When Americans No Longer Own America

[Nbadan]

When Americans No Longer Own America
by Thom Hartmann


The Dubai Ports World deal is waking Americans up to a painful reality:

So-called "conservatives" and "flat world" globalists have bankrupted our nation for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America.

Through a combination of the "Fast Track" authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving "most favored nation status" for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we've abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years.

The old concept was that if there was a dollar's worth of labor in a pair of shoes made in the USA, and somebody wanted to import shoes from China where there may only be ten cents worth of labor in those shoes, we'd level the playing field for labor by putting a 90-cent import tariff on each pair of shoes. Companies could choose to make their products here or overseas, but the ultimate cost of labor would be the same.

Then came the flat-worlders, led by misguided true believers and promoted by multinational corporations. Do away with those tariffs, they said, because they "restrain trade." Let everything in, and tax nothing. The result has been an explosion of cheap goods coming into our nation, and the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs and thousands of manufacturing companies. Entire industry sectors have been wiped out.

These policies have kneecapped the American middle class. Our nation's largest employer has gone from being the unionized General Motors to the poverty-wages Wal-Mart. Americans have gone from having a net savings rate around 10 percent in the 1970s to a minus .5 percent in 2005 - meaning that they're going into debt or selling off their assets just to maintain their lifestyle.

At the same time, federal policy has been to do the same thing at a national level. Because our so-called "free trade" policies have left us with an over $700 billion annual trade deficit, other countries are sitting on huge piles of the dollars we gave them to buy their stuff (via Wal-Mart and other "low cost" retailers). But we no longer manufacture anything they want to buy with those dollars.

So instead of buying our manufactured goods, they are doing what we used to do with Third World nations - they are buying us, the USA, chunk by chunk. In particular, they want to buy things in America that will continue to produce profits, and then to take those profits overseas where they're invested to make other nations strong. The "things" they're buying are, by and large, corporations, utilities, and natural resources.

Back in the pre-Reagan days, American companies made profits that were distributed among Americans. They used their profits to build more factories, or diversify into other businesses. The profits stayed in America.

Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.

Foreign companies are buying up our water systems, our power generating systems, our mines, and our few remaining factories. All because "flat world" so-called "free trade" policies have turned us from a nation of wealthy producers into a nation of indebted consumers, leaving the world awash in dollars that are most easily used to buy off big chunks of America. As www.economyincrisis.com notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:

· Sound recording industries - 97%
· Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
· Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
· Metal ore mining - 65%
· Motion picture and video industries - 64%
· Wineries and distilleries - 64%
· Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%
· Book publishers - 63%
· Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
· Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
· Rubber product - 53%
· Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
· Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
· Plastics product - 51%
· Other insurance related activities - 51%
· Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
· Glass and glass product - 48%
· Coal mining - 48%
· Sugar and confectionery product - 48%
· Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47%
· Advertising and related services - 41%
· Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40%
· Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40%
· Securities brokerage - 38%
· Other general purpose machinery - 37%
· Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36%
· Support activities for mining - 36%
· Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32%
· Chemical manufacturing - 30%
· Industrial machinery - 30%
· Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30%
· Other food - 29%
· Motor vehicles and parts - 29%
· Machinery manufacturing - 28%
· Other electrical equipment and component - 28%
· Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%
· Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26%
· Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%
· Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25%
· Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25%
· Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25%
· Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25%
· Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%
· Basic chemical - 24%
· Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%
· Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23%
· Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%
· Printing and related support activities - 21%
· Chemical product and preparation - 20%
· Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%
· Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20%
· Publishing industries - 20%
· Medical equipment and supplies - 20%

Thus it shouldn't surprise us that the cons have sold off our ports as well, and will defend it to the bitter end. They truly believe that a "New World Order" with multinational corporations in charge instead of sovereign governments will be the answer to the problem of world instability. And therefore they must do away with quaint things like unions, a healthy middle class, and, ultimately, democracy.

The "security" implications of turning our ports over to the UAE are just the latest nail in what the cons hope will be the coffin of American democracy and the American middle class. Today's conservatives believe in rule by inherited wealth and an internationalist corporate elite, and things like a politically aroused citizenry and a healthy democracy are pesky distractions.

Everything today is driven by profits for multinationals, supported by the lawmaking power of the WTO. Thus, parts for our missiles are now made in China, a country that last year threatened us with nuclear weapons. Our oil comes from a country that birthed a Wahabist movement that ultimately led to 14 Saudi citizens flying jetliners into the World Trade buildings and the Pentagon. Germans now own the Chrysler auto assembly lines that turned out tanks to use against Germany in WWII. And the price of labor in America is being held down by over ten million illegal workers, a situation that was impossible twenty-five years ago when unions were the first bulwark against dilution of the American labor force.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence, "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…" he just as easily could have been writing of the World Trade Organization, which now has the legal authority to force the United States to overturn laws passed at both local, state, and federal levels with dictates devised by tribunals made up of representatives of multinational corporations. If Dubai loses in the American Congress, their next stop will almost certainly be the WTO.

As Simon Romero and Heather Timmons noted in The New York Times on 24 February 2006, "the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States."

And those 30 percent profits from American port operations now going to Great Britain will probably soon go to the United Arab Emirates, a nation with tight interconnections to both the Bush administration and the Bush family.

Ultimately, it's not about security -- it's about money. In the multinational corporatocracy's "flat world," money trumps the national good, community concerns, labor interests, and the environment. NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO tribunals can - and regularly do - strike down local and national laws. Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" are replaced by Antonin Scalia's "Rights of Corporate Persons."

