Posts with the tag trade

Cash, Clunkers, Congress!

Andr�a- (You've called him everything else- now call him Mr. President!) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:20:47 EDT

Well well well, did anyone see how quickly the House of Representatives moved to throw more money into the "Cash for Clunkers" program? As stated before in my previous entry, the government incentive program which allows folks to trade in gas guzzling, CO2 emitting hoopties for newer eco friendly models, has proven to be too successful. The National Dealers Association revealed that the pace of the car sales would far exceed the original $1billion that was allocated to the program.

In amazingly fast action, the House of Representatives voted to give the program another $2billion. This money is being pulled from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Somehow the money will have to be replaced. We don't know how that is going to happen, but keep that pot on the back burner.

I wonder if the Senate will approve this additional $2billion. Democratic Senator Clair McCaskill from Missouri is not too fond of using this money for the program. She believes that subsidizing auto purchases for a long period of time is not necessarily a good thing. I understand her point, but I also remember that us taxpayers had to subsidize AIG and the rest of that ilk because the companies were so greedy and lazy as to let crappy toxic assets clog their portfolios.

Shouldn't the average American get a little jolt too? Besides, the more cars purchased maybe the more ordered from plants. The more ordered from plants, the more part suppliers utilized, which in theory could lead to job creation. Maybe I am getting ahead of myself, but who knows.

Bring on the Clunkers!

Send the Salt from Israel to North America

The Idea Girl — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:02:10 EDT

IDEA- Israel has many desalination plants and loads of salt. We need salt for our roads in the winter. Do they sell it to us, or would they be interested in trading the salt for something that they require from North America? Any ideas to add what they could use?

Twitter Me http://www.twitter.com/theideagirl and let me know if you post a comment! Thanks :)

China's Electric Cars and Dirty Coal Electric Production

J. HAGUE, Community Advocate — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:18:47 EDT

"China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars http://www.nytimes.com/todaysheadlines
By KEITH BRADSHER
In a new threat to Detroit, China is investing heavily in hybrid and electric-vehicle technology with a plan built on research, recharging stations and incentives."

What are we waiting for?
China needs clean electricity, we need clean cars.
With what we now know, can we not "leap frog" to an advanced
level of clean electricity production and optimal use?

There must be some better use for China's dirty coal than to pollute its
air and damage the health of its flora and fauna. And there must be alternatives
to expanding nuclear fission-electricity production.

I have floated the idea of "energy farms" in previous e-mails. Something like this
might be among the answers for not only China, but for many other nations, especially those
with tidal potential or virtually firm sun/wind combinations.

Tidal, wind, sunlight, municipal waste, ( any local renewables ) all, on or near the same site - "energy farm".

Produce at the maximal production function for all resources concurrently, and with the surplus electricity*, produce and store it as hydrogen, for use when one or more of the renewable sources are at sub--optimal levels. ( *surplus is determined by the difference between average "firm" production and maximal production; "deficit" would be the mirror image of "surplus" and require "topping up" to maintain average firm production from the total energy farm ). The stored hydrogen, if in sufficient supply, could also be used as an emergency "peak power" supplemental resource. The stored hydrogen is the "battery" or "resevoir" of the system enabling all the otherwise "non firm" renewables to be firmed up - much like our massive hydro-electric resevoirs here in British Columbia. There will be production losses and the need for sophisticated process computer controls to balance the system provides another outlet for North American know-how.

We know how to do this. On a net social benefit to cost analysis, I challenge anyone to do better. Properly balanced, this energy farm could produce and utilize "surplus" hydrogen at no economic cost!

So, who needs convincing? This could be a potent economic renewal project.

Comments?

John Hague - BA, CA, Mediator,
"Creative Conflict Services, BC" :: "NATURE, PEOPLE, BUSINESS, In Harmony"

Technology in Solar Power Increasing Rapidly

Unknown user — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:25:40 EDT

The technology in solar power continues to increase rapidly. The conventional rooftop solar panels developed by Solydra do not need to be tilted like others and can absorb sun light from all angels including reflected light from other rooftops. ActSolar developed the PowerString and early field test indicate that this solution can cumulatively deliver 40 to 80 percent more power over the operating life of a solar panel installation.

With incentives for commercial buildings and warehouses to implement this renewable energy technology, which also reduces green house gas, creates jobs, creates growth, reduces the trade deficit (oil), and strengthens the US dollar; this green energy technology will also give the US economy a boost.

The increase in demand will also result in more competition, research, innovations, and improvements. With the installations being concentrated in cities (commercial buildings) any maintenance required should also be competitive.

Things Go Better With Coke

Tom Awtry — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:32:02 EDT

The posting I’m authoring is more-or-less a follow on to a previous post listed here, regarding our international trade and American business interests on foreign soils.

A keyword flooding around, and which has resurfaced in these past few economic stricken times is “Protectionism”, where I have read this word a few times in our American based online news articles, but have seen it almost daily in foreign based web publications. In essence these foreign based governments via their media services have directed warnings to America not to establish policies locking out their countries goods and services in America.

Fair enough, these countries are worried, such as we ours, about their country’s unemployment and perhaps trade imbalances; and need assurances from the US that we won’t adopt trade barriers or policies, which could further hamper their economic recovery efforts.

It’s when these countries enact policies against us, which is beginning to presently happen, is when I become disturbed and disgruntled. Today, an article appeared within TIME, entitled: “China Says ‘Keep Out’ to Coca-Cola”, which I feel is an outstanding example of a country who has developed a huge imbalance of trade with us, a country to whom we owe one trillion dollars to (as pointed out in my previous aforementioned posting above) and according to some Washington folks (legislative branch) have understood it to mean a threat in some ways.

Consider taking a read of the TIME article and see what your feelings are over the frustration of letting the Chinese shop in America, picking up our small and middles sized businesses at a bargain, and not allowing us to invest within their country.

Again another video, but perhaps a neutral view on China’s business dealings with America, as presented by Bloomberg’s.

US Trade Deficit Narrows: US Trade Deficit With China; China’s Role In The World Economy

Analysis by Fred Bergsten of Peterson Institute for International Economics; Analysis by Carl Weinberg of High Frequency Economics

We Talked Globalization when we should have Talked Hometown

Tom Awtry — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:45:37 EST

In an article authored by Hari Sud for UPI Asia, I found out what has happened to my country of America the past thirty years and especially the last ten years.

I have reprinted the article in its entirety, since I strongly belief it should be read and considered by all; the article is entitled: “What’s next for globalization?” I have taken the liberty of high-lighting sections and phrases, which I deem most important to our current financial burden.

What’s next for globalization?

By Hari Sud
Column: Abroad View
Published: February 20, 2009

Toronto, ON, Canada, — As the U.S. financial meltdown continues in 2009, attention is now directed toward the wider and long-range impact of globalization. In theory, globalization is increasing the mobility of goods, services and capital throughout the world by removing the barriers to free trade and increasing closer integration and the inter-connectedness of national economies.

For the West, that has translated into relocating labor-intensive and smokestack industries to countries where costs are lower. Europe and the United States have envisioned themselves as the world’s bankers, financial masters and influence peddlers – which was great in theory, if only the crooks in the U.S. financial sector had been kept away from the proceeds of globalization.

Since 2001, the United States has been awash with cash. It came from oil-producing Arabs and from the export proceeds of China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and India. That cash found a home in the subprime mortgages that have started the financial meltdown that is pulling the world down.

Europe and the United States were winning the globalization race until 2008, as master bankers handling the export earnings of other states. On the sidelines, China, Asia’s Tiger economies, Brazil and India began generating some cash and technology and building their own economies, leading to rapid increases in their gross national products. However, the benefits did not extend to the rest of Asia, Africa and other less-developed countries.

We Have To Do Better!

Ivan from Christiansted, VI — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:52:06 EST

As a retired vocational art educator from the V.I. Dept. of Education, St. Croix, I am still trying to have an impact on the vocational curriculum.

The message, I would like to leave is most of the petty and the felony crimes that are committed in our society can be prevented. Today’s educational system is out dated and under funded. We graduate thousands every year and the thousands of dropouts, are sent out into our communities with a certificate / diploma. Some barely able to fill out an application for a job . It leaves and puts a lot of them in a survival mode. Malchom X said, by any means necessary. The youth refer to the crimes committed in the community as, “Street Tax”. All are not college material. To send our children out into society without a viable trade or a marketable skill, we are breeding generations of beggars, criminals, thieves and welfare recipients. No child should leave school without a trade. Those college students with a trade could easily supplement their education without going into deep student loan debt.

The Arts can be the educational catalyst to Change!

Ivan Butcher II

Minimum Wage: The Key to an Economic Stimulus

Tom Awtry — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:49:56 EST

Everyone has developed there own sure-fired economic stimulus package, even the ordinary man on the street, all with some degree of merit, with only a few good enough to be considered of ever beginning to work. We have some countrymen say, “No stimulus package at all” basically let the banks, home owners, auto workers (plus the auto companies) along with the state and city governments – “go broke”; meaning America starts over with a new economic system.

Others support the GOP package of reduced taxes and/or federal check in the mail, while the Administration and DNC support a “job stimulus package” with “checks” in the mail; from there every politician and hopeful presidential candidate for 1212 has their conceived answer to our economic burden.

I’ve heard a lot from my own friends and family, again, some sound good, and others come from people who would have a difficult time balancing a “check book.” Of course, I’m no exception; I have my own, which of course I feel has merit!

Here’s the Stimulus Package we should consider!

My package would require about the same amount of money (900 billion) as President Obama’s, since I feel a job creation package is needed for our highways, schools, linking of the health care via the Internet and energy independence. The aforementioned job creation would also benefit our returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Proponents feel there is no way of knowing if this aforementioned package is going to work or not, which I agree – who dose know? But, every package I‘ve heard of only encompasses our immediate economic concern along by updating past problems that should have been addressed years ago; what about today’s additional concerns that require attention, such as:

Enhancing our current immigration laws
Outsourcing American Jobs
Limit exporting our technology
Dollar acceleration into the economy
Decreasing our foreign trade imbalance
Affordable health care the economically underprivileged

Basically stating my stimulus package is simple English, it would be almost identical to President Obama’s with the exception of “Raising the Minimum Wage to $8.00 an Hour.”

Revise Immigration Laws

America’s become fat and Lazy! We allow illegal immigrates across our borders to take jobs we don’t want because the pay is to low and the work to hard; also we provide employment visas to foreign educated individuals in the eastern hemisphere to come and take jobs away from our own recently graduated college graduates. Our Fortune 500 companies must stop this practice of hiring lower priced labor (in both outlined example) to replace the American laborer.

Our Immigration laws need to be revised, of course, but again here’s an issue congress has avoided. In essence let’s make it more difficult for illegal immigrates to work in our country, but let’s make it worthwhile for American wide bottoms to stop living on welfare if that’s how they’re surviving, and get back to work or in many cases start working for the first time in their dismal lives.

The revising of laws pertaining to foreign student work visas would also aid our college students by allowing them the opportunity to pay back their tuition loans, hence a side benefit of aiding the banking community by decreasing the number of student delinquent loans.

Halt Outsourcing American jobs

Again, I have to call upon our Fortune 500 companies to use prudence and suffer somewhat higher taxes for shipping our jobs overseas where, as I see it, the American citizens and government receives very little as far as a reduced price of goods exported back into the US. These corporations, I believe, who subscribe to the notion of shipping our jobs abroad receive a very profitable bottom line in their profit and lose balance sheets while we receive increased taxes to pay for State Unemployment Compensation for those whose livelihood is overseas.

One aspect of the outsourcing issue, which remains unclear and introduced during the Clinton Administration is the “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).” What remains unclear is most of the top ten Fortune 500 companies have smaller sized facilities in both Mexico and Canada than they do in Asia – why? For me, I feel NAFTA was a smoke screen so the GM’s, Fords, Motorolas and the like could obtain certain loopholes in our government’s taxing structure knowing all along they were going to Asia.

Enough, I’ve made my point, bring our jobs home!

Limit exporting our technology

In many ways this goes hand-in-hand with outsourcing with the difference being, by selling foreign countries or allowing foreign countries to develop and manufacture products sold back into the United States, which in mostly all cases generates a sizable profit for the in the US company while giving the foreign country the ability to use the sold technology for other purposes that usually turn out to hurt our economy (trade imbalance).

In a self authored posting earlier, entitled: “We’re Going to be Trading Microchips for Toasters”, describing how our American steel industry, TV manufacturing and Intergraded microchip foundries have been exported and how we have came to suffer from our exporting these specialized technologies, please consider giving this rendered posting a read.

In other words let’s get back to “Made in America by Americans.”

Increasing the dollar acceleration into the economy

As you can certainly ascertain by now I’m not an economist, but I try to follow what stimulus packages are being presented and attempt to play the devil’s advocate on each of them. They all have one item in common, which is; “get the American public spending again”, which I agree with, but disagree with how this should be accomplished.

President Obama wants to place $1,000 into the hands of the lower middle class, as I understand it, which is, to my way of thinking is to short sighted. I feel most Americans will take the one thousand and use it to pay off credit cards or back mortgage payments. This means the money goes directly back to the banks that created the economic problem in the first place.

If the minimum wage was increased to $8.00 an hour, more people would benefit from the increased salary and it would go directly to the people who probably need it most. This would also be an incentive for people start back to work and remove themselves from the welfare list(s).

The big benefit, the low wage earners would spend their increased salary quicker while spreading it out over a number places, instead of giving it all back to our failed banking system.

Decreasing our foreign trade imbalance

We as a nation have to get back to exporting more than we import, since I feel this has caused us, both as a country and has citizens to spend more than we make, thus generating and adding to the massive trade imbalance we have.

With all the economic problems we have accumulated this could be the most serious and most difficult to solve, since we have to completely retool the way we think and manufacture goods and perform services. We can’t be beaten when it comes to innovation, but bad when it comes to implementing it; meaning making our products affordable, reproducible and our biggest problem with a higher degree of quality.

What ever country, America’s products are exported to, we end up paying an extremely high tariff tax, while we allow foreign products to enter the US with a modest tariff tax – Why? Furthermore, our products are usually copied and bootlegged without hardly any repercussions from us regarding our trading partners. This is true for clothing, software, DVD movies and of course music.

The trade imbalance must be shifted into our favor and then tightly controlled if we are ever to become the nation we once were back in the 50’s to 80’s.

Affordable Health Care

Even if President Obama’s Economic Stimulus package is passed by the Senate; how many Americans would be able to afford it?

Increasing the minimum wage would be the answer for many; this couple with the recent passage of the “Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act” would assure must Americans would be covered with medical insurance protection.

Summary

Should congress pass President Obama’s Stimulus package and the minimum wage be increased to a minimum of $8.00 per hour, the price of doing business in America would increase dramatically, along with the costs of consumer goods and services, but it would put more Americans back to work and off welfare.

