The Drama of Obama literally just said that it was his goal to change foreign policy to reflect an America that didn’t think it was better than other countries. While refreshingly candid, it is most disconcerting that a man who could become President of the United States denies the concept of American exceptionalism as a both an ideological and factual premise of our relationship with the rest of the world.
Even more frightening, the crowd went wild.
Not to be outdone, Hillary then said that she would take a “trade time out”, and said it in the context of stopping American international trade to "evaluate what works". Does anyone in Iowa remember the last, and much smaller scale, "time out from trade"? Back in 1980, the last liberal protectionist who ran the the country, Jimmy Carter, embargoed crop and livestock exports to the Soviet Union. I hope the Midwestern voters who are old enough to remember the four year depression in the agricultural economoy that Jimmy and his protectionism caused share the experience with those too young to have experienced it .
Even worse, the American economy of 2008 is far more dependent on our exports than we were in 1980. If our trading partners logically respond to overt protectionism (like they historically have done) and stop buying American goods and services, the results would far more closely resemble the protectionism of the early 30s-global depression than the agricultural depression that despoiled the Midwest from 1980 to 1984.
Yes, America that is what the Democrats have to offer. The question is whether you are sufficiently gullible to buy this dangerous gibberish?
Even more frightening, the crowd went wild.
Not to be outdone, Hillary then said that she would take a “trade time out”, and said it in the context of stopping American international trade to "evaluate what works". Does anyone in Iowa remember the last, and much smaller scale, "time out from trade"? Back in 1980, the last liberal protectionist who ran the the country, Jimmy Carter, embargoed crop and livestock exports to the Soviet Union. I hope the Midwestern voters who are old enough to remember the four year depression in the agricultural economoy that Jimmy and his protectionism caused share the experience with those too young to have experienced it .
Even worse, the American economy of 2008 is far more dependent on our exports than we were in 1980. If our trading partners logically respond to overt protectionism (like they historically have done) and stop buying American goods and services, the results would far more closely resemble the protectionism of the early 30s-global depression than the agricultural depression that despoiled the Midwest from 1980 to 1984.
Yes, America that is what the Democrats have to offer. The question is whether you are sufficiently gullible to buy this dangerous gibberish?
14 comments:
NEVER underestimate how gullible the American voter can be.....look at what we got the last two presidential elections.
When given the choice to eat a shit sandwich or a different shit sandwich.....
What's scary to me is the cult like following that Obama seems to be cultivating..
He says the word "Hope" or "Change" in a speech..and women start fainting in the aisles..
Are Americans really that gullible to give the keys to our freedom to someone who hasn't lead a day in his life?
sporie:
I guess it's just the conservative way, that to prove a point they will alter history, employ invective, distort reality, conjure up another lie that incites their masses.
Though one can reasonably argue that Jimmy Carter's 1980 grain embargo was a mistake, even folly, one cannot argue that the action was based on "protectionism".
It may be that you are unaware - a presumption easily arrived at given the bulk of your postings - but more likely you know that your audience is probably unaware of the real reasons for the embargo, so it becomes fair game for revisionism; that ever present tool in the conservative bag of tricks.
The 1980 grain embargo was invoked in reaction to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. It was put in place to punish the USSR for its attempt to expand via military action. It had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "protectionism". Your assertion that it did is one more example of conservative spin crossing the line to conservative lying.
Would that your audience understood that your lying is necessary because you have no other solutions. True, America is likely much more dependent on exports than we were in 1980. The primary reason for that is we have given up much of our production capability. We no longer manufacture much of what we consume. We have significantly reduced our raw material supply. Our "patriotic?" businesses have relocated manufacturing and purchasing to countries offering lower labor costs with inequitable safety and environmental regulations. We are, today, also much more dependent on "imports" than we were in 1980.
America grew to greatness, in large part, due to our ability to produce much of what we desired and most of what we needed between the boundaries of our own shores. In the period after WWII our growth and success grew in geometric proportions, largely due to the destruction suffered by much of the world's industrial competition.
I am of the opinion that Bill Clinton, and others, promoted free trade naively. I think they thought, conventional wisdom at the time, that free trade would open doors for our flourishing manufacturing capability. I don't think they envisioned the likelihood that free trade would allow for manufacturing to be shipped overseas with the products coming back, tariff free. I fear that in the backrooms of corporations, they pushed for free trade, full well knowing the vast opportunities for additional profits inuring from cheaper labor overseas.
Globalization, is slowly, creepingly moving us toward a totally consumption based economy. The advent and the current trends of globalization have focused primarily on unskilled labor advantages. As China, India, and many others increase their literacy rates and their standards of living, they will enter the next evolutionary step; that of producing more sophisticated equipment; more advanced technological production, commencing to destroy our last defense in maintaining exports. As more and more of the third world begins to enjoy economic growth, our worth as a consumption economy will decline. This will take decades, perhaps centuries, but during the process we will continue sliding downhill. We will be much like an Alzheimer's patient slowly bleeding away our capacities, our worth, our value.
