move to Mexico?

:rofl:

You are clearly unaware of Mexico's immigration policies. Unless you are a wealthy American who wants to retire there, you are not welcome. As one of the wealthier nations of Latin America, Mexico has it's own immigration issue, with people pouring in from poorer countries in Central and South America to find work. See, it's a race to the bottom and the sooner you realize that the sooner you will stop shilling for Flat Earth globalism.

[Oregone]

22. Im a shill for flat earth globalism? Example?

Hell, Im about as anti-Nafta as the next guy around here, if not more so.

[Marrah_G]

74. Is there a world tax we all pay and is then divided up among countries?

[Romulox]

78. Michigan is a NET DONOR of tax revenues--we pay more than we get back.

Just thought you might like to know. :hi:

[Raksha]

36. How clever...NOT!!!

Re Saddle up, Cowboy trade policy.

As a matter of fact it's the opposite that's "cowboy trade policy," if you're referring to the late unlamented Bush administration. The "cowboys" never stopped trying to convince us that outsourcing is somehow patriotic and good for the economy.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. They think that if they compare you to Bush it will cow you into changing your position.

As if.

[pampango]

47. I don't know about that. I don't see anyone EVER changing their position

in these threads. Oh and the links to Bush are used just as often in the other direction, e.g. RW shill, low-wage corporate scum, pro-illegal immigration, flat earther, etc.

[mdmc]

60. I'm not a well know poster

but I change my position quite a bit. I mean, within the parameters of acceptable DU discourse (no third parties, anti-dem party talk) I change my opinions quite a bit. I generally do this one issues that I know nothing about. As I read more... positions evolve.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. I love how these threads bring out the cheap labor shills. eom

[TahitiNut]

20. Well, the self-styled "ownership class" members (and wannabes) have rarely ....

... had to dirty their pretty fingernails doing something as demeaning as a factory job. Heaven forbid. :eyes:

After all, jobs are something GIVEN to others ... right? :puke:

[Hello_Kitty]

25. You got that right.

The cheap labor shills I know IRL tend to be attorneys, "consultants", investors/bankers, and managers. No one who's worked in a factory or blue collar job. They'll sit there with a straight face and tell you that a 50 year old laid off factory worker should "retrain".

[Xipe Totec]

4. I just bought some Chilean Peaches

It's Summer down there.

I'd be hard pressed to find fresh ripe peaches made in the USA this time of year.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. That's because peaches aren't in season here

But other things are. There was a time when people didn't feel entitled to have any kind of food they wanted any time of the year. And if you absolutely had to have peaches in February, you preserved them during the summer. Corpo-agriculture is destroying the environment and produces unhealthy food. Buy local.

Furthermore, having a choice of more things to buy at the store doesn't put more money in your pocket. You need a good job for that. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that.

[Xipe Totec]

12. I'll ponder that while I eat my peaches.

And wonder also how much the peaches will cost next summer, if the illegal migrant workers fail to make it across the border at harvest time.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. They might be expensive

They might cost what they should have cost all along, if U.S. fruit farms didn't have a business model that depends upon an impoverished, exploited, politically neutered workforce. The conditions on those farms are so bad that humanitarian groups have condemned them. Think about that while you're eating your cheap peaches.

[Donnachaidh]

15. at the rate the economy is tanking, Americans will be clamoring for those jobs

I'm sure a repeat of the Grapes of Wrath will keep you full of peaches.

[Raksha]

42. You might want to consider picking your own if that's the case.

Re And wonder also how much the peaches will cost next summer, if the illegal migrant workers fail to make it across the border at harvest time.
You'd save a lot of money, and we could all use the exercise.

[Runcible Spoon]

81. If I were you I would ponder why I spent all that money on hard, flavorless lumps that pass for

"peaches" this time of year.

Me, I would rather wait until I could get something fresh off the vine that wasn't picked green and tortured on a 10,000 journey.

[demokatgurrl]

16. Exactly. Better to buy food from small local farmers

Support the local economy, keep a farmer farming, and have less impact on the environment by not trucking things all over creation.

And keep some money in America.

[Zywiec]

35. I hope no one in middle America likes seafood

Think of all the trucking it takes to bring that from the coasts.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. Horrible for the oceans and the environment

Yes, I love seafood but if I can't get it anymore I'll survive.

