Yes, indeed, the Republicans are turning back on an additional 200 years of progress.... "The Kennedy amendment stipulated "that none of the funds made available in the bill for reconstruction efforts in Iraq may be used to procure goods or services from any entity that includes information on a response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) that indicates that such entity is organized under the laws of France, Germany, the Russian Federation, or Syria." " http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030404/bs_afp/iraq_war_us_politics_030404120349
This is unbelievable. The same guys who voted to change the name of French Toast in the Cafeteria are now trying to set global policy?
From the article: "A similar amendment from Washington state congressman George Nethercutt, also Republican, that included China, was voted down." What's this- Republicans in bed with the largest communist nation in the history of the world? Say it aint so!
It seems that the Republicans are gradually changing from conservatives to regressives, taking us back to previous eras and turning back the clock on decades, if not centuries, of progress and enlightenment.
"The Kennedy amendmend was included in a supplemental budget amendment authorizing 77.9 billion dollars in funding to cover the costs of war in Iraq and the start of reconstruction in Iraq passed by the House by a 414-12 vote. " 414-12. Dont put all this on the Republicans. More than a few Democrats voted for this too.
I think there ought to be weekly awards for the most absurdly twisted thread titles. The overheated, frantic, bizarre level some of thsi reaches, often only vaguely reflective of whatever point angiven article intended is beyond comical. "Mercantilist Policies"???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Apparently your point, if you can call it that, is that US taxpayers, who not only got no material help from countries like France in this endeavor, but were actively OPPOSED by France, ought now to have money removed by law from their paychecks (otherwise called "taxes") and paid to French companies. And you find this somehow wrong? That American money, paid to American companies, used for buying American goods and services and paying American salaries, is somehow an affront to "200 years" of something or other? France, Germany and anybody else who wants to can build, give or construct anything they want for the benefit of the Iraqi nation and people. Nobdoy, least of all the US will stop them. All we're saying is that THEY can pay for it themselves. If the US has to pay for it, then we want the money to go to US companies. And you find this to be somehow outrageous? Hello?
Adam Smith was a staunch critic of mercantilist policies dominant in 17th and 18th century Europe, because it tended to constrain free trade and therefore prevent the operations of the "invisible hand" that creates economic efficiency. By restricting the flow of capital to countries that we deem antagonistic to our purposes, we are engaging in the same type of mindset of proponents of mercantilism, who understood this as an economic system that would prevent interference in domestic matters by hostile foreign powers. You say it's outrageous that I find it appalling that we would restrict a selected group of countries from participating in US-taxpayer funded reconstruction, but you neglect to mention that this is another freaking country we are rebuilding in the first place. The only context in which my argument would be ridiculous is if we were rebuilding in North Dakota, and wanted to provide incentives to domestic corporations (which is still frowned upon anyway). I see that your view of sovereignty is applicable to the US, but not to other countries that we unilaterally choose to destroy.
Be more specific. I'm not sure if you're defending constraints on free trade, or just resigning to the fact that they have and always shall exist.
Bill, it seems to me that you are advocating forcing American taxpayers to accept inferior bids. I mean, what if French company can do the same job for less money. Your position is that taxpayers should get screwed. How do you reconcile your anti-taxpayer position with your conservativism? Why do you hate taxpayers?
Done all the time in Government contracting. And help me here: just which "French Company" has even a FRACTION of the expertise and technology that a firm like Kellogg, Brown and Root, Boots and Coots, Dowell Schlumberger, Red Adair or, yes Halliburton has in oilfield development and repair. Let me help you: none. It's not a business the French ahve ever been in. The reason, you see, is that THEY HAVE NO OIL WELLS. And if you're talking about just general construction projects, American firms are among the best in the world. But mostly I'd like to ask: how do you see American taqpayers putting money into American paychecks constitutes them getting "screwed"?? "Hate taxpayers??" Hell, I LOVE American taxpayers. And I want them to get the very, very best for their money. And that means American firms with experience in the field. It's just nonsense. You have made no case.
Then why do we have to pass a law excluding them. Nobody has to pass a law forbidding you from writing a measured, nuanced political post.