$480 million gift from Canada to the Republican's election strategy

September 10, 2006 9:27 PM

$480 million gift from Canada to the Republican's election strategy: On April 7, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money (a final loss of many) in its ongoing dispute over Canadian softwood lumber. Prior to that, Minister David Emerson and Ambassador Frank McKenna were working to a deal where $1 billion of the $6 million collected would be given to the U.S. industry. Once the USCOIT ruled, however, a sweetheart deal continued along this vein, ignoring the fact that it wasn't American money to begin with, awarding approximately half of that $1 billion to industry and half directly to the White House, bypassing Congress' monetary controls, and with language that allows the current administration to spend it as they wish ("and other values") without oversight. Where will it end up, if this goes ahead?
posted by Kickstart70 (38 comments total)

Where? In the pockets of the "Power Elite" of course. After all, that's where they think money belongs even if it isn't theirs.
posted by illiad at 9:32 PM on September 10, 2006

On the radio, a guest speaker was expressing that he didn't believe this bypassing Congress was (US) Constitutional. I don't know the answer to that...maybe someone else can.

It also wasn't clear to me as I wrote this who was on the American side brokering this deal, other than the softwood lumber industry.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:42 PM on September 10, 2006

$1 billion of the $6 million collected? That's quite the deal! Or is it $1 billion of $6 billion, or $6 million of $1 billion, or $1 million of $6 million?
posted by blue_beetle at 9:47 PM on September 10, 2006

$1 billion of the $6 billion. I'm a British Columbian, so I know rather more than I want to about this deal.
posted by illiad at 9:56 PM on September 10, 2006

$1 million? Bush spends that on security details to clear the streets so he can make a mad dash to his helicopter.
Chump change. Unconstitutional chump change bribe money.
But once they set the precident, anything is fair game.
posted by Balisong at 9:57 PM on September 10, 2006

Please please please let Emerson lose his job. Jackass. Well, they're all jackasses. Enjoy your money, US logging interests. I'm sure this will go to some lovely consultants somewhere.
posted by Salmonberry at 10:03 PM on September 10, 2006

Consultants? Is that what they're calling politicians' nephews these days?
posted by illiad at 10:07 PM on September 10, 2006

Yes, typo. It's 1 Billion.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:07 PM on September 10, 2006

And...err...$6 Billion.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:08 PM on September 10, 2006

Who's doing what to who, now? Honestly, even as a Canuck with some knowledge of the backstory, this post left me with a floaty question mark over my head.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:10 PM on September 10, 2006

we know it won't be spent on body armor for the poor kids they are sending to iraq ... or the the iraq they destroyed.
posted by specialk420 at 11:14 PM on September 10, 2006

This is a double post.
posted by scottymac at 11:45 PM on September 10, 2006

Just to help out scottymac... Previously.
posted by antifuse at 12:38 AM on September 11, 2006

Isn't it curious logs get anti-dumping protection, but if masses are dumped by chinese export of poverty nobody gives a flying fuck ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:05 AM on September 11, 2006

Harper and his cronies are thieves - that money belongs to Canadian logging and lumber firms, taken in illegal tariffs. He should be charged at court in Canada.
posted by jb at 2:12 AM on September 11, 2006

Bah, as long as Canadian companies can continue to clearcut our forests, I'm happy.
posted by Vindaloo at 6:49 AM on September 11, 2006

A double post, including the same wild speculations!
posted by dios at 7:16 AM on September 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Show me where my speculations are, dios. The $480 million are indeed going to the White House without oversight if this goes ahead. That's what the deal as it stands now says, and it's extremely unlikely that the deal will be changed. Further, it's pretty unlikely that the deal will be quashed.

So, back up your shit.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:04 AM on September 11, 2006

So, back up your shit.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:04 AM CST on September 11

First of all, it is a double post, so why don't you just apologize instead of wanting to fight about it.

But if you insist on me "backing my shit up" about your speculations, here is the original post:

A slush fund for Bush, courtesy of Canada? The proposed softwood lumber deal, which would end the longstanding dispute over Canadian exports to the US, is being criticised for giving the White House $450 million, to be spent without congressional oversight.
posted by [expletive deleted] (35 comments total)

The wild speculation, included in that post and your stupid double, is that the money is to be used a slush fund for Republican congressional races.

If you can't understand what is speculative about that, then your are as far as your posting history suggests.
posted by dios at 8:26 AM on September 11, 2006

One wonders where dios is when the speculations are about, you know, liberals.
posted by illiad at 9:59 AM on September 11, 2006

One wonders where dios is when the speculations are about, you know, liberals.
posted by illiad at 11:59 AM CST on September 11

I don't care that there is speculation, so don't make this into some nonsense about defending Bush.