This would also increase the standard of living for many, which we have seen America’s middle and lower classes living standard decay over the past twenty years. This can be witnessed by the number of homeless individuals filling our inner cities and our increased prison population (one out a hundred Americans currently serving time in prison).

Just increasing of the minimum wage is not enough and will not work by itself; we must revise and author new laws pertaining to immigration, outsourcing and flow of technology from our shores. Again, I echo we must return to the proverbial “Made in America by Americans.”

It is my very strong feeling; increasing the minimum wage will hurt many in business while helping our most needed citizenry segment within our society of troubled Americans, kick start the economy back on track as a strong economically sound nation.

Human Rights and our Partner in Trade - China

Tom Awtry — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:43:40 EST

We as a developed nation must recognize, along with adhere to the absolute enforcement of international treaties and agreements and above all only engage in business practices with countries subscribing to UN recognized policies regarding the issue of Human Rights in all countries.

China is one of our strongest “trading” partners and will become stronger in the coming years, but it is my feeling during these unforeseen and unfortunate economic times this is a good time for us as Americans to recalibrate our relationship of trade with China and demand a stronger adherence to the human rights issues, which we dismiss so easily.

China, as noted in my blog here, doesn’t seem to mind letting its intentions known as far as becoming a stronger more active player in the world’s economic scheme of conferences and policies. Also, they don’t seem to concerned amount manipulating its currency, again as noted in a blog posted here.

Furthermore, we as a country have to careful being extremely astute in these economic times since we depend on China as one of our biggest creditor’s as authored here.

We have clearly seen the outcomes of nations and regions that have not recognized the basic needs of human rights; in the continent Africa, the countries of Burma, Sri Lanka, East Timor and more. These aforementioned have suffered the pains of civil wars, unstable governments, oppression and genocide.

A video produced by The Center for American Progress and available on YouTube presents a panel discussion of leading notables and academics discussing the Human Rights issues in China and how America implement new guidelines for trade involvement with the most populous nation in the world.

The US & China: The Human Rights Issue

The relationship between the United States and China may well be the most important bilateral relationship in the world. In recognition of that fact, the Center for American Progress is releasing a new report entitled, “Strategic Persistence: How the United States Can Help Improve Human Rights in China.” The report provides both fundamental principles that should guide U.S. policymakers in their efforts to effect positive change in China’s human rights practices and concrete recommendations to advance those efforts.

China remains responsible for profound violations of its people’s civil and political rights. In its foreign policy, China has often backed repressive regimes around the world and watered down international sanctions against these regimes. None of this is in the United States’ best interests. Given the high degree of economic interdependence between the United States and China, as well as China’s growing military reach, American interests are best served by a stable China with a robust commitment to the rule of law—conditions that are undermined by a failure to respect human rights.

U.S. approaches to human rights in China have ranged from confrontation to passivity and have rarely reflected a coordinated strategy across government entities. The key to U.S. efforts to promote human rights in China is to take a coherent, pragmatic, non-ideological approach that goes beyond easy rhetoric, takes advantage of strategic openings, and recognizes the value of persistence. Ultimately, China must be persuaded that greater democracy and human rights are in its own best interests and are integral to its becoming the highly respected global leader it aspires to be.

Distinguished Speakers:

Harry Harding, Professor, Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University
Louisa Coan Greve, Program Director for East Asia at the National Endowment for Democracy

Additional blog postings by Tom Awtry may also be found here.

Made in America or Bought Overseas

Tom Awtry — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:55:07 EST

An interesting article and equally interesting problem for our President is a dilemma over protectionist provisions in a massive economic stimulus bill: Backing the measures could set off a trade war, while opposing them could trigger a backlash from his supporters.

An article, which appeared on AP Online Newswire Service entitled “Obama facing dilemma over protectionism in bill”, by Desmond Bulter on the 31st of January describes the situation like this: “The choice involves “buy American” provisions attached to White House-backed stimulus legislation moving through Congress. They would require major public works projects to favor U.S. steel, iron and manufacturing over imports.”

The but problem is “Some Democratic lawmakers and interest groups allied to the president support the measures, but international allies and trading partners are warning that favoring U.S. companies would breach U.S. trade commitments and could set off tit-for-tat countermeasures around the world.”

Two of our largest U.S. trading partners already have spoken out against the measures. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed concern and the European Union warned that it would not “stand idly by” if such measures were passed. On Friday, Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also criticized the measures.

We’re Going to be Trading Microchips for Toasters

Tom Awtry — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:16:48 EST

I’m a firm believer that protectionism is not the answer, at this time in the world’s economy situation; however it is also my strictest of belief’s America as given away far too much of its technology to other countries, which in some cases as used it against us.

We have seen what Japan and Korea as done with our cars, TV’s Microchips (RAM chips especially) and steel. No, in honesty both countries were developing these industries within their own country, but we provided them some of the needed know-how to get them off the ground.

Today we wonder where all of our jobs have gone (out sourcing), consider re-reading the aforementioned paragraph and contemplate what the answer could possibly be?

Now China has decided it needs to shift gears from being an exporter of inexpensive, commercial products to more a higher level of manufactured goods requiring advanced technology.

Trade, the 800lb Gorilla we can't ignore

Randolph from Vallejo, CA — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:48:31 EST

This week Obama has warned that if Americans don't start spending, we will be in a terrible situation. He is urgently proposing handing out over $750 Billion to make it happen. The consensus seems to be that if we can get the American consumer spending again, all our troubles will be solved.

Over a Trillion Dollars will be added to our national debt to make it happen. A trillion dollars is a lot of money; but, we are not to worry. We are back to "real" economics of Keynes and past the "trickle-down" voodoo of Milton Friedman. According to new experts, as long as we goose consumers into spending more money the debt won't matter. After all, this is how we pulled out of the Great Depression of seventy years ago.

Well, no.... Not exactly.

What Keynes told us over a century ago was that if we put buying power into the hands of the vast populace their demand would inspire capitalist to move their assets into production. To work properly capitalism requires that capital be risked and used productively. The system stagnates if capital is allowed pool into only a few hands where it can languish. The theory was that in downturns there was a tendency for people who had wealth to hoard it. However, if you give the vast army of consumers a few bucks to spend their demand would inspire productivity. It was like stirring the embers of a fire. The rich would not be able to resist taking risks with their assets when there was so much profit to be made.

The surprising thing is that this model seems to work. Give demand a boost and productivity spikes. Of course, this all presupposes a closed system where the consumers and producers are united. Will it work, or even can it work, when the producers are in another country? Can we increase investment in American production by increasing demand by American consumers? All early evidence is that we can not.

During the Great Depression of the 1930's, the United States produced more than it consumed. For nine of ten depression area years we had a trade surplus with the rest of the world. A jump in the demand for household goods, be they cars, refrigerators, televisions, or toothpaste, meant more production in the United States. There simply was no other source for these goods. More demand for cars meant more investment in American car production, more American factories, and more American workers with jobs.

The situation today is vastly different. For nearly forty years we have slowly been dismantling our own productive capacity in favor of importing goods from other nations. We have run a trade deficit every year but one since 1971. This year alone the difference between what we consume and what we produce will be three quarters of a trillion dollars. That is more than the total amount consumers spent on cars, furniture and household appliances combined.

Is there any evidence that the Keynesian effect of a stimulus to consumers will be diluted by our trade policies? Actually, there is. In February 2008, congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act. At a cost to the Treasury of $150 Billion, checks were sent out to millions of households in America to get the spending again. The result? The month the first set of checks was sent out our trade deficit jumped nearly 8%. The Chinese, no doubt, were immensely grateful. On the other hand, gross private domestic investment went down 11% in the second quarter of 2008.

These statistics from 2008 are hardly dispositive. However, the implications are ominous. At the very least, the failure of the last stimulus package should inspire serious discussions about how our trade deficit may derail recovery plans. Unfortunately, trade seems to be the 800lbs. gorilla that everyone is desperately trying to ignore.

Rochester Youth Means Change

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:24:00 EST

Lets get started.

10 Myths About Bartering

Anthony from Louisburg, NC — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:22:10 EST

I was so taken by the quality of this article, written by a collegue of mine in Minesota, I felt obliged to share it with the community. Businesses are hurting out there and they need to be using MBE-barter to stay in business. The bail-outs won't work right now - and even if they do, we'll be paying for them for centuries - we need a new, viable alternative to run along side the US economy, even if just as a safety net...!

Enjoy this article:

Gov. Bill Richardson, Commerce Secretary-designate

Jill 4 Obama — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:35:19 EST

Newsroom: Blog Subscribe to the Blog RSS Feed Gov. Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary-designate (Update 2: Video) Wednesday, December 3, 2008 03:14pm EST

President-elect Barack Obama announced he has asked Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico to join his administration as Secretary of Commerce.

"With his breadth and depth of experience in public life, Governor Richardson is uniquely suited for this role as a leading economic diplomat for America," President-elect Obama said at the Chicago press conference announcing the appointment. He added later, "In the end, Bill Richardson is a leader who shares my values...I know that [he] will be an unyielding advocate for American business and American jobs, at home and around the world."

Read President-elect Obama's full remarks and see pictures and video from the press conference below.

Also available on MSN.
High-resolution, Quicktime format available here.

Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama--as prepared for delivery
Announcement of Commerce Secretary
Chicago, Illinois
December 3, 2008

Last week, Vice President-Elect Biden and I began the process of announcing our economic team. Today, we are pleased to name another key member of this team: our nominee for Secretary of Commerce, my friend, Governor Bill Richardson.

With each passing day, the work our team has begun, developing plans to revive our economy, becomes more urgent. Earlier this week, we learned that the U.S. economy has been in recession since December of 2007 and that our manufacturing output is at a 26 year low -- two stark reminders of the magnitude of the challenges we face.

But while I know rebuilding our economy won’t be easy -- and it won’t happen overnight -- I also know this: right now, somewhere in America, a small business is at work on the next big idea. A scientist is on the cusp of the next breakthrough discovery. An entrepreneur is sketching plans for the startup that will revolutionize an industry. Right now, across America, the finest products in the world are rolling off our assembly lines. And the proudest, most determined, most productive workers in the world are on the job -- some, already on their second shift of the day; many, putting in longer hours than ever before.

After nearly two years traveling across this country, meeting with workers, visiting businesses large and small, I am more confident than ever before that we have everything we need to renew our economy -- we have the ingenuity and technology, the skill and commitment -- we just need to put it to work. It’s time to not just address our immediate economic threats, but to start laying the groundwork for long-term economic prosperity -- to help American businesses grow and thrive at home, and expand our efforts to promote American enterprise around the world.

This work is the core mission of the Secretary of Commerce. And with his breadth and depth of experience in public life, Governor Richardson is uniquely suited for this role as a leading economic diplomat for America.

During his time in state government and Congress, and in two tours of duty in the cabinet, Bill has seen from just about every angle what makes our economy work and what keeps it from working better.

As Governor of New Mexico, Bill showed how government can act as a partner to support our businesses, helping create 80,000 new jobs. And under his leadership, New Mexico saw the lowest unemployment rate in decades.

As a former Secretary of Energy, Bill understands the steps we must take to build a new, clean-energy industry and create the green jobs of the twenty-first century. Jobs that pay well and won’t be shipped overseas -- jobs that will help us end our dependence on foreign oil.

And as a former Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill brings both international stature and a deep understanding of today’s global economy. He understands that the success of today’s business in Detroit or Columbus often depends on whether it can sell products in places like Santiago or Shanghai. And he knows that America’s reputation in the world is critical not just to our security, but to our prosperity -- that when the citizens of the world respect America’s leadership, they are more likely to buy America’s products.

To this crucial work of restoring America’s international standing, Bill will bring a leadership style all his own. Bill has never been content to learn just from briefing books -- never satisfied with only the official version of the story. During his time in Congress, he held more than 2,500 town-hall meetings, so he could hear directly from constituents. He was a regular in the U.N. cafeteria, mixing it up with U.N. employees over lunch. And during his 2002 campaign for Governor, he actually broke a world record by shaking nearly 14,000 hands in just eight hours.

All of this reflects a determination to reach out and understand where people are coming from, what they hope for, and what he can do to help. This approach, I believe, has been the key to Bill’s success as a negotiator and will be key to his work on the critical functions of the Commerce Department -- from administering our census and monitoring our climate to protecting our intellectual property and restoring our economic diplomacy.

In the end, Bill Richardson is a leader who shares my values -- and he measures progress the same way I do. Are we creating good jobs, instead of losing them? Are incomes growing, instead of shrinking? I know that Bill will be an unyielding advocate for American business and American jobs, at home and around the world. And I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

People vote their values and their concerns - change this game.

Yorlig — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:53:45 EDT

There probably has never been a more imporant election in the last 100 years. If the Republicans can use deceit and lies to win over and over again, the political and social face of this country is going to be damaged beyond repair. It makes no sense we whine about this. This is who they are. The real question is, who are the American people? Is this what America is about? Because if this is the way this election is going to be won, then America will get exactly what it deserves. I am confident that Obama will be the next president, but it worries me that there could be such an impact made by employing lies and deceit. It worries me a lot because I want to trust the good judgment of the American people. And if I can't, then man its over for all of us, because idiots do not progress.

Obama is losing the air wars. He need to get back the attention on the issues. The only way to do that is not to give McGain amunition for his stupidity that seems to have been working. Start linking the issues to values, values that are common across America.

Take for instance the issue of trade and job creation. McGain says he wants to open markets. Obama wants to close them. Ok, great. The experience has been that opening some markets has in fact decimated the middle class. Opening markets sounds nice but while it wil benefit capital, labor and the middle class suffers.

Plus, open markets where? There is a huge market here in America that needs to be opened - the middle class. Opening markets overseas where people do not share our values, where human righs are ignored, where they suppress the rights of people so they can also suppress wages? Those are not the values of the American people. Why should we as a country allow other countries to benefit from inhumane activities that we would not tolerate here and at the same time gain an advantage over our own workers here. Opening markets can be also selling out America and its values. And that is what McGain and Bush wants to do. Obama needs to frame his arguments, ALLWAYS, around American values. Right now he is not doing that. People really do not vote their pocket books, people vote their concerns. And the ever present concerns of Americans are the things they value as Americans. Obama need to make people see how their values are being tramped on and eroded. Period.

Towards a Progressive Capitalism

Darnley — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:50:42 EDT

The following comments from Barack's economic advisor Austin Goolsbee are a brilliant example of the Obama approach to the economy--one that understands the reality of the market, the nature of the global economy and how to make it work for people.

