Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/white-house-blasts-shelby-hold-on-nominees/?hp" target="_blank">http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...nees/?hp</a> Richard Shelby's decided to hold up all 70 of Barack Obama's appointments because he didn't get two earmarks for his state. Enjoy arguing back and forth about how Democrats do it to while our country slowly flickers and dies.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Can someone explain to me why this is allowed in the Senate? Why can one senator hold-up all nominations over something that doesn't even have to do with the postions these people are nominated for? From the article: <<According to his spokesman, Senator Shelby placed the holds over concerns he’s raised about a proposed contract involving a tanker (Northrop Grumman has interests in Alabama); and over financing he’s sought for building a counterterrorism center in Alabama.>> <<According to a story in the Mobile Press-Register newspaper, if Northrop and its partner in the proposal, European Aeronautic Defense and Space, rather than Boeing were to be awarded the tanker contract, about 1,500 jobs would be created for the city of Mobile.>> He claims he's worried about National Security, and yet, what he's really worried about is more jobs in Alabama - his home state. Should a senator really be allowed to do this kind of thing just because they're not getting their way on other bills?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Our country is broken beyond repair... Better start learning Chinese....
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Our country is broken beyond repair...>> It sure seems that way, but I really have to keep hoping that we can fix this mess. I mean, there are still a lot of smart, hard working people in this country who are willing to do what it takes to make things better. But I can't help thinking that they are being kept from doing anything by all the idiots we've elected to "govern" us. Nothing seems to get done in Washington - I mean for Christ sakes - the Dems had a huge majority and they couldn't get anything passed. What are they gonna do now? And frankly, the Republicans are no better. No one in Washington seems to be thinking ahead beyond the next election - and that's just sad! <<Better start learning Chinese....>> What really, really pisses me off about this, is that we in the West basically payed to put China in this postion. We wanted cheap goods and services, so we allowed our corporations to move all manufactoring to this country, and "we the people" happily bought all the cheap crap that came over. Can you imagine if we had done something similar with the USSR? Why was it ok to spend money in one Communist country, and not the other? What exactly was the strategy here?
Originally Posted By pecos bill Optimism seems to be a rare thing these days. The country is in trouble, yet it's the same old political games. This country doesnt need reform, it needs revolution.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<This country doesnt need reform, it needs revolution.>> Revolution? What - you mean like we should go in with guns blazing and what? Install a new government or something? I really hope that's not what you're suggesting, because that's not going to fix anything. If you want your government changed, then VOTE the people you don't like out, and VOTE in the people you do like. The last thing we need is some spark to set all the crazy teabaggers and their kind off on some crazy "revolution"!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Why was it ok to spend money in one Communist country, and not the other? What exactly was the strategy here? >> It has noting to do with political ideology. It was corporate America's strategy to manufacture all of their products with the lowest cost slave labor available. China has cheaper slave labor than the USSR. Here's the American corporate strategy: 1) Manufacture products in the cheapest labor company available 2) Use the savings from labor to pump money into massive marketing campaigns to sell your products to gullible consumers 3) Charge premium prices based on "consumer demand" for your highly marketed goods A perfect example of this strategy is with Nike tennis shoes. For the $100 you pay for a pair of sneakers, about $10 went into making the shoes -- $90 went to Tiger Woods and company for the massive marketing campaign and the profit margin. It's one of the reasons why I buy New Balance -- same price for the shoes but they're made in the USA and no athletes get paid to endorse the products. Oh, they also make better shoes than the junk that Nike ships out of Southeast Asia. From "consumer demand," though, you might never know this.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<It was corporate America's strategy to manufacture all of their products with the lowest cost slave labor available.>> Oh I get that - it just amazes me that it was actually politically viable for them to get away with doing this. We claim to be such haters of communisum in this country, yet where was the massive outcry over this? I remember back in the late 80s, early 90s a bit of a "Buy American" movement, but it never seems to have gained much traction, and has basically fizzled out. It just stuns me how we all basically bought into this movement without any real outcry.