Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Economic Stimulus madness

0 helpful
47 replies

by maxwell edison

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16824.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090127/D95V83N81.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/26/MNU515G2DD.DTL

Hello! It's ALL pork - ALL of it.

Let me get this straight.

Congress takes money out of the pockets of Americans in the form of taxes, money that would have otherwise been spent or invested in the economy, they cart it around from one committee to another debating what to do with it, or they dangle it in front of one special interest group or another, and they then spend it (or invest it) in the economy.

Wait a minute. How about we simply eliminate the middleman? It seems to me that it would be more stimulating to just leave it alone in the first place - just don't take it to begin with. What difference does it make if Congressman Jones spends it or Mr. Citizen spends it? It still gets spent, thereby [i]stimulating the economy[/i]. Better yet, take even LESS money (in the form of taxes), and get even more Ms. Citizens spending it.

I have one question.

Where are we going, and what am I doing in this handbag?

47 replies

by tony hopkinson

quite obviously nor do they.

None of them Republican, Conservative, Democrat, Labour, Mugabe, the whole figgin' lot.

Doing it to save the 'economy', sorry, it's dead, they killed it.

Doing it save jobs, oh yeah right, anyone checked the unemployment numbers recently.

Doing it to save campaign contributions, now we are getting somewhere....

by ic-it

They are afraid that some monies going to local non-profits MIGHT end up in the hands of ACORN?

The package was reviewed by econimists and the report says roughly 4 million jobs will be created and that unemployment will be at least 2% lower than no bill?

The Republicans are upset that there are not more tax-cuts and more contribution from their side?

Who was it that won the election? Working together is nice, however that does not mean that purely republican platforms are going to be enacted.
Hello, McFly?

by tonythetiger

[i]The package was reviewed by econimists and the report says roughly 4 million jobs will be created and that unemployment will be at least 2% lower than no bill?[/i]

Who we listened to before??? Why should we believe them????

by the scummy one

they should not give out checks that many people will just bank. They should refund it with something like Visa gift cards. Force people to spend it or lose it :D What is'nt spent by next year, goes to pay down the debt a little tiny chunk of it at least.

by delbertpgh

Lots of true-seeming homilies in your complaint, except that they are only true some when they work, and when they don't, they're false. Here's what I mean:

"...taxes, money that would have otherwise been spent or invested in the economy..." Folks weren't spending. Banks weren't lending. Money was going nowhere, and when it doesn't circulate, wealth does not appear: work does not happen, and when people don't work, the items of value that they might have created just don't happen. The money that might have otherwise been spent or invested is lying fallow, because people are too scared to make it move.

Repeating what Paul Samuelson said in the Washington Post (you know him; your 1970s college economics book was probably written by Samuelson), we have three economic crises facing us: banks have stopped lending, consumers have stopped spending, and foreign trade is drying up. Each of these economic slowdowns is happening to an extent that, by itself, would demand the full attention of the government in any other year. This year, they are happening at the same time, and each collapse can feed the others such that nobody knows where the bottom will be.

I ordinarily would not say, "Go ahead and borrow two trillion dollars and spend it to make our problems go away." This is no ordinary year. We're standing at the edge of a new Great Depression, and we really don't want to go down there, no matter what the wisdom of conventional times would tell us.

by tony hopkinson

The two trillion isn't real. It doesn't exist, it's worth nothing. You can't buy anything with it. Inject that into the ecomony and money just becomes worth less.

Lets say the guvmint, 'gives' you 9k out of that two trillion, you pay 10k to GM for the car. How much is the car worth if you sell it the following day. $900.....

Paper exercise, the only thing the money is for is to cover their own arses.

by delbertpgh

Money exists in your hand because the central bank of your country lent it to the major banks, which lent it to commercial banks, which lent it to companies and parties interested in major purchases, who use it to pay their employees, who put it in the bank (which is the same as lending it to the bank,) which then proceeds to lend it out again. If the banks have a 10% reserve requirement, they can proceed to lend out 90% of everything they take in by way of loans and deposits (all of which is borrowed money, right?), then the original money borrowed from the central bank is multiplied by 900%. That's the magic, and the confusion, of fractional reserve banking. And if you laugh and say, "Delbert, fool, you talking crap; money is real!", then I will pat you on the hand, and tell you, "No, child, it ain't. It's all borrowed, and it's mostly a dream."