Why do people confuse having a lot of different kinds of stuff in the stores with economic freedom.

[girl gone mad]

51. It's like people never survived without..

constant access to every imaginable food item.

There is research that says eating local and seasonal items is healthier anyhow. Most people seem to benefit from a a period of undernourishment and our bodies have evolved to metabolize specific foods. The overabundance and instant availability are causing a health epidemic, not to mention the environmental damage.

[Raksha]

38. There isn't a whole lot of local produce to be had this time of year,

even in California. It has to be a lot worse in colder parts of the country. Even my organic co-op has been depending on its wholesale supplier, who imports a lot of the produce from Mexico and South America. We always prefer buying local whenever possible, but there just isn't a great selection right now.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. There's not supposed to be. It's winter.

Just because we've grown accustomed to a large selection of produce doesn't mean that there aren't significant impacts to the environment and economy to bring it to us.

[Taverner]

5. How about "sure, why the fuck not?"

It really won't make that much of a difference - at least not as much as the GOP seems to be making it out to be...

[cynatnite]

8. updated. good idea. n/t

[harun]

11. If McConnell doesn't like, I have to love it.

[mdmc]

62. lol

I've never thought of that.

[Oregone]

19. What if the wage-earning workers on these federal projects shop at Wal-Mart?

Oh No...Lou Dobbs head is spinning

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Well you just want to cut the middle man out entirely

You want to send our tax money directly to other countries.

[SmileyRose]

23. But I like American Cheese.

I buy american cheese all the time.

:)

[pampango]

24. You better be an American then. Canadians must buy Canadian cheese.

;)

[tritsofme]

26. According to the Bush Doctrine we should unilaterally ignore international agreements that we do not

agree with.

Provisions like this are illegal under international law, and if we do enact such policies, other nations have a right to retalliate.

In order to rebuild our image world-wide we must honor our international obligations, not throw them out the window.

[pampango]

27. While no one here likes Bush, there are some that admire his doctrine of

only following international agreements that they agree with. (The "good" agreements as opposed to the "bad" ones. Just change the name from Kyoto to NAFTA and the doctrine of selective adherence to international agreements appeals to some.) Thankfully, I'm pretty sure that Obama rejects the Bush Doctrine of only complying with agreements that one likes. :)

[Hello_Kitty]

30. While no one here like Bush, there are some who admire the way

he sucked up to low-wage greedy corporate scumsuckers.

[pampango]

31. I personally don't consider Canadians as low-wage "corporate scum-suckers".

But that's just me.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. I personally consider Canada to be a red herring in this discussion

In reality, I seriously doubt Canada would be able to get that many stimulus projects. The real reason that people like McConnell and other corporate tools object to the Buy American clause is because companies are itching to get their grubby hands on the money and then outsource, insource, and subcontract to get the cheapest labor they can use so they could rake in massive profits courtesy of you and me. Look what happened with post-Katrina rebuilding:

Gulf Coast Slaves

We have to be vigilant about this stimulus package. Banks who received the TARP funds have already been caught trying to import cheap workers with it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. It's on the books NOW and has not been deemed "illegal".

And until then, it needs to be enforced.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. According to cheap labor shills we should use U.S. tax dollars to create jobs in other countries

In order to rebuild our economy which, BTW is the main driver of the world's economy, we need to put people to work HERE. On another thread someone made the very apt analogy that it's like being on a plane where they tell you to fix the oxygen mask on your own face before putting on your child's. Other countries should suck it up and realize that they are not entitled to a stimulus that is funded with American tax dollars for the purpose of creating American jobs. Any treaties and agreements that override the imperative of the stimulus need to be revised because quite honestly there is nothing more important going on in the world than this economic catastrophe. And I'm sorry, but NAFTA should NEVER have included a provision that forced the members to allow other members to bid on their government projects. If anyone should be promoting a particular country's businesses and industries it should be the country's own government. I'm not saying you should never use foreign companies but I am saying that domestic industries should ALWAYS get priority for government contracts.

Edit: I think we all know this isn't about countries or treaties. The objection to the Buy American clause, and the reason it will probably stripped is, say it with me - GREEDY CORPORATIONS.

[mdmc]

64. what makes this illegal under current law?

