44th

[Lou]

Well, BotD, go ahead and tell me you told me so.

The sheer idea of that statement says you know 1.) what people actually think and 2.) what will happen is different.

I voted for Obama. And I never believed he was going to BUST into the White House like Superman and do everything he's ever said he was going to do. Not in 1 year, not in 4 years, not in 8 years.

I DO believe that G.W.B. has been HORRIBLE for this country and not accomplish squat of anything important.
I DO like the fact that Obama has new and different ideas. Most of which made sense when he explained them.
I even HAVE a small business. Just VERY small.

Since he's not KING he can't just implement every idea he ever has. Things have to get approved through lots of different people and most of these ideas and plans will get tweaked and worked on for years.
In the end, however, I believe that starting with new ideas and tweaking them is far more beneficial than continuing to tweak the same old ones we've been trying forever.

But, like always, "someone" assumes to not only know what's best, but what everyone else is thinking and expecting.
So, just go ahead and tell me you told me so now and I'll say I told YOU so. He's already done most of what I was hoping a president elect WOULD do. Throw some new ideas out there, at least attempt to come up with some different ways to approach our problems, and maybe at least pretend to care what happens to the everyday peons in a way that people can react to.
He popped up, threw some new ideas around and the country reacted. It's just an added bonus that he can speak in complete sentences without assistance.....which our current President is sadly lacking the ability to do.

 

[Superstar]

WHEN Obama and his 'ideas that made sense when he explained them' go tits up

Sooner than you think. His choice of Chief-of staff uber-partisan pit-bull isn't a good start.
In the Q&A session I noticed that when asked if now that he has had his first presidential briefing the information gained would alter his economic plans he gave a resounding "no comment". I especially liked his answer with the subtle reference to attempting to avoid tax increases that would lose jobs for businesses.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

He's already done most of what I was hoping a president elect WOULD do. Throw some new ideas out there, at least attempt to come up with some different ways to approach our problems, and maybe at least pretend to care what happens to the everyday peons in a way that people can react to.
He popped up, threw some new ideas around and the country reacted. It's just an added bonus that he can speak in complete sentences without assistance.....which our current President is sadly lacking the ability to do.

WOW, a raging indictment of the Democratic Party.

If you don't aim high, you're never let down eh?

Personally when I am voting for someone, I want that someone to actually care not pretend. I truly believed that McCain had the best interests of the US and its peoples at heart and really did care and his concession speech only furthered to prove it.

WOW as well, how fantastic of you to dig at George W Bush, I've not actually heard or seen anyone do that in the 8 years he has been in office.

Thing is, I'm not a fan of George W Bush, I just find it amusing that people attack his intelligence.


Ohh I have a question to others. What do you think in regards to Obama opposing Gay Marriages?

 

[Blondie Bear]

Alright, you two. No fighting, no biting. *hugs Lou and Al*

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Alright, you two. No fighting, no biting. *hugs Lou and Al*

I'm not fighting, I am merely pointing out that if you vote in an official to run your own country you should have higher hopes than him achieving all you wanted within the first couple of days and only hoping he feigns interest in the average person.

 

[Washburne]

Ohh I have a question to others. What do you think in regards to Obama opposing Gay Marriages?

I´ve heard that he´s agains gay marriage but also that he´s opposed the ban against gay marriage so I guess that shows how well I follow things. :blush: But I´m for gay marriage so I guess you can figure out for yourself what I think.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I´ve heard that he´s agains gay marriage but also that he´s opposed the ban against gay marriage so I guess that shows how well I follow things. :blush: But I´m for gay marriage so I guess you can figure out for yourself what I think.

Indeed.

Thats the thing, this is where I find it difficult to follow someone.

How can someone who believes fundamentally that something is wrong then state he isn't against banning it.

The Gay Marriage isn't the actual issue, its the fact he doesn't want to defend his beliefs.
This to me is a terrible thing that he would sacrifice his own beliefs to get a vote.

This has nothing to do with other candidates.

On the topic of Gay Marriage I fully support people in a Gay relationship having the exact same rights as every other couple, I would not change my stance on that for no one, for no job.

I have read the 'spin' answer to it but surely you respect someone more for holding true to what they believe then trying to win more votes.