There's a certain inbuilt demand in a functioning economy for money, and if the central bank makes too much available, then it simply serves to inflate prices. Too much cash for useful purposes does not cause new cash transactions to be created to exploit it; but it tends to get used, anyway, by creating inflation. These times, though, are not like that.

People have stopped spending, and banks have stopped lending. People want to work and want to be paid; banks are afraid to risk making loans that can't be paid back; it's like there's a demand for money, and money will make things happen if it's in the right hands. But the chickensh*t players in our economy aren't going to make that happen on their own right now; nobody has any taste for risk. So if the money appears, there's a good chance it will meet a need, and cause no inflation at all; only good things.

Of course, once the economy gets back on its feet, the government had better haul that some of that loose money back in, or it will cause inflation. There'll be too much of it.

Paper exercise.

by jmgarvin

If we are going to spend money, let's invest in the crumbling infrastructure. How about building/fixing roads, the electrical grid, the water grid, public transportation, and let's not forget to dump some money into our airports.

I have a feeling we don't have much of a choice, so we might as well get some ROI out of it.

by delbertpgh

Spending on infrastructure is good. Spending on projects that will reduce transaction costs is good. Spending on improving the education and productivity of workers is good. Spending on stuff like alternative energy that will reduce cash outflow and the need to send our expensive overseas to defend somebody else's oil fields is good. All of these things involve spending today to raise economic activity tomorrow and reduce tomorrow's expenses, what you would call a return on investment. If there's a positive return, it makes it easier in the future to pay back that money we borrowed today, which is in addition to the economic activity (i.e., jobs and profits) we create today.

If all we do with a trillion dollars is keep auto workers building unprofitable cars for an extra two years, and putting up a few statues in courthouse squares, then it's wasted.

by thechas

Hear me out before you pass judgment on this.

Economics and the study of economic trends is a full fledged after the fact science. Thus, economic predictions and theories are far less accurate than long term weather forecasts.

The traditional way that tax cuts stimulate the economy is thus:

Joe average has more money to spend so he buys more tools and supplies at the local hardware store.

The hardware store owner buys more stock from his supplier.

The factories that make the hardware need to hire more workers to make the extra tools and supplies.

More workers mean more money in the economy, more homes, more cars and more people paying a lower tax right.

Great and wonderful, and all is good.

However, walk through any store but some high end clothing and specialty shops. Where are nearly all of the items, particularly those that start the trickle of economic growth made? China! Or some third world country.

What happens when you buy a lot of items that are imported?

First off, you stimulate their economies. They get the new jobs and the benefits of the economic growth.

Next, the balance of trade shifts further in their direction. Lowering the value and buying power of the US dollar.

Third, the Chinese banks and government are flush with US cash and buy up even more of the US debt. This gives us little political leverage to use when China does things that are against the best interest of the US people.

Forth and finally, the boom in the Chinese and third world countries sets off a steep rise in their energy usage raising the price of all products that rely on petroleum, and send the US economy deeper into recession.

In short, with our global economy and shrinking US manufacturing base, the tax cut genie is broken!

So, what fueled the economic growth in the Bush years? The same thing that fueled the bulk of the growth in the mid to late 1980's. Home equity, rising home prices, and cheap credit.

What to do?

Rather than attempt to use tax funds to stimulate the economy, or lower taxes to attempt to increase consumer spending, the Federal Government needs to work toward a balanced budget and start paying off the deposit.

Once the Federal Government stops borrowing new money, a lot of capital is freed up for investment in businesses, new ideas, and even reducing carbon emissions.

The lack of new borrowing by the Federal Government while Bill Clinton was President played a significant role in creating the venture capital that fueled the DOT-COM boom of the late 1990's.

I'll even go so far as to say that government borrowing has a greater negative impact on the US economy than a high tax rate and strict government regulations. Large government borrowing creates a safe haven for money that is perceived to have no risk. If the government is either not borrowing, or borrowing so little that the interest paid is very low, investors need to invest their money elsewhere.