My point was fairly obvious: not only is this a double post about the news itself, but the poster wins a special award of not only making a double post about a news event, but managing to make the same speculative conjecture as the original post. That takes skill.
posted by dios at 11:16 AM on September 11, 2006

Kinda the same skill it takes to repeatedly ignore that the real point is that the WH is bypassing Congressional oversight of its spending, eh dios?

In any case, it IS a double, and I'm fine with it disappearing for this reason. I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:28 AM on September 11, 2006

The real story is that Canada won time and again in the courts. There is no.fucking.way we should have negotiated such poor term. The law is on our side and we should have pushed through.

But, noooo, cocksucker Harper is far more interested in blowing Bush than looking after his constituency.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:35 AM on September 11, 2006

Harper's from Alberta. There's no (or very little) forestry in Alberta, so his constituency doesn't care. Remember, Harper's the PM because 42,000 people in Calgary Southwest voted for him.
posted by djfiander at 12:49 PM on September 11, 2006

djfiander writes "There's no (or very little) forestry in Alberta, so his constituency doesn't care."

Lots of tree harvesting in Alberta, both mountain SPF forests and Boreal.

djfiander writes "Remember, Harper's the PM because 42,000 people in Calgary Southwest voted for him"

Harper's PM because he's leader of the Conservatives, how many people voted for him is mostly irrelevant.
posted by Mitheral at 1:04 PM on September 11, 2006

I don't care that there is speculation, so don't make this into some nonsense about defending Bush.

I never said you defend Bush, just that you don't treat speculations about liberals with the same jaundiced eye. And if you didn't care about speculations, why even mention it?

Oh hell. Who am I to tell you not to froth. It's a free country.
posted by illiad at 1:31 PM on September 11, 2006

just that you don't treat speculations about liberals with the same jaundiced eye. And if you didn't care about speculations, why even mention it?
posted by illiad at 3:31 PM CST on September 11

WTF are you talking about? Can you really not understand what I said?

Read my comments illiad. Try to understand them. I've already explained why I mentioned the speculation part of this post.

I guess it is that old saw: I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
posted by dios at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2006

Oh I understand you just fine, dios. Maybe even more than you do. O:-)
posted by illiad at 1:53 PM on September 11, 2006

No, you really don't. You might think you do. But you don't. Your stupid repeated question displays the fact you don't given that I explained myself twice and you still seem unable to grasph the concept.
posted by dios at 2:13 PM on September 11, 2006

As I said dios, froth away! ;-)
posted by illiad at 2:20 PM on September 11, 2006

So dios, you are ok with a foreign country giving $450m directly to the White House without any Congressional oversight? What if it was China that was giving the money?

You blithely dismiss this post and the previous post as wild speculation without any thought as to the source or destination of the monies.
posted by angrybeaver at 2:25 PM on September 11, 2006

dios, when you take a break from aforementioned frothing, could you just remark on the constitutionality of the WH receiving money from foreign governments and spending it without Congressional oversight?

Or is that too on-topic for you?
posted by Kickstart70 at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2006

Hey, as long as there is a provision on paper somewhere that could conceivably cover such a payoff, and the matter is never brought to court, it must be presumed by anyone even vaguely interested to be both legal and moral.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:30 PM on September 11, 2006

It is, once again, one of these deals that looks to all the apparently uneducated masses like a payoff that doesn't make sense. I fear that it will do nothing to dent Harper's popularity.

First of all, it is a double post, so why don't you just apologize instead of wanting to fight about it.

I'm sure you'll apologize for not taking this to MetaTalk, where it belongs.

Or do you only point out rules violations by others while feeling free to violate them yourself?

You're not a good cop. More like a Bad Leiutenant.
posted by juiceCake at 2:49 PM on September 11, 2006

There's an easy way to be sure this money isn't spent without Congressional oversight. Don't let the US keep it at all. It isn't rightfully US money.

It's $6 billion dollars of Canadian's money, taken illegally. Okay, so the US regime has agreed to return a little over 80% of it. Whupdeedoo. The $1 billion Harper is agreeing to leave there is nothing to sneeze at. A billion! What is Harper's logic for negotiating this bunk deal?
posted by raedyn at 3:30 PM on September 11, 2006

What is Harper's logic for negotiating this bunk deal?

A WAG: the US lumber lobby said "take it or leave it."

What're we in Canada going to do? The U.S. is famous for being dickheaded about cross-border trade agreements, and the most we can do north of the 49th is wring our hands and tell jokes about our neighbours.

It's a sick situation, but unless there's some way we can strongarm the US government into Being Fair instead of serving as sockpuppets for US industry, it's always going to be like this.
posted by illiad at 3:48 PM on September 11, 2006

This never would have happened under the Liberals.



Thanks, I'll be here all week.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:45 PM on September 11, 2006

The word "froth", when used often enough, begins to seem intensely silly. This pleases me.
posted by cortex at 8:44 AM on September 12, 2006