 

[Joyce Summers]

The Gay Marriage isn't the actual issue, its the fact he doesn't want to defend his beliefs.
This to me is a terrible thing that he would sacrifice his own beliefs to get a vote.

This is just a perhaps/guess/suggestion and nothing more, but could it possibly be not that he was being contradictory but that while he himself does not approve/like gay marriages he sees no reason why a person should have the choice to?

My Mom while not at all homophobic at all finds gay marriages strange in that beyond a civil ceremony she just can't get grasp it, which I guess techincally makes her against gay marriage. YET, she has gay friends and even happily and pleased...ly attended a marriage of such in Boston a year or so back.

Just a thought on what this apparent contradiction could be about.

 

[Lou]

WOW, a raging indictment of the Democratic Party.

If you don't aim high, you're never let down eh?

Personally when I am voting for someone, I want that someone to actually care not pretend. I truly believed that McCain had the best interests of the US and its peoples at heart and really did care and his concession speech only furthered to prove it.

WOW as well, how fantastic of you to dig at George W Bush, I've not actually heard or seen anyone do that in the 8 years he has been in office.

Thing is, I'm not a fan of George W Bush, I just find it amusing that people attack his intelligence.


Ohh I have a question to others. What do you think in regards to Obama opposing Gay Marriages?

Well the general statement is so full of condescension that it HAS to be from you. No one else has acted like we're too dumb to realize the general ways of the world.

NEITHER candidate was going to breeze into office and be able to take every idea they've ever had and implement them. To assume that McCain OR Obama was going to get into office, change the way everything was done and make the world candy cane and lollipops is just utter lunacy.
The President doesn't even HAVE that kind of power even if he wanted to.

It has NOTHING to do with Democrats having low expectations. It has to do with knowing what is possible and what is not. Thus the difference in definitions for the words, "idea" and "action".

His IDEAS I liked. Getting them from his head, through the process, tweaked by the house and the senate, put back through, tweaked more to what the final actual action is different from what his ideas are. I just liked where HIS ideas started more than McCain.

But, if it will help you, I promise to be utterly SHOCKED when you say I told you so and pretend that I thought we lived in a dictatorship and that Obama was going to be able to breeze in and change everything all on his own.


As for attacking GWB's intelligence....the man FLAT OUT LIED about why we were going to war and expected everyone in the country to just go along with it happily. He didn't even pretend to hide it. First said we were going to war because Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and was coming after US with weapons of destruction so we HAD to do it. Then, when his bluff was called pulled rabbits out of hats like we were too stupid to remember what he had said before.
He also has spent a lot of time saying if you aren't PRO-WAR you're against the troops and a bad American and that if you aren't Pro-Him you're a bad American and have no values. I don't have to think someone is intelligent just because the only way they can find to get out of problems they caused is pointing the finger at everyone else.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

Indeed.

Thats the thing, this is where I find it difficult to follow someone.

How can someone who believes fundamentally that something is wrong then state he isn't against banning it.

The Gay Marriage isn't the actual issue, its the fact he doesn't want to defend his beliefs.
This to me is a terrible thing that he would sacrifice his own beliefs to get a vote.

This has nothing to do with other candidates.

On the topic of Gay Marriage I fully support people in a Gay relationship having the exact same rights as every other couple, I would not change my stance on that for no one, for no job.

I have read the 'spin' answer to it but surely you respect someone more for holding true to what they believe then trying to win more votes.

Again, this is his JOB to represent the people of his party. It's not his job to be a dictator and
press his views onto others.
That isn't compromising his beliefs at all. It's just not subjecting others to believe as you do.

I believe Chows are the best breed of dog. That doesn't mean that if I were president I would order all family dogs to be Chows.
You can also be against abortion and be Pro-Choice. You're against abortion...don't have one. Counsel others to look at other options. That doesn't mean you make abortion illegal throughout the country.
You don't personally like the idea of Gay Marriage? Peachy. Don't marry someone that is the same sex as you are. That doesn't mean you insist that gay people can't get married based on your personal say so.
That isn't a "spin" answer that's general sanity. This is what makes the role of President different from that of schoolyard bully.

 

[goldenboy]

Do we have the makings of a skit for next week's SNL?

Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for 'careless' joke

President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan this afternoon to apologize for a joke about her having held "séances" in the White House, an Obama aide said.