If Washington can find the courage to both raise taxes and restrict spending, money will flow into the stock market and the venture capital markets. Then grab on and take the wild economic growth ride.

Chas

by tonythetiger

and why aren't more of ours over there? Why are they cheaper to produce, and still cheaper even after shipping?

Taxes and labor costs.

Now labor costs we can't do much about... We can't control the internal workings of other countries... but we CAN control taxes. We need to eliminate ALL corporate taxes. This will eliminate most of the price advantage foreign products enjoy here.

It will also make our products more competitive over there. It will start to level the playing field... and then we can start competing with quality rather than trying to compete with price.

by thechas

I've worked for several high volume manufactures of electronic controls for appliances and the auto industry.

The big cost factor is overhead. While taxes are part of that overhead, for the places I worked, taxes were a very small part of the total overhead.

Basically, everything that was not material or direct labor was classified as overhead. Some of the big items in the mix included all salaried staff, debt, depreciation of capital equipment and utilities. Overhead was running between 400% and 600% of direct labor costs at the last high volume company I worked for. Removing the tax portion of that overhead was not going to make them competitive in the global market.

This company pays there production workers just over minimum wage and gives them very few benefits. Even so, because of management errors, they are in bankruptcy.

Their management errors include suing, or being sued by, nearly every customer. If there is no reason to sue the customer, a key supplier gets sued. Heck, they are even suing one of their law firms! Law classes use their litigation as a prime example of how not to litigate.

We used to joke that the profitable projects go straight from design to litigation.

But, I digress.

Taxes and regulations are continually held as examples of why third world countries have have lower costs than US manufactures. While I will not deny that there is a cost, at the manufacturing companies I have worked for, the cost of taxes and compliance have not been a significant burden. At most, they have been in the range of 5 to 10% of operation costs.

Even if all health care, tax, and regulation costs were eliminated, $5 per hour wages just cannot compete with $1 per day wages.

Manufacturing no longer is the base of the US economy. And, nothing is going to bring it back until wages in the third world countries begin to reach those in the US.

Of course, we have gone far beyond out-sourcing manufacturing. We are now out-sourcing the creation of intellectual property. Be it design centers in India, or the Boeing collaboration deal with China, the next big shift in our economy will be the loss of engineering, science and technical careers. Followed shortly thereafter by management.

The only chance we have of keeping any economic growth potential is to foster innovation in new ideas and concepts. Until the Federal Government stops borrowing money, there will not be sufficient money available for the venture capital market.

Now, I do agree that we should reduce if not eliminate taxes on businesses that produce a product if, they operate in a socially responsible manner.

Other business types like entertainment, sports and recreation should pay taxes just the same as individuals do.

Of course, if we were to eliminate taxes on any type of business venture, the other countries would run to the WTO and we would be slapped with tariffs for not competing fairly.

Chas

by tony hopkinson

I know what money is worth. It's worth what I can buy with it.

Two trillion won't buy you a sip of water in the right circumstances.

If you wrote a program that multiplied everybodies positive bank balance by hundred, these fools would would worship you.

Why do they want to lend us money, to buy stuff we don't need to keep their rampant consumerist economy alive.

Not lending, interests rates, inflation, deflation, symptoms...

by tony hopkinson

as a Mugabe Dollar then ?

What would two trillion of them buy you, a $900 car, if you are quick.....

Tomorrow, it will be a $0.9 one.

by tonythetiger

in fact, eliminate income, corporate, inheritance, payroll, and use taxes. Fund the government entirely from the proceeds at the cash register. That way you can choose at what level you want to support, and you'll pay the same tax on foreign goods as domestic ones.

by notsochiguy

...an appropriately sized tax; but it could be done.