Profits even trump the desire for good enough port security to avoid disasters that may lead to war. After all, as Judith Miller wrote in The New York Times on January 30, 1991, quoting a local in Saudi Arabia: "War is good for business."

---
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author of over a dozen books and the host of a nationally syndicated noon-3pm ET daily progressive talk show syndicated by Air America Radio. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "What Would Jefferson Do?" and Ultimate Sacrifice.

[smeagol]

So its OK when US companies buy assets oversees but if a foreign company dares to buy assets in the US its a scarilage?

What a friecking moron!

[Nbadan]

So its OK when US companies buy assets oversees but if a foreign company dares to buy assets in the US its a scarilage?

What a friecking moron!

:rolleyes

Try using some reading comprehension before replying.

The point is that the Republican's out of control spending has helped to expediate the sale of industries and commodities that once made this country strong and has underminded the American middle class.

But, as a Argentinian, who's country supports Hugo Chavez, I don't expect you to understand.

[smeagol]

:rolleyes

Try using some reading comprehension before replying.

The point is that the Republican's out of control spending has helped to expediate the sale of industries and commodities that once made this country strong and has underminded the American middle class.

But, as a Argentinian, who's country supports Hugo Chavez, I don't expect you to understand.
No it's not. The article is by an idiot who ultimately does not want foriegners to own American companies and does not believe in free trade.

By the way, have you read any of my posts about Chavez? I hate the guy, you idiot.

But as an ill-informed American red neck who is a true supporter of Chavez's ideas, I don't expect you to understand this issue nor the other issues discussed in this forum.

[Nbadan]

Free trade? Free trade for who? China? India, Russia? Who's really benefiting from free-trade? Walmart. Not American industry.

Certainly not the American workers who can't compete with countries that pay its workers .32 cents per hour.

[Peter]

smeagol is dead on. Americans want the benefits of free trade and yet they want their cake too.

[Peter]

No it's not. The article is by an idiot who ultimately does not want foriegners to own American companies and does not believe in free trade.

By the way, have you read any of my posts about Chavez? I hate the guy, you idiot.

But as an ill-informed American red neck who is a true supporter of Chavez's ideas, I don't expect you to understand this issue nor the other issues discussed in this forum.

Whoa. Crack open a cold one and relax.

But you're right, the jingoism is a bit old.

[Nbadan]

smeagol is dead on. Americans want the benefits of free trade and yet they want their cake too.

What benefits? Cheap goods that have to be subsequently subsidized by the America taxpayers? Is that worth your job?

[smeagol]

Free trade? Free trade for who? China? India, Russia? Who's really benefiting from free-trade? Walmart. Not American industry.

Certainly not the American workers who can't compete with countries that pay its workers .32 cents per hour.
Then those workers should specialize in something else. There is the tech industry, the service industry. But that is the way things are. Some countries are more competitive building stuff because the cost of living there is lower, therefore they can afford paying lower wages.

By the way, many American companies are installed in these countries and are able to rip the benefits of these low wages too.

Quit complaining. America has the edge in many areas of the economy. Technology, Finance, Military . . . let other parts of the world benefit from their competitive advantages. You guys already screw up the countries depend on agriculture with tariffs and trade barriers. You want to do the same thing to manufacturers. Fuck that.

[smeagol]

What benefits? Cheap goods that have to be subsequently subsidized by the America taxpayers? Is that worth your job?
Competition is great when you guys are the ones who don't have to compete.

Whatever Dan.

[Nbadan]

Then those workers should specialize in something else. There is the tech industry, the service industry.

And that's what it comes back too for real the flat-worlders. They want us all to be waiters, grocery baggers, and cab drivers.

[Nbadan]

Competition is great when you guys are the ones who don't have to compete.

Whatever Dan.

Since when is selling your industries competeing? Where are the real Americans and why is this Argentinian so for this?

[Peter]

What benefits? Cheap goods that have to be subsequently subsidized by the America taxpayers? Is that worth your job?

eh? All goods are subsidized following that logic. Cheap goods benefit the mass of consumers. Not every job is going abroad.

In addition, why don't we take a look at US ownership of foreign assets? Maybe we should beat our chests because we own so much of the world?

[Peter]

And that's what it comes back too for real the flat-worlders. They want us all to be waiters, grocery baggers, and cab drivers.

Why? Because then they'd have no market to sell their products to? There are plenty of well paying jobs in the US. The problem is that the easy factory job that Joe Schmoe could get with a HS education and that paid a salary within spitting distance of what a college grad made is long gone. Does that mean we have to start restricting trade to cover Joe Schmoe's ass?

[Nbadan]

Quit complaining. America has the edge in many areas of the economy. Technology, Finance, Military . . . let other parts of the world benefit from their competitive advantages. You guys already screw up the countries depend on agriculture with tariffs and trade barriers. You want to do the same thing to manufacturers. Fuck that.

Can't you just feel Smeagal's hatred for America in this post?

[RandomGuy]

Free trade? Free trade for who? China? India, Russia? Who's really benefiting from free-trade?

WTO Bashers Would Slam The Door On The World's Poor

by Brink Lindsey

The anti-World Trade Organization protesters gathered for the meeting of WTO delegates in Seattle present themselves as unimpeachably high-minded. They are the champions of poor people, human rights and Mother Earth against the rapacity of corporate greed.

