A Second Look Rotating Header Image

Just Foreign Policy News

A Second Look | Just Foreign Policy News, March 6, 2009 and More Republican Obstruction

Mar 7th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

Just Foreign Policy wrote:

Just Foreign Policy News, March 6, 2009


From: Just Foreign Policy [info@justforeignpolicy.org]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:37 PM
To: Tom
Subject: Just Foreign Policy News, March 6, 2009

The Senate stalled action on a $410 billion spending bill that would fund much of the federal government for the current fiscal year, the Washington Post reports. Reid said the Senate will consider further amendments, while he scoured for at least one more vote to break a Republican-led filibuster. The measure would permit U.S. citizens to visit relatives in Cuba once a year instead of once every three years, and it would loosen rules on food and medicine exports to the island. The Cuba language cost Reid at least one Democratic vote, that of Sen. Menendez.

Obstructionists. The Republicans have obstructed more legislation since the election of 2006 than any other time in U.S. history. The author wrote that “The Senate stalled action..” and it should have read that “The Republican’s in the Senate stalled action…”.

The Republican minority and George W. Bush put together a systematic onslaught of obstruction in order to bottle up any progress for our country. Why? Ideology. This is the stuff civil wars are made of.

Congress had to pass an emergency measure to keep the government running for a few more days:

From Congress OKs stopgap bill to keep government open
ANDREW TAYLOR | March 6, 2009 07:32 PM EST | AP

(snip) The stopgap measure was needed because on Thursday night, Senate Republicans unexpectedly put the brakes on the sweeping measure. The so-called omnibus bill would award domestic agencies with big spending increases and it also contains about 8,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers.

Republican Leaders set to Receive Pork for their Districts

(snip) Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill is loaded with “unscrutinized taxpayer-funded earmarks” that are “a textbook example of why Americans have grown so fed
up with Washington.”

(snip) And, to the embarrassment of Obama _ who promised during last year’s campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways _ the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

More obstructionism. What this ASSHOLE from the AP isn’t telling you is that of those 7,991 pet projects about 40% of, and almost half of the money allocated for this pork belongs to Republicans. Included are pet projects for Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell’s state of Kentucky and some for House Minority Leader, John Boehner’s district.

This is just more biased reporting from the Associated Press. He ended the article talking about Obama’s embarrassment. He wants to leave you with that picture in your head. That is the main trick that the Associated Press uses to influence your thinking. Anyway, the Republicans are giving their worthwhile pet projects good press, while they condemn any Democratic party’s worthwhile projects as “pork”. “Pork” is not all bad. It gets dilapidated bridges built.

,,,,,,,,,,

Share

A Second Look: Just Foreign Policy News, February 17, 2009

Feb 18th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

Just Foreign Policy wrote:

Just Foreign Policy News, February 17, 2009


From: Just Foreign Policy [info@justforeignpolicy.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:09 PM
To: Tom Chambless
Subject: Just Foreign Policy News, February 17, 2009
A coalition of major Canadian organizations yesterday urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to signal Canada’s willingness to renegotiate NAFTA in talks next week with President Barack Obama. In a letter sent in the run-up to next Thursday’s first visit to Ottawa by the new president, the coalition stresses revisiting NAFTA doesn’t mean scrapping it, but rather committing to a “transparent and comprehensive renegotiation.”


Never mind Canada. What needs to be discussed here is Mexico. It is absolutely essential that Mexico raises their minimum wage to at least half of the United States, as a beginning. This is from Bandaras News, December, 2008:

The minimum wage in Zone A, which includes Mexico City, Acapulco and several cities on the U.S. border including Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, will increase to 54.80 pesos ($4.18) a day from 52.59 pesos this year. In Zone B, wages will rise to 53.26 pesos daily from 50.96 pesos. The zone includes some of Mexico’s largest cities such as Monterrey and Guadalajara. Wages in Zone C, which applies to the majority of cities, will increase to 51.95 pesos a day from 49.50 this year.