People don't like to talk about it, but if you had a sales tax, you'd probably end up seeing more money flowing into the feds than you do now, even if you marginally reduce the effective taxing rates. That's because you end up getting money from additional streams:

Criminals (drug dealers rollin' in Escalades and what not don't fill out 1040's, I'm pretty sure...could recoup some of the money spent on the 'drug war')

Illegal Aliens (again, not filling out 1040's, but they are buying food and such...a way to recoup the money spent on stopping them)

Foreign Tourists (they're using the highway in and out of Disney World just like I am, and are protected by the US while they are visiting)

People who manipulate the current system (tax loopholes, exaggerating deductions, what have you)

Internet transactions

Etc, etc, etc.

I'm not a fan of welfare (despite having grown up dependent on it) for people that are law abiding citizens. I'm DEFINITELY against subsidizing the lifestyles of people that are neither citizens or law abiding. The current tax system is doing just that, however.

Of course, removing the way we are currently taxed would remove a ton of leverage the feds have over common citizens (no fear of audit); and I am doubtful that members of either party would want to cede such a hefty hammer.

by tony hopkinson

How much governing do you need. Probably a total coincidence, but governments decide this.

Right chaps do we need more government?

Yes, wow , falls off chair in surprise. That was a shock etc.

How much governance do you think the US needs, how much of that are you willing to pay for? How much are you prepared to make someone else pay for, for the 'common good'. How common is that good?

One has got nuffin' to do with the other.

by av .

This is comforting. http://www.recovery.gov.

I can't believe whats on the list in this article you posted http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/26/MNU515G2DD.DTL.

It looks like an upgrade to the government and help for the poor, but nothing for the middle class. $6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings. How does THAT stimulate the economy as a whole?

This is just pure pork. A true stimulous package should have wide reaching effects for all of us, not just for government workers and the poor. I think projects like the electrical grid and road reconstruction are worthwhile projects, and necessary, but thats it. Just give people some tax breaks and we can stimulate the rest of the economy on our own. We're good at spending money too. Thats for those of us that still have jobs, however.

I can't believe that this country is in the position that its in. We were scammed. We can only hope that our lawmakers can fix it. Uh-oh.

AV

by jamesrl

Infrastructure improvements do stimulate the economy in a way.

If you revamp a building, it is going to be a private construction company that gets the work. They in turn spend money on equipment (trucks, tools, materials). All those people so employed spend money, pay taxes etc.

The question is, whether these investments in infrastructure would be better than letting the money loose in the market? After all it costs money to collect taxes, and money to administer the spending on the programs. Would we be better off to let the money stay in the hands of the public?

One of the factors no one wants to face is that this does little in the short term. As we in Canada are finding out, there is little that is "shovel ready", unless you want to simply the bidding processes, and eliminate the environment reviews etc. So it might be faster to not collect those taxes in the first place, and hope the market can work faster than the government.

BTW in Canada, we are implementing a modest stimulus package AND tax cuts for the middle and lower class (anyone under $80K income).

James

by maxwell edison

The bill passed the House with a vote of 244-188, with 11 Democrats joining the Republicans, all of whom voted against it.

244 Democrats voted yes.

188 Democrats and Republicans voted no.

Those advocating [i]bipartisanship[/i], the Democrats, are actually the real partisans.

by jdclyde

How does giving to "the arts" stimulate the economy or make jobs?

Most of the break-down in the detroit free press today had NOTHING to do with the creation of jobs, or stimulating the economy, so how can this still be called a "stimulus" package?

True, it does give a back door to the socialized meds agenda, but that won't do any good once the economy REALLY tanks because it isn't the real focus.

by dhcdbd

>"Even if all health care, tax, and regulation costs were eliminated, $5 per hour wages just cannot compete with $1 per day wages."

Raise duties and tariffs so that they are equivalent.

>"Manufacturing no longer is the base of the US economy. And, nothing is going to bring it back until wages in the third world countries begin to reach those in the US."

I disagree, by raising duties, etc. to the above levels you encourage production to return to the country to compete as well as force the exporting countries prices to become lower.

>"Of course, if we were to eliminate taxes on any type of business venture, the other countries would run to the WTO and we would be slapped with tariffs for not competing fairly."

Recall all troops world wide back to U.S. soil and notify the world that if they have a problem with our policy they can take it up on the battle field and that our first response will be nuclear; our second reponse, if it is needed will be conventional.

by tony hopkinson

If you impose tarriffs to block imports, you'll get a tit for tat response. Perhaps you could nuke those who try this on you though...
If will have nothing to do with the WTO, which as far as I can make out, the US dominates anyway.