To protect and burnish that image, they pick their battles carefully. They rail against the WTO's secrecy, its lack of democratic accountability, its supposed domination by corporate interests.

They complain bitterly and at great length about a handful of WTO rulings in which environmental and food-safety policies were at issue. In short, the anti-WTO protesters are claiming the moral high ground.

But it's a claim that should be strongly resisted. Beyond the squabbling over tortuous technicalities of WTO procedures is an issue of epochal moral significance. And the Seattle marchers are on the wrong side of it.

For the first time in human history, mass poverty is no longer a necessary evil. It is avoidable. It can be eradicated. For the 1.3 billion people who must survive on incomes un der $1 a day, as well as the billions more still enduring conditions most of us would find unbearable, there is hope for deliverance. And the means of that deliverance is globalization.

Rapid alleviation of mass poverty has been demonstrated in East Asia. Consider South Korea in the 1960s, when its economy was on a par with those of West African countries. Today its output per head has reached the levels of Europe.

Or look at China, where an estimated 160 million people have been rescued from poverty in the past 20 years.

The Asian miracle, which still stands despite the region's recent financial crisis, shows the rapid gains in human welfare possible when countries pursue a policy of "outward orientation."

In the space of a single generation, active engagement in world markets and an openness to foreign investment have wrought breathtaking improvements in the lives of hundreds of millions.

Opposition to open markets has made these protesters the enemies of the poor.

The chief lesson of the Asian crisis is that if the miracle is to continue, Asian nations must open up their economies even further. That's the conclusion reached by reformist leaders like President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea and Premier Zhu Rongji of China.

The Asian miracle would never have been possible if the advanced industrialized countries had not opened their markets to East Asian exports. No other country can hope to follow East Asia's example unless it keeps its markets open.

Yet the WTO bashers want to slam the trade doors shut. They urge the imposition of tighter controls on cross-border trade and capital flows, which would restrict vital access by developing countries to rich-country markets and investment.

Some call for international controls enforced by an expanded WTO, while others want the WTO contracted or eliminated to allow more market closing at the national level.

The common denominator of the plans is a more restrictive international system, one that would leave the world's poor on the outside looking in.

Although they claim to put people over profits, the "progressive" anti-WTO forces are in fact doing the opposite. Instead of fighting vested interests, they have crawled into bed with them.

It is astounding, for instance, to hear Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, a group founded by Ralph Nader, make the case for import quotas on foreign steel. Since when did the profit margins of USX and Bethlehem Steel become a consumerist cause? Surely such alliances ought to call into question the moral pretensions of the anti-globalization crowd.

In the name of fighting corporate power, the WTO bashers provide a smoke screen for the most discreditable kinds of corporate power grabs.

But this is not the worst of it. The anti-globalization left also makes common cause with presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan and the nativist right-wingers he attracts, a constituency including many who'd be all too happy to see yellow, brown and black people around the world remain forever poor.

Doubtless many of the Seattle marchers are genuinely, passionately concerned for the welfare of the world's poor. Yet through their opposition to open markets they have made themselves the enemies of the poor.

While hurting the very people they wish to help, they unwittingly serve the interests of special-interest hacks and xenophobic haters. That's about as far from the moral high ground as you can get.

Brink Lindsey is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

(This article originally appeared in The Bridge)[

Article and similar materials can be found here. (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/bl-12-02-99.html)

[Nbadan]

eh? All goods are subsidized following that logic. Cheap goods benefit the mass of consumers. Not every job is going abroad.

About the only jobs not going abroad are union protected jobs.

[Peter]

About the only jobs not going abroad are union protected jobs.

eh?

[Nbadan]

"Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime" is found nowhere in the Bible.

But this is:

Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than he who is crooked though he be rich.

(Proverbs 28:6)

[RandomGuy]

Free trade has done more to decrease human misery than anything humanity has ever tried.

America has a lot of very good competitive advantages on the world stage. Bemoaning the loss of manufacturing jobs is silly. Change is inevitable.

The original article complains about "$.32 an hour jobs". Let's look at that a bit more closely.

Thirty-two cents an hour times 60 would be the weekly wage for this job.
.32*60=19.2
That for 52 weeks in a year is about $1000. Sucks if you are in America, but if that job is located in, say, a good chunk of the developing world, that means that job pays 50% better than the national average. (I assume average income in nominal dollars is about $600, feel free to look up the actual number, but I think that figure is fairly close--RG)

At one time the factory jobs here used to be better than average too. The problem with those jobs is the fact that we are light-years ahead of the rest of the world in living standards. There will ALWAYS be somebody who can train a group of poorly-educated people to operate simple machines in a country with much lower standards of living.

What we ARE good at are complicated machines, technology, and "knowledge" workers. That is something that a developing country simply can't do easily.

I would rather spend our efforts on capitalizing on our advantages than trying to compete against other nation's advantages.

[Peter]

"Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime" is found nowhere in the Bible.

But this is:

Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than he who is crooked though he be rich.

(Proverbs 28:6)


So trade is crooked because the rich are opening themselves up to competition?

[smeagol]

Can't you just feel Smeagal's hatred for America in this post?
:rolleyes

I don't hate America. I live hear and I like it very much.

I don't like it when developed countries take advante of their wealth and power and put barriers to other countries in their own development.

I hate America, Europe and Japan's farm subsidiy policies.