“President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan today to apologize for the careless and off handed remark he made during today’s press conference," said transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "The President-elect expressed his admiration and affection for Mrs. Reagan that so many Americans share and they had a warm conversation."

Obama was asked at his press conference today if he'd spoken to all the "living" presidents.

"I have spoken to all of them who are living," he responded. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances."

He was apparently confusing stories about Reagan's consulting with an astrologer with those about other First Ladies -- from Mary Todd Lincoln to Hillary Clinton -- who tried to make contact with figures from the past.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Obama_apologizes_to_Nancy_Reagan.html

I'm curious to see how the comics and the pundits will treat him now that he's President-Elect Obama. He's not nearly as gaffe-prone as Bush or Biden.

 

[Superstar]

A few things to respond to.

Ohh I have a question to others. What do you think in regards to Obama opposing Gay Marriages?

True to his Senate form he voted "Present". He even showed up late to cement his Senatorial image.

His IDEAS I liked.

Some I did as well.
One of which was the isolationist approach.
I already mentioned NAFTA as one example. I am against free trade as it currently stands.
His desire to flip NAFTA to be advantageous to America instead of harmful or even dissolve it completely is a start on the right track to free trade reform. My issue was always with his economic plan as is. If "free trade" is completely reformed or eliminated then his economic plan has far more merit and can succeed in the end hampered only by immigration. I have advocated a 1000%+ tariff on imports thus keeping the possibility open on trade but discouraging it on the level it is currently.

With the Democratic push to advance immigration rather than ban or reform it is counter-productive to any viable economic plan. I have already discussed the reasons it is being advanced (and championed by groups like ACORN) but that is another discussion.
Yes, let's open the floodgates for immigration as the Democrats desire to compete for jobs that don't exist and decrease on a daily basis. Perfect sense.

I said before that there is a class war going on by the Democrats who profess it's really class leveling. What you will ultimately end up with by increasing immigration is not a three tier class system but a sharp demarcation between poverty and wealthy with the complete evaporation of the middle class who will be reduced to poverty themselves as jobs go to those willing to take less pay. Add in the unionization laws (and required dues) they wish to advance and the situation only accelerates. In a growing economy that has a greater opportunity for job placement than can be supplied restrictions on immigration would be lessened. In a diminishing economy that has a lesser opportunity for job placement restrictions should be enforced, not tossed away.

Trade was initially enacted to acquire goods that could not be produced domestically, but in this modern day and age of manufacturing and advanced hydroponics trade is used primarily in shaping foreign policy instead.

Example: assume you are an agrarian nation; the current trade policy strongly encourages import of the same foodstuffs you can produce domestically but gives huge discounts to the foreign nation on pricing which domestic producers cannot hope to compete with. You are not only shooting yourself in the foot but placing the gun in your mouth and squeezing the trigger as well. All in the name of "free trade" to promote "friendly" relations and shape policy to our liking.

Continuing with the agrarian motif, the import of bananas seems innocuous enough but actually funds the banana cartels which in turn fund regimes that take even more American funds to combat. Bananas can be grown domestically (thus funding domestic jobs and green house production) improving domestic economic stability at the cost of a slight increase in price in bananas. Overall the costs are an economic advantage since the cash flow remains in domestic hands, does not fund hostile foreign nations and does not cost as much to combat these same nations which we shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Now apply this same model to China and other nations which produce items that can and should be produced domestically. How many jobs and companies are dissolved simply to acquire corporate import profit benefits of slave labor in foreign nations and stimulating their economy (many of which are hostile) at the cost of our own?

Tell me where it makes sense to continue this malpractice.
I've asked before: what exactly do we import that cannot be produced domestically to improve our own economy?

The import of foreign cars which specialized in low gas mileage (as one example) sent strongarm messages to domestic car companies that could not compete with these import laws in place requiring them to produce the other end of the spectrum (gas hogs) to remain in business - companies which are now on the verge of collapse since they are in an economy that generally now shuns their product and has for some time now due to the Democratic push of a "Climate Change" religion.

 

[Superstar]

The man FLAT OUT LIED ... then, when his bluff was called pulled rabbits out of hats like we were too stupid to remember what he had said before.
He also has spent a lot of time saying if you aren't PRO-WAR you're against the troops and a bad American and that if you aren't Pro-Him you're a bad American and have no values.