My buddy owns a sheet metal place and buy high quality steel from Canada. He also buys cheap foreign steel from somewhere else, say China. This won't make it more or less expensive to keep doing that business.

[Romulox]

79. Cite to the "international law" (sic) that makes it illegal to use US Tax $$$ to support Americans?

I'm sure you'll get right on this one. :hi: :silly:

[SergeyDovlatov]

32. It may have impact similar to Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

I am against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)<1> was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of some economists, the Smoot-Hawley Act was a catalyst for the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from its high in 1929 to its depressed levels of 1932 that accompanied the start of the Great Depression.<2><3>

[Hello_Kitty]

34. That is a load of crap

Smoot-Hawley had little to no effect on the Depression. Yes, imports and exports fell during the early part of the 30s but they were not a big percentage of the economy to begin with and furthermore, there was a huge decline in domestic investment during the same period. Also, it took a few years for FDR's programs to be implemented. I'm tired of hearing this Smoot-Hawley myth to begin with, but it's particularly annoying to have it invoked to justify sending U.S. taxpayer stimulus money overseas.

[SergeyDovlatov]

41. US exports more grain than all other countries in the world combined

Our imports gives foreigner money to buy our exports.
You favor one group of producers over another.

US exports more grain in a year than all other countries combined!
61% of all grain exports.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/agr_gra_cor_exp-agriculture-grains-corn-exports

#1 United States: 46,000 thousand metric tons
#2 Argentina: 11,500 thousand metric tons
#3 China: 8,500 thousand metric tons
#4 Brazil: 5,500 thousand metric tons
#5 Ukraine: 1,300 thousand metric tons
#6 South Africa: 1,000 thousand metric tons
#7 Hungary: 700 thousand metric tons
#8 Canada: 300 thousand metric tons
#9 Thailand: 100 thousand metric tons
#10 Romania: 50 thousand metric tons

Given that we are better at some things than other countries and not at others, would you want to get the most bang for the buck of stimulus?

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Big fucking whoop.

The profits from those grains go mostly into the pockets of greedy speculators.

Let's talk about our overall trade deficit, instead of focusing on one item, shall we?

Honest to god, what part of YOU'RE NOT USING MY TAX DOLLARS TO CREATE JOBS IN OTHER COUNTRIES do you people not understand?

[SergeyDovlatov]

57. You need to look at the export side of equation as well

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

For every dollar of the money that is sent abroad, 72 cents comes back as demand for exports.

Let's say we gave $10 to a widget company as a stimulus.
widget company makes widgets, employing 1 person to make one widget requiring 1 unit of steel and 1 unit of wood.

Let's say local price for steel is 1.5$

Using $10 of stimulus, company buys 4 tons of steel and 4 tons of wood producing 4 tons of widgets.
Total employment from that is 12 people. (4 make steel, 4 make wood, 4 make widgets)

Now, what if foreign steel is only 1$ per ton.

now, widget company makes 5 widgets, at total US employment of 5 widget makers and 5 wood makers.
At this point, by american is definitely looks like a good idea.

However, if you take into consideration that 72% of money you sent abroad gets back home as demand for exports, we will see that out of 5$ that foreign steel manufacturer got, 3.6$ come back providing employment to 3.6 people producing say, grain.

So total US employment is 13.6 (no restrictions) vs 12.0 (with buy american). In addition there will be more widgets available for US consumers raising standard of living.

Anyway, those are made up numbers, but I just wanted to illustrate that things are not as clear cut as you are making them to look like.

[Kansas Wyatt]

67. I'm sure Family Farms across the country, along with millions of small towns...

Are rejoicing and so thankful they can export so much grain...

Oh wait! That's right. Most of the Family Farms were gobbled up by Corporate Farms, and those millions of small towns across the country have been in a state of decay ever since most of the Family Farms were taken over by Corporate Farms.

Sorry, the needs of the many working people out-weigh the needs of a few, which would be Corporate Farms and Corporations importing cheap shit.

[SergeyDovlatov]

68. So you admit, you want to hurt one group of working people and help others at their expense.

You don't like farmers. Fine. How about other export industries.
Check for yourself:

That is table of monthly US trade good exports.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh7.txt

Foods, feeds, and beverages 7,678
Industrial supplies and materials 27,286
Capital goods, except automotive 36,530
Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines 9,011
Consumer goods 13,091

People working in those industries will get hurt by 'buy american' provisions.