[Nbadan]

Free trade has done more to decrease human misery than anything humanity has ever tried.

Free trade has made us richer, of that I have no doubt, but has it made us happier?

Only if you equate happiness with spending less time with your children and spouse, less time for your community and church. Dependency on anti-stress, anti-depressents, and other medications, even addicting your children. Always feeling like your running as hard as you can, but still not getting anywhere. Filling the yurning in your heart for that something else in life with junk that temporarily fills the void. Misled by false prophets who teach intolerance in conjunction with the word of the Lord.

This is what we have become as a society, but we can't be this way forever because like any addict, sooner or later, reality come crashing down on you, and that time is coming soon for us - get ready.. get ready.

[Nbadan]

NEW YORK - National security is a legitimate worry, but behind the dispute over whether to let a Middle Eastern company run U.S. ports lurks the nagging discomfort Americans feel whenever the growing pains of free trade and globalization hit home.

Last year, it was a Chinese company's attempt to buy a big U.S. oil company. Before that, there was outrage over U.S. companies "outsourcing" jobs to India and other lower-wage markets. And for the better part of three decades, there's been dismay at just how open our borders are to Japanese cars and other imports.

There was a time when our high-quality, lower-priced products were flooding other markets, generating fortunes in export revenue and a healthy dose of foreign resentment. That often led to tariffs, trade barriers and no shortage of angry protest from Washington

Those days are long gone. Imports of foreign goods exceeded exports of U.S. goods by a record $726 billion in 2005. This imbalance prompts frequent calls by politicians, companies and unions to retaliate against China and other nations who they say view free trade as a one-way street, or to subsidize those segments of the U.S. economy taking the biggest hit from imports.

The head of the United Auto Workers union, Ron Gettelfinger, has urged President Bush and Congress to "recognize that the foreign auto firms who are gaining market share in the United States did not succeed while their countries let `free markets' run their course. Japan, Germany, South Korea and other countries actively intervene to support their industries."

Among the unlikely "interventions" proposed by the UAW president was national health insurance. Such a massive federal program would neatly eliminate one of the most hobbling burdens for Detroit rather than forcing the automakers and UAW to come up with a sustainable business model - including health benefits much less luxuriant than autoworkers currently enjoy.
Other critics say it's naive for the United States to be so open to imports from countries that don't return the favor.

No doubt the general U.S. devotion to free trade has been abused. It may sound fair to respond with punitive tariffs and barriers. But that would be counterproductive and futile if one acknowledges the longer-term, less-emotional reality that market forces tend to be irrepressible, whether it's in China, the United Arab Emirates or the United States.

And despite the earnest desire to buy American, it's hard to find products that don't derive any benefit from globalization - an "impurity" that brings smiles at the cash register and would be sorely missed if the United States turned too tough on trade.

The near-term pain of trade deficits is the price for preaching capitalism to the world.

That's not merely high-minded symbolism. There is material payback for this leadership-by-example.

The flood of outsourced jobs to India, China and eastern Europe is boosting wages in those markets. As pay rises overseas, it becomes less economical for U.S. companies to find a labor bargain. Already, outsourcers are looking beyond India, a process that's likely to ripple through the world economy for decades. And with more disposable income on hand, consumers in developing markets come to demand products not made locally, including American goods.

Meanwhile, with all the dollars going to imports, from cars and appliances to the billions worth of foreign oil per day it takes to power those products, there's still major global demand for one American product that no low-cost producer has managed to replicate: the good name and credit of the United States.

We gripe that the Chinese are not buying our goods. They are. With all those dollars coming in, the Chinese government is one of the biggest customers for a unique American product called U.S. Treasury debt. An estimated three-quarters of China's $800 billion in foreign currency holdings are in dollars, and Treasuries account for most of it.

Likewise, hard U.S. assets remain an appealing place for foreign concerns to park their dollars, though often not without controversy.

In the eighties, Japanese real estate purchases were a hit to American pride. Now national security has emerged as a top objection. Last year, CNOOC Ltd.'s bid for Unocal provoked a political firestorm similar to the current spectacle over the sale of U.S. port operations to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates.

In the Unocal deal, politicians bristled at ceding control of U.S. energy resources to foreign interests. The opposition prompted Unocal's management and shareholders to accept a lower bid from Chevron Corp. It was a pragmatic decision, but not in keeping with the capitalist spirit this nation touts at home and abroad.

Generally lost in the current debate is the reality that the American ports in question have already been under foreign control for some time. Granted, the current owner is based in Britain, an ally in the fight against terrorism, whereas Dubai Ports World is a company with secretive finances in a region politicians have linked with terrorism.

But the democracy the United States is attempting to "seed" in that part of the world is in no small way dependent on the spread of free markets and capitalism.

So the answer here may be to proceed cautiously, protecting national security, but also ensuring that the United States doesn't send the wrong message with a knee-jerk rejection of the ports deal.

Star Telegram (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13983763.htm)

[xrayzebra]

:rolleyes

Try using some reading comprehension before replying.

The point is that the Republican's out of control spending has helped to expediate the sale of industries and commodities that once made this country strong and has underminded the American middle class.

But, as a Argentinian, who's country supports Hugo Chavez, I don't expect you to understand.

Republican spending my foot. Look at the dumbass programs the
dimm-o-craps have instituted. Remember guns and butter program
of LBJ great society? hmmmmmm?