You do know the irony here right?

It took Obama only until his 1st official press conference to gently repudiate his own main campaign platform:
Q: What about your tax increases?
A: I think that jobs are 1st priority and tax increases on businesses are not something we should be looking at right now.
To which economists reply; "Yathink?"

And wasn't this the same guy who said if you were against him you were essentially unpatriotic and slave-master of the middle class (and possibly even racist to boot)?

As I said, McCain would have been slightly better for the economy overall, but I certainly didn't agree with all his policies.
I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but I'm willing to see where he goes on other issues like free-trade and 2 wars which are diametrically opposite of McCain's which I think I've already shown my disagreement with.
Perhaps if he keeps these and adopts the correct response to the economy he may be the better choice in the end.

 

[Lou]

You do know the irony here right?

It took Obama only until his 1st official press conference to gently repudiate his own main campaign platform:
Q: What about your tax increases?
A: I think that jobs are 1st priority and tax increases on businesses are not something we should be looking at right now.
To which economists reply; "Yathink?"

And wasn't this the same guy who said if you were against him you were essentially unpatriotic and slave-master of the middle class (and possibly even racist to boot)?

As I said, McCain would have been slightly better for the economy overall, but I certainly didn't agree with all his policies.
I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but I'm willing to see where he goes on other issues like free-trade and 2 wars which are diametrically opposite of McCain's which I think I've already shown my disagreement with.
Perhaps if he keeps these and adopts the correct response to the economy he may be the better choice in the end.

Well, he hasn't exactly raised taxes on anything yet. But, if and when he does even if he raises everyone's taxes, it still not the same as sending our friends and family off to die
without knowing the actual reason.
Clinton lied while in the White House, but his lie didn't have any impact on me or my loved ones at all. It's not even really about saying one thing and doing another.
It was his blatant statements about Iraq having responsibility for 9-11 and coming after us when he knew them to not be true. At least "knew" in the same way I can say that I "know" my husband and 8 year old aren't off being serial killers when they go fishing.
He was aiming right at the general fear Americans had of middle easterners and muslims. And he knew it. It was a lie that sparked tons of hate within the country and ended in funerals.

I like my lies to 1.) not be so noticable AS their being told and 2.) not end in hate and death to millions. But that is just me.

 

[ckg927]

Does anyone realize that the only times we've gone through impeachment in this country,it was for purely political reasons?

Andrew Johnson got that treatment because one side was POed at him doing some rearranging that wasn't good for their side after the Civil War.

Bill Clinton faced it because...well,if you don't know by now,you must have pulled a Rip Van Winkle.

Point is,the act of impeachment is so tarnished that had the Democrats tried doing such a procedure when they became the majority in Congress in 2007(which was promptly shot down by Speaker Nancy Pelosi),they'd have been tagged as doing it for political reasons,no matter how compelling the evidence was.

 

[StuckinTraffic]

I don't think GWB can be held solely responsible for the anti-Moslem/Middle Easterner mindset in America. I would lay that solidly at bin Laden's feet, since 9-11 (an event during which thousands died) was perpetrated by Muslim terrorists under his leadership. While GWB may have lied, and I'm not saying he did....I don't think that directly led to the hatred and death of millions. I think we arrived there because Muslim terrorists came to OUR shores and attacked US, on OUR ground. US. If you can read my incredulity that something like this could happen, you begin to understand where the mindset came from.....we've always been the big bads, nobody could take us down.....but bin Laden proved that it could be done...easily....and he was willing.

I guess mid 2009.

Gee, he's not going to get sworn in till Jan! You're not going to give him 8 months, at least? Ok....I'm starting a pool!

 

[Superstar]

randiann agrees: I can only pray this is satire....

Why would that be satire?
The Anti-Free Trade movement is a growing force and is most certainly championed by Democrats.
I agree with it completely. It is a failed model.

Free Trade has been the tool of choice to shape foreign policy to America's liking for 60 years now.
It was very limited in scope pre-WW2 and boomed post-WW2 as a tool against communism.

Our economy went in the crapper 30 years ago and the answer to it was government deficit spending to get out.
This time government deficit spending ain't working so well.