If you reduce imports, you automatically reduce exports. Even if there is no retaliation from other countries.

[Kansas Wyatt]

69. You do not speak for me!

I'm the one that pointed out how your Corporate Farms consumed all the Family Farms. You like only a few business farmers, rather than farmers who have been on the land for generations. However, I have no problem saying piss-on Corporate America, and that includes Big Corporate Farms, to benefit the majority of Working Americans.

In case you've been asleep for the last decade, we have taken a beating in the trade deficit. You can pump out all the numbers you want, like a fundie will about what the bible says, but we only export a FRACTION of what we import. Evidently, you don't look at the labels of things in stores, etc. And obviously, you do not have to work with cheap fucking imported shit that is inferior, because Corporate America thinks cheaper is better. It's not! It's shit, and some of us actually have to work with it, because nothing is made here anymore.

I'm sure that you are including Caterpillar exports in all your numbers... Oops, can't use that anymore, since it's not doing well against your import everything cheap so we can export motto. By the way, let's remove all the subsidies on all your highly prized exports you claim to make in your argument, since you are so sure that they can do the job on their own. Nope, no government help then, since it's not fair to those other countries you care so much about. Yes that's right, let your free market work it's magic, but don't you dare ask one damn thing from the majority of the American Workers, since they mean so little to you.

You stand on the side of the privileged FEW, and not on the side of the American Worker.

[SergeyDovlatov]

70. FRACTION? 77 out of 100 is a significant fraction.

That is not my numbers those are official government numbers from the US census.
Looking at the labels in a store gives you a small anecdotal evidence, I cited you actual export / import table counted by US government.

I am all for removing export subsidies. We don't have to subsidize the rich. They are doing quite well on their own.

> You stand on the side of the privileged FEW, and not on the side of the American Worker.

Uhmm ...you might be slightly confused. It is not corporation versus workers. It is workers in some industries vs workers in other industries.

Every dollar of import is covered by about 77 cents of exports.
Moreover, I showed you the break down of things US exports. So you can see for yourself who could get hurt.

People in those industries will get hurt if imports are reduced.

That is not about free market. It is plain common sense. Exports covers the imports and vice versa. It is true in communist, socialist or capitalist countries.

Trade deficit is accounted by accumulation of US government debt, capital investment in US and cash hoarding. So, with the exception of hoarding, it is floating back to the US, so it is might br about 99cents per dollar of imports and 1cent for cash hoarding by foreigners, though I did not find a good official source for this yet.

[Kansas Wyatt]

71. Out of your 77/100 fraction, now remove...

Private loans exported to foreign investors... After all, the government paying off foreign investors, with an $800 billion bail-out, for BAD private debt is a subsidy too. Oh, and add up all the government pay-offs for farm land sewn to grass, since that is meant to be yet another beneficial subsidy to Corporate Farms.

Most of the other exports you are talking about go out as raw materials, but then they come back as imports in the form of manufactured goods. You can use your Right Wing Fuzzy Math all you want to justify your position, but you are still screwing the majority of Working Americans.

You have been trying very hard to claim that the United States EXPORTS so much, that the American Worker is doing just fine by the present situation. Please list all of the JOBS that your exports support. Nobody gives a damn about your paper-pushing list. List some REAL jobs that your exporting industry employs, then list the salaries and benefits for those jobs. Please do justify your RAW material out vs. MANUFACTURED goods in position.

Oh, and if you lost 33% on just a $100 per day over the last eight (BushCo. & Republicans, Inc.) years, that would add up to almost $100,000 of a net loss you would be willing to accept. Yet you try to keep a straight face, smile, and tell people that loosing so much is so much better, when you know that it would never be close to acceptable for you.

If people like you are running the Government and Wall Street, then it is very easy to see why this country is up the shit creek without a paddle. Oh that's right, you would take that $100,000 loss and sell it to a foreign country, then whine to the government to bail you out when a price was placed on your head.

[SergeyDovlatov]

75. Most of the exports are raw materials?

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/curre...