I quote the following little snippet from a column written by Ross Mackenzie
(full column at this link: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/rossmackenzie/2006/03/02/188391.html)

Quote: For all this, the Pentagon is requesting $439 billion for fiscal 2007, or almost 7 percent more than the $411 billion authorized in fiscal 2006. Seems like a lot, and it is - about equal to the combined defense expenditures of the next 16 high-spending countries. Yet it is less than proposed next year for Medicare/Medicaid ($592 billion) and Social Security ($581 billion) - and hardly more than a third of the anticipated combined expenditures for both.
unquote.

Now two of the above are dimm-0-crap programs. And they are the
same dimm-o-craps who are screaming that the Republicans are cutting
these programs. Medicare/medicaid, to the bone, according to them.

You need to get real about your thinking!

[Nbadan]

Quote: For all this, the Pentagon is requesting $439 billion for fiscal 2007, or almost 7 percent more than the $411 billion authorized in fiscal 2006. Seems like a lot, and it is - about equal to the combined defense expenditures of the next 16 high-spending countries. Yet it is less than proposed next year for Medicare/Medicaid ($592 billion) and Social Security ($581 billion) - and hardly more than a third of the anticipated combined expenditures for both.

The $437 billion already budgeted for the Pentagon does not include the billions more we will be pooring into Afghanistan and Iraq in the new budget cycle. That gets added in at the end of the fiscal year.

http://www.warresisters.org/images/supplementals07.jpg

Where your income tax money really goes:

http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY07.jpg

[Nbadan]

So trade is crooked because the rich are opening themselves up to competition?

What are you smoking? The rich own the conglomerates benefiting most from globalization.

[smeagol]

The title of the article is "When Americans No Longer Own America" and my comment is: what the fuck is wrong with that?

Companies all over the world own other companies. Let me use Argentina as an example:

In Argentina, the Spanish own two of the five largest banks, the largest Telecom company, gas distribution and electricity generatino and distribution companies. The French own a Telco and the water company although this one they are selling). The Britich own transmission lines and banks. The Americans, Spanish, Brazilians, French and many others own oil and gas fields.

So you see, this is the result of globalization. And the US has been a big promoter of it because the have made money out of it.

So quit the complaining.

[Peter]

What are you smoking? The rich own the conglomerates benefiting most from globalization.

You do realize the average American would be considered to be "rich" when compared to about 60% of the world's population, no?

[Nbadan]

The title of the article is "When Americans No Longer Own America" and my comment is: what the fuck is wrong with that?

Companies all over the world own other companies. Let me use Argentina as an example:

In Argentina, the Spanish own two of the five largest banks, the largest Telecom company, gas distribution and electricity generatino and distribution companies. The French own a Telco and the water company although this one they are selling). The Britich own transmission lines and banks. The Americans, Spanish, Brazilians, French and many others own oil and gas fields.

So you see, this is the result of globalization. And the US has been a big promoter of it because the have made money out of it.

So quit the complaining.

What part of the globalization pie does Argentina play? The U.S., as the world's only super-power is the muscle in the globalization machine's world rise. Things happen economically because if they don't the ever looming threat of Marines coming in and making it happen is always present.

The way we pay to fund that Military is through wages and taxes, if those wages and taxes aren't there, then neither is the threat to regimes who don't play nice with the ruling elite's globalization plans, and as we are seeing in presently in Central and South America, you get the rise of leftist regimes who promote Nationalism over free trade.

[smeagol]

What part of the globalization pie does Argentina play? The U.S., as the world's only super-power is the muscle in the globalization machine's world rise. Things happen economically because if they don't the ever looming threat of Marines coming in and making it happen is always present.

The way we pay to fund that Military is through wages and taxes, if those wages and taxes aren't there, then neither is the threat to regimes who don't play nice with the ruling elite's globalization plans, and as we are seeing in presently in Central and South America, you get the rise of leftist regimes who promote Nationalism over free trade.
So what’s your point?

America will still be a rich country if some sectors of the economy are owned by foreigners.

Seriously, don’t worry about it.

[Nbadan]

So what’s your point?

America will still be a rich country if some sectors of the economy are owned by foreigners.

Seriously, don’t worry about it.


Maybe you should worry more about the current direction of your national government and less about problems that affect middle-class Americans.

[Darrin]

I think the way to heal the world's problems doesn't come from shredding the middle class of America, and creating a middle class for the rest of the world. The rest of the world does not share our political philosophy, and the growing economic powers are not always our friends. Competition for goods has generally been good for business, but poor for peace.

For instance, can we imagine one day, as the oil supply dwindles and demand grows, a country invading another for their oil supply?

As manufacturing jobs move overseas, who is responsible for manufacturing military defenses if very little manufacturing happens in this country?

We are moving towards becoming an ordinary nation - a nation that will not be immune from military conquest, scarcity of goods, and political corruption on a global stage.

This is like a guy who wins the lottery and ends up living on the street because he gave everything he had away, and those he gave to left him high and dry. You're right - we can't have it both ways. We can't be a superpower in the world and destroy a system that values superpowers. We have to do our part, but we can't solve all the problems and ills of the world. And free markets do not always lead to allies.

An example: Osama bin Ladin was more than willing to be trained by the CIA. He was more than willing to take our tactics and used them to free the people of Afghanistan from the crippling occupation by the USSR. The problem is, he was only our ally as long as there was a common enemy, and eventually he started using his tactics against the United States.