Now I can give a long rant about reparations to Japan for bombing the crap outta them and the flood of imports to help them recover and make them buddy buddy, West Germany and their imports, Vietnam and Taiwan their imports, Nixon and China their imports all done to deny the Soviet Union of supplies because we gave such "best friends" deals to these nations and the massive military buildup to keep the Soviet Union spending there as well causing their eventual collapse but I don't think you'd like it.

It worked; took 30 years and nearly squashed our own economy. Unfortunately, "Free Trade" became so entrenched as the tool of choice to shape foreign policy to make these nations "friendly" it continued in the Middle East, South America, Canada so we could get some pipelines laid from Alaska, Mexico so they would have some industry there to keep immigration levels lower and anywhere else that we thought it might have influence. We spend billions upon billions in foreign nations that can't build stuff for us to buy so that we can make them "friendly" anyway.

Guess what? It's 30 years later... again. Communism is back and none too happy with us. We're pretty much screwed. Most of our own manufacturing has either become obsolete and non-existent or is so niche oriented that it cannot compete with the gravy train friendly imports are given. America is just one big coast to coast shopping mall. Our biggest industry is building houses, so we went nuts doing that. Since we really couldn't afford to do it for everyone who could afford them we made it easy to buy them to keep the industry going. That saturation point was reached. We're out of money, out of jobs, and out of competitive industries. Our main jobs are construction, retail, and non-productive jobs like litigation, the movie industry and selling intangible stuff (like stocks). Frankly, all we have left is war and defense contracts as major productive industries. The car business is demolished from niche building because we just couldn't compete with imports so they built SUVs. Then along comes the Climate Change religion and tanks what little opportunity is left there for major manufacturing and industrial recovery in our natural resources. All you have to do is look at the highest job losses in America to catch a clue.

We "traded" away all of our strengths and these countries that we tried to make "friends" ain't so friendly.
This is not satire, it is fact.

If you live in America, use a critical eye and actually look at your house. Where were your goods built? Not where did you buy them. Where were they made?
Your car, microwave, tv, toaster, dvd player, clothes... all of it. Really look at your house. Be honest with yourself.

If America is to be saved things need to change. Free Trade needs to go bye-bye.
Communism might reign in other nations as a result, but if we had not implemented the free trade model initially it may well have been doing so in the first place.
We won the battle, but are losing the war.

 

[ckg927]

I don't think GWB can be held solely responsible for the anti-Moslem/Middle Easterner mindset in America. I would lay that solidly at bin Laden's feet, since 9-11 (an event during which thousands died) was perpetrated by Muslim terrorists under his leadership. While GWB may have lied, and I'm not saying he did....I don't think that directly led to the hatred and death of millions. I think we arrived there because Muslim terrorists came to OUR shores and attacked US, on OUR ground. US. If you can read my incredulity that something like this could happen, you begin to understand where the mindset came from.....we've always been the big bads, nobody could take us down.....but bin Laden proved that it could be done...easily....and he was willing.

Gee, he's not going to get sworn in till Jan! You're not going to give him 8 months, at least? Ok....I'm starting a pool!

I think that the question of where the blame for 9/11 should be laid can be shared among at least 3 presidencies,and maybe 4. However,the infamous PDB of August 2001-which mentioned that bin Laden was determined to strike the U.S.-came under Bush II's watch. As such,it was his administration's responsibility to act. Also,during the transition from Clinton to Bush II,the former's intelligence team gave the incoming admin the information regarding al Qaida,bin Laden et al. I don't recall them acting on it in any way.

One other thing: Our funding the Afghan resistance during the 1980s on the sly,then abandoning them once they booted the Soviets out of Afghanistan probably had something to do with it too. So did encouraging the Kurds to rise up against Saddam during the first Gulf conflict,then leaving them twist in the wind.

 

[randiann]

Superstar:

There are a number of reasons why your argument is obsolete. You look at free trade as a bad thing, and in many ways it is. But not for the reasons that you argue. Free trade is ultimately the domination of the global trading community by industrialized countries LIKE the US. We use third world countries as a way to obtain cheaply made goods that companies cannot afford to make here for a number of reasons.

