I am (less) concerned

[quakerboy]

I see two things today that worry me. Perhaps someone who is more in tune with these things can explain why these are good

1: Gibbs saying that the White House would like to reinstate the cross border trucking program with Mexico.

2: a move to privatize VA functions

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. There has been no move to privatize VA functions.

Shinseki said that it had been one of the options on the table. But it will never happen and they have *not* put it forward as their plan.

[quakerboy]

2. Thank you

I am very glad to hear that. I don't see much discussion of this, so all I had to go by is a quick snippit of Rachel Maddow.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Vets organizations are preemptively working against it to make *sure* that it doesn't become the

plan. As they should.

[quakerboy]

11. Indeed

again thank you. I was working from a position of very little information on a topic of great import to me, which is why I was concerned and asking, not condemning. I am very glad to have that concern allayed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. No worries. There is a great article here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8266199&mesg_id=8266199

[FrenchieCat]

4. I'm concerned too,

but for different reasons.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8266149

[quakerboy]

8. and what exactly is

H.R. 1424. if you would be willing to briefly explain.

[Two Americas]

10. the economic stimulus bill

Republicans voted against it. Therefore, any criticism by any of us of any Democrat makes us Republicans, too. Also, anyone expressing any populist themes is helping the Republicans, too. That is as near as I can come to interpreting it.


...

[FrenchieCat]

14. No, you fail.

What it does is explain the Corporate Media's sudden interest
in the Populist outrage schtick.

I may be simple compared to you,
but I'm not stupid.

[Two Americas]

16. sorry

I was being needlessly sarcastic, and I apologize for that.

I don't watch MSM, so I am not up to speed on what you are talking about. I don't know what "the Populist outrage schtick" is, nor what is Corporate Media saying, nor what the connection is to the stimulus bill. I probably agree with you about whatever the MSM is saying, but I don't know what they are saying.

Also, you said DUers are helping them. How so?


...

[FrenchieCat]

18. Some are.....

Some DUers are believing that the MSM has finally woken up....and it ain't that.

[Two Americas]

23. ah

Well I didn't think they were asleep. I thought they were merely serving their wealthy and powerful masters.

But what is the populist thing about, and the stimulus bill reference?

[FrenchieCat]

24. That's all the media has been talking about today....

How we should just all be mad as hell,
and then they decided that Obama had been caught "off" guard,
in responding on Monday, although they only found out on Sunday.

Populist outrage was actually the phrase they used
say over and over again how the people are outraged,
although they hadn't really gotten out there and talked to any people,
except for through the twitter phenomenon that they have been pushing
as the populist method of communicating truth to power
for like the last two months.

They concluded that Obama is blaming Bush too much for the economy,
and that the economy as it stands is Obama's doing almost,
and that 55 days in office is just like 100 days, just slightly less.....

[Two Americas]

25. ok

I don't know. I would turn it off. They are doing what they always do.

What are we supposed to be mad about?

[FrenchieCat]

26. Of course, we are outraged at bonuses and bail outs........

moreso than anything else ever.

When millions were outraged marching in the streets,
during the Iraq build up, we were simply ignored.

When we were outraged because of Billions of dollars in Iraq,
and trillions in the Pentagon couldn't be accounted for,
we were ignored.

When we were totally pissed about the outing of a CIA agent,
we were just given some coverage eventually, but no results.

In otherwords, now is the time for outrage,
cause before, it was too soon....so the Corporate media has decided.

[Two Americas]

28. I see what you are saying

The public is in a bad mood. The right wingers will try to steer that and blame the administration. But that has more effect on us then it does on the general population.

When millions of immigrants were in the streets fighting for justice, they were largely ignored by the activists and liberals and progressives.

A broader consensus is required than that which the media is portraying to you - narrow partisanship. A strong Left would be the tide on which the administration could sail. But you keep seeing that as harming Obama.


...

[FrenchieCat]

13. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Bush's 700 Billion Bail Out bill.

The GOP is positioning itself,
and the media is helping them.
That's why you hadn't seen any outrage peddled by the media,
during Bush's entire term.
Now the Corporate media has decided to push "Outraged Populism".
They tried with Santelli's failed attempt,
But this is much better for all parties concerned.

[quakerboy]

17. Is Paul Rieckhoff corporate media?

He doesn't seem terribly beholden to me. He spoke out quite loudly when Bush was president. Should he stop now?