Stop policing the est of the world, go for it, they don't want to be policed anyway. Your 'defense' industries will scream blue murder though.

I'm all for hacking back at globalisation, but it's not the globe that wants it. It's large domestic corporations who feel they should be expanding their fiefs.

Dear Saddam, if you don't stop requesting an invasion, we will nuke you...

Yours resentfully
GWB

That would have worked much better than what you did, I'll admit....

by jamesrl

We would have nuked DC already.

We went to the WTO three times on softwood lumber, and every time they ruled in our favour. Eevn after all that, the US government stalled, hedged and obfuscated. Because it was in their best interests, at least for those in lumber producing states. It drove up the cost of construction for those wanting to buy new homes, but hey thats ok.

Take a look at the auto industry. Stuff goes back and forth all the time. A part may come from the US, get shipped to Canada where it is assembled in a vehicle and then the vehicle is shipped down to the US for sale. The reverse also happens - parts made in Canada get shipped to the US for assembly, and some of those cars get sold in Canada. Who do you want to punish - everyone in the industry? Do you wanna pay double duties on that?

James

by jamesrl

Let me set the stage here. Roughly 25 years ago, Ronald Reagan practically blackmailed Canada into accepting free trade. We eventually saw the light and ended up signing up to the deal. A major election was fought with free trade as the main issue. We struggled for years as the US (under both Clinton and Bush) abused the agreement regarding softwood lumber. Bush finally resolved (not entirely satisfactorily) the issue.

Now we find that some congresscritters just don't get it. We don't block your businesses from selling in Canada, to our government or anyone else. You need to do the same. That is the deal our nations signed up for. Congress does not have the rigth to unlilaterraly decide to ignore the deal.

This wasn't part of Obama's original package, it was an add on. And while Obama may spike, it could also go the other way - the rumour mill has it that some senators want to extend it to all manufactured goods.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/579557

As one of our ministers has pointed out, an escalating protectionism in the thirties is seen as a cause for a recession developing into a depression.

I don't want to sound like Oz, but if you force Canada to retaliate, prepare to pay more for oil. I don't want to go there, I am a free trader, but we cannot accept a one sided deal.

Oh and the fact that it may be illegal, hey since when does that matter.

James

by oz_media

So you type faster than me. :D

I just finished typing a similar comment, though not as eloquent, about the exact same issue, and used the same link to support it.

Great minds think alike, dumb ones seldom differ. Either way, it works.

by jamesrl

Drugs are only one aspect. Trades are another. Many tradespeople here offer up a cheaper cash price because with cash they won't declare the income. With a sales tax, you will at least catch it when they spend it.

Its also easy to make a tax change. Our Goods and Service Tax(GST) has been reduced twice in the past two years, and it was very easy to do, unlike overhauling the arcane legislation that is the tax code.

James

by tony hopkinson

Instead of deciding the rate of income tax, it would be that of sales tax and probably rates on types of goods (and services).

How about a green / health awareness campaign with a near crippling tax on fast food.

Tax cuts are always allied to spending cuts.

Beaurocracy, overseas aid, armamaments, welfare, space, red tape, subsidies...

They never talk about cuts in paying for what they think you should pay for, only in terms of what now given the power they don't want to.

Ideology is irrelevant, the power to tax means we get to pay for what they want, on the basis of course that if we didn't we wouldn't have voted for them. That's their mandate.

by maxwell edison

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Total Cost of Stimulus Legislation: $825 billion.

How does this compare?

- In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clinton?s proposed stimulus legislation *only* contained $16 billion in spending

- The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

- This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills. If you had a stack four inches high, you?d be a millionaire. A trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills would measure just over 63 miles high.

- In $20 bills, a trillion dollar stack would be 3150 miles high. That?s about the distance between DC and Trujillo, Peru.

President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.

This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.

This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.

Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.

Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. $800 billion more will not change that.

Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway ?stimulus? can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector. The private sector then loses or forgoes roughly the same number of jobs.

Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 ?stimulus? bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world). Their economy remained stagnant and their per capita income went from the second highest in the world to the tenth highest.

Source:

http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=64

by xnavydk

I see you in the basket with me and them and all the others that are on the way in. I will be better off then most because of my military retirement but wow is all i can say.

Oh and saying the corporate america should be ashamed of itself is not good enough Mr Obama... DO SOMETHING

by oz_media

PORK and priorities, the thought of hundreds of millions being sunk into NP's such as ACORN would upset me too, though SOME of the funding seems well allocated, even if the monetary priorities are seemingly screwed, for example;

>600Million for General Service Administration to upgrade vehicles and introduce alternate fuel vehicles, uh, SIX HUNDRED MILLION?!?

but

$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.

I know you aren't into the great GW swindle Max, that's not my debate but the monetary allocation is not exactly what I would considered balanced. Okay, so how about $150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation? Only 150 million to improve your waterways and international shipping routes that some countries won't ship through as they are unsafe for deep hulled or tall vessels, but 600 million for new cars.

Or, $6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.

Okay we all know that FEDERAL BUILDINGS encompasses a whole lot of structures. Are schools in the US considered federal Buildings or is that a state administrative building?

If so, how much of that money will see schools or hospitals (oh yeah, they are private, right? )as opposed to putting a more efficient espresso machine in the government administration offices.

Okay anyway, that's more of a localized, Us issue even though your economy almost directly impacts our own.

Onto the N, NAFTA.

One of my issues with Obama, pre-election,was his focus on ignoring our trade agreements. His 'Buy American' mindset is actually seen as illegal action taken against an international trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States.

His recent move against Canadian steel importing blocks a more than 9 BILLION dollar export industry to the US from Canada and other countries.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/579557

"A country cannot bring in a measure that restricts international commerce and international activity in this way," he [i](Canada's PM- Steven Harper)[/i] said.

"I don't view that as some of the pure free traders view it, as a harbinger of protectionism," Biden said.

This was one of my concerns, not steel specifically but Obama's desire to ignore existing trade agreements, which have already been greatly abused by the US.

"The U.S. House of Representatives passed an $819 billion stimulus package Wednesday night that would effectively bar Canadian iron and steel from infrastructure projects receiving the federal funds. Foreign substitutes for American-made products would only be allowed if the American content drove up the cost of a project by 25 per cent ? much higher than the 6 per cent to 7.5 per cent price advantage allowed under current regulations. "

I can almost respect the FOCUS of such a move, Canada has frowned on such imported labour from Germany when building our latest group of BC Ferries, which used to provide local steel workers and finish carpenters a great contract (but they were unable to accommodate the vessel size, refused to upgrade facilities and then complained when Germany took on the bid, but that's another rant). However we don't have a NAFTA agreement or an EUFTA agreement with Germany for such imports.

FREE trade means just that freedom to trade. That means just as US companies come to Canada and flood our marketplace wit cheap crap, while putting local outlets out of business, we also have the ability to outbid, outsell US operations. Fair is fair after all, agreements must encompass and benefit all parties involved.

But to place rewards into the hands of US companies seeking raw materials from FREE TRADING PARTNERS is the same as a big bribery scam to favour one company over another.

yup, one issue where McCain held his head straighter and offered a little consideration and respect for trade partners that depend on this agreement as much as the US does, as far as I'm concerned.

its the US playing bully with such agreements that cause so much unrest towards US foreign policies. You want what's best for the USA, which is fair, but you can't do so when you declare a level playing field and then expect to slope it so everything trickles down to the USA.

sorry, rant over, hopefully not too many typos for you.

by oz_media

I was looking at the time my own reply was posted, not your comment ! :D

But I could have started 3hrs earlier and you still would have posted before me. I watched at least 10 different reports on it last night, really got me PO'd actually. Especially seeing as he is still ignoring the softwood lumber tariffs its as if nothign ever happened and all is peaches and crea min his mind.

Like I said before, I liked BOTH Candidates, but some things Obama is focused on don't sit well with me.

This discussion is closed to new replies.