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I remember back in the late 80s, early 90s a bit of a "Buy American" movement, but it never seems to have gained much traction, and has basically fizzled out.<< Started by Wal-Mart. Ended by Wal-Mart. Yay Wal-Mart.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I remember back in the late 80s, early 90s a bit of a "Buy American" movement, but it never seems to have gained much traction, and has basically fizzled out. >> It essentially got drowned out by larger, better financed consumer marketing messages. I think it's important for people to understand what an enormous role marketing plays in the drive of manufacturing jobs overseas. Companies aren't simply pocketing the savings from cheap labor to pad the bottom line -- they are taking those savings and pumping it into marketing budgets that are up to 10 times larger than what you would have seen for the same products 20 years ago. A U.S. manufacturer can almost always produce goods cheaper than they are made overseas -- just not cheap enough to add on the huge marketing costs that are now required to get things sold in today's consumer world.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Yay Wal-Mart. >> Walk into a Macy's and see how much you find on the shelf that is made in the USA. Even better -- walk into a Sak's Fifth Avenue and see how much you can find on the shelf that is made in the USA. Wal-Mart is a symptom of the problem more than a source of the problem.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<they are taking those savings and pumping it into marketing budgets that are up to 10 times larger than what you would have seen for the same products 20 years ago.>> Yes, and now - thanks to the Supreme Court - they can also use that money to essentially buy your vote as well! Yeah America.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Walk into a Macy's and see how much you find on the shelf that is made in the USA. Even better -- walk into a Sak's Fifth Avenue and see how much you can find on the shelf that is made in the USA. Wal-Mart is a symptom of the problem more than a source of the problem.<< Not arguing with that. I was speaking of the actual Buy American hoo-ha. I recall it being the centerpiece of Wal-Mart's marketing during the time period mentioned. When that ended, the public lost interest in the concept (assuming they ever had any real interest in the first place).
Originally Posted By mawnck >>In February 1985, (Sam) Walton wrote 3,000 American manufacturers and wholesalers to announce that the chain wanted to buy more American goods. Walton said: “We cannot continue to be a solvent nation as long as we pursue this current accelerating direction. Our company is firmly committed to the philosophy by buying everything possible from suppliers who manufacture their products in the United States.” Today, however, over 80 percent of Wal-Mart’s 6,000 global suppliers are based in China. [Wal-Mart Press Release, 3/13/85; Wal-Mart Literature, 1994; PBS Frontline, 11/16/04]<< <a href="http://walmartwatch.com/press/releases/buy_american_becomes_buy_chinese/" target="_blank">http://walmartwatch.com/press/...chinese/</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Look at how much Wal-Mart's marketing expenses have increased since then. Their competitors, like Target and Best Buy, did just like all the other coporations -- bought the cheapest goods from overseas and then pumped up their marketing budgets to drive the homegrown competition out of business. They didn't make or sell better products -- they just made better advertising. Wal-Mart is just doing the same thing as the rest of the industry. Personally, I think Target is far worse. They have used marketing to affix a perception of a higher quality brand for the exact same cheap products manufactured in China that Wal-Mart has on its shelves. Stupid Americans have bought into this marketing drivel to the point where some people act like Target is a "premium" brand. What's the difference between Target and Wal-Mart? The marketing and packaging.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ The one in my neighborhood is a mess. The Wal-Mart in my town is immaculate. I've seen the opposite, too.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Wal-Mart is just doing the same thing as the rest of the industry.<< Wal-Mart is the 900-lb gorilla of retail. It does anything it wants to. The difference between Wal-Mart and Target is that Walmart's annual sales are $400 billion, and Target's are $65 billion. Wal-Mart stopped Buying American when Sam Walton croaked and his greedier, less patriotic kids took over. There is no equivalency between the two.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>In my opinion, the Target marketing machine is much worse.<< Interesting. Because Target's marketing is some of the best there is. Are you mad at them for creating fabulous ads?
