Remember "Buy American" under Reagan was good? not now per Fix News.

[PretzelWarrior]

Now we might ruffle the feathers of our trading partners. EEEEEKKK!! It is so funny to see them do an about face on literally ever issue coming up.

I wonder when the first major commentary will come out with conservatives saying Obama needs to get out of Iraq and stop remaining bogged down in foreign occupations. I say 2 months.

[patrice]

1. Wow!

I CANNOT believe it!

Our patriotic duty = to prop up foreign businesses?

When did the principle end that in order to survive, business needs to do the business of business WELL? And when they don't and, hence, go out of business, THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE, because anything else would just be "Socialism" for business, like what we've got going on now for Haliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, and Oil Royals etc.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. I know. the "Buy American" segment of stimulus is mindfucking conservatives

because it is an issue near and dear to uberpatriots....but they don't want to agree with anything Obama is doing. lolol. too funny.

[patrice]

4. The best thing anyone can do is show how you can achieve the goals/values that the Reich Wing SAYS

they value, better than what they propose, while making progress towards others' goals/values too. That's what Our President is trying to do.

[Historic NY]

3. What a bunch of morans thats what got us to the here & now.......

we bought & bought but they didn't from us. Foreign countries own more than 3 trillion of us then we of them. The balance of trade has steadily declined here. Its time to put money in US pockets.

[Waiting For Everyman]

5. Well you know...

a good way for us to not be throwing our weight around in other countries (which all of us dislike, understandably), is for our corporations not to BE in other countries in the first place, for us to have to "protect" them. I wonder if "the world" ever thought of that?

Economic nationalism has its good points. (A lot of them, matter of fact.)

[pampango]

6. Why is "Buy American" good, but "Buy White" or "Buy Male" or "Buy Straight" not good?

I was born an American, but I was also born white and male and straight. I didn't choose any of those things. They are characteristics of my birth.

Now if you or I joined a voluntary organization like the US Chamber of Commerce and worked with them to promote a "Buy American" policy that would reflect the goals of the organization. Similarly if someone joined the KKK to promote a "Buy White" policy it would be logical, if immoral and illegal. The same could be said for organizations who would promote "Buy Male" or "Buy Straight" policies.

But being an American is not a voluntary organization that I joined any more than are my skin color or gender. While a "Buy American" policy would be good for me economically (as would a "Buy White" policy or the others listed above, if they were legal which thankfully they are not), I do not believe that excluding or devaluing people based on accidents of birth is a good thing. (Where on earth you are born - which determines your nationality - is as much of a random occurrence as is your gender or skin color.)

"Buy White", "Buy Straight", etc. are all illegal (in addition to being immoral) because we have agreed through legislation and court decisions that they are. "Buy American" could be "illegal" if we have agreed with others in treaties that we will treat their goods and services fairly. Obviously, treaties can be changed or just ignored, as can our laws. Changing laws and treaties involves arriving at a new mutual agreement. Ignoring laws and treaties, while not uncommon, involves potential penalties and other consequences.