How about the trucking program? Thats something that I heard denounced quite loudly when Bush was still in, though not by the TV pundits who by and large ignored it. And I don't see a squack about it on Corpmedia now, either. The people upset by its potential return are the same as the people upset by it under bush.

Are there no legitimate concerns? Because there are still Republicans fighting against the future of our country I can never ask questions about things that I notice?

[FrenchieCat]

21. No, I was OT. This doesn't have anything to do with

the Trucking program (that's on hold, so there is no program as of now),
and Rieckhoff spoke plainly. What he did was helpful....
As Obama is stirring up debate, but the Veterans had to say they didn't want that
proposal to see the light of day.....and so that it could be taken off the table.

That's how Obama may govern it appears.
He puts a possible policy out there on the table, and allows our voices to get rid of what we don't like. I find it refreshing.

[Venceremos]

5. Regarding the cross border trucking program

Mexico plans to retaliate for the US stopping the program, by increasing tariffs on about 90 agricultural and industrial products from 40 US states.

President Obama is therefore working with lawmakers to craft a bill that will deal with the lawmakers' concerns about cross border trucking. For instance, they're worried about the safety of letting virtually unregulated Mexican trucks move freely across the border. In other words, the President may reinstate it, but I don't think in the exact same form as before.

Source: http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=21500

I can't answer your second concern.

Edited for clarity

[quakerboy]

7. Is it really in our best interests?

I have as yet to hear any credible defense of the original plan, in ANY way. Readopting a bad idea with some safety features still seems like you have a bad idea at the core.

[Venceremos]

12. I don't know

we'll have to see what the new plan says. I have mixed feelings - my husband is a trucker so this is no good for him, but on the other hand the tariffs could hurt us all, assuming Mexico isn't bluffing.

[quakerboy]

15. I assume that we can do the same

Given the following:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html#2009

We run a trade deficit with Mexico. If they put a tariff on something we send them, we do the equivalent on something they send us. And ours will end up larger, by volume, which means it would hurt them more than us.

What can they make in Mexico that we cannot make for ourselves? Whatever it is we sell to them, the same number of workers could make whatever it is we buy from them instead, for a net gain to us.

Isn't this exactly the heart of the financial problem we find ourselves in now?

[Venceremos]

20. I'm not well versed enough

in trade to answer your question, but what strikes me is Mexico would be hurting its own citizens by putting tariffs on our goods. That will increase prices for Mexican consumers (including food prices), and they're already having enough economic troubles.

I assume we're importing Maytag appliances, since my friend lost his job at Maytag when they moved production to Mexico. I don't know what else we import from Mexico.

[quakerboy]

22. Thats what I am saying

it is a gambit. If we were to play that game, it would cost them more than us.

In the end, perhaps a raising of tariffs between our two countries is what we need. It would do my heart good to see your friend get his job back because tariffs made making Maytag appliances in Mexico fruitless for corporate profit.

[Venceremos]

27. President Obama

has talked at great length about that particular Maytag factory. He was campaigning for senate just before it closed (I'm in Illinois). He spoke of the Maytag workers in his keynote speech at the 2004 Dem convention and in his "Audacity of Hope" book.

Hopefully he'll remember those workers when dealing with Mexico on the trucking issue.

[Thrill]

6. Will you be concerned when the markets plummet

after the move Mexico made?

And Gibbs, didn't say Obama wanted to reinstate it. He said he wanted Congress and the US trade Reps to work on a new deal. We want to make things better for the unions in this country but at the same time, we can't punish businesses in this country too much right now. Lets not forget, people work at these places who depend on selling these exported goods

[quakerboy]

9. Where is the balance?

What I see is this :Bush gave this little gift to the corps. Obama took it back. Corp's don't like that, and have the influence to fight back.

I do not see them doing it for no gain. I do not believe that we will benefit by doing it their way. Where is the cost trade off? Do we need Mexico more than they need us? Will we really gain more by giving up the trucking jobs and the safety?

As for punishing businesses, ask a trucker if this program was/will be punishment to them.

[Two Americas]

29. doesn't work that way

Giving the working people relief first and foremost is the fastest path to restoring the health of the economy, not to mention a moral imperative. That does not punish business, quite to the contrary. It does call on the wealthiest few to make a sacrifice for the greater good.

Saying that we must prop business up, or else the working people will suffer, is the age old form of extortion that extreme right wingers and the wealthiest few use to promote their own desires at the expense of the economy and the country.

You are expressing a variation on the trickle down theory. Not only is that contrary to any and all principles of the political Left and the Democratic party, but it is immoral, and in addition it does not work.



....