U.S. Outsourcing and Oil Dealings Begin to Hit Home

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter McGyver
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Home Oil
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of U.S. outsourcing policies, reliance on foreign oil, and national security concerns, particularly in light of recent political events such as the DP World ports deal. Participants explore the intersection of economic policy, political pressure, and national security in the context of the Republican Party's response to public sentiment and upcoming elections.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that U.S. outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has led to significant economic and security consequences, particularly regarding China's military and technological advancements.
  • Others suggest that the Republican Party's opposition to the DP World deal is a reaction to public outcry rather than a principled stance on national security.
  • A participant notes the potential trade repercussions of the GOP's decision to oppose the deal, questioning the party's commitment to free trade versus national security.
  • There are speculations about who in the administration might take the blame for the ports deal fallout, with some suggesting that lower-level officials may be scapegoated.
  • Concerns are raised about the broader implications of the Iraq situation and the effectiveness of the current administration's approach to terrorism, with comparisons made to historical crime prevention strategies.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the motivations behind political maneuvers during the GOP primaries and the impact on future elections.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications of outsourcing, the effectiveness of the Republican Party's response to national security concerns, or the best approach to terrorism. Multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of the political landscape, differing views on the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy, and unresolved questions about the long-term consequences of outsourcing and trade policies.

McGyver
Without going into an elaborate discussion to support my contention, portions of which are widely available throughout this Forum, it seems pretty clear from morning news reports and surveys that the U.S.'s policies of outsourcing mfr jobs, reliance on Arab oil, and priorities in protecting the U.S. from foreign terror threats have all collided - to which will likely reign in a new era of "protectionism" on free trade.

It's been more than a 10 year free run on outsourcing jobs to China, India, etc. - and now we must face the "opportunity costs" and consequences of what has treanspired. China has reinvested a large portion of this wealth into their military and technology research.

The U.S. has made China into a super-power, and nearly done the same with Saudi Arabia and that oil rich region, except they are "yet" to formulate themselves as a super-power in terms of military strength. But with the UAE ports deal now reluctantly taken off the table, that region feels offended, and perhaps rightly so - and they will likely respond back adversely to us in other ways. But didn't anyone ever consider, or inform UAE, that the U.S. has credible concerns over their link to terror groups.

It appears in the case of both China and Saudi Arabia, that we rewarded them with a "cookie" before they 1st acted to please us in the areas of human rights and military arms.

The Republican controlled Congress has finally heard the outcry from the American people, and there're really mad now over the ports deal - and that anger appears to be spilling over into the ever-increase outsourcing of jobs to places like China. We are facing a political and economic crisis all at the same time - and emotions are running high. China has remained reasonably quiet. But once Congress is compelled to address the huge outsourcing of American jobs, and our ever-increasing trade imbalance, sh... may hit the fan very soon - and right at a time when the Bush White House has made the threat of terrorism his No.1 item. He's caught in a quandry!

I knew this would eventually happen, but it appears the outcry of emotion and anger over the ports deal has put it all front and center. I even had bad dreams over this last night. I would encourage calm and reason - things are sure to change real soon.

Stephen Dolle
Dolle Communications
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last night Sen. John Warner (chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) was on the news. At least twice he looked in the camera and announced to viewers that it is the Republican party who opposes the DP World deal, and therefore still represent national security.

The GOP has admitted repeatedly that they have received so many calls and letters they had no choice but to oppose Bush. It is the American people who forced the GOP to dump the deal. We all know they wouldn't have blocked the White House otherwise.

And now concerns are being expressed about trade repercussions. So what do you stand for Republicans? National security or free trade? You might note the new emphasis on "foreign government owned companies." Ooooh, the 2006 elections are approaching.
 
Last edited:
SOS2008 said:
Last night Sen. John Warner (chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) was on the news. At least twice he looked in the camera and announced to viewers that it is the Republican party who opposes the deal, and therefore still represent national security.

The GOP has admitted repeatedly that they have received so many calls and letters they had no choice but to oppose Bush. It is the American people who forced the GOP to dump the deal. We all know they wouldn't have blocked the White House otherwise.

And now concerns are being expressed about trade repercussions. So what do you stand for Republicans? National security or free trade? You might note the new emphasis on "foreign government owned companies." Ooooh, the 2006 elections are approaching.

I am sure that the Administration will find a fall guy to blame this on. They always do.
 
Right you are Edward,
Maybe Condi will get the hook, after all she's the Sec. of State. What sort of spin is Rove trying to put on all this? I haven't heard anything from his camp... not yet anyway.
 
Amp1 said:
Right you are Edward,
Maybe Condi will get the hook, after all she's the Sec. of State. What sort of spin is Rove trying to put on all this? I haven't heard anything from his camp... not yet anyway.

Nah, Condi's too high up on the food-chain. They'll pick one of the deputy-undersecretaries from the committee that approved the deal.

As far as I know, the WH is sticking with their 'none of our top guys even knew about this' defense.
 
With the GOP primaries underway - there is surely a lot of tension amongst the Republican party. John McCain pulled a clever move in Memphis and asked that those there NOT vote for him - as a hit to Sen Frist and his home state.

I suspect the reason Carl Rove is so quiet is that "he" took most of the White House heat for the port debacle. I suspect also a few were fired in that Commerce department.

Clearly, the White House and Republican's biggest problem is the status in Iraq, and it just keeps getting worse. You know when the White House is quiet that something is wrong. Right now, they are relying on their newly ordaigned spokesman, Sen Geoge Allen (R) W. VA. Amazing thing about Allen is no matter what the topic - real good or real bad - he always has this "funny grin" on his face. He's like Bill Clinton w/o much intelligence. You'd normally see a guy like this on a late night TV informercial selling nutritional supplements or no-loose real estate courses.

A lot is yet to come!
 
McGyver said:
With the GOP primaries underway - there is surely a lot of tension amongst the Republican party. John McCain pulled a clever move in Memphis and asked that those there NOT vote for him - as a hit to Sen Frist and his home state.

Clearly, the White House and Republican's biggest problem is the status in Iraq, and it just keeps getting worse. You know when the White House is quiet that something is wrong. Right now, they are relying on their newly ordaigned spokesman, Sen Geoge Allen (R) W. VA. Amazing thing about Allen is no matter what the topic - real good or real bad - he always has this "funny grin" on his face. He's like Bill Clinton w/o much intelligence. You'd normally see a guy like this on a late night TV informercial selling nutritional supplements or no-loose real estate courses.

A lot is yet to come!
Bush has a second problem as big as Iraq, even though people haven't focused in on it, yet. His "War on Terror", or "Long War" as its now been renamed, really hasn't done much for national security. If you compared Bush's "War on Terror" to a "War on Crime", Bush's solution so far is equivalent to saying that people should put bars on their doors and windows and not leave their house. Terrorism is a global problem and the rate of terrorist incidents has increased rather than decreased while the perpetrator of 9/11 is still roaming at large.

Unfortunately, rather than fight for a more realistic and stronger anti-terrorism policy, Democrats have taken advantage of the opportunity to propose better bars for our doors and windows.


As to this weekend's party, I think the move by McCain was to prevent a "loss" that could hurt momentum. With 40% of the voters being from Tennessee, a Frist "win" was a guarantee (a real win would have been to exceed 40%, but the average voter won't look that deep). Romney was the big surprise - not only did he finish second, he won the less publicized Michigan straw poll. The recoil is that Bush couldn't finish better than a tie for third, transferring a McCain "loss" to Bush.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K