Obama Economic Advisor Goes on Offense Against McCain
by Michael R. Crittenden
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/05/obama-economic-advisor-goes-on-offense-against-mccain/

A top economic advisor to Sen. Barack Obama cited stark differences between the Democratic presidential candidate’s plan for the economy and that of Republican rival Sen. John McCain on Friday, expressing confidence that voters will side with Obama on what is likely the top issue in the November elections.

“As we go forward in the next two months, all we’ve got to do is lay out what’s actually in their programs and I think if people start looking at the content I don’t think it’s even close,” Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee said in an interview taped Friday to be aired this weekend on C-SPAN.

Goolsbee, who also teaches economics at the University of Chicago, sought to put in sharp relief the differences between the two candidates on issues such as tax policy, healthcare, trade and efforts to kickstart the ailing economy. At the same time, he sought to tie McCain’s economic proposals to those of President George W. Bush.

“The contrast couldn’t be greater with the approach of McCain, which is the same as the Bush approach that ‘hey, we’re in trouble so let’s cut taxes for the highest income people and the biggest corporations and hope it trickles down’,” Goolsbee said.

The message is one the Obama campaign, and Democrats more broadly, are expected to hammer Republicans on ahead of November’s elections. Polls repeatedly show the economy continues to be the number one concern for voters, an anxiety reinforced by data released Friday showing the nation’s jobless rate at a five-year high and home foreclosures at record levels.

Goolsbee’s comments came after a week in which Republicans used their national convention in Minnesota to criticize Obama’s economic proposals, particularly his plan to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year.

“I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it,” McCain said Thursday evening during his acceptance speech.

Goolsbee said McCain’s comments were untrue, and independent analyses of the two candidates’ proposal suggest there are stark differences between their tax proposals. Obama’s tax plan would generally aim to cut taxes for lower- and middle-income groups, particularly those families making less than $250,000 a year.

“For the vast majority of people, those making less than $150,000 a year, there would be substantial relief,” Goolsbee said.

Critics say McCain’s plan, on the other hand, would do more to help the wealthy and businesses. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that McCain proposals would cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% in 2012 by an average of $126,902 when compared to current law. He favors reducing the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%, as well as exempting assets under $5 million from the estate tax.

“It’s a totally different philosophy,” he said. “The Obama philosophy is Bush tried what McCain is doing and it didn’t work. Let’s try something different, let’s try to give the relief and job creation to ordinary Americans and McCain is on the other side.

Goolsbee said both candidates will have to deal with growing budget deficits when they take office, as well as the ongoing turmoil in the credit and financial markets. He acknowledged that Obama’s proposals are unlikely to balance the federal budget over the next four years — a promise McCain has made but which Goolsbee derided as bereft of specific details — but said they would slow and then start to reduce the federal deficit during an Obama presidency.

“Let us not get on the McCain-Bush approach which is let’s have multi-trillion dollars in additional tax cuts for very high income people and corporations and let’s promise to balance the budget sometime in the future with spending cuts that we never specify,” Goolsbee said.

Finally, Goolsbee also defended Obama’s position on trade agreements, which have come under fire from Republicans as being protectionist. The senator from Illinois has said he opposes aspects of pending agreements with Colombia and South Korea, and has suggested he wants to renegotiate portions of the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement. Goolsbee, defending those positions, said Obama favors free trade agreements in principle, but only if they are adequately enforced and include labor and environmental protections for U.S. companies and workers.

“Not supporting flawed agreements, and not supporting the passage of new flawed agreements, is completely different and it’s completely inaccurate to describe that as being in favor of erecting tariff barriers and for building a moat around the country,” Goolsbee said. “That is the accusation John McCain is leveling and it’s just completely false.”

Obama Economic Adviser Says Reform Trade Policy, Diversify Energy Choices
Interviewee: Austan Goolsbee, Economic Adviser, Obama Campaign
by Joanna Klonsky, Campaign 2008 Staff, CFR.org
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17103/obama_economic_adviser_says_reform_trade_policy_diversify_energy_choices.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Dinterview
September 5, 2008

Austan Goolsbee, a top economic advisor to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), says the Democratic presidential nominee is wrongly portrayed by Republicans as favoring protectionism. Goolsbee, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, says Obama is a trade supporter, but wants to improve U.S. trade policy to address the "great many people who have been left out of the bounty of opening of markets." Goolsbee also warned against a reliance on new domestic drilling, backed loudly at the GOP convention, as inadequate to addressing the country's energy needs. "The United States is not Saudi Arabia, and we can't solve the problem that way," he said in an interview with CFR.org on the sidelines of the Republican convention.

Some in the Republican Party would argue that free trade is holding off a U.S. recession, and criticize Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for his opposition to free trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea and Colombia. What do you say to those who view trade as a lifeline for the U.S. economy?

It's true that exports have been a relatively bright spot in an otherwise pretty bleak picture over the last twelve months. But I would point out that the bright spot is not bright enough to erase the problems facing manufacturing. The United States is obviously, given how large it is, much less dependent on international trade than any of the other major economies. And so the most important thing facing manufacturing industries in the United States is how the U.S. economy is doing. Now on trade, the Bush administration—now followed by the McCain campaign—has been pushing a false choice in which they say either you're going to back everything that they call a free trade agreement, no matter how many loopholes are in it, no matter whether it addresses the basic concerns of people who have been left out in the opening of markets and globalization, or else you're a Smoot-Hawley protectionist [the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised U.S. tariffs to record levels]. It's completely inaccurate.

Obama's position has been extremely consistent over the many years that I've known him. If you go back and look at his book, or if you look at what he's saying now, it's the same, and that is, trade is not bad. Trade is good. And the opening up of markets and access to the fast-growing markets of the world is one of the key ways that many of our industries have grown.

At the same time, if we are not mindful of the great many people who have been left out of the bounty of opening of markets, all the political will and favor of globalization is going to dry up. You're not helping globalization if you subscribe to the Bush view that we ought to try to jam through trade agreements by a 50-49 margin by pulling out the stops and giving pork to whoever needs it in order to get them to vote for it. That strategy is dried up.

So Obama's approach has been, we ought to put labor and environmental standards—enforceable, the basic standards from the ILO [International Labor Organization] and regarding the environment, into the core of our agreements, and that we should work as much as possible to remove the loopholes and special interests, because if you look at these free trade agreements, they're a thousand pages long and 980 pages of that are giveaways to individual companies and monopolies, and very little of it looks like the economist's case for free trade.

And more broadly, to promote globalization we have to build a new consensus, and that consensus has to be built around making sure that America is ready to compete, that we can't build a moat around the country, and so we shouldn't try to. But we should invest in the capabilities of our own industries and we should be mindful of the concerns of the people who have been left out—that we can look after the health of workers, and still be pro-market. It's in the interest of developing countries too. I don't think there's any contradiction in that.

Republicans have been calling for increased domestic drilling as part of the solution to U.S. energy and economic problems. What is your response to the focus on domestic drilling and to the larger question of energy independence?

Look, you don't need a PhD in petroleum engineering to figure out that the United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil and has 3 percent of the world's reserves. You can't drill your way out of this problem. I mean, it's like you're getting bills that you can't pay, and you're saying, "Oh, well, I'm going to scrounge through the cushions and see what coins I can find down in my couch to try to pay them." The United States is not Saudi Arabia, and we can't solve the problem that way.

Further, drilling, by all expert accounts, is going to take many years before any additional oil would come on the market. That's why the two things that we need to do are, work on energy efficiency and reducing our consumption, which is what we've done in the last month. People have been changing their habits. And that's what reduced the price of energy. And two, we need to finally start making a real energy policy for the long run which weans us from our addiction on oil. That means investing—in the Obama plan it's $150 billion over ten years—in the research and development and deployment of alternative and renewable energies, alternative fuels, and things of that nature. While doing that, we can generate up to five million green jobs.

You mentioned nuclear energy. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said he's going to build forty-five new nuclear plants by 2030. Where does Obama come down on nuclear energy?

Obama recognizes we've got to have a portfolio of all kinds of energy, especially in the short run—that consumers need relief. He's for nuclear [conditioned on sorting out] how we dispose of, safely, the toxic nuclear waste. Building forty-five nuclear plants and shipping all of the toxic nuclear waste to within an hour of greater Las Vegas [to the proposed waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada], in his view, that's not going to work. So it's clear we've got to put the research in to figure out a safe way to do the disposal.

My Responsibility to Change

HeidiB — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:17:41 EDT

Obama was right last night. It's about us. And, it is our responsibility, once we elect officials, to keep them on their toes if they falter from their path. It is up to us to lead this country from the ground up.

Before hearing the acceptance speech last night, I was talking to a friend who considers himself a far leftie. He said he hopes that Obama can do what he is saying, but many like him are very concerned about Obama being elected and then letting the lefties down. I told him that it's his responsibility as a citizen to stay engaged beyond the electoral process. That, we as "the People," need to keep up our responsibilities as citizens and continuously engage our elected officials.

So, Obama and Biden are not alone. They want change, but we want it more. And we have to keep them accountable once they get into office. Voting is only the beginning of the process. Calling and writing your elected officials from the town level (even the HOA level) on up to the Oval Office about how you feel they are performing, what they can improve, and what you're hoping to see from them in the future is what being a responsible citizen is about!

What I am I going to do? Talk to as many people as I can about Obama and Biden. Find out more about them and their opponents. Become an educated voter. And start in my community. Bringing about the changes I wish to see for a brighter future for my future children. Because once our adoption from Ethiopia is completed, I want to bring them home to a changed US, with a president of whom I can be proud.

As I write this, there is a quote from Obama on the header of the screen, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours." This quote is pretty true of my life and in what I believe. I promote Fair Trade every day as a way to help others in the world improve their situation. I support non-profits and causes which emphasize education and the environment. And, I truly believe in the power of one person to create change. I'm doing it every day. I am affecting many lives. Just as one person, a part of a whole, a part of hope, a part of change.

Go out today and be part of the change you would like to see in the world. Gandhi was right. And Obama is right. It starts with us...he takes our lead, not the other way around.

Whosoever Controls Your Money......

Michael Hubbard — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:41:20 EDT

While you read this, remember that when you go in and punch that time clock and fight those nasty office politicians that part of that hunk o' tax they take out of your check is going back into your company's CEO and board members pockets by way of corporate welfare....all so they could pit you in competition with communists overseas.

Still gonna vote Republican??

From our good friends over at conceptual guerilla....

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/625

Greetings good citizen,

Are you sick and tired of hearing what a 'great deal' free trade is (especially when your own experiences with 'global labor arbitrage' have come back to haunt you recently). Your paycheck couldn't feed a fly and you have zero leverage to demand a raise.

Well, how about if I were to tell you that it's even worse than that?

You know how I'm always saying 'whosoever controls your money, controls you'?

Well, the 'evidence' that some elite group has indeed seized control the global economy by creating a 'monopoly' on how goods are priced (as well as having 'a near' monopoly on being able to create that currency as well) puts 'free trade' in a somewhat different light.

From today's Asia Times we have this piece from Dr. Henry C.K. Liu:

CHINA'S DOLLAR MILLSTONE, Part 1
Breaking free from dollar hegemony [The following is from page one]

Page 1 of 4
CHINA'S DOLLAR MILLSTONE, Part 1
Breaking free from dollar hegemony
By Henry C K Liu

The vast expansion of US-led globalized trade since the Cold War ended in 1991 had been fueled by unsustainable serial debt bubbles built on dollar hegemony, which came into existence on a global scale with the emergence of deregulated global financial markets that made cross-border flow of funds routine since the 1990s.

Dollar hegemony is a geopolitically constructed peculiarity through which critical commodities, the most notable being oil, are denominated in fiat dollars, not backed by gold or other species since then president Richard Nixon took the US dollar off gold in 1971. The recycling of petro-dollars into other dollar assets is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973. After that, everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil, and every economy needs oil. Dollar hegemony separates the trade value of every currency from direct connection to the productivity of the issuing economy to link it directly to the size of dollar reserves held by the issuing central bank. Dollar hegemony enables the US to own indirectly but essentially the entire global economy by requiring its wealth to be denominated in fiat dollars that the US can print at will with little in the way of monetary penalties.

So, the US has a 'lock' on the world's economy. What Dr. Liu is pointing out here is that the world has been turned into some greedy fuck's piggy bank because they control the 'asset' used to price all of those goods.

The arrow points to Ben Bernanke, but I will remind readers that our 'central bank' the Federal Reserve is not a part of the Federal Government and that its full name is the Federal Reserve CORPORATION! A company that is 'privately held' and reputed to be 'owned' by several foreign banks/banking 'families'.

Well good citizen, somewhere within this snake pit is a 'cartel' or a single individual that quite literally 'owns the world'! (And he or she used the US nuclear card to get it.)

Since whoever it is has been actively working to destroy the US economy, I don't think this individual is a US citizen…not that it particularly matters. Let us continue:

World trade is now a game in which the US produces fiat dollars of uncertain exchange value and zero intrinsic value, and the rest of the world produces goods and services that fiat dollars can buy at "market prices" quoted in dollars. Such market prices are no longer based on mark-ups over production costs set by socio-economic conditions in the producing countries. They are kept artificially low to compensate for the effect of overcapacity in the global economy created by a combination of overinvestment and weak demand due to low wages in every economy.

Such low market prices in turn push further down already low wages to further cut cost in an unending race to the bottom. The higher the production volume above market demand, the lower the unit market price of a product must go in order to increase sales volume to keep revenue from falling. Lower market prices require lower production costs which in turn push wages lower. Lower wages in turn further reduce demand. [You see, an 'unending death spiral'…]

To prevent loss of revenue from falling prices, producers must produce at still higher volume, thus further lowering market prices and wages in a downward spiral. Export economies are forced to compete for market share in the global market by lowering both domestic wages and the exchange rate of their currencies. Lower exchange rates push up the market price of commodities which must be compensated for by even lower wages. The adverse effects of dollar hegemony on wages apply not only to the emerging export economies but also to the importing US economy. Workers all over the world are oppressed victims of dollar hegemony, which turns the labor theory of value up-side-down.

In a global market operating under dollar hegemony, the world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture Ricardian comparative advantage. The theory of comparative advantage as espoused by British economist David Ricardo (1772-1823) asserts that trade can benefit all participating nations, even those that command no absolute advantage, because such nations can still benefit from specializing in producing products with the lowest opportunity cost, which is measured by how much production of another good needs to be reduced to increase production by one additional unit of that good.

This theory reflected British national opinion at the 19th century when free trade benefited Britain more than its trade partners. However, in today's globalized trade when factors of production such as capital, credit, technology, management, information, branding, distribution and sales are mobile across national borders and can generate profit much greater than manufacturing, the theory of comparative advantage has a hard time holding up against measurable data.

