Posted on 07/09/2016 8:34:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An increase in tariffs cause demand for manufactured goods to go down causing unemployment - in China.
Trade was less than 4% of GDP in 1930. So trade simply couldn’t be a huge factor in the US economy then. Give up the contrived Smoot Hawley lie. Or continue being a lying traitor at worse or a stupid dupe in the least.
Wrong. Completely false.
The 1924 Republican Platform:
The Tariff
We reaffirm our belief in the protective tariff to extend needed protection to our productive industries. We believe in protection as a national policy, with due and equal regard to all sections and to all classes. It is only by adherence to such a policy that the well being of the consumers can be safeguarded that there can be assured to American agriculture, to American labor and to American manufacturers a return to perpetrate American standards of life. A protective tariff is designed to support the high American economic level of life for the average family and to prevent a lowering to the levels of economic life prevailing in other lands.
In the history of the nation the protective tariff system has ever justified itself by restoring confidence, promoting industrial activity and employment, enormously increasing our purchasing power and bringing increased prosperity to all our people.
The tariff protection to our industry works for increased consumption of domestic agricultural products by an employed population instead of one unable to purchase the necessities of life. Without the strict maintenance of the tariff principle our farmers will need always to compete with cheap lands and cheap labor abroad and with lower standards of living.
The enormous value of the protective principle has once more been demonstrated by the emergency tariff act of 1921 and the tariff act of 1922.
We assert our belief in the elastic provision adopted by congress in the tariff act of 1922 providing for a method of readjusting the tariff rates and the classifications in order to meet changing economic conditions when such changed conditions are brought to the attention of the president by complaint or application.
We believe that the power to increase or decrease any rate of duty provided in the tariff furnishes a safeguard on the one hand against excessive taxes and on the other hand against too high customs charges.
The wise provisions of this section of the tariff act afford ample opportunity for tariff duties to be adjusted after a hearing in order that they may cover the actual differences in the cost of production in the United States and the principal competing countries of the world.
We also believe that the application of this provision of the tariff act will contribute to business stability by making unnecessary general disturbances which are usually incident to general tariff revisions.
I’m all for increased employment and productivity in China. I completely support increasing the Chinese standard of living and improving what is now a horribly polluted environment. Yep, I’m all for that.
But those are issues for the Chinese to deal with, not us. We lead the way by showing them what needs to be done, not by handing them our economic base.
Well, except for Carolyn Kennedy.
Y'know, she, y'know, had some, y'know, special like, y'know, abilities.
In those years after WW2 the US had a competitive edge over the world and many call that time the golden age of America.
But eventually, by the 70s, the rest of the world caught up with the US.
It was at that time the US decided that in addition to multilateral trade the US should also pursue bilateral and regional trade agreements in our back yard, the Americas.
The Canadian deal was first(Reagan) but it was superseded by NAFTA(Bush1). CAFTA(Bush2) was also proposed as was FTAA with South America.
FTAA was put on hold because of dis-agreements among the govts of S. America. Instead Bush2 would negotiate deals with Chile, Columbia, and Panama.
“Do you honestly think that Ted Cruz could have even had a remote chance of doing this? I’m not asking to be mean, I’m asking for your honest assessment.”
I’ll answer, at least. NO! People seem to forget that winning the nomination is NOT the end game - winning in November is. Cruz’s campaign was, from Day 1, targeted at winning hard-core conservatives, so as to win the nomination that way (since conservatives make up the majority of Primary voters).
That’s all good and fine, but you better have a November strategy, and if Cruz did, I certainly didn’t see it. I didn’t see Cruz in a position to offer the white, working class a damn thing. His Amnesty record was so-so (still better than all the others except Trump - which tells you a lot). His trade record was horrible’ his H1B record was bad. His wife’s career made him just another Romney. And he was hated by the party just as much as they hate Trump - but they didn’t have to fear Cruz, because they could control him - he wasn’t close to having Trump’s ability to either self-fund or connect with people directly.
Cruz was looking at this campaign the way people look at Payday Loans - give me the money now (i.e., give me the nomination now), and I’ll worry about paying it back later (i.e., I’ll come up with some way to win in November).
Sorry, but it’s not that easy. And when you look at the petulant way Cruz responded when Trump started taking him on directly, it was obvious he wasn’t up to the task.
...and this is from a Texan that voted for Cruz in his Senate Primary, and would have voted for him this year, had Trump not run. As far as I’m concerned, Cruz had me fooled and now this Texan (along with many other Texans on this site) are going to have a very difficult time supporting Cruz when he runs for re-election to the Senate in 2018, unless he cleans up his act, and really soon.
Tariffs are consumption taxes and were replaced by a production tax called income tax.
Tariffs fall disproportionately on lower and middle income consumers, so if you want to use tariffs it would be best to impose tariffs only on luxury goods so only the rich people pay them.
Not a chance in hell. Ted has always been sold out to so called free trade. He would advance amnesty also.
An horrible, rambling article.
IIUC, Cruz did state that he would support Trump the other day.
Taxes on consumption are conservative. Taxes on a man's work is plain Communistic. Stuff it Comrade.
Ah NO!
You weren’t qualified, you could not understand the Indian language, which you would need to be a tech recruiter in the US today.
re: “his evil words and deeds”... Citation needed...heh heh
Rich people like you want to shift taxes to consumption taxes like tariffs and sales taxes.
Thanks...
I don’t know who is more responsible for the animosity, but I agree that Cruz needs to support (endorse) Trump now, and I believe that he will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.