China is a sleeping giant that's about to wake up, and I don't think they wake up as allies of the United States of America. Money doesn't buy all people, and thinking that it does is a naive attitude that will lead to a weaker United States.

[smeagol]

Maybe you should worry more about the current direction of your national government and less about problems that affect middle-class Americans.
You claim to be vey democratic and all but you comment was pretty dictatorial, Dan.

I live in America, so let me worry about whatever the hell I want.

By the way, the direction of my government is in line with you economic inclinations, therefore you should be happy.

[Nbadan]

Bush Tackles Outsourcing Issue
On the final day of his India visit, the president defends U.S. firms that send jobs overseas.


"People do lose jobs as a result of globalization, and it's painful for those who lose jobs," the president said during a round-table discussion at the India School of Business in this city about 800 miles south of New Delhi. "But the fundamental question is, 'How does a government or society react to that?'

"And it's basically one of two ways. One is to say losing jobs is painful, therefore let's throw up protectionist walls. And the other is to say losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find — fill the jobs of the 21st century."
....

Bush sought Friday to recast the issue in the public's mind.

"We won't fear competition, we welcome competition, but we won't fear the future either, because we intend to shape it through good policies," Bush said. "And that's how you deal in a global economy. You don't retrench and pull back. You welcome competition and you understand globalization provides great opportunities."

By 'good policies', Dubya must mean cutting funding for vocational training (http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail5443.cfm?Id=0,46442) and gutting education spending by $2.1 billion next year (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04budget.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), and cutting FED money available for college kids (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412605).

[RandomGuy]

Free trade has made us richer, of that I have no doubt, but has it made us happier?



I wasn't talking about US, I was talking about the developing world.

The misery of poverty has slowly started to recede in recent years. Read the article I posted, it is pretty well backed up by other studies on global poverty.

The "developing" world is doing just that, developing, and free trade is the engine driving that.

The world doesn't need less free trade, it needs more of it.

[RandomGuy]

Bush Tackles Outsourcing Issue
On the final day of his India visit, the president defends U.S. firms that send jobs overseas.

By 'good policies', Dubya must mean cutting funding for vocational training (http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail5443.cfm?Id=0,46442) and gutting education spending by $2.1 billion next year (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/politics/04budget.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), and cutting FED money available for college kids (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412605).

Yuppers. Yet another way in which Bush's words don't quite match his rhetoric. Spending LESS on higher education is the exact wrong thing to do.

The quote from Bush's speech is something I agree with (glad his advisors have more sense than he does), but yet again, the short-sighted way in which he is governing has made him into a hypocrite.

I can only grit my teeth and wait for this train-wreck of an administration to be over.

[Peter]

I wasn't talking about US, I was talking about the developing world.

The misery of poverty has slowly started to recede in recent years. Read the article I posted, it is pretty well backed up by other studies on global poverty.

The "developing" world is doing just that, developing, and free trade is the engine driving that.

The world doesn't need less free trade, it needs more of it.


But free trade is bad because Bush supports it.

[RandomGuy]

But free trade is bad because Bush supports it.

Clinton was more committed to free trade than this president is.

Bush has made some noises about free trade but has evidenced a very strong protectionist streak in his actions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+protectionist&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=463

This administration is soooo in the pocket of industry, that it is absolutely incapable of acting on the public good. The thing that frustrates me to no end is that they have such a good PR arm that the truth gets buried in all the spin.

[Peter]

Sure. I'm just pointing out the contortions one must go through in order to oppose the current administration at every turn.

[RandomGuy]

Sure. I'm just pointing out the contortions one must go through in order to oppose the current administration at every turn.

(laughs)

They have some things that they say they are for that I quite strongly support, such as manned missions to Mars, and others.

BUT

I have seen them time and again SAY one thing and DO the opposite, just as in this example.

I would liken the Bush administration to a crack addict. It makes so many bad choices, is surprised that those bad choices have bad results, and then blames those bad choices on everybody else. It lies so habitually, that even on the rare occassion that it tells the truth that truth you are so used to being lied to that your first impulse is to not believe it.

I have on occasion given them credit for doing somethings right when I believe they have done so. I don't have a pathological hatred for Bush et al. but, like a crack addicts friends and family, I am so very tired of its shit, and wish desperately that it would start making choices that were good for the country.

[Peter]

I liken the Bush administration to every other. Their opponents harp on the pure evilness of it and paint every move in the worst possible light.

[RandomGuy]

I liken the Bush administration to every other. Their opponents harp on the pure evilness of it and paint every move in the worst possible light.

That I agree with. It has taken on very similar emotional overtones with the people who were foaming-at-the-mouth Clinton haters.

[Peter]

Yep.

[RandomGuy]

When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.
Alexander Graham Bell

[boutons_]

" I liken the Bush administration to every other"

what a surprise.

"Their opponents harp on the pure evilness of it"

Because it's there.

Murdering The US military and Iraqies in a bogus war launched for NONE of the stated reasons.

Total, willful, neglectful incompetence in running the Exceutive branch and fed govt in general.

Corporate welfare

Name 10, or 1, redeeming qualities of the of the dubya/dickhead reign. What have they accomplished. Is D.C., or any place else, abuzz with how well the Repugs are running fed govt?

A large majority of The American People have seen the light, as shown in dubya poll ratings, while Clinton, under full attack by Starr, had 60+% approval ratings.