Under dollar hegemony, exporting nations compete in the global market to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign capital and debt, to pay for imported energy, raw material and capital goods, to pay intellectual property fees and information technology fees. Moreover, their central banks must accumulate dollar reserves to ward off speculative attacks on the value of their currencies in world currency markets. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. Only the Federal Reserve, the US central bank, is exempt from this pressure to accumulate dollars because it can issue theoretically unlimited additional dollars at will with monetary immunity. The dollar is merely a Federal Reserve note, no more, no less.

Dollar hegemony has created a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's other central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making the dollar stronger, fueling a massive global debt bubble denominated in dollars as the US becomes the world's largest debtor nation. Yet a strong dollar, while viewed by US authorities as in the US national interest, in reality drives the defacement of all fiat currencies that operate as derivative currencies of the dollar, in turn driving the current commodity-led inflation. When the dollar falls against the euro, it does not mean the euro is rising in purchasing power. It only means the dollar is losing purchasing power faster than the euro. A strong dollar does not always mean high dollar exchange rates. It means only that the dollars will stay firmly anchored as the prime reserve currency for international trade even as it falls in exchange value against other trading currencies.

In recent decades, central banks of all governments, led by the US Federal Reserve during Alan Greenspan's watch, had bought economic growth with loose money to feed debt bubbles and to contain inflation with "structural unemployment", which has been defined as up to 6% of the workforce, to keep the labor market from being inflationary. Central banking has mutated from being an institution to safeguard the value of money so as to ensure wages from full employment do not lose purchasing power into one with a perverted mandate to promote and preserve dollar hegemony by releasing debt bubbles denominated in fiat dollars. (See Critique of Central Banking, Asia Times Online, November 6, 2002.)

Despite all the talk about globalization as an irresistible trend of progress, the priority for the United States in the final analysis has been to advance its superpower economic objectives, not its obligations as the center of the global monetary system. This superpower economic objective includes the global expansion of US economic dominance through dollar hegemony, reducing all domestic economies, including that of the US, to be merely local units of a global empire. Thus when the US asserts that a healthy and strong economy in Europe, Japan and even Russia and China, all former enemies, is part of the Pax Americana, it is essentially declaring a neocolonial claim on these economies.

The concept of "stakeholder" in the global geopolitical-economic order advanced by Robert B Zoellick, former US deputy secretary of state and now president of the World Bank, is a solicitation from the US to emerging economic powerhouses to support this Pax Americana. The device for accomplishing this neo-imperialism is a coordinated monetary policy managed by a global system of central banking, first adopted in the US in 1913 to allow a financial elite to gain monetary control of the US national economy, and after the Cold War, to allow the US as the sole remaining superpower controlled by a financial oligarchy to gain monetary control of the entire global economy.

Move over Napoleon, Hitler, Caesar, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, someone's about to show you the 'right' way to conquer the planet. Where both military might and God have failed, money (and anonymity) may well succeed.

With the help of supranational institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements, the US aims to negate national economic sovereignty with globalization of unregulated trade conducted under dollar hegemony. Unregulated trade globalization in the 21st century aims to neutralize national economic sovereignty to preempt national development financed by sovereign credit. Trade through export has become the sole operative path for national economic growth in a political world order of sovereign nation states that has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. No national domestic economy can henceforth prosper without first adding to the prosperity of US-controlled global economy denominated in dollars.

Before you start 'jumping for joy' I'd like to point out that the US is merely the vehicle chosen to 'execute' this plan…it has not nor will it 'benefit' the US or its citizens. No good citizen, whoever is behind this diabolical scheme has deliberately placed us/this nation in the crosshairs of every freedom loving nation in the world.

Holy Dollar Empire

Echoing the Holy Roman Empire, the global economy has been operating as a global Holy Dollar Empire with [someone inside] the Federal Reserve as the Holy Dollar Emperor. Similar to the Holy Roman Empire, which disintegrated from the rise of Lutheran nationalism, this Holy Dollar Empire will eventually disintegrate from progressive centrifugal forces of a new populist economic nationalism. This new nationalism is not to be confused with regressive trade protectionism. The formation of the new Group of Five (G5 - China, Brazil, India, Mexico and South Africa) in the 2008 Group of Eight Summit in Tokyo (G8 - the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and the European Union) is a sign of this new trend of progressive economic nationalism. The 2008 US presidential election may herald in a new populism in US history to reform the structure of US debt capitalism. [The latest attempt to resuscitate the Doha round of trade talks ended in failure today…]

In his speech to the G5 leaders, China's President Hu Jintao said: "It is necessary to take into full account the issue of food security in tackling the challenges in energy, climate change and other fields." Apart from calling for the setting up of an UN-led international co-operation mechanism and a global food-security safeguard system, Hu said all countries should strengthen cooperation in grain reserves, a process of proven success in China but not recommended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which views such scheme as a distortion of trade.

Liberation from this Holy Dollar Empire of dollar hegemony can only come from sovereign nations withdrawing from the global central banking regime to return to a national banking regime within a world order of sovereign nation states to put monetary policy back in its proper role of supporting national development goals, rather than sacrificing national development to support global dollar hegemony through wage-suppressing export-led growth.

While Dr. Liu is absolutely right, he faces the same problem we confront when it comes to the 'political will' to make the necessary changes.

Perhaps more importantly is what will happen if the US fails to drive this demon from its bosom. Think about it good citizen, would our creditors even hesitate to pull the plug on the dollar?

They needn't 'invade' or risk the nuclear wrath of the world's only remaining superpower…all they need to do is stop accepting our 'scrip'…and it's 'game over'.

The question to ask yourself good citizen is do you want to die defending the right of this reckless, greedy S.O.B. to exploit the world?

I didn't think so,

Thanks for letting me inside your head,

Wonder Why 500 People Apply for One Posted Job?

Michael Hubbard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:44:22 EDT

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/globaleconomy/ns03162004.cfm Sadly this was first printed in 2004.....Who the hell is "anti-American? Republicans are the ones who fight the hardest to keep this sort of thing going, well against the will of most of the American people, at least the ones who have "dirtied" their brains against the Limbaughs and Hannitys. If you're a non union worker making a good living in this country and think that the Republicans have yours or America's best intrests at heart, keep reading, you'll be a believer too one day...........I'm afraid.

June 8, 2006—China's frequent violations of workers' rights give that nation an unfair trade advantage that has cost more than 1 million U.S. jobs, according to a petition filed with the U.S. Trade Representative by the AFL-CIO and the Industrial Union Council (IUC), made up of nine industrial unions. The petition calls on the Bush administration to take immediate action to impose trade remedies against China and negotiate a binding agreement to reduce the trade remedies if China enforces workers' rights. Chinese Workers' Low Wages Reduce Cost of Chinese Exports The 179-page petition extensively documents that China prevents workers from joining unions and bargaining collectively, denies its citizens safe working conditions, provides no minimum wage and uses forced labor. As a result, Chinese workers' wages are between 47 percent and 85 percent lower than they should be, which in turn reduces the price of Chinese manufactured goods. If China did not violate workers' rights, the price of Chinese manufactured goods would increase by 12 percent to 77 percent, according to the petition. Jing-Hua Lu, a former factory worker in China and a forceful advocate for international workers' rights, told reporters that it's imperative the U.S. government take action against China now. "The U.S. administration should take this petition seriously," Lu said. "Chinese workers need to be able to exercise their right of freedom of association. It is a basic right, and a basic answer to the dilemma of Chinese workers and the flight of jobs to China to exploit low wages." The U.S. trade deficit with China is the largest in U.S. history with one country—$201 billion. The trade deficit affects the nation's jobs: cheaper foreign imports of products formerly made in the United States mean America's workers lose jobs as companies move overseas. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute estimates the trade deficit cost the United States 410,000 manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2005. "I look around my town and think about the people who stood next to me on the plant floor," says Teresa Luna, a member of USW International Union Local 1191, who lost her job when the Magnequench missile technology plant in Valparaiso, Ind., closed and relocated to China. "I hear how every time there is any type of job opening, hundreds of applicants show up to fill one spot. The jobs are just gone." Trade Law Previously Used Only to Aid Corporations Mark Barenberg, a Columbia University law professor, prepared the petition, which was filed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The petition was filed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The act allows the government to take action against countries that engage in unfair trade practices against the United States. Although the regulation has been used extensively to protect corporate interests, the first time Section 301 was invoked to protest a nation's labor practices was when the AFL-CIO filed its first petition on China's workers' rights violations, in 2004. That petition was rejected by the Bush administration. The Bush administration's refusal to comply with the Trade Act allowed workers' rights violations in China to get worse and contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of additional American jobs. Under the law, the Bush administration has 45 days to decide whether to accept the petition. If it accepts the petition, it has 60 days to hold a hearing and one year to decide what actions to take. The AFL-CIO is seeking immediate action by the Bush administration to impose trade remedies against China, such as sanctions or tariffs, and to negotiate an agreement that connects China's progress in enforcing workers' rights with trade sanction relief. If the White House rejects the petition, Barenberg says, it must find that China either does not repress workers' rights or that the repression does not adversely affect the U.S. economy. "Exploitation of human beings through repression of fundamental rights for economic gain is both morally repugnant and economically dangerous," AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka says. "The fact is that China is violating international trade law, and our nation is doing nothing about it." "I wonder: Do these corporations realize that they are trading away our lives?" Luna asks. "We must stop these corporations from making their own rules. This is not what our country is about."

Relationship with China and rest of the World

Gina from Irvine, CA — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:26:00 EDT

Dear Mr. Obama,

When you have language like "work to ensure that China plays by international rules", do you assume China does not play by the international rules, and are international rules set up by the United Nation with all nations participation or they are invented along the way by the G8 of such (like rules for Sovereign-wealth fund were never there before China has a fund and then, nobody in the capitalist society has never thought about putting restrictions on the money people has to invest).

I am a typical Hillary supporter who have hundreds upon hundreds Asian American women around us who have similar views regarding American's foreign policy towards Asia, in particular, China and India. I believe that you have a vision for America and you have an indepth grasp of foreign affair of this country as compare to GWB. I consider Nixon had vision although he made many inexecusable mistakes. Engaging China positively will be in the best interest of America and rest of the world. The west should acknowledge the significant achievement China has made over the past 3 decade (1978 -2008) (I have witnessed the change firsthand through my adult life) for its own people and as well as for the rest of the world.

here are some suggestions:

rather than going back to protectionist, solve the healthcare issue of our country so we can be more competitive (take the burden off our people at individual and enterprise level).

rather than going back to protectionist, push China to have a meaningful Union to protect workers' rights. rather than going back to protectionist, push China to ensure its own product quality and safety for its own people and its trading partners.

rather than going back to protectionist, balance the budget so we do not have to borrow so much from the Chinese and then ask them to write down T-bill and t-notes principle in the name of Currency reevaluation (how long can we play this game until they realize that they have to check our government's credit report before buying of government debt).

rather than blaming all the ills to free trade, take responsibility and make our great country as great as it can be. It reminds me so much of the 19th and 20th century, when China was poor, weak and ill prepared to compete with the west, it used to blame free trade for all of its problems.

Besides trade, there are environmental issues, geopolitical issues, and many other issues, we need to be positive and have the moral high ground in dealing with China as much as we can. The average Chinese on the street used to look up to us (not in the past 8 yrs) for guidance and to benchmark their government performance against ours (even they can not vote). Not anymore,

American's ill is the result of greedy capitalistic ideas, from Enron, Worldcom, Anthur Anderson, Stock option back dating, analyst conflict or interest, to the current Subprime mess, people are losing faith in our financial, market and governmental systems. It is a crisis of faith, faith in the system, in the rule of law, and in the decency of our people.

Hope is on you. I hope you can have all of those in mind before and after you win this election.

Lets Look at McCain's Voting Record on Trade, Shall We?

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:12:40 EDT

Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted NO on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
Promote the Andean Free Trade Agreement. (May 2002)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Sponsored bill for trade with post-Orange Revolution Ukraine. (Apr 2005)

Obama's advisor gets it

Shared Growth — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:02:54 EDT

It is worth noting that Obama's economic advisor, Professor Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, published an article several years ago showing that when business investment is attracted to a low tax environment, hiring increases and employee market power increases, and thus wages rise. He is thus a guy who will understand the fact that our current tax system, which penalizes corporations for placing operations in this country, is not only reducing jobs but suppressing wages, helping to drive the increasing over concentration of wealth we have been seeing.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/research/cps.pdf

An increasing number of people are catching on to this fact (though thy need to be educated on the practical mechanism for affordable and progressive reform set forth at

http://www.sharedeconomicgrowth.org/home/summaryslideshow.html )

For example, John Endean, President of the American Business Council, is quote on TaxVox as follows:

"John Endean raised an intriguing idea the other day in response to my blog on whether business executives would be willing to give up targeted tax breaks in return for a lower corporate rate, as John McCain has suggested.

John, who is president of the American Business Conference, said that one of his CEO members has a different swap in mind: Completely repeal the “terrible” corporate income tax and pay for it by raising rates on top-bracket taxpayers. In effect, this would directly tax the owners of capital rather than doing so through the backdoor of the corporate tax."

McCain's economic advisor, former senator, Phil Gram, is meanwhile denying that anything is wrong with the economy. I guess he's better off than he ever was, so he does not see a problem. If one judges a man by the company he keeps, who should American employees favor?

Intro to Equal Trade

ReformerRay — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:18:20 EDT

Equal trade between all nations will insure that every nations that participates in international trade will benefit from the exchange.

Free Trade, which accepts surpluses and deficits, does not provide net benefits from trade to those nations that experience trade deficits.

The 30 year U.S. merchadise trade deficit, which reached a peak of 47% of merchandise imports in 2005, can be reduced and finally eliminated IF the U.S. would revise all trade laws to seek equal trade with all nations.

Why do I care about politics?

Michael Hubbard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:39:37 EDT

Some folks wonder why I stay on politics and can't seem to get off since apparantly I'm trying to learn to be a singer
and musician. Well, we are in dire straights in this country and none of the ruling class seems to be taking it very seriously. Even the pundits don't seem very interested in the actual problem. But I've got to say, I do love my podcasts.
Especially RFK, Jr's radio show Ring of Fire. I do love a good talk radio show, but all the right wingers nowadays are just coming off as pissed off that people aren't doing what they say. They're still getting tons of listeners, but not a lot of
doers. I appreciate the fine feedback I've been getting from you all that have fedback on the demos I've put up. Of course they don't sound good. They're not really supposed to at this point since I'm just getting started teaching myself how to sing, record and master the recordings. Yes I do sometimes sneak them onto my radio program at MFVRadio. But am I so political lately?