Four dollars and eighteen cents per day. The real heartbreak of all this is the fact that under NAFTA U.S. manufacturing companies were allowed to close their factories and move to Mexico without assigning import tariffs to offset the difference in labor costs and thusly have little impact on U.S. labor. Tariffs would have balanced the deal and protected the price of labor in the U.S. But the radical right had to have it their way and NAFTA was passed anyway.

Another sad part is that these manufacturers were allowed to legally screw both American and Mexican workers in order to increase their profit margin. Americans, even if they were just getting minimum wage lost their jobs. American workers had to apply for unemployment and suffer through a period of time with no medical coverage and many still have no coverage even if they could find similar work.

Mexican workers were hired at their minimum wage thereby reducing the manufacturer’s labor costs by roughly 500%. Because the manufacturers caused that giant sucking sound and moved to Mexico thereby saving themselves tons of money in wages, did any of them pass any of those savings off to the American consumer? Of course not. They weren’t compelled to reduce their prices so they didn’t. They have made a fortune on cheap Mexican labor.

The long lasting effects and been a reduction of the cost of labor in the United States. We can’t compete with a wage of four dollars and eighteen cents per day. Renegotiate NAFTA? Hell yes.

,,,

Share

A Second Look: Just Foreign Policy News, February 2, 2009

Feb 3rd, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

Just Foreign Policy wrote:

Just Foreign Policy News, February 2, 2009


From: Just Foreign Policy [info@justforeignpolicy.org]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:08 PM
To: Tom Chambless
Subject: Just Foreign Policy News, February 2, 2009
Summary: 1) Obama seems unlikely to widen war in Afghanistan
Anne Gearan, Associated Press, Saturday, January 31, 2009; 12:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013100355.html


1) Obama has done little since taking office to suggest he will significantly widen the war against the Taliban, writes Anne Gearan for AP. Obama said he wants to add troops to turn back the Taliban, but has not gone beyond the 30,000 additional forces already under consideration by the previous administration. Those troops would double the U.S. presence, but amount to a “finger in the dike,” Gearan says.


Fourteen days. Obama has been in office fourteen days. Two weeks!

Obama has also done little since taking office to cure cancer, invent warp drive, and solve the Great Train Robbery.

Everyone just chill out.

You know, this is a trade mark of the Associated Press. They are mere alarmists doing whatever they can do to help promote the right-wing agenda. This little article is a scare tactic designed to add fuel to the fire of the right-wing talk machine. The Associated Press cleverly disguises their fake alarmism as main stream news. The statement charging that Obama “has not gone beyond” the 30,000 additional troops is insinuating that common wisdom says he must deploy more than that number to be effectual. The truth is the verdict is still out on how much effect that number of additional troops will have.

Debunking the AP:

Remember, the 30,000 troops aforementioned is an increase, not total. The Bush administration may have considered adding troops in Afghanistan, but Bush did not ever mention removing that many troops from Iraq to accomplish that mission. The Associated Press leads you to believe Obama is just following through with Bush’s plan – not true. In September 2008, Bush ordered half of the 8000 troops scheduled to rotate out of Iraq to be redeployed to Afghanistan – in February 2009, after he leaves office. This addition of only four thousand troops, far less than Obama’s number, was his “quiet surge” plan. Now, after January 20th, that ball is in Obama’s court.

Debunking the AP’s Petraeus mystique:

Also ahead is Army Gen. David Petraeus’ wider survey of both the Afghan and Iraq wars and other issues in the Middle East. Petraeus, military architect of the troop increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, is not likely to recommend a similar one in Afghanistan.

The Associated Press talks like the great General is about to give an edict from on high and the world will quake. President Obama will guide General Petraeus and the good General will fight the war(s) in accordance with Obama’s policies, guidelines, and objectives.

,,,,,,,

Share
← Earlier Posts
You are protected by wp-dephorm: