Rep. DeFazio on Rachel Maddow
by QuestionGirl • Saturday, January 24th, 2009 - 12:13 pm
Rep. Defazio (D-OR) talks to Rachel Maddow about the stimulus package. He is not a big fan of Larry Summers and thinks he’s steering Obama down the wrong road. According to DeFazio, Summers is not a fan of infastructure projects. Obama needs to tell the republicans to go pound sand on the tax cuts.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
At the current level of 500K jobs lost per month time is of the essence. If these morons don't get off their ass and do something pronto all the tax cuts in the world won't matter. How many months now have they been talking about rescuing homeowners being foreclosed on? Obama's E-team needs to step up and be the A-team or we're all gonna be sitting in the bleachers. Daily economic briefing? What is said? Things are really fucked up and even worse than yesterday? Come on, quit your bullshitting around and get-er-done or your TARP is going to be Troubled Americans Really Pissed. Getting it right won't matter if you don't get it done soon enough. The shot clock is running down Obama, it's time to put up a shot or go to the hoop. What's it gonna be?
January 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The pink elephant in the room is the wholesale outsourcing of every concievable industry and supporting infrastructure. I haven't heard one word about "cost of living import tariffs" or NAFTA/CAFTA/FFTA/WTO reform. Make it more profitable to bring industry back to these shores, additionally eliminating offshore tax havens, and you'll see jobs flourish and revenues increase. Otherwise we're putting band-aides on a gasping chest wound.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
NAFTA is a perfect example of a Dem POTUS (Clinton) and congressional republicans co-conspiring to sell the middle class down the river. IIRC economic advisor to Obama Larry Summers was heavily involved in getting that gem passed. INTERVIEWER: Generally how important was the [Clinton] administration's decision to stand by NAFTA?
LAWRENCE SUMMERS: I think the decision to support NAFTA was a crucial one because it was really a watershed as to whether America was going to stand for larger markets, was going to stand for forward defense of our interests by trying to have a more integrated global economy [in] which countries were growing. So [a] watershed in our relations with Mexico and establishing a real partnership with a country with whom we had a 2,000-mile border. I think it resulted in a profound change in the internal political dynamics in Mexico in favor of the progressive forces that believed in the market and friendship with the United States as opposed to the forces that believed more in socialism and opposition to the United States. And NAFTA didn't cost the United States a penny. It contributed to the strength of our economy both because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation. It didn't cost the budget anything. It was a very worthwhile investment for our country.
INTERVIEWER: But was it difficult to sell NAFTA politically in certain parts in the Democratic Party and to the public in general?
LAWRENCE SUMMERS: It certainly was difficult to sell NAFTA because it's always difficult to sell open markets. There's a basic cost of open markets, [such as] somebody losing a job, [which is] particular or very obvious, [but] the benefits are much less clear. Who said on Christmas Day, "Gosh, thanks, without open markets I would have been only able to buy half as many toys for my kid"? Or whoever says, "You know, I'm not that great a worker, but they really had no choice to promote me given the surge in export demand"? On the other hand, every job loss that can be remotely connected to international trade, people do. So this problem of invisible beneficiaries and very visible losers is one that bedevils the political economy of trade. Bro: NAFTA didn't cost the US a penny? By the US government's own admission, NAFTA alone resulted in the permanent loss of at least 1/2 million jobs.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Don't forget that Bush, Sr. was the negotiator of NAFTA - it was left to Clinton to sign off on. Just another one of those "bi-partisan" agreements. NAFTA actually harmed Mexican farmers by allowing, ala United Fruit Company, industry to force the prices of produce below that needed to run independant farms. So we get a flood of immigrants looking for jobs, at rock bottom prices, in US agriculture and construction. We save 2 cents per tomato. AgriCorp and BuilderCorp make much more, of course.
But nothing has been so insidious than the flood of industry to China. What was once the backbone of our middle class society, complex manufacturing, has been totally gutted. Short of some MIC and airframe construction, it's gone. Go look at washing machines, electronics, power tools, metal forging, light bulbs, just about everything at Wal-Mart and Target. China. Even the poor Taiwanese are feeling the pain.
Let me translate for Mr. Summers:
I think the decision to support NAFTA was a crucial one because it was really a watershed as to whether American Corporate Interests were to be allowed to exploit poor workers in larger markets without safety or environmental concerns, whether we were going to stand for forward defense of our greedy interests by trying to have a more integrated corporate global economy of exploitation [in] which countries were growing at the expense of American workers. I think it resulted in a profound change in the internal political dynamics in Mexico in favor of the greed soaked bastards in Mexico City that believed in the market, rock-bottom land aquisitions, and friendship with the pigs in the United States as opposed to the forces that believed more in socialism - and God knows we can't have anyone in the US seeing an example of that working in the public interest, thereby invalidating our dogma - and opposition to the corporate interests of the United States. And NAFTA didn’t cost the United States a penny, just it's middle class and soul. It contributed to the gutting of our economy both because of fewer exports - we don't make a damned thing anyone wants with the exception of bombs and guns - and because imports helped to lull an idiotic populace into shopalcoholic tendancies buying the disposable crap we dump in the stores. It didn’t cost the budget anything - we just keep taking what we want and damned the torpedoes. It was a very worthwhile investment for the corporate masters of our country.
It certainly was difficult to sell NAFTA because it’s always difficult to sell bullshit to people. There’s a basic cost of open markets, [such as] somebody losing a job, [which is] particular or very obvious, [but] the benefits are much less clear - and we plan to keep them that way. Hey, our profit margins increased from 8-12% to 80%. Who's not to be happy?
Who said on Christmas Day, “Gosh, thanks, without open markets I would have been only able to buy half as many cheap, poisoned, disposable, craptastic baubles for my kid”? Or whoever says, “You know, I’m not that great a worker, but they really had no choice to promote me to garbage collector given the downward surge in export demand”? On the other hand, every job loss that can be remotely connected to international trade, people do - because it's true.