The Respectfully Republican Conversation

They have to keep the press on their side, so making some feel like insiders and part of the team is paramount to their ultimate plans of spend, baby, spend.   We're not suppose to notice these small details that we do.

Feathers are flying all over the world now over the protectionism in the "Plan".  Use American products.  They said this will actually cost us jobs.  I think if they said only use steel made in America it wouldn't have brought out the big guns getting into this.  But it went on to say American manufactured products only.  Hmmm, that was going too far.  We do have trade agreements with other nations.  Obama hasn't been heard on this issue yet. (not his pay grade?)  Anything that will cost jobs here really shouldn't be in a plan trying to create jobs.  This is hilarious when we think about it.  The dummies.

Yea...wouldn't want to hurt their feelings or anything....

Terrorists are in and trading partners are out. 

My pet peeve here is why is this information about what is actually in this plan coming out so slowly?  There's other stuff too, we said it here, we knew it.  There had to be because the republicans wouldn't vote for it. 

This plan had its origin in the House.  They just threw the kitchen sink in it to see what will stick to the wall?  What will go unnoticed?  They're embarrassing themselves.  They had plenty of opportunity to sit down, look it over, get both sides of the aisle involved, and they didn't do that.  Pelosi's boondoggle, but who will she blame?  She couldn't even explain why money for STD's was in the plan when questioned about it.  It sounds like the plan needs a total overhaul.   

Darn right it was a joke and the sooner Canada is out of it the better.

Canada supplies a lot of our oil.  Sure let's go after them.  The only thing I don't want coming in is that strange Canola oil.  Anyone know what that is made of?

It's made from rapeseed oil - very controversial...sometimes referred to as CON-ola.

IBC (and all you gear heads) - I love the '65 Shelby - ouchy... it's a bit pricey!

vivre - Sharp!...but was it fast? lol

Oh and speaking of imported foods ...I'm excited about this! Illinois is actually working on a program that's promoting farming. The goal is to farm enough fresh produce locally in IL so we can eliminate the need for imports in our state.  

lol - And just think...if Wall Street returned all the bonuses...the tax gap would REALLY get smaller!

Read it and weep:

http://www.ithyroid.com/canola_oil.htm 

I only use olive oil and grape seed, with a G, oil. I don't trust any of the other stuff. Watch out for the hydrogenated stuff especially. No margarine of any kind.

Ijl-I remember so well how Reagan gave us real HOPE. He inherited an economy much worse than this. Interest rates of 17%, unemployment of 9%, etc. But instead of the doom and gloom that Obama is constantly proclaiming, Reagan came out and told us, "This is American, we can fix it" Obama wants to make it look so bad so that if his spending plan fails, which it will, he can turn around and blame Bush. He is also trying to say, I need 8 years to fix this mess. Remember he has never held a job long. He is always looking for the next one. He figures in 8 years he might turn enough people into Obots with his smooth talk, that he can then run for president of the world.

Bugs, thanks for the info on Frankenstein.

Laura, the tbird had a v8engine. "I had fun, fun, fun, til my Daddy took the tbird away!"

Vivre .. what about yogurt spreads?  I like Bummel and Brown, my mom's dr recommended it. Or should I stick with butter?

Disadvantages of NAFTA:
Loss of U.S. Jobs:
Since the cost of labor is cheaper in Mexico, many manufacturing industries moved part of their production from high-cost U.S. states. Between 1994 and 2002, the U.S. lost 1.7 million jobs but gained 794,00 jobs, for a net loss of 879,000 jobs of which 78% were in manufacturing. States hit particularly hard include California, New York, Michigan and Texas. These states have high concentrations of industries (such as motor vehicles, textiles, computers, and electrical appliances) which moved a large number of plants to Mexico. (Source: Economic Policy Institute, The High Cost of Free Trade, November 17, 2003)

Lower U.S. Wages:
Employers in industries that could move to Mexico used that as a threat during union organizing drives, thus suppressing wage growth. Between 1993 and 1995, 50% of all companies used the threat; by 1999, that rate had grown to 65%