I run a small, very small, usually just a one man operation type electrical contracting company. I get calls
from guys who have been electrician's helpers for years not just looking for work, but desparate for it sometimes
more than two times a week. People are hurting out there, this is not the time to be playing games with our
livelihoods! I mean, you can hear the desparation in some of these guys voices. These are solid working men with families
that have always been able to provide for their families. Not rich, just somewhere in what used to be the middle
class. Luckily the IBEW local 558 has been looking for apprentices in our area so I usually send them that way.

The middle class has been hurt badly by these Republican years. They knew poverty was only a paycheck away
10 years ago, now they are seeing it happen firsthand. I've felt it too, in 2005 I had a 6 month old carpet cleaning
company that was doing well and showing promise, was building business and doing well when gas hit about $2.50 per gallon
in the summer of '05 business slowed, when it hit $2.75 later in the summer (not much later either) the phones went
silent. three months later the business went belly up and I went back into doing electrical work before all the money
ran out. For about the next two years business went fine. It had it's ups and downs but people seemed to be settling into
coping with the higher gas prices. Until the price hit about 3.50 per gallon, that's when work for even electricians
got scarily slow. Now that the price is hanging out at $4.00 per gallon once again the phones fall silent. Oh sure
I still get some work but people aren't doing things they want to do, they are doing things they have to do. Ususally
a repair for safety issues, not a repair because they want a plug to work that hasn't been, usually now it's a
call to repair a plug because it caught on fire or something like that. Not meaning to just mouth off about my business
troubles. I am an electrical contractor so when I get work I do alright, but I know that if my customers can't
afford to hire me, it won't be long until I'm as desparate as those guys that call me now. I also know that any
work that comes open, especially if it pays a livable wage that there will be in the neighborhood of 150 to 300
people fill out applications for that ONE job. The chances of someone seeing your application much less getting an
interview can only be measured by sheer luck.

Sure I'm mad about the way things are going. If you're sitting somewhere air conditioned reading this, just remember,
they've been chipping away at the foundation for years now. If the foundation fails, then the whole building collapses.
That means that you're probably going to be the next group that gets hurt badly by these anti-social corporate boys
that occupy the west wing of the White House right now.

The only real short term solution is to force our corporations to bring the jobs back! China and India's call for
more oil will then slow down, and as for short term I don't really know how short that would be but they sent the
jobs away and outsourced the rest in pretty much less than ten years, I suppose we could get them back as fast
if not faster. Put the people back to work at the rate they were at least closer to, or if the big conglomorates
don't want to pay more, find a way to lower prices. But they won't go for at either since it would put a serious
cramp in the CEO's ability to buy his 3rd yacht or yet another second house in the Caribean or Blue Ridge Mountains
or wherever the trendy place to have a place is these days.

Foreclosures and more bitchin' about trade

Michael Hubbard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:30:49 EDT

How is it that by accounts of the so called "right wing" or as I like to call them pseudo-conservatives that they can seem to get away with saying that most of these foreclosures are from people taking out loans that they can't afford?

Some surely have done that I'm certain that many have, however, when you've got a job market that is this screwy going on out there that has to be taken into consideration.

Case in point, in 1990 a guy working in a factory may have been making 12 or 15 dollars per hour. His factory shut down and moved on down to Mexico or overseas to the communist countries of China or Vietnam (notice how the right likes to call unions socialists or even communist organizations so they send the jobs they have open to socialist and communist areas where unions aren't allowed by the commies that run them?) Anyway, his job went to a little gook in Da Nang, so now he looks for another job in his field only to find that instead of 12 or 15 bucks an hour he was making back in '89 or '90 he's only offered 8 to 10 dollars to do the same job with more added to it due to the cutbacks in the workforce. Now how can he pay that mortgage that he took out in 1992 when his pay was 12 bucks per hour and by all reasoning should be about 18 or 20 bucks now?

The American workin' man and woman, simply put, the Americans are in direct competition with Chinamen content to work for less than a dollar per hour, the Mexicans started to form unions about 10 years ago so the big American corporation pulled a lot of their better jobs from them and sent them, once again, to the Chinese. Combine that with U.S. subsidized beans and corn that get dumped down in Mexico then the small Mexican farmer can't compete with big U.S. agribusiness so they don't have the jobs either. That's another thing that fuels all of the illegal aliens coming in.

There again the American workin' person, ol' work-a-day Joe and Jolene can't compete with illegals who make less than minimum wage and then they can't compete with the Communists in China and Vietnam that are content to make less than a buck and hour even.

WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!! WE DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS!!!

I ask any workin' man or woman who reads this to please consider pushing it to the edge. If we all organize unions in our places of work, sure they'll shut down more companies, they'll send'em right overseas. But then, who's gonna buy their stuff? The Chinese aren't going to buy it and support those fat asses at the top in the lifestyle they've been accustomed.

No they won't, they can't, that's what WE the AMERICAN Workin' class does. We buy the cars, we buy the big screens to watch the game on, we go to the races and spend money we do all that stuff when we've got money to spend.

I just don't understand why they cut their own throats, then blame us for them doing it, I guess because they figure if we're crazy enough to keep sending them back then we must deserve it.

Just remember, a working class hero is indeed something to be. Thanks for listening to another not very well thought out rant.

Yet another take on the blame game.

Michael Hubbard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:25:06 EDT

It almost seems funny to me now? In my youth as an 18 year old during the '92 elections I was swayed for a time by the Republican party and their promise of "responsible government." I listened avidly to Rush Limbaugh back in the 90's and grooved on Gringirch's promise to get this country back on track. Hell, were we actually off track?

After all, we could tell that roaring economy of the 90's was really just an apparition. Foreclosures were on the rise, bankruptcy? with a discharged bankruptcy in the 90's you had a better chance of getting a home or otherwise smaller loans than if you had a few slow payments made because so many people were filing for bankruptcy the banks had to change a few lending practices to keep the appearance of "growth" up. Somebody had to put on the brakes and the Republicans said they had what it takes. So a few times I went with them.

Well, from time to time I still tune into talk radio just to see how badly they are squirming since they don't seem to still have the sway that they used to. Limbaugh and Hannity were really pushing from Romney, the people voting in their primaries weren't responding well to that so Limbaugh announced his "Operation Chaos" encouraging Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. The Right winger's playbook has been all about Hillary getting the nomination, that way they could just go back to the 1992 playbook, cross out all the "B's" and add "H's" and just go from there. Surely they could take back the House and Senate in the mid term elections by hammering the same old line against the same old people.

I'm happy to say that they right person got the Democratic nomination, as did the Republican nominee. Not to say that McCain is any better than what we've been getting by way of Repbulicans, but it's a step in the right direction. You can see them sitting over at the country club now instead of hiding behind a preacher just to play on our sympathy.

What gets me is the right wing's leadership not coming clean and apologizing to their base for deserting them almost immediatly upon taking office then they continue to try to fool us by throwing out this same old line. The line that says they are for lower taxes and less spending. Let's see, they lowered taxes, but spending went up through the roof over the past 8 years especially since they got a Republican president to rubber stamp everything they want.

I was talking to a friend the other day about several of the right's pet issues. She told me that the Republicans were the party against abortion so since that was the most important issue to her the economic issues that they botched so badly didn't matter. I responded that I couldn't tell where they'd done anything meaningful about stopping the practice or even to curtail it. Especially after having BOTH houses of Congress locked up from '94 to '06. Especially when they had a friendly, very friendly president from '01 to '06 that hadn't used his veto on them one time.

Next point, our energy problems. Another friend talked about how democrats aren't for off shore drilling. Apparantly neither are the Republicans. They could have tried for the 12 years they held Congress, Bush didn't even try until the last half of his last year (that's about 7.5 years. he's a two termer after all). Then I think it was simply to save some face in the face of public outcry about his do nothingness on the issue.

They say that Democrats are against simple economic theory of supply and demand by promoting over regulating everything in sight. Now I'll agree, before they lost Congress in '94 regulations had become a bit stiffling, however regulations have been gutted so badly that it's alright now, even encouraged by the government to sell off American jobs to the lowest bidders to countries that are about as anti American as you can get. Over regulation is bad, but under regulation is also bad. One stifles business and hurts the economy the other stifles true growth and hurts the economy.

Another tenant is that the Democrats want to raise taxes and raise the intrest rates. Well, taxes probably will have to be raised to pay for the overspending and under intake that has taken place under the Republicans, the intest rate needs to come up because it's been down so far so long that it has played a major role in the devaluation of our dollar world wide so that really we're playing on the level of an underdeveloped nation as far as the value of our currency goes. The problem in business has been an unrealistic idea of growth in business. Most places have wanted to see at least 18% or so of growth every year. That's possible for a time but eventually business will at least taper off to (hopefully) an even level for a time. The main thing about business isn't to show high growth but to show a profit. Like with my own small business every time it has become about the money, I see the money intake actually suffer worst in the lean periods than I do when I'm just trying to do my work and improve my company's performance through things like customer satisfaction. It's like my father in law always said, "You can't buy business, you have to build it to be truly sucessful." He was right I found out over the years. If you treat your customers right, be honest with them, do a good job and charge them a reasonable rate, then it seems that you get a good solid customer base passed on from word of mouth instead of you spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing to try and "buy" new customers instead of the same ones use you over and over plus passing on your name to their friends and thereby, you've built a clientelle that can't be beat. But I'm just an electrician, what do I know?

Then they want to hop on social issues. SOCIAL ISSUE??!! Are you kidding?? These guys were NOT good stewards of the United States and it's citizens! They didn't help anything out socially other than by brow beating other people into taking sides as either liberals or conservatives, with us or against us mentality. It's not that black and white. With most folks it depends on the issue in reality.
Hannity loves to jump on Obama over him staying in that church for so many years with such a controversial preacher. Well, why hasn't anyone asked Hannity I've got to wonder is why he stayed in the Catholic Church in the face of such a big cover up so many cases of child molestation. It's because we like to hope for the best from our spiritual leaders, much like we hope for the best from our political leaders on both sides I'm sure.

Plus, if they were to actually do away with abortion or whatever the topic of the day to bitch about is they'd lose one of their best dividing points. People would actually be forced to look at the issues the politicians could easily do something about and then they'd be forced to address these issues that might require thought and compromise.

One other tenant brought up with me after I'd pointed out several policies that the Republicans had screwed up on by a friend was "Do you really want him in charge of our military?" Now this is a guy who has never served in uniform and seemed literally shocked when I (who has served in uniform) said "sure." I mean, WE'VE ALREADY WON IN IRAQ!! We won five years ago! We beat Sadaam and his Army. We've given them a government and an Army. Obama wants to go after *GASP* Bin Laden!! Imagine that, the people who attacked us in the first place! We gave Iraq a damn good regime change, now we need to get back on mission by fixing the problem in Afghanistan, plus whatever happened to Bush's promise to go after any country that harbors terrorists? Pakistahn has been letting Bin Laden and his gang hide out there for years yet we can't go in and get him and they won't go get him. Hmmmm, solution to that problem seems obvious to me.

I don't know if Barack Obama can fix these problems. Not all of them anyway. It'd be an almost impossible task in two terms to do. We seem to have a candidate that is ready to work with the opposition, but the trouble comes in that the opposition seems only ready to smear and oppose anything, no matter how much sense it makes. The point with them isn't what's good for Americans but whatever defeats Democratic agendas, no matter how good they are.

I pray that we as a people will stay focused on the important issues and see through these ridiculous rabbit trails that the party with no answers on how to fix things that they broke in the first place bring up so often.

They know they can't beat Obama on the issues, they know they've messed up big time, but as long as they don't admit to it, as long as they kick and scream about how Obama will turn us into communists, they'll continue to loose support simply because they aren't selling anything that seems good. Like hope and change. They say what are we hoping to change into? Something better than what we've been through for the past several years I'd simply say. Even if Obama hadn't described what he wants it couldn't have been any worse than what they've done to this wonderful country.

It is time to change, I believe we can get past this gridlock fight. It's time.

Obama Goes Soft on Free Trade

Paul B — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:59:14 EDT

By John Nichols, TheNation.com. Posted June 25, 2008.

Obama campaigned against NAFTA during the primaries. Now he's backpedaling and reassuring Wall Street about that same policy.

Republican John McCain is a militantly pro-free trade presidential candidate. That fact alone should guarantee his defeat in Ohio and other industrial states where his strategists entertain hopes of surfing a "Reagan Democrat" crossover of working-class Democratic voters to the GOP column this fall.

All that would be required would be for Democrat Barack Obama to campaign as a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals that have battered workers, farmers, communities and the environment in the United States and abroad.

Countering Race With Class

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:34:09 EDT

Countering Race With Class

By David Sirota

In our us-versus-them culture, every political campaign is a battle to define who exactly the “us” and “them” are. Republicans typically say it is natives versus immigrants, Christians versus non-Christians and heartland folks versus Hollywood elites. At their most effective, Democrats parry by defining the “us” as the majority of working people, and the “them” as the tiny group of plutocrats who control the country.

In recent years, Democrats have stopped making this case for fear of offending their big donors. But this is exactly the argument they must make if they hope to defeat John McCain........

ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3771/countering_race_with_class/

A word about free trade -- What went wrong with NAFTA, et al.?

Laura Schneider — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:12:16 EDT

President Clinton's approach to the economy in the '90s emphasized job creation and opening markets with NAFTA and other free-trade agreements. The reputation and wisdom of these agreements have suffered greatly from the public's misunderstanding of the real cause of the perceived deleterious effects of free trade. It is not free trade itself that caused us to lose jobs and have businesses move their facilities outside the U.S. in search of cheap labor, it is the tax loopholes that rewarded businesses for doing same.

De-regulation? Buyer Beware...

M J Taylor — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:16:41 EDT

i just want to share my thoughts on further De-regulation of our industries/systems as Sen McCain has suggested

Some call it "Big Government" But Alll I want is competent Government" you know.....

a Gornment that works........

My understanding has always been that by regulating the industries in our country, our government was protecting our citizens from those who would do us harm either thru carelessness or simple greed.

Pls note that, people, in too many instances, are easily influencesd to do the selfish or greedy thing when striving and or achieveing success. trickle down economics doesn't work because if not forced to, those at the top don't necessairly share their wealth with the masses at the bottom.....(No table scraps for you)

If not for regulation, there would be no minimum wage, someone would pay you 2.00 per hour just to cut costs.......and wouildn't provide health insurance, you couldn't get FMLA for emergency situations and preserve your job.

I would almost equate De-regulation with lawlessness.....it's like saying we've taken away most of the rules, aND ALL OF THE MONITORING TO SEE WHO IS FOLLOWING THOSE THAT ARE LEFT, NOW GO PLAY...........'nO REFS, NO WHISTLES, PLAY BALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-----"(DOESN'T SOUND GOOD NOW HUH)

without regulation and adequate funding of our government regulators Americans are left exposed to tainted Food,

(Bush had left out funding for the FDA in his most recent budget),

until people in multiple states died from tainted tomatoes.....yes read that again, left out funding for the govt dept that over sees FOOD SAFETY IN AMERICA.....

unsafe financial markets, predatory lending programs, and con artist who are not being policed in anyway.