This Repug administration will go down in history as one of the worst in US history, NOT "like any other".

[SA210]

nah, THE worst!

[xrayzebra]

:rolleyes

Try using some reading comprehension before replying.

The point is that the Republican's out of control spending has helped to expediate the sale of industries and commodities that once made this country strong and has underminded the American middle class.

But, as a Argentinian, who's country supports Hugo Chavez, I don't expect you to understand.


Dan, how long have we run a deficit on the federal budget. And how long
have we had a imbalance of foreign trade? Since shortly after the WWII.
I think the last balanced budget we had was under Eisenhower. If I remember
correctly we had a million dollar surplus. And don't quote all the false
crap the Clinton folks put out, it didn't exist.

[Nbadan]

Dan, how long have we run a deficit on the federal budget. And how long
have we had a imbalance of foreign trade? Since shortly after the WWII.
I think the last balanced budget we had was under Eisenhower. If I remember
correctly we had a million dollar surplus. And don't quote all the false
crap the Clinton folks put out, it didn't exist.

The last balanced budget we had was under President Clinton, in fact Clinton even ran a surplus, which, if you know your economic 101, is when you cut taxes (which he did), not while you are piling up deficits.

[Mr. Peabody]

Dan, how long have we run a deficit on the federal budget.

....

I think the last balanced budget we had was under Eisenhower. If I remember
correctly we had a million dollar surplus.

And don't quote all the false
crap the Clinton folks put out, it didn't exist.

GW must have bought the hype then, because he's ackowledged that he inherited a budget operating at surplus when he took the presidency.

[Peter]

Ah yes, the Clinton presidency. When conservative Congressional Republicans acted like conservatives.

[Nbadan]

Ah yes, the Clinton presidency. When conservative Congressional Republicans acted like conservatives.

Yeah, what the hell happened?

[boutons_]

Mideast Investment Up in U.S.

Proposed Ports Deal Is Just Part of Flood of Oil Wealth Spilling Ashore

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; A01

Middle Eastern investment in the United States is once again picking up steam, showing big gains since the tense period following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. And while some takeovers are triggering alarm -- most famously, the purchase by a Dubai-owned company of a seaports management firm -- others are evoking warm welcomes.

Spearheading the trend is Dubai's Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktum (popularly known as "Sheik Mo"), ruler of the freewheeling city-state, which is part of the United Arab Emirates. The ports deal is just one of a series of recent purchases by companies he controls.

Other acquisitions include a $1 billion portfolio of 21,000 apartments in U.S. Sun Belt cities; a 2.2 percent stake in the automotive giant DaimlerChrysler AG that cost another $1 billion; and a Manhattan landmark building, 230 Park Ave. The emirate also made major purchases in other countries over the past year, notably a $1.5 billion takeover of Britain's Tussauds Group, which owns the famous waxworks, along with theme parks, roller coasters and other entertainment-oriented businesses.

On Thursday came news that yet another Dubai acquisition is drawing Bush administration scrutiny because of the national security risks -- this time of plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

But an entirely different reaction greeted the disclosure several months ago that Dubai Investment Group had acquired the Essex House hotel in Manhattan and promised to sink $50 million into renovating it.

That announcement prompted New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to exult: "Another iconic hotel overlooking Central Park will be preserved and its unionized workforce protected. This is excellent news for New York's tourism and hospitality industries."

Behind such transactions are two powerful forces. One, of course, is the high price of energy, which has left several oil-producing Arab countries swimming in cash. The other is the burgeoning U.S. trade deficit -- $726 billion last year -- which means that the United States needs foreign capital; a country that imports more than it exports must cover the gap with money from abroad.

Until now, investments in the United States from Europe and other parts of Asia have dwarfed those from the Middle East. But an increasing share of the foreign money required to fuel the U.S. economy is likely to come from places that, like Dubai, trigger visceral reactions among Americans seared by memories of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The price of oil is going only one way -- up -- for the next five years, because it is going to take at least that long for alternatives to kick in," said Youssef M. Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group, a consulting firm based in Dubai. "So there is no question in my mind that billions of dollars will continue flowing this way, and people cannot handle all of that kind of money here. You've got to circulate the money, and the United States is still the biggest market."

Already, the list of U.S. businesses owned by Arab investors -- not just from Dubai -- includes some well-known names. Among them are Caribou Coffee Co., the fast-growing rival to Starbucks Corp.; Church's Chicken, a fast-food concern; Loehmann's, a specialty retailer; TLC Health Care Services Inc., a provider of home nursing and hospice care; and even several financial publications, including the American Banker.

Such "direct" investment in hard assets -- companies, factories and real estate -- is generally preferable for the U.S. economy, in the view of most economists, to foreign investment in bonds, stocks and other financial assets. One advantage of direct investments is that they cannot be dumped in a panic the way that, say, a Treasury bond can. Moreover, they often involve high-wage jobs. Average annual compensation per worker at U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies is about $60,500, 34 percent higher than the rate at all U.S. companies, according to the Organization for International Investment.

The main drawback of a direct investment is that it involves foreign control, which can raise national security concerns. That is why an interagency government panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, reviews many foreign takeovers. That process may be revamped by Congress due to indignation over the panel's decision to approve the purchase by Dubai Ports World of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British firm that manages container terminals on the East Coast.