.
Mexico's Farmers Are Being Put Out of Business:
Thanks to the 2002 Farm Bill, U.S. agribusiness is heavily subsidized - as much as 40% of net farm income. As tariffs are removed, corn and other food is exported to Mexico below cost. This benefits consumers, who pay less for food, but makes it impossible for rural Mexican farmers to compete. In contrast, between 1990-2001, Mexico decreased its subsidies to farmers from 33.2% to 13.2% of total farm income. Most subsidies go to Mexico's large firms, anyway. (Source: International Forum on Globalization, Exposing the Myth of Free Trade, February 25, 2003; The Economist, Tariffs and Tortillas, January 24, 2008)

Maquiladora Workers Are Exploited:
NAFTA caused an increase of the maquiladora program, in which U.S. owned companies employ Mexican workers near the border to cheaply assemble products for "export" to the U.S. This now comprises 30% of Mexico's labor force. These workers have "no labor rights or health protections, workdays stretch out 12 hours or more, and if you are a woman, you could be forced to take a pregnancy test when applying for a job," according to Continental Social Alliance. (Source: Worldpress.org, Lessons of NAFTA, April 20, 2001)
Degradation of Mexico's Environment Has Increased:
In response to NAFTA competitive pressure, Mexico agribusiness has increased its use of fertilizers and other chemicals, costing $36 billion per year in pollution. Rural farmers have expanded into more marginal land, resulting in deforestation at a rate of 630,000 hectares per year. (Source: Carnegie Endowment, NAFTA's Promise and Reality, 2004)

Here's an article shows why it's not good for Canada or Mexico:

Free Trade Creates Dependencies
Both Canada and Mexico are very different countries today then they were ten years ago. Mexico now has a trade surplus with the United States and is attempting to make the jump from an agriculture based economy to a more industrialized nation. Many experts agree that NAFTA has played a major role in the modernization of Mexico. For one, manufacturing exports have grown at an annual rate of 16% since 1994 (Salas, 2001). In addition, NAFTA has allowed Mexico to trade freely with more industrialized nations, namely the United States and Canada. Mexico has now become the fourth largest supplier of goods to Canada growing at an annual rate of almost 16% (Campbell, 2001). In addition, Mexico has replaced Japan as the second largest trading partner with the United States, growing at an annual rate of 17.5% (Salas, 2001). This activity stimulates industrial and economic growth as more and more the positives of maintaining a modern nation are realized. In addition, with more capital flowing into Mexico, more jobs were created in the industrial and manufacture sectors of the economy.

Since the adoption of NAFTA, trade between Canada and the US has also increased considerably. Canada is the number one trading partner with the United States. As a result of this relationship, Canada's export economy has experienced rapid growth over the last few years. It is estimated that Canada's exports make up approximately 40% of its gross domestic product which is almost twice what it was in 1989 (Campbell, 2001). Proponents of NAFTA argue that such an increase in the export economy has lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs for Canadians and Mexicans alike.
Despite the seeming success of NAFTA, if we look beyond the surface, disparities emerge and it is necessary to examine whether or not NAFTA has actually been beneficial to all the parties involved. While Mexico maintained a trade surplus with the United States for some time, it has managed to accumulate a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. In fact, Mexico's "net imports from the rest of the world now substantially exceed its net exports to the United States" (Salas, 2001). This shows that while free trade benefits Mexican relations with the US, it fails to translate over to the global economy. In many ways, Mexico has become more one-sided after NAFTA as it has simply become easier to focus investments and trade within North America. Such disproportion likely decreases Mexico's chances for becoming a powerful nation because it lacks the global and economic ties necessary for such a position. 
 