You advocate moving manufacturing into America and stop importing as many goods, correct? How many people do you know who would work for less than a dollar a day? Labor costs are MUCH higher in the US meaning that your new toaster would end up costing you ten times as much as you would pay now for it. You also use bananas as an example of foods that should be grown in the US. Bananas are a tropical plant. To grow them here would cost so much more than the few cents a banana price hike you expect. To actually accomplish this task would pollute US soil by the millions of tons of fertilizer needed to grow bananas here, not to mention the water needed for irrigation of the bananas and some sort of technology needed to keep them from freezing. The external costs that we would have to pay to clean up this mess would mean BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars spent. Not to mention, you would still have to find a cheap source of labor, which doesn't exist here in the US.

Your animosity is directed in the wrong direction. It isn't free trade that needs to be stopped. It's the companies such as Dole (to go along with the banana theme) that buy cheap land and cheap labor in third world countries and then influence US politics ($$$) in order to get the US to lower tariffs and subsidize THEIR product, which is produced at the expense of the poorest of people in developing countries. They are the ones being exploited in this situation, and the American consumer is the one supporting this. If corporations (especially agricultural and manufacturing corporations) would higher their standards and NOT bribe the US government, then we could instead import bananas from countries like Jamaica. Jamaica in particular is one example where their banana industry has gone bankrupt because of US trade policy. The US raised tariffs for Jamaican bananas while lowering tariffs for bananas produced in South America by Dole. This same practice can be found in every agricultural industry as well as manufacturing industries. Often manufacturing industries DO make the materials for their products here. What they do is they produce the materials here, ship them overseas to be assembled, and then ship them back. It is a very costly and very wasteful process when you think of all the oil being used to ship these goods from one place to another, but it is still cheaper than paying American workers.

United States trade policies do need to be radically reconfigured. But again, we cannot shut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Take Jamaica again, for example. The Jamaican dairy industry is another industry that has been bankrupted by the US. The American dairy industry is so greatly subsidized that it is cheaper to import dried milk into Jamaica then for them to create it themselves. This wasn't put into practice, however, until Jamaica made a deal with the World Bank; one stipulation in their loan agreement was that Jamaica must lower tariffs on goods from the US. Now, you might be asking what does the World Bank have to do with the US? Isn't it an international conglomeration meant to help bring third world countries up to our level and help them become more successful and less dependant on industrialized nations? In theory it is. In practice it's a different story. The World Bank (which is LARGELY supported by US corporations) is the pay-day loan company of the third world. It makes short term loans to countries in a pinch, and then puts stipulations on them that make it impossible for these countries to pay back the loans. Each year, the country's interest rates compound, and their debt increases even though they are paying billions of dollars to the World Bank.

Why should we care? Why should we care if developing counties are subjected to poverty and corruption (besides for our own morality)? We should care because it all comes back on us. The corruption, the drugs, the hostility from these foreign nations all is a product of our own doing. Our current trade policies do not boost foreign economies-they destroy them. That in turn brings about this hatred for the US and leads to people turning towards the drug industry as it is the only industry in the US that our government is not controlling. It is the one industry in the third world where they can actually make money instead of being exploited.

I can see why you are mad. But your anger is misdirected. We CANNOT shut out the rest of the world. Instead of being mad at free trade, perhaps your anger would be better directed towards American corporations who support subsidized labor and are the ones reaping the profits. Instead of shutting ourselves off, we should instead be working to create a symbiotic relationship with developing nations. We should be importing the goods (like bananas and citrus fruits) that they can easily produce their and be exporting the goods they need so that we both benefit. Instead as it stands right now, the only people benefiting from our trade policies are large corporations. I do agree that trade should be reformed. But again, it is in our best interest to keep our boarders open instead of cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world.

 

[Superstar]

In some ways I think we are in agreement. In others not so much. My "anger" is directed appropriately. I am aware of the severe imbalance of not only import laws but also export laws. These exist for both political and corporate greed. In this I think agreement is had. You advocate industry in nations that have low pay as a good thing for America (not counting child or slave labor as good things to make this happen). That they would have a higher cost if produced domestically is not in question. This is also part of the reason wages in America are kept down against cost of living expenses that rise disproportionately. I'm glad that you mention American corporations at large in foreign nations. These nations are right to be upset with us. We should not be there.