DURIng THE BUSH YEARS, WE HAVE HAD OUR ENRON'S AND OUR FEMA MORONS ALL GIVE GLARING EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CHECKS N BALANCES THAT MAKE US a great nation and allows the USA to HAVE THE MOST TRUSTED AND STABLE FINANCIAL MARKETS IN THE WORLD, SOME OF THE SAFEST FOOD IN THE WORLD, AND EXCELLENT DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAMS (oh sorry we get foreign aid across the ocean way befroe we can get an air drop toe the Gulf or even the mid west)

Are de-regulated, not monitored, and allowed to run amuck unchecked....those with power will use their advantage to increase their position and only their position nothing ever trickles down....and tell me what self respecting American wants a trickle down I am not afraid of hard work. I just want my government, for whom we as citizens are the biggest contributors (via taxation), to keep an eye out to be sure I am not robbed of my hard work....

i don't want to ramble so I will end with this.

Regulation as well as checks n balances are absolutely necessary if order to maintain a fair system of competition. Regulation is designed to even the playing field a bit so that none can take an unfair advantage. Regulation is absolutely necessary because even in our free market system, those with alot of resources have a distinct advantage over those with limited resources....and the primary way to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to legitimately achieve success is via "Regulation"

How can the next president better help small business and entrepreneurs thrive?

apinstein — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:28:42 EDT

I participated in a Barack Obama sponsored Q&A on Small Business policy on LinkedIn.com. This is my response to the question:

"How can the next president better help small business and entrepreneurs thrive?"

* Better Education.
* Free markets. Fair trade.
* Health Care reform.
* Solve immigration.

All of these answers ultimately address two things:
1) Providing access to skilled labor at reasonable cost
2) Providing a level playing field for small business vs. big business.

Notice that all of these things are good for the country, the citizens, AND business!

How to pay for Domestic Improvements.

Citizen — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:38:24 EDT

Yesterday, I addressed how all Americans, without regard to political party, have common basic goals. (Clean drinking water. Zero crime in our neighborhoods. Upgrading our infrastructure; bridges, hospitals, roads, schools, levees, firehouses, early weather warning systems, airports. Public education for our children and grandchildren that will prepare them for global competition. Our troops and our veterans to be provided with the best equipment and support our nation can provide. Secure homes. An honest day's pay for an honest day's labor.)

Several email responses complained that we can't accomplish any of them because our Nation is going broke and our Dollar isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I believe there are some solutions available to both restoring our position of respect in the world, reducing the number of our enemies being formed each month, boosting our economy, and improving the value of our dollars.

I don’t want to sound like an isolationist, but a little movement away from “nation building” in foreign lands will go a long way toward mending existing anomosities and reducing the number of new enemies. The domestic and foreign press has lingered on how dispised America is by other nations and groups. Most of the hatred directed toward us seems to be caused by our involvement in foreign governments or that of their friends and foes. So, let’s stay in the United Nations, but move it out of the United States and into Europe. Let’s get out of NAFTA, NATO, SEATO, and the rest of the alphabet soups. They can't throw rocks at us if we aren't there.

Let’s place restrictions on non-essential imports and expand our domestic manufacturing base with a combination of tax incentives and tax penalties for corporations assessed on whether their products are constructed and assembled in America by US workers or not. The trade restrictions can be eased for any nation that encourages favorable marketing of American products in their country. For a brief period, we may need to give up unnecessary purchases. But ,we are a nation of people that are accustom to setting aside immediate gratification for long term goals. It's one of the reasons we go to college. When we plant an apple seed, we don't expect a fruit bearing tree to immediately sprout from the ground. With time, the value of our American dollar will grow and our national debt will recede. Our nation was strong and growing when our economy was based on domestic manufacturing instead of being based on the retail of foreign goods produced by foreign workers.

Don't lower taxes, but mandate that our budget must be balanced and that ten percent of our taxes be applied toward reducing the Federal debt. That will bring up the global value of the dollar.

I recently read where our passports are being printed and produced by a foreign firm. The inks and toners used by Federal, State, and local governments in copiers is manufactured beyond our borders. Even some of the US flags used by government agencies are made overseas.

It seems to me that there are thousands of small and medium sized businesses in everyone of our fifty states that could step up and supply the needs of our government agencies. Our tax dollars should be supporting the small and medium flag manufactures in Alabama, New Jersey, Illinois, and California instead of some other nation.

It scares me to think that some agency will probably plan a "Buy American" campaign with signs printed elsewhere and shipped to us on foreign vessels.

Columbia FTA and Plan Columbia's New Canal

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:57 EDT

WHY I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THE COLUMBIA FTA, AND URGE CONGRESS TO STOP POURING BILLIONS IN AID TO COLUMBIA UNLESS THE MAJORITY IS SPENT FOR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE, JOBS AND EDUCATION LIKE IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, AND NOT THE MILITARY.

Read this post carefully. Get mad like I am.

Please help me tell congress NO to the FTA. Let your voices be heard. We cannot afford to destroy more of this rainforest and it's indigenous people!!

The biggest benefactor to the FTA is Drummond Coal. Drummond is paying right-wing militias known as paramilitaries to protect its Colombia operations. Human rights activists claim such practices were widespread among multinationals in Colombia, and that Drummond went even further, using the fighters to violently keep its labor costs down.

More HERE about Drummond.

As I BLOGGED HERE PLAN COLUMBIA HAS BEEN ANOTHER COMPLETE POLICY FAILURE

Now on to the future plans of the energy companies and the Republicans,

Plan Columbia's New Canal

''Empire of Death' for the River People

CAP: Market on the Atrato river, department of Chocó, Colombia.

Plan Colombia is not a plan to eradicate narcotraffic at all, but to impose new projects run by American companies (oil, dams, motorways, quarrying) and to eradicate the political opposition from guerrillas and from native resistance.

One of these programs is the ultra-profitable new inter-oceanic Canal: the estimate is that it will make somewhere between $1.3 and $1.8 billion per year. It will link the Atlantic and the Pacific, through North Colombia.

At present, the Panama Canal is the only way to cross between these oceans without going all the way round South America. The Americans controlled the Panama Canal Zone, and managed to get several extensions on handing it back to the Panamanian government before finally returning it in 1999. Despite the control that they have over the government and via the multinationals that operate in the Zone, this is still far too big a loss for American foreign policy. Also, the Canal was built in 1914 and is quite outdated, as it is not big enough for the ship traffic currently using it. The proposal to link both oceans through Colombia is an idea that has been around for a long time, like similar projects in Mexico and Nicaragua [See article on Plan Puebla Panama in this issue.]. It is based on the linking of the rivers close to the Panama isthmus: the Atrató (Chocó and Antioquia) and the Truandó.

The Atrató river crosses the area with the highest pluviosity [rainfall] in Colombia and one of the richest in biodiversity, pretty similar to the Amazon rainforest. In this area there are no cities, but - due to geographical characteristics - just isolated communities of mainly African Colombians (90%) and Natives (5%). The main Native groups are the Embera, Cholo and Wounan, as well as the Kuna [see the interview with a Kuna activist in this issue], Noanamá and Katía. The good state of this habitat is due to the respect these communities have for it. The Black communities are descendants of slaves and in some cases they even keep African traditions. This heritage has reinforced a sense of identity through the centuries as well as links with nature and the land which are pretty similar to those of the Native communities. As they say in a communiqué, the current situation is "an attempt against biodiversity and natural and 'super-natural'[1] resources of this area which is so vital for the planet". The remaining 5% of the area's population is made up of white and mixed race people, who also live in extreme poverty and are victims of paramilitary terrorism.

The OTHER reasons why I'm involved as an Obamamites in the Dem Primary

Bugsy Bucco Polemicist — Fri, 02 May 2008 12:02:56 EDT

Other reasons why...

I'm sure you know why we're voting in the DEMOCRATIC primary rather than the Republican primary-even if it was still a contest. The policies of the Bush WhiteHouse, the pre-2006 and post 2006 Election Republican congressional enablers have left so many at home and abroad as figuretive and literal roadkills. We've seen those at the margins economically, or just on the wrong side of the moment, be the victims of a culture that the Republicans have promoted in their capitalist Free Market, Free Trade ethos of just-shop materialism as the measure of the common wealth. So there an obvious reason why you ARE a Democratic voter this year.

But there is more than what the Republicans have gotten away with over these past eight or more years. There is an negative ethos of ethics that has infected the political process on the Democrat side. Many of the grievances we have against the Republicans were enabled if not fostered by Dems whose own cynicism of "the ends will be the cover of our means" has degraded the culture.

Those Dems that made alliances with the interests whose agendas undermined us economically and made the culture more toxic culturally as they pocketed the campaign funds from the "30 pieces of silver" for which they sold our meager fortunes. These Dems learned the pander to posture, from things such as Trade, Bank deregulation, Banruptcy laws, and MOST of all, the Iraq War Authorization and the Iran Resolution. They sold out the principles for justice and equity for the weakest and most vulnerable on the issues for the political or financial gain.

It's not enough to put the Republicans to the curb, if we let their cynical enablers access for the same dissembling and duplicity. 35 years of experience DOES mean something. Particularly, when a persistent odor drifts along the path of those 35 years.

Obama wants to stress the issues and wouldnot bring this up. You who were looking for ANYONE BUT HILLARY before we knew about Obama, know why you were looking and were not going to be a part of the "Ineveitability Campaign" for which the whole primary season was desinged to facilitate. For no other reason than to have this mirror held up to the Democratic Party, before Barack's emergence, we should thank the mergence of Barack Hussein Obama-the embodiment of the world person who has been the road-kill of the political mindset of DC.

Merlin
Omaha, NE

Bitter? Sweet!

Thatcher — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:38:53 EDT

(cross-posted on The Dead Guy)

So once again, lifelong politicians have taken words out of context and wielded them as weapons back at the person who spoke those words.

Senator Obama was 100% correct when he said after all the promises we have been given about improving the economic conditions, not just in Pennsylvania - but across America, and yet nothing has truly changed, that we are bitter and many of us blame that which we are told to blame: immigrants, people wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment, the government supposedly trampling our religious rights, and so forth.

That's what Obama was saying. And if you hear the whole conversation in context - you know that is what he said. The American people have been given scape - goats to blame by the people that are really to blame - the politicians that won't do a damn thing to bring about the change needed to restore jobs and better conditions for our country.

But let me tell you something - I'm not bitter - I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Bill & John Said It Too, & Hillary Also Supports Anti-Blue Collar Trade.

KravitzKravitz — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:07:17 EDT

From time to time, I'll put up headlines and notes that support why Barack should be our next president. You'll also see posts on other pages.

A better Explanation and Suggestion for Spin on Bitter Comments.

Jake — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:32:35 EDT

Obama has a point that was not well explained because he mentioned an attitude that most rural Americans keep in their closets. So it's easy to attack Barack about the unmentionable.

A better way to have said this in San Francisco was to give an example for every sentiment between voters and Barack.

Example: A state where its citizens fight to keep their much needed gun rights because law makers in another part of America find them unnecessary and dangerous. A state where many skilled Americans can't hold on to a job because our administration is in bed with industries that are trying to swell profits in other countries. A state where Americans feel cheated out of government help, but here about undocumented workers getting education and medical coverage on the news. Pennsyvanian's are bitter and its not suprising, and its hard to put your hopes on someone that is not going through their hardship.

OBAMA'S CANDIDACY: THE CLINTONS AXIS OF CONNECTION

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:40:56 EDT

THE CLINTON’S, NAFTA, COLUMBIA AND SAUDI’S

It may not be any business of mine, nevertheless, I do hope we are all too familiar with the maxim; a house divided against it self cannot stand. In order words, divided we fall and united we stand.

If this adage hold a any meaning in your dealings with others, it suffice to note that, it has always been very difficult to have anything achieve when two cannot not agree or come to terms on an issues. It is therefore on the basis of this simple, but concise and pragmatic adage that I want to just briefly make some few references to the Clintons and the potential that Sen. Hilary Clinton may portend to the country.

Sen. Clinton has since claimed she was against the free trade agreement with Colombia as enunciated by President George Bush’s administration, nevertheless, her chief strategist was involved partially or wholly in an attempt to lobby on behalf of the Colombia government. Consequently, Sen. Clinton is guilty by association by being part of the click that most often deceive the good will of the ordinary Americans, by subjugating articulate and people oriented proposals in congress for the kind we have seen in the Colombia debacle.

Posterity has so far shown that, Sen. Clinton is very quick at taking credit for her husband administration, while at the same time distancing herself from the ills or failed policies of the same administration. A simple reference to this tendency is the case of NAFTA.

On ABC world News today 04/11/08 with Charles Gibson, it was reported that unlike the position that Sen. Clinton has taken on the Colombia trade proposal, ex-president Bill Clinton is in support of the plan and in 2005 received about $800, 000 from the same axis to help lobby a similar position with Colombia.

Is this the job description of Speaker and writer that the income tax stated?

How do this husband and wife hope to lead the nation as a divided couple in political ideology and or action? Will Bill not constitute a clear distraction for Hilary, as he has often become in the nomination process for the Democratic Party presidential race?

Sen. Clinton further claim she will have nothing to do with the Saudi’s on the same news report, nevertheless, the Bill Clinton Library has this same Saudis as a member of the Board of Trustee, consequent to their enormous and gigantic donation that was beyond any kind of expectation.

Well, it may be none of my business and I do not intend to practice the kind of “gutter” politics Governor Bill Richardson was very much against and later enumerated the reasons why he endorsed Sen. Obama, in spite of his long association with the Clintons.

America must know the truth, since they deserve to make their decision to vote based on informed judgment. Credibility is a crucial virtue that must be possess by the incoming president for the sake of accountability, responsibility and transparency.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

The Note: Err ApparentLessons From Bill On How to Keep a Campaign From Gaining GroundBy RICK KLEIN with MIKE ELMORE

April 11, 2008

As the saying goes, if you want political reporters to eat their vegetables, it helps if they have nothing else on their plate. The Clintons, meanwhile, are serving whoppers.

Former president Bill Clinton is the latest to hand out a juicy fib -- circling back to Bosnia to cram four falsehoods into 23 words: His wife, he said, "one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995."

Where to start? If his telling is accurate, it depends on what the definition of "one time," "late at night," and "immediately apologized" is. (And it was 1996, not 1995.)

Articles on Trade, China, the Olympics, and housing...4/9.

EMK — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:43:43 EDT

China & the Olympics:

White House hopefuls call on China to do more

House passes Chinese crackdown resolution: Interestingly, Ron Paul was the only lone "nay" vote. Now, out of curiousity, I wonder why Ron Paul did so? This is out for those who are either Ron Paul-to-Obama supporters or die-hard Ron Paul supporters, as I am simply curious. I won't criticize.