Something needs to change. Some reversing actions must be taken to medicate the disease. Currently we still have strength and viability due to our huge consumption market. Foreign traders, as yet, can ill afford to lose access to our markets. This allows us options, dicey as they may be. There is no doubt that any attempts at solutions will have to be thoroughly thought-out and hopefully will include a concerted look at any unintended consequences. You cannot, however, simplistically exclaim that everything is alright and that nothing needs to be considered.
Are Americans really that gullible to give the keys to our freedom to someone who hasn't lead a day in his life?
One would hope that we learned a lesson from our Dumbya experience. As admirable and honorable as he is, John McCain ain't the answer either.
There is a memorable quote from the movie, The American President, "we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."
Arthur, you of course understand that an embargo of any kind for any reason is "protectionist" do you not? The motive isn't really the point.
The point, that you missed, is that protectionism never works in a trade based nation and particularly not for us.
Do Democrats actually hold seminars on obsfuscation or do you think of this nonsense on your own?
Art,
I will not begin to comment on your insane support for Jimmy Carter's conduct considering nobody on God's Green Earth defends Jimmy's economy or his stupid embargo. Since I skimmed your novel (and I mean that in both senses of the word) response and not wanting to waste another ten minutes I decided to keep it to one reading and not respond to it.
Back to the topic of the discussion which is Obama and foreign relations I think it's obvious he's either an easy duped idiot or particularly angry at the American military. His story that we're using captured Taliban weapons to fight our war because we can't supply our own troops is crazy beyond crazy to all of us serving in the War on Terror. If he believes that story he really should invest in the Golden Gate because some fool is selling it for only $1 down at the corner. It also shows Obama hasn't visited Iraq or Afghanistan to see things on the ground because if he had visited he would know better than to relate such an impossible scenario.
I may HATE Hillary (I saw the KKK is actively supporting Obama which shows there are people who REALLY hate Hillary far more than I) but at least Hillary has been to Iraq and knows better than to say such silly things as Obama. Too bad she didn't crack him on that one and expose him as the idiot he is for making that statement.
OK,
It turns out the KKK story about Obama supporters I read turned out to be false but at least that was more realistic than Obama's retold story that the US Military is running out of weapons and bullets.
sporie:
I didn't go to law school but my college courses impressed me with the idea that the law is all about words and meanings.
According to Webster, a protectionist is, an advocate of government economic protection for domestic producers through restrictions on foreign competitors. This is far afield from your asinine assertion. It is not protectionist to disallow exports to a foreign entity.
I can't believe your "motivation" statement. In the often confusing obscurity of the English language, "motivation" usually defines the action. In the more serious areas of law, such as criminal, a killing is a killing but the criminal charge and the eventual guilt or innocence is frequently based on the existence and manner of "motive".
Of course the "motive" isn't really the point because you don't have a point if you include "motive".
It keeps getting clearer as to why you are a practicing divorce attorney. Divorces are generally he said/she said harangues which require no complex thought. I'm sure you can function adequately in an environment devoid of complex thinking. In the realm of cognitive thinking you might make a good janitor.
kenrichards:
You ought to stick to asking questions. When you commence asserting things your ignorance begins to shine.
Physical fitness always being a good thing, there are better exercises than constantly inserting your foot into your mouth and then extracting it. Is an interesting approach: Post an incorrect thought(that word is used very loosely in your case)and then post a retraction. Not atypical for a conservative except that most never post the retraction.
Likely it's best that you don't read my "novels", it's apparent that you won't comprehend them.
Art,
I am sure you have the foot in thy mouth thing pretty much all to yourself. But, as they say, ignorance is bliss so I'm sure you're quite content with yourself.
And it didn't take me 4000 words to point it out.
kenrichards:
I'm not the one that keeps having to correct postings on here. Reagan and the Duke? It would appear that my treatises are not the only thing you don't read.
I seriously doubt your brain contains 4000 words of thought.
Art,
You really got me on that one. Ohhh boy, I am scorched and afraid to ever write anything in response to your daily versions of "War and Peace" because you caught me in the mistake of the ages on the Duke correction. I guess you'll just have to go back to attacking TRS which seems to be your favorite pastime even if a good 75% of your writing makes no sense at all.
One bit of advice though, get up a little earlier in the morning and find a way to improve your IQ by 100 points rather than write 10,000 words of gibberish.
kenrichards:
Gracious! If we keep these posts going I'll be up to a 1,000,000 words in no short order.
I have only run across your Duke and KKK corrections so far, I have not gone back in the archives and perused how many other corrections you have had to make.
Hell, 2,500 words of sense ain't all bad.
I'm good at multitasking, I can handle attacking sporie and you at the same time.
Were I to improve my IQ by 100 points that would qualify me for Mensa. I don't even need a 100 IQ to compete here. Consider the failing may be more the fault of the reader than the writer(assuming you can comprehend that statement).
I can't believe everyone is buying into what was said in that debate. Both candidates contradicted themselves regularly, and when they weren't they were just wrong. Read all the issues with their answers here: http://www.thepolitrick.com/?p=83
Post a Comment