Arab direct investments would probably be more extensive were it not for the political and legal atmosphere in the post-Sept. 11 era. "Middle Eastern investors are still a little skittish about investing in the United States," said James A. Fetgatter, chief executive of the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate.

To some extent, Arab investors think U.S. property is overpriced, so they are putting more of their overseas bets in Asia, said Gary Sheehan, an executive with Sentinel Real Estate Corp. in New York. But an additional factor is their fear about what might befall their holdings at the hands of U.S. authorities.

"I was in Bahrain the week before last and had a meeting at a bank where they said they would love to invest in the States," Sheehan said. "But they said: 'Syrian interests own 12 percent of our bank. So we know that if push comes to shove' " -- that is, a serious confrontation between Washington and Damascus -- " 'our assets will be frozen.' "

Such negativity toward investing in the United States could well deepen as a result of the controversy over the Dubai ports deal, some in the region warn. Sheikha Lubna al-Qassimi, the UAE economy minister, told the Financial Times last week that the United States will become less attractive if investment decisions are subject to political interference. "There are other countries that are competing for [our] money," she said.

But worries about a drying-up of Arab investment are overblown, according to others, including C. MacLaine Kenan, an executive in the Atlanta office of Arcapita Inc., one of the biggest firms serving as a conduit for foreign Arab investors in U.S. businesses.

Arcapita has raised billions of dollars from investors in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and neighboring countries and has invested the majority of it in the United States, where it owns Caribou Coffee, Church's Chicken and other companies, as well as real estate. The investments have to conform with sharia, or Islamic law, which means that they cannot involve businesses that traffic in alcohol, pork, pornography or gambling and that they have to use special types of financing to avoid violating Muslim rules against charging interest.

"Our investors will spend some time complaining about U.S. politics, but at the end of the day, they're pretty shrewd in divorcing the economic opportunity from the political issue," Kenan said. "And they generally know the political problems will in most cases blow over. So every now and again, we get people saying: 'I wish this [U.S.] administration would do better. But by the way, how's this investment going?' "

The typical Middle Eastern investor is "a pretty happy camper," Kenan added, because markets in the region have soared along with oil prices. "So they have more appetite for investment abroad, and they know the United States is a place a smart investor needs to have some money."

Whatever Arab investors abroad finally do, their clout is relatively small -- at least for now. At the end of 2004, investors from Arab countries held just $4 billion in direct investment in the United States, according to Commerce Department data.

British investors, by contrast, held $252 billion, Japanese investors held $177 billion, Dutch investors held $167 billion and German investors held $163 billion. Their holdings span industries often deemed "critical," such as telecommunications (Finland's Nokia Corp. and Sweden's Ericsson Inc.), energy (British Petroleum PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC) and utilities (E.On AG of Germany, which controls much of the gas and electricity distribution in Kentucky).

Although foreign investors are far from controlling the U.S. economy -- their payrolls constitute an estimated 3.5 percent of the nation's workforce -- the United States is growing increasingly dependent on them as the trade gap widens. To obtain the money necessary to pay for imports, the United States this year will probably need to attract foreign capital at the rate of about $20 billion a week, which is equal to selling three companies the size of the maritime firm purchased by Dubai Ports World, noted Brad Setser, an economist with Roubini Global Economics LLC in New York.

To be sure, most of the money flowing into the United States comes in the form of Treasury bonds and other financial assets rather than corporate acquisitions. Foreigners held roughly $9 trillion of U.S. financial assets at the end of 2004, according to government data. Middle Eastern oil exporters held a modest percentage of that, including about $121 billion in U.S. government securities, the data show.

But the oil revenue flooding into the Mideast means that the region's financial strength is rising apace. The cumulative trade surplus of Middle Eastern oil exporters, which was $500 billion from 2000 to 2005, will come close to $800 billion by year-end, Setser wrote recently.

"Which is just to say," he said, "that there are a lot more Dubai Ports Worlds out there."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[xrayzebra]

The last balanced budget we had was under President Clinton, in fact Clinton even ran a surplus, which, if you know your economic 101, is when you cut taxes (which he did), not while you are piling up deficits.

Dan, here is the national debt for a number of years, do you see an
decrease in any year? Clinton economics want hack it.




The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

03/03/2006 $8,270,568,938,276.67


Current
Month

03/02/2006 $8,270,651,337,575.14
03/01/2006 $8,269,768,312,946.41



Prior
Months

02/28/2006 $8,269,885,515,386.04
01/31/2006 $8,196,070,437,599.52
12/30/2005 $8,170,424,541,313.62
11/30/2005 $8,092,322,205,720.65
10/31/2005 $8,027,123,404,214.36


Prior Fiscal
Years

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00


SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

Looking for more historical information? Visit the Debt
Historical Information archives.

Intellectual Property | Privacy & Security Notices | Terms & Conditions | Accessibility | Data Quality

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt

Last Updated March 6, 2006

======================================

This is a snippet of an article on Clintons surplus:

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
RELATED STORIES
House, mired in budget talks, passes bill to keep government funded (9-26-00)

Clinton, GOP air differences on tax cuts (7-22-00)



RELATED SITES
White House Web site

Senate Web site

National Debt Clock Web site

========================================

Now scroll back up to the national debt and show me
where Clintons surpluses were used to reduce the national
debt. Not there......hmmmmm. Seems the debt continued
to increase. But I thought it was paid down according to
Clinton. Could it be he used a little smoke and mirrors?

You want to read entire article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/