First Read: Obama and the Olympics: I'm curious here. I know Obama has said that he "is of two minds" concerning this issue, though I wonder how he will resolve this. He did pretty well with his questioning of Gen. Patreus, so I hope he will resolve his internal debate in his mind.

Trade:

House Democrats to table trade deal: Apparently, GWB isn't going to have it easy, at least for now.

Housing:

Apparently, the House version is focused more on borrowers, while the Senate version is more for business.

Now, on a lighter note: Obama recounts first job—and the funny hat that went with it (quickie video here).

Incredible Shrinking Economic Pie Revisited

Vince from Boston, MA — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:41:42 EDT

Change ... many people cringe at the very thought of change even if the current situation is unhealthy.

Hillary represents the old school "status quo" politics of money and influence, taking money from big corporate donors and the uninformed ... low information voter. Many people will say thats how the game works ... you play along to get along. Only one problem with that kind of politics in a Global economy ... Corporations seek cheap labor at the expense of the American worker.

The So called Free Market advocates have no problems with regulating Drug prices to keep prescription drug price unrealistically High and encourage Corprate subsidizes for offshoring American jobs which reduces Job opportunities and real wages for American workers.

NAFTA and China Trade backed by the Clinton's and the Republicans started what I call the "Incredible Shrinking Economic Pie".

High Wage jobs systematically replaced with low wage service sector jobs.

Another Trade Agreement Up for consideration The Colombia Free Trade agreement lobbied for by Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, Republicans and endorsed by G DUBBYA will cost Americans even more jobs.

more info on that agreement here:

http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Colombia_FTA/Final_Text/Section_Index.html

The Punchline ... its not sustainable.

Our American Economy is driven by consumer spending ... Cheaper wages means less disposable income for the the vast majority of American consumers who drive this economy.

The Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, Bad Trade policies, massive debt, devalued currency, Housing Foreclosures, Climbing Energy prices and an endless War have left this country economically strained and teetering on the edge of what could be the worst economic experience since "The Great Depression".

Obama's Campaign is supported by over 1.4 Million ... True American Patriots ... citizens of every race and gender from the Right, Left and Center and sustained by small donations (and growing).

We can no longer afford a political system that puts the special interest lobbies ahead of the common good of all its Citizens.

We will not be fooled by the old divisive politics that pits one group against another. United we intend to CHANGE this Nation so it serves the needs of all its people not just the select few.

Put an end to this assault on the American Working Class .... Demand accountability from our representatives in Washington and Demand Fair Trade agreements and protection for American workers.

Join us and Barack Obama so we can restore the High Ideals our Nation was founded upon and help rekindle the Torch of Liberty and Hope for all Americans yearning to be free and prosperous again.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/vince

Barack Obama 08' ..... Hope and a new direction.

There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. -Barack Obama

"The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Yes We Can !

-Vince ;-}

Hillary's Ties to Colombia deal go farther than Penn

jgabriel — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:15:39 EDT

Check out these two scoops by Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9433.html

Bill Clinton advocating for it: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Bill_Clinton_backed_Colombia_trade_deal_Estoy_a_favor.html

Hillary can't keep her stories straight...

Rev Bry — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:32:16 EDT

first she's ducking imaginary sniper fire, now she's telling lies about a pregnant woman, not to mention having staff members involved with trades she is supposed to be against.

Colombia fires top Clinton strategist's firm

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:47:17 EDT

MSNBC.com

Colombia fires top Clinton strategist's firm
Firing comes after Mark Penn apologizes for meeting Colombian officials

The Associated Press

updated 1:58 p.m. CT, Sat., April. 5, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Colombian government said Saturday it has fired Mark Penn's public relations firm after the chief campaign strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton apologized for meeting with Colombian officials pushing a trade deal with the U.S.

Colombian officials said they terminated their contract with lobbying and public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in response to a statement released Friday by Penn, the firm's chief executive, calling the meeting an "error in judgment." Clinton opposes the trade deal.

"The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable," government officials said in a news release. The government will continue its push for a free trade agreement with the United States, they added.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Penn had met with the Colombian ambassador March 31.

Penn regretful
Clinton advisers said the meeting was not connected to the campaign, but made clear the candidate was not happy to learn it. Penn later issued a statement expressing regrets.

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it," he said. "The senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."

The Colombian government is trying to secure congressional passage of the agreement signed in 2006 by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Bush administration.

According to Justice Department filings, Colombia agreed last year to pay Burson-Marsteller $300,000 to help "educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences" about the trade deal and secure continued U.S. funding for the $5 billion anti-narcotics program Plan Colombia.

Clinton and Barack Obama, her Democratic rival, oppose the deal. Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO this week that the United States needs new trade policies before it has new trade deals. "That includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country," she said.

Penn's political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid $10.8 million so far by Clinton's campaign.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23971656/

Wizard of Oz: "Pay No Attention to that Man Behind the Curtain"

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:22:11 EDT

April 4, 2008

Campaign: Penn wasn't representing Clinton in trade meeting

Posted: 11:30 AM ET

Mark Penn is a chief strategist for the Clinton campaign.

(CNN) – A Clinton campaign spokesman said Friday senior adviser Mark Penn's recent meeting with the Colombian ambassador to discuss a free-trade deal does not reflect Hillary Clinton's staunch opposition to the proposal.

"She remains steadfast against the Colombian Trade Bill," said spokesman Mo Elleithee, adding that the meeting was "not in any way done on behalf of the campaign."

The meeting, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, occurred Monday. Penn appears to have been acting in his role as chief executive of the international communications and lobbying firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide. The Colombian Embassy hired the firm to help achieve congressional approval of the trade deal.

Clinton has said she is against the trade bill, and has sharply criticized America's free trade agreements as she campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Just In From The Nation and Alternet: Hillary's NAFTA Lies Exposed

Paul Evans — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:55:12 EDT

Hillary's NAFTA Lies Kill All of Her Credibility on Trade

By John Nichols, The Nation
Posted on March 22, 2008,
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.thenation.com/80454/

What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.

But that impression was a deliberate deception.

And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.

John Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent.

PE: Now there is no doubt! (But then, did we have any?)

Open thread: NAFTA, Canada, and the Obama campaign

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:19:27 EST

This is an open discussion thread for Obama's media problems with NAFTA and the Canadian consulate. Please add any information you have about this developing news story in the comments section.

Obama's Energy policy: the Emperor has no clothes.

John Messerly — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:10:21 EST

The emperor has no clothes.

Joseph Romm on Grist made the statement that " the climate problem is essentially unsolvable" if President Obama does not get a carbon cap plan with China.

He's right. And if you scan the current Obama policy plan- you know how much it talks about China and India?

Zero.

China is rapidly industrializing- that is a given. It has 4 times the population and already has passed the US in CO2 emissions (source). Its highly skilled technocrats will keep China on a trajectory of aggressive growth, and since it has significant coal reserves this will be its energy source of choice for power generation.

So here are the facts. Achieving the US goal of 80% reduction of CO2 emissions means we reduce our emissions not by 1.4% as we did in 2006, but by 2% per year. History will record that the war against global warming was lost while the US squandered its opportunity because it poured modest resources into a comparatively insignificant battle on its own CO2 emissions. China has already passed the US in CO2 emissions. Their increase in 2005 was 12%, and 9% in 2006. (source). Given their trajectory, China's will swamp our 2050 target within just 8 years.

By that time Obama will be leaving office- without achieving the 2050 goal- and with global CO2 emissions much worse off than when he took office.

So what can we do. First, it is imperative that our energy policy be modified to address the situation with China.

My proposal? With so many US dollars flowing into China due to the trade imbalance, the Chinese have been buying US debt like crazy to keep the US dollar strong. They can achieve the same affect by buying US reactors. And we do a major retooling, building plants for China like we built Sherman tanks in WWII. China already bought 4 Westinghouse AP1000's for about $5 billion (those are built in PA)- offer them and or the advanced reactors made by GE. Obama's policy would be to offer the plants at cost by subsidizing sales. This creates US jobs, balances trade with china, and addresses the Chinese CO2 emissions. Subsidies are in the form of tax breaks, and financing is recovered in part by growing the tax base due to the number of high tech manufacturing jobs created. (More details my post on China's plan to build 562 coal plants here.)

It is a win win for everyone. Hong Kong and Shanghai are not flooded, Chinese rice producing provinces aren't turned to desert, etc etc.

For those of you who favor wind, solar or wave power, I would be all for building those items for the chinese instead, provided that the chinese would get the reliable base power generation they need. And they can't get that from those sources in this timespan, so it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Either embrace nukes or say goodbye to the Greenland ice sheet, 30% loss in global species, and the return of the high plains desert to the US.

But maybe we don't care because those folks from Oklahoma to North Dakota as red states will probably vote for McCain anyway. Well, they may hate "giveaways" to the chinese, but they are americans and we should protect them even though they won't understand this.

What the heck. Energy policy is not even in the top 6 issues that voters rate as most important in recent polls. But I've got hope. Hope that we'll get this talked about in the election so we will have a mandate to implement some bold plans.

First off, we need some sort of statement about China in the policy papers. We need specific statements about what sorts of proposals we might put on the table to deal with the 800 pound gorilla in the room (CO2 from India and China). Even if a bold plan is not announced, raising the issue may have tactical advantage. I'll bet McCain will be clueless in a debate on foreign policy regarding this point.

40 Billion Air forceTanker deal awarded to Airbus

John Messerly — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:06:52 EST

The LA Times claims this deal could wind up being worth 100 Billion due to follow on orders.

As an engineer, I am a big fan of the smartest design. As a taxpayer, I am a big fan of getting the biggest bang for the buck. As a citizen, I am angry that an earlier contract to Boeing was awarded to them due to fraud and bribery. But as an American looking at the trade imbalance with the rest of the world, I have a lot of questions about awarding the Air Tanker deal to a European company: Airbus/ EADS. There are trade issues regarding Airbus, due to substantial subsidies they have received from European governments. There are also questions due to the fact the Air Force recently changed some of the criteria used to assess the performance of the competing planes. (source)

This deal was championed by McCain. The old 2002 deal was for 100 planes and cost at a cost of $23bn, supporting more than 44,000 American jobs (in Kansas and Washington states) and 300 suppliers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6227700.stm Ironically, the new deal with Airbus will cost more: $40bn. Although Northrup will assemble the planes in Alabama and Mississippi, the bulk of the jobs will be in Europe.

Perhaps this is the consequences of Boeing's rigging of the earlier deal, the scandal with high level favoritism of Boeing and it is only coincidental that Boeing is based in a blue state, and the assembly of the planes will be in red states. Maybe there are good answers to the red flags I see on the economy / trade impacts, but it sure raises a lot of questions in my mind.

Sources: NYTimes , LA Times

Eating, er, Meeting Raoul

Patrick — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:45:20 EST

President George Bush doesn't approve of Senator Obama's ideas of meeting foreign leaders such as the new President Raoul Castro of Cuba without "preconditions" such as improvements in human rights, democratic moves and so on. Bush Raps Obama Pledge to Meet Hostile Leaders But one can argue that in our foreign policy we have maintained the same Fidel-ity to hypocrisy as the Castro brothers have maintained their political hold in Cuba.

In 1972 Republican President Richard Nixon raised the so-called "bamboo curtain" with the Peoples' Republic of China, a nation, like Cuba, under a Communist one-party governmental system. 2008 and the PRC is one of our biggest trading partners, there have been diplomatic visits between our two countries and what? China is still under a Communist one-party governmental system.

So I would contend that as Cuba transitions toward a post-Castro era, we become more flexible, open to new ways and new ideas of diplomacy. The last thiry-six years may have improved the economic engine of China, but their record for human rights, moving toward free expression and opinion without being fearful of "dissent" still leave much to be desired. Nevermind becoming intent on becoming American materialists at the expense of the environment. Oh yeah, I almost forgot - put enough money into it and we can turn a blind eye to just about anything.

Immigration and trade issues as they relate to the technology industry

Saska — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:35:58 EST

I have been in the high-tech industry for 15 years, and I have watched the whole thing evolve. One aspect that's different in recent years is that high-tech workers in entry-level positions expect to come in at a higher salary level. When I was hiring technical support staff for an ISP in the mid-90s, those who were new and came in without experience but with a lot of computer savvy made $7-$9/hr. As a manager, I made $19,000/yr. Those types of entry-level jobs are now largely unavailable, due in part to the influx of entry-level workers with degrees in technological subjects (degrees that, with the exception of Computer Science and Engineering, didn't exist when I went to college in the early 90s).

Since then, I have worked for several of the biggest names in technology. Like the trajectory of my career, high-tech has evolved from small, specific, innovative local companies to large, multinational providers of diverse services.

With regard to high-tech, immigration, and trade laws, I feel there three major areas for discussion.

REPOST: Hillary's Documented Support of NAFTA

jgabriel — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:56:10 EST

Hillary has made many statements in the past favorable toward NAFTA:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/23/hillary_clintons_support_of_na.php

That page also has convenient links to fact-checking reports about Barack's religion and patriotism. As we have seen with the flap over the "turban" incident, we have to be ever vigilant.

How do you all think Barack did at the debate last night in Ohio? I am reading reports that suggest that he won. Do you think he can take the lead in Texas and/or Ohio?

Hillary's Documented Support of NAFTA

jgabriel — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:50:37 EST

Hillary has made many statements in the past favorable toward NAFTA:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/23/hillary_clintons_support_of_na.php

That page also has convenient links to fact-checking reports about Barack's religion and patriotism. As we have seen with the flap over the "turban" incident, we have to be ever vigilant.

How do you all think Barack did at the debate last night in Ohio? I am reading reports that suggest that he won. Do you think he can take the lead in Texas and/or Ohio?

The right man for the job!

John — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:01:14 EST

This is a glimpse of how I see Barack Obama’s point of view and approach.

McCain keeps harping that Barack's claims,” to change America,” are ridiculous and empty. Barack simple wants to return America to the way it used to be not so long ago with a prosperous and healthy middle class. He wants to restore our military strength and national security to their former levels by avoiding senseless conflicts while concentrating on recreating a level playing field upon which we can conduct trade with other nations. He would like to restablize our national security. He is concerned with the degradation of our national security and believes a productive and united prosperous nation will, as before, generate the revenue needed to afford us the most sophisticated weapons and military on earth. He is also under the impression we need to once again return this country and its constitutional rights back to its people. He believes, as I do, that if someone can affect us in such a way as to cause us to live in fear for the foreseeable future they have won. He plans to seek and find solutions to problems around the world by working with other nations including those who see things much differently than we do. He knows we all see things, to one degree or another, differently, and refusal to negotiated with those who see things differently amounts to nothing less than isolation and the nullification of all but our own national values. He realizes we must respect others and their cultures as we and our cultures wish to be respected. He knows we must attract and be willing to work with those who are sitting at the other end of the table to find mutually acceptable solutions possibly with compromise on both sides. He knows that only a bully will insist on having everything his way, and knows we need to correct that all to prevalent recently acquired perception of us. He knows no one wants to negotiate with a bully. He knows the way back to the America we were once famous for and is willing and determined to take us there despite a likely uphill battle. He is more than willing to take on the treasonous corporate greed which has allowed the outsourcing or our nation by its wealthy aristocrats, along with their corporations and politicians.