Concerning agriculture in America; that is another situation that is beyond messed up.
The government pays farmers to not grow food. This is done to keep the costs of fresh foods high. Processed and packaged foods are lower in cost. This is done to keep those industries viable, even though they increasingly turn to automation for profit. Farming has evolved to the point that it is nowhere near as labor intensive as it used to be or as costly. Your example of bananas grown in the US as being an inefficient use of resources is wrong. The farming technology exists to make this an almost negligible increase in cost, especially in already citrus producing states.

Example: take a gallon of 100% pure grape juice. About $3-4. Fresh grapes are about $1-2 per lb. depending on season. Now I'm pretty sure it takes more than 2 lbs. of grapes to make a gallon of 100% juice. Call me crazy.
Not including the costs of production, packaging, personnel and associated costs this shows a clear discrepancy inherent in the artificial value of fresh foods. Costs are kept high on fresh foods to stimulate the purchase of processed foods, which America should eat and eat and eat. The larger the servings the better - gotta keep those companies working. The costs of fresh food production is very low in comparison. America could eat like kings on fresh foods, be far healthier for it and still have a massive surplus. The fact that it is a perishable item (by economics) would dictate that costs would be kept low to stimulate purchases. Unfortunately, this does not provide the profits packaged foods, canned foods and fast foods deliver. We could go on to poultry, and animal as well, but I think the point is being made. As for fertilizer, that is produced far cheaper than you believe and the number of sources is vast; human, animal and vegetative.

One point of the Anti-Free Trade movement is precisely what you mention (along with what I have already laid out); the hampering or elimination of American interests in foreign countries taking advantage of the already abused free trade import laws of "friendly" nations. If the ability to import these cheap goods is removed to the country that consumes them the most (America), the companies either fold or are forced to redirect their energies domestically to remain in business.

Enabling the continuation of free trade is a crime.
You call for reform. I have advocated a 1000%+ tariff. We seem to be speaking in the same tone but a slightly different language.

America needs to redirect resources and attention to production back to America. There are only so many video games, amusement parks, clubs, resort spas and other niche/cottage industries America can stand in absence of industries that made America the country of opportunity instead of the country of obesity.

BTW: America has not only actively assisted in the Drug industry of foreign nations, but supports it. One of the reasons you will not see cannabis legalized is because it would effectively disable a good portion of foreign capital and our influence. Why buy when it's free and legal?

There are some goods that are more inefficient to grow domestically than to import.
I'm pretty sure America can do without its Cocaine, Starbucks and Hershey bars as minor examples.
You are also right in that America serves as a middle-man for many industries. I've never put much value in middle-men. They can be easily eliminated.

 

[randiann]

You advocate industry in nations that have low pay as a good thing for America (not counting child or slave labor as good things to make this happen). That they would have a higher cost if produced domestically is not in question.

Just wanted to point out that I NEVER advocate low pay for developing nations. Simply that it does happen, and this is why the costs of goods are low. The costs of labor and pollution are externalized, therefore making it cheaper for the consumer and saving the company billions. That does not make it right.

As far as the bananas issue, it is the externalized cost that I was going for. The costs of cleaning up the pollution caused from all that fertilizer, the water (that is already low in supply), and the cheap labor. If we were to grow bananas here in the US, who would be the one's cutting them out of the trees? Who would haul them to the trucks to take them to Dole? It's not going to be Joe Bob who wants to work for ten cents an hour. And Dole certainly isn't going to pay him more than that. They aren't going to pay him minimum wage.

And the government does pay farmers not to farm certain lands, but this is in part to keep farmers from overusing their lands and depleting the soil. Because when that happens and there is a drought, the topsoil gets blown away ala dust bowl style. This is one reason for that at least.

Just one question for you: would you propose that we impose a 1000% tariff on ALL imported goods, or would it be more effective simply on goods produced by large US corporations that are externalizing their costs by using cheap third world labor? And IF the US government were to implement a policy like this, how do you think the average US customer would react? I can guarentee it'd be a quick way for Obama to make himself unpopular.

Again, I stress the importance of creating symbiotic relationships with developing nations instead of the parasitic ones already in effect. It's not the US on the losing end here; it's our own companies that are the beneficiaries. The losers are the developing nations and their citizens more than anyone else.