Foods, feeds, and beverages 7,678
Industrial supplies and materials 27,286
Capital goods, except automotive 36,530
Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines 9,011
Consumer goods 13,091

Some part of the Industrial supplies and materials are indeed raw materials but it is dwarfed by other categories.

you would take that $100,000 loss and sell it to a foreign country, then whine to the government to bail you out when a price was placed on your head.

ROLFMAO, I never said or believed anything like it. What I wanted you and other people in this thread to recognize is that exports and imports are linked together, you cannot have one without the other.

[Kansas Wyatt]

76. ROLFMAO

You could not list anything to support your claims. Yet you insist on throwing up a list from an alleged link, that has been removed.

Go away Right Wing Shill... Just like everything else you hacks come up with, it has turned to shit.

[SergeyDovlatov]

77. ROFLMAO squared

Hmm... Are you sure you are replying to something I've written?

I posted information from US government website, listing all of the exports imports data.
If you challenge the relationship between exports and imports, ask yourself: "Where do foreigner get dollars to buy $140,000,000,000 worth of US exports?".

Anyways, I am disinclined to continue conversation with you over this matter. I find the tone of your posts somewhat abusive.

With regards to the links, here are they again, hopefully you won't find them broken:

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

EXPORTS OF GOODS BY END-USE CATEGORY AND COMMODITY

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh7.txt

and even picture of volume of export / imports if you have trouble following the links I provided.

[Kansas Wyatt]

83. Your link DID NOT work shill.

Ever dawn on you that there has been a recent changing of the guard, and your Right Wing Propaganda is being removed from official government sits? Never mind, the American People are not buying your snake oil anymore.

However, even by your own example, your way is LOSING more than you are taking in. You do understand basic math don't you?

You are LOSING $33 for every $100, due to a negative trade imbalance. If you lost $33 every day for the last 8 years, you would be $96,360 in DEBT. Because you LOSE MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN. However, you are just the type to package that debt up in loan bundle and sell it to foreign investors, until your game runs out... Then you ask the U.S. Government to BAIL you out, so you can pay off the fuzzy math you sold, to save your backside from pissed off foreigners.

I do not know what racket you are in, nor do I care, but the American People are fed up with getting screwed over by your type, who claim that if they take a loss, it means they will have more. It's BULLSHIT, and you know it!

[pampango]

46. There was a long discussion about Smoot-Hawley yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3719357

It starts and post 50 and goes on pretty much forever.

There was a chart referenced by another poster that depicted various economic statistics from 1929 to 1938. My contention was that there was a direct correlation between the amount of trade (as a percentage of GDP) and the growth of the economy. When trade was a higher percentage of the economy, the GDP grew and when the trade percentage was lower, the GDP number was smaller. In no year during that period did restricted amounts of trade lead to a bigger GDP number.

As I said then, the figures in that chart did not prove that restricting trade caused the economy to contract or that expanding trade caused the economy to expand, but neither did it prove that Smoot-Hawley had no effect. It only showed that there was a positive relationship between the significance of trade and the size of the economy.

In fairness another poster pointed out, though, that chart only provided figures linking trade and the size of the economy, but not to whether trade led to a more or less equitable distribution of the income in the economy at the time. I am sure there has been much more research done on the effects of Smoot-Hawley.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. I'm sure that research has been done by people like Heritage and AEI too

My god, it's astonishing to see progressives repeating RW talking points like they are received gospel.

As for your criticism of the Smoot Hawley argument you are entirely missing the point that international trade was just simply NOT a big factor in the economy back then. It just wasn't. And I really don't see how you can draw a more significant correlation between trade and growth than you can between domestic investment and government spending, which were a MUCH bigger part of the economy.

[pampango]

49. If you don't think that 7-11% of the economy is significant, then we just disagree.

Often economic growth or decline is measured in the 1-3% per year range, so something doesn't have to be 50% of GDP to affect the direction of the economy.

I wish you wouldn't accuse anyone who disagrees with you of spouting RW talking points, particularly if they post enough that you get a sense that it really is their opinion honestly arrived at.

I have not tried to discount the importance of FDR's federal spending nor domestic investment. I have simply pointed out that the importance of trade was similar to that of domestic investment and not inconsequential in the direction of the economy, not that it was the only thing affecting the economy. FDR's spending, which came mostly after SH was repealed, was certainly a bigger factor than either.