I know it may likely take several years if not a decade or two to repair the damage done to America since the passing of NAFTA and the reckless negligence of the Bush presidency, and hope we can be patient and supportive and not lose our focus during this period.

US Trade with China 2006: $288 Billion Imported, $52 Billion Exported

Little Guy — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:29:58 EST

Today's Trade deficit numbers came out and 2007 was worse than 2006.

Free trade is a good thing, but it must be fair. The Trade policies of the US towards China allows special interests to benefit whereas the US has lost 1.8 million jobs to China since Bill Clinton worked out WTO deals with China. This represents about a 1% increase in the National unemployment rate since 2001.

For a detailed listing of jobs lost by state, and an overview of the problem, see this link with an analysis of US/China trade since 2006.

We need a fair trade policy with China that opens their markets to US products the way we have opened ours to them!

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp188

Want to Win Texas & Ohio? Then Read This

Grand Moff Joseph — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:38:16 EST

8-0 since Super Tuesday (w00t), but there are many challenges left, especially Texas and Ohio. I'd like to offer up some ideas/advice for GOTV efforts in these two critical states, and ways to keep raising the energy level to swing these states to our column.

Read on for details!

Vote for Fair International Trade with Benchmarks!

TanMan2008 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:35:22 EST

As someone who studied international business and has made it my livlihood; I believe the World Market will be competetive and lead to the most benefit world wide through utlizing our best competetive advantages. But this must be done responsibly and with the proper checks and balances. NAFTA and the WTO need cleaning up, and this talk of a North American Union is kinda scary but a notion that based on EU we may need to look into. I rely on open trade and borders especially with China, but I also want the products I help bring into to the USA be safe and tested in the same way was USA made products and Exports.

We must not become protectionist/isolationist over some bad press and isolated incidents, American products need to compete and we must fight to eliminate foreign tariffs and subsides for foreign exporters. This is one HUGE reason I am voting for Mr. Obama. Not to mention he give me hope and I think he actually has ethics some great leadership qualities, I would be afraid if Hillary is elected nothing will get done except partisan bickering. I am attending tomorrow's rally and hope you all do to. I am late to the Obama camp but I am here and plan to devote my full time and support, Please join me as a freind in this cause. Thanks,

Tanner Z: in Federal Way, WA USA

US dollar future

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:33:49 EST

I dug out my old Foreign Exchange books from my Citibank days. The big takeaway is that currencies don't go up when interest rates go down, EVER!!! Currency rates follow interest rates. That is an easy rule to remember.

We'll never get the dollar back without severe austerity here and much higher interest rates. And, no politician is prepared to tell the American people that after they've allowed the Financial Institutions to gorge them on credit all in the name of "growth".

Whatever that is! Growth in retail sales seems to be the main thing lately. That is really creating a lot of wealth.

Growth of the money supply is very bad for currency rates. That is in the book. That is the outcome of all those subprime mortgages, home equity, and plastic credit lines created by banks and credit card companies and investment banks selling subprime bonds to their best institutional clients (and boy are they mad now). The most inflationary thing to do is grow the money supply, but we don't say that. The Fed doesn't say that, they just say they are lowering the rates again. Growing the money supply and easy credit like that is inflationary. Could rising house prices be inflationary? Housing isn't in the CPI, so I guess not?...(well, you can guess what I guess).

One sure way out of our debt is continued USD de-valuation and inflation at home. That is the course we're on unless we stop this madness.

We may just be printing a lot of zeros on those Benjamin's like Argentina in the past, and Zimbabwe today!

But, that is one way to get rid of our debt, and piss off all our trading partners who bought our Treasuries. But Caveat Emptor right? Oh, but by the way, when that happens the price of a barrel of oil will be like $500 a barrel, or worse. That really is black gold.

Let's have a contest...who do we put on the $10,000,000 note. Oh, the $10,000,000 coin?

Edwards exit and the key issues

Gabriel — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:29:37 EST

Friends,

John Edward's decision to exit so early without endorsing Barack is bad news. Now it's up to Barack to take over part of Edwards' populist message that appeals to blue-collar voters and combine it with his own well-established themes of unity and optimism. This means a focus on four issues that are particularly uncomfortable for Clinton:

So Obama's advisors have figured out that the economy matters

Shared Growth — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:33:11 EST

I had previously noted to a subgroup on this site that I thought Obama would be looking for credible proposals to help the economy and the middle class shortly. Now that Edwards is causing pain, he is. Perhaps a more proactive stance would be wise?

New Iowa ad

Sam Graham-Felsen — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:33:31 EST

Senator Obama has fought for working people throughout his entire career, beginning with his days organizing Chicago residents on the South Side who had been laid off due to steel plant closings.

In this new ad running in Iowa, he shows us how he'll continue to fight for working people in our global economy:

The Democrats in the Final Iowa Debate: Winning the Hearts of Voters

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:48:54 EST

The Democrats held a presidential debate this past Thursday, December 13, in Iowa. The contenders were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Senator Mike Gravel (AK) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH) did not meet the criteria to attend the debate.

The Des Moines Register wrote in Why Kucinich isn't in the Democratic debate?:

Neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel had a campaign office in Iowa by the Oct. 1 deadline, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Gravel also did not have any paid staff in the state by the deadline.

This debate was hosted by The Des Moines Register and was shown on Iowa Public Television, although some of the major networks, such as CNN, Fox News Channel, and others broadcast the event. It was moderated by the editor of The Register Carolyn Washburn. As a note, I found this debate to be much more civilized than the previous.

Latin America's View

Incaross — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:09:49 EST

Upon evaluating the candidates it has quickly became apparent that Obama is the candidate who can change Latin America's view of the U.S. For too long, previous administrations have chosen to ignore this part of the world spending time and resources on distant territories in faraway lands.

What the U.S. needs and what the U.S. needs to be concerned about are all right in its own backyard. For many of the goods and materials that our economy needs to grow and prosper are right here between the Rio Grande and Tierra del Fuego. Instead of taking advantage of this proximity we are acting as like somebody who has a neighbor selling fresh produce but insist on traveling several miles to the corner store to purchase the same products. As the neighbor sees us unloading our products from the car there are dumbfounded as to why they did not purchase from them and saved the hassle of travel. To make matters worse when the neighbor inquiries as to why we did not purchase these items from them we do not even give them a response and instead quickly close the door and step inside. Imagine the frustration that the neighbor must feel.

This is, in a nutshell, the current U.S. Latin American relationship.

It is Obama, who out of all the candidates has the vision and tools necessary to remedy this deplorable situation. Perhaps, Sen. Obama will not purchase directly from the Latin American countries but at the very least he will explain why the U.S. is going other places to purchase its goods and services and seek ways for the U.S. and Latin America to work in cooperation to create a prosperous Western Hemisphere. With Obama as President there is no doubt that Latin America's perceptions of the U.S. will undergo a dramatic positive change.

Hillary Dealt the Losing Hand in Vegas, the Democrats Debate

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:58:20 EST

On Thursday, November 15, the seven Democratic presidential candidates debated the issues in Las Vegas, Nevada at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV). This debate was broadcasted on Cable News Network (CNN) with moderator Wolf Blitzer. As the title partially suggests, this debate further spiraled in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The candidates at this intense debate were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel was not invited due to the CNN criteria-failure of raising $1,000,000, in which, his campaign has reported $240,000, thus far. In this post, I will highlight the foreign policy issues, as well as, the building rivalry between Senators Clinton and Obama, and why I did not like the quality of the debate.

Open Letter to Barack: International Trade Policy

Brady from Lawrence, KS — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:26:27 EDT

Dear Barack,

I have been following your political career, like many others, since you burst onto the national political scence at the DNC in 2000. This year I have been supporting you with what time and money I can offer. I do believe you represent a hope for our failing nation not seen in my quarter-century lifespan. But it's getting on in the election cycle and simply speaking of hope and change with such passion as you do is not alone going to convince most voters. I, for one, would like to know more specifics about your stances on certain issues.

One issue on which I am having a hard time pinning down your stance is international trade. Since the Clinton years it has been our government's policy to open up international markets to "free trade." The agreements and treaty's we have singed have been notorious for protecting the rights of corporations over those of human beings. Indeed many Americans have shed blood in the fight for the labor rights we enjoy today but our intrnational trade agreements make no provision to ensure that similar rights are observed in other nations where our corporations do business. The consequent outsourcing of labor to foreign countries, where lax regulations mean lower labor cost and more all-holy profits, has allowed corporations to continue the global concentration of wealth at the expense of billions of impovershed persons who work long hours for peasant's wages while the richest 2% of people on the planet now control over 50% of household wealth.

In this age of globalization where economic actions in America affect the entire world instantly and thoroughly it should be incumbent upon us when writing international trade agreements to require that the basic rights recognized by our rule of law also be recognized and enforced by our trading partner. These rights should include a regulated work week, minimum wages (dependant upon regional markets), OSHA rights, sexual harassment and equal opportunity rights etc. These requirements would alos allow American workers to compete on a more equal playing field and encourage corporations to bring jobs back to America, helping to alleviate the problem of 37 million in poverty in this very country.

What will you do to change international trade policy so that our government is protecting the people, as it should be, rather than only protecting the interests of the corporations?

Sincerely,
Brady Swenson
Lawrence, KS

Why I'm not voting for Kucinich

Ben Main — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:30:07 EDT

Note: This is re-posted from my WordPress.com blog and was mainly created as a response to comments there, but given its nature dealing with the Presidential primary campaign, I thought it would be good to post it here

My last post caught the attention of some Kucinich supporters and quickly garnered the most comments that I have received in a single day...um...4 from 3 different commenters. Obviously, it wasn't something that was hotly circling the web, but it was a busy post by my standards.

So, as long as I am receiving a trickle of traffic from Kucinich supporters such as this one, I feel that it would be a good idea to explain my reasons for not supporting Dennis Kucinich. That way, the next time a Kucinich supporter such as Tom calls me a "tool of the mass media", they can actually have substance to back that assertion up.

The AFL-CIO Democratic Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:07:47 EDT

This past Tuesday, seven of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates debated in the AFL-CIO Forum at Soldier Field in Chicago. It was broadcasted on MSNBC and moderated by Keith Olbermann. The candidates addressed and answered the questions on issues ranging from Obama's counterterrorism strategy, the growing influence of China, to the outsourcing of jobs. The seven candidates, who wooed current and potential supporters, were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson. The only presidential contender not invited was Mike Gravel. The controversy was surrounded by the AFL-CIO contending that Gravel did not fill a questionnaire on time. He has called the AFL-CIO's reason a poor excuse, since he has worked with labor issues for many years. I will analyze the foreign policy issues that I found noteworthy.

REVISED Energy Plan/North and South American Trade Union

Ahmon from Omaha, NE — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:13:03 EDT

All-

I have recently returned from Iraq as a defense contractor. I was working in (C5) Taji, (F1) Baghdad, (T1) Tallil and (G6) Diwaniyah. In the wake of all the mishaps, misrepresentation and mismanagement going on around the country I believe that two possible cures that may resolve some of our current issues are developing an alternate fuels energy plan and a North and South American Trade Union. Being a witness to the war first hand gives a person a sense of false expertise, so please feel free to contest and shoot holes in this theory so we can cultivate, I feel, a decent and thoughtful idea on our current situation in America.

North and South American Trade Union- Amnesty/Military/Immigration: Travel between all participating countries will move unabated with newly formed documentation authenticating a persons' place of origin to North or South America. All participating countries will adhere to a strict immigration and customs laws pertaining to terrorist related countries. All migrant workers from neighboring North and South American countries in America will receive a work visa while applying for American citizenship. Those applying for American citizenship, that are physically able and not in school, will join the military services for four (4) out of the five (5) years it takes to establish American citizenship. This will help refurbish our dwindling military numbers and broaden our borders. Businesses pay wages equal to the market present in the country of operation. This will help with new/small/big business ventures for American entrepreneurs. All participating countries submit a number of troops governed by a newly created body formed by the participating country leaders to protect our common interest.

War on Terror: We have heard from the military leaders in Iraq that the solution to the issues going on in Iraq can not be solved through military prowess. So the withdrawal of troops from Iraq is understandable; but what about the threat of terrorists attacking America again? The only way to stop terrorists from traveling, creating, networking, etc. is to stop funding their events! Why do we pay for our own self destruction, in this day and age of technology, by buying overpriced dinosaur bones? A switch to a fuel source like ethanol will create a bound with our neighbors in South America, people who want our patronage, and not the Middle East, sworn enemies.

Jobs for the Middle-Class/Balanced Budget: Although America can not create enough ethanol for the amount of consumption that we use we will need to reach out to our southern neighbors. This will establish the much needed financial boost to our economy by the trade of goods to all nations involved. The new industry created will establish new jobs here and abroad. If we compare the population of South America and the Middle East the amount of economic growth in South America is staggering!!! However, this means more money out initially, but a balanced budget when the industries pickup.

Global warming: Obviously, the use of alternative fuels will prevent use from snubbing our responsibility to all of earth’s inhabitants. Alaska alone, revamped with wind mill technology, can help reduce or eliminate the power shortages out in California. Solar panels can be placed in desert areas that can not be inhabited. What happened to hydro-powered plants and the dam? Why not build more dams and hydro-powered facilities in South America. Not a fan of a nuclear plant in your back yard? Nuclear energy plants can be built and housed in South America and the power sold to us cheaply. The continents of North and South America can be fueled with the strategic placement of wind mills, solar-powered, hydro-powered and nuclear plants.

I believe that anyone who runs on, and explains well, the ideas of a TRUE energy plan and North and South American trade union not only would win the Presidential race, but will win the hearts and minds of the America people. Please respond with opposing or agreeing thoughts.

Respectfully

Where do we Start?

RB — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:04:48 EDT

If you want to bring jobs back to america, where do we start? Everything from manufacturing to customer service has been exported. With a multitude of directions, I have chose manufacturing, as tangible goods are what has created our trade deficit with many countries in the world. But where do we start? Drawing up a bill or legislation? Every great idea has to start somewhere, and like a busines it should start with a business plan! Let me know the course, and lets get on it!