A similar situation is apparent in Canada's economy, almost half of Canada's gross domestic product results from exports into the US. Therefore, half of Canada's economy is dependant on the purchasing power of Americans. If the United States were to fall into a depression, it is likely that Canada, being its largest trading partner would be the first to feel the effects. Already Canada has experienced a huge blow to its job market as many corporations have opted to establish their factories in Mexico where they can take advantage of the lax environmental and labor laws. I will discuss this idea further in the next section, but it is important to make the link between the loss of jobs and the dependencies that follow. With fewer job opportunities, the Canadian economy has become increasingly unstable. Thus, Canada has become more dependant on Mexico and the United States for both imports and exports because these goods are easily accessible and come at no cost.

Indeed, NAFTA has succeeded in creating economic dependencies in North America, namely, Mexico and Canada upon the US. This dependency is now surfacing as a result of the slow down in the US economy. Most economist agree that "the negative effect of increasing trade and investment flows has been obscured by the extraordinary consumer boom in the United States, especially during the period from 1996 through the summer of 2000" (Faux, 2001). The boom marked a period of considerable economic prosperity in the United States which spilled over to Canada and Mexico. As a result, their economies "have now become extremely dependent on the capacity of U.S. consumers to continue to spend in excess of their incomes" (Faux, 2001). This consumer boom coupled with the close import/export relationships that Mexico and Canada have developed with the United States, has created a dependency that hinders forward progress.

------------

I am still reading the paper on this, will post relevant stuff if I find more.

Rock great post about NAFTA. Some states still get around it. Here is what they did to me: I ordered my windows straight from a Canadian manufacturer when I built my house. This Canadian company offered a quality and style the US companies did not. They were not cheap, but this was important to me. I did not have to pay any federal import taxes, but two years later, the state came back and slapped us with a $3000 tax bill. I said they had no right to put a sales tax on  free trade. They said it is not a sales tax, but a user tax. What a bunch of crooks! I am still steamed about this. And the Canadian window company is also a big loser, because they lose business in states that pull this.

On to health issues:

Rock, I do not use hardly any dairy products, especially yogurt. I read a book about the dairy connection to bc called, Your Life In Your Hands, by Dr. Jane Plant. You get get a lot of info by googling her website. Essentially, she felt that the yogurt she was eating during chemo was feeding her tumors. I use rice drink on my cereal and only use important cheeses that are hormone and antibiotic free, although I do not eat much cheese. I use olive oil in place of butter as much as I can, but I do use organic butter once in a while.

I made a long post on the Susan Somers/hormone discussion thread if you want to check out info on the hormone debate.

I enjoyed all the car talk, but feel guilty about leaving shirley out, so Shirley this is a question for you.. Back in your day, how did people go parking before there was cars?

Mr. Spouse they had those hitching posts where you tied up your horse............Shokk

I've sworn off posting here but I feel obligated to correct a few facts.  First, about canola oil - it actually is one of the healthier oils!

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp

http://www.canola-council.org/canola_oil_the_truth.aspx

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcanola3.htm

Next, about the impact of NAFTA on Canada, I won't go into all the details, but I would like to address the following statement from above:  "almost half of Canada's gross domestic product results from exports into the US. Therefore, half of Canada's economy is dependant on the purchasing power of Americans."  

In actual fact, according to several sources I can find (including one from the government of Canada and another from the CIA - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html), it is estimated that in 2008 approx. 35% of Canada's GDP was made up of exports, and of that, just under 79% went to the U.S..  This means that approx. 27% of the Canadian economy is dependent on the purchasing power of Americas, which is significantly less than the "half" quoted above. 

Still, most in Canada agree that this is a too heavy dependence on the U.S. and to address this, Canada has been pursuing many other free trade agreements, including one with Korea (http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/korea-coree/index.aspx) and one with the European Union (http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/efta-aele.aspx?lang=eng).  So rather than conclude that free trade agreements aren't good for Canada, the Canadian government is hoping to sign many more.  Additionally, even with these FTAs not yet being signed, Canada's overseas exports (i.e. non North American) increased in 2006 and 2007 by 13% and 17%, respectively. (As an aside, there is extensive historical economic information out there that shows that protectionist policy is not effective at building economies, quite the opposite, in fact.)

Don't believe everything you read, or at minimum, check out several sources before you decide what's the truth and what's not.