I noticed that the trend in domestic investment almost precisely matched the ups and downs of trade and were both perfectly correlated to the size of the economy. (Whether there's a causal relationship between the two, I don't know.) The decline in domestic investment during the Smoot-Hawley years was even more dramatic than the decline in trade. There were only three years when the trade numbers exceed domestic investment and another when they were effectively the same, but they were similar in size and impact on the economy.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. If there was a causal relationship how do you know what direction it was?

Why are you assuming that trade drove domestic investment and not the other way around? Doesn't producing things that you export require infrastructure? Doesn't (or didn't) that come from domestic investment plus some government spending? Having opportunities to trade doesn't necessarily mean that you have the ability to trade anything.

[Edweird]

43. Finally. Now if we could only get an "Employ American" clause...

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. It's an amazingly fucking stupid idea, and anyone who thinks it's a GOOD idea...

is staggeringly ignorant.

At a time of widespread and global economic crisis, trade protectionism will only make things worse by encouraging reciprocal protectionist measures in other countries which may at present serve as export markets for American-made goods; the most obvious historical example would be the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff of the 1930's (the net effect of which was a trade war and greatly depressed export activity).

[girl gone mad]

53. We don't have the same economy we had in the 1930s.

The Smoot-Hawley comparison is out of place.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. No, it isn't

we're even more dependent on imports, and tariffs won't stimulate industries that have been effectively gutted and will take years if not decades to rebuild in any effective manner; and retaliatory tariffs would have a decidedly negative impact on exports and on any US business in the export trade. Protectionist responses to economic crises are rank stupidity.

[mdmc]

66. Why must you hate Obama

why America?
:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

52. It ain't no sanity clause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN8n99BUO-A

[anonymous171]

54. Fucking love it. Until International labor unions get stronger, protectionism is the only way

we can protect American jobs.

[SergeyDovlatov]

59. you protect some jobs and destroy others

by raising barriers to imports you are hurting those who produce things for export and help those who compete with imported stuff.

What moral justification is to favor one group people over another?

[treestar]

82. Exactly, I found something made in America

It was the de-icer for the windshield. The company that makes it can't sell it in Texas, maybe they'd want to sell it in Canada or the EU. If they can't, that company doesn't expand and doesn't create jobs here.

They make it for Sears, too, and there are Sears' in other countries.

[Better Believe It]

61. Trade wars weaken labor unions and international labor solidarity

Not a single job is protected in any nations engaged in trade wars in which workers are urged to fight workers in other nations and "foreign" workers in the "homeland".

That's the kind of xenophobia and super nationalism encouraged and used by extreme right-wing and even fascist movements.

[Waiting For Everyman]

63. So that's why unions have done so much better during free trade, hmm.

Not.

[anonymous171]

72. Exactly. nt

[Romulox]

80. The "but trade is ALWAYS good!" crowd can't explain declining wages/standards of living in the US

[treestar]

55. If it stimulates the economy, it's good, if it won't, then it's not

I am not enough of an economist to understand the effects, but am getting the idea that contraction of the economy is not what we seek and that this sort of thing contracts the economy. We had exports too, and whoever is doing the exports - their job depends on that, over those hysterical enough to believe anything that benefits a nonAmerican is a harm to an American, or that America can somehow be isolated and self sufficient in the 21st century.

[mdmc]

58. excellent poll

thank you for the last choice.

[readmoreoften]

65. Not thrilled, not horrified. I'd like to see the uprising of an international proletariat.

The racism and nationalism endemic to protectionist rhetoric is divisive to the working class as an international phenomenon. It's not an issue of patriotism. Capital hires the most desperate workers. The "they're taking our jobs" rhetoric is right-wing populism. "They're exploiting our fellow workers in Indonesia and leaving us all to die" is a way to approach the problem without inciting hatred of workers with "unAmerican" passports.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. Excellent politics, lousy economics.

In itself, it will bad both for the USA and the rest of the world.

The only silver lining is that it very slightly decreases the chance of Republicans retaking power any time soon, because it will be popular.

[MellowDem]

84. Stupid.

Hasn't worked in the past, won't work now. It's a stupid, wasteful, politicizing idea that loses more American jobs than it creates and lowers overall standard of living.