Posted on 01/17/2015 5:19:21 AM PST by outofsalt
“I swear John McCain is the original Manchurian Candidate.
Everything he does is to weaken this nation while appearing to do the opposite.”
It would seem..
Not only was he the worst candidate the GOP has had since I can recall, but he would have made a terrible president. I seriously don't think we would have been an better off had this mental case won the White House in 2008 instead of Obama. He snuggles up to the left so often that it is hard to tell whether he's a democRAT or not.
Best evidence yet that we need term limits for some of these old fogies that can't think clearly.
Red Dawn....peace of mind to pursue other dreams...let Chine do al! The heavy lifting for you America!
The ad coming to a flat screen near you that was produced in.........China!
Using that logic then why not ship ALL JOBS overseas? That we will be prosperous right??? LOL!
There is no such thing as free trade.... That horse$hit! It’s RIGGED trade. For instance, did you know we (the United States) still pay tariffs to China, but they don’t pay tariffs to us. Oh and they call that free trade.
It’s a rigged poker game to send EVERYTHING overseas, and what they can’t.... replace it with cheap labor from the our open borders and Automation.
I don’t understand why is that so hard to understand?
How can we be prosperous if we have no jobs. Don’t tell me innovation because all those new jobs will either go overseas, automated or hired by cheap labor from all the illegals coming into the country.
-— “This would mean all ships used by our U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard — which of course will be built in the United States — would have a higher cost per ship due to increased overhead costs, and would have a less reliable industrial base.” -—
A higher cost per unit for the military doesn’t justify protectionism, since higher transportation costs also come out of taxpayers pockets. But “a less reliable industrial base,” which could not be quickly converted to war-time usage, could be a justification for some degree of protectionism.
I believe it makes sense to limit the Jones Act to transport along the internal waterways of the U.S. Beyond that, there's no practical reason to restrict domestic shipping in a way that doesn't apply to international shipping. What exactly does the U.S. gain by forcing a shipper to use an American-made and American-flagged ship and American crew for a trip from New Orleans to New York if there is no such restriction for a trip from Saudi Arabia to New York?
There is no political party currently supporting jobs in America.
EVERYONE is selling us out.
Everyone. In both parties. It continues even now.
Not really news, just about everything this clown has done his entire career has been against American Interests.
Meanwhile the refineries on the east coast and west coast are set up to refine light oil that was imported, commonly called Brent crude, which carries a premium price and they want the light shale oil from Texas and Dakota to replace the imported oil.
The underlying problem, is that it is illegal for US producers to export oil, except to Canada and Mexico because of NAFTA. Also except for Obama's recent bending of the rules that allows US producers to export light condensate oil. Congress needs to change the law on exports.
In recent weeks Mexico has cut their price of heavy crude being exported to the US because they are worried about losing market share to the Alberta tar sands oil. They have also requested an increase in the amount of condensate oil that they import from the US.
Its an oil transportation problem. Getting the sweet light oil being produced in Texas and the Dakotas where it needs to be. Getting the tar sands oil being produced in Canada to where it need to be.
Its definitely not a problem in refining capacity, so they don't want to build new refineries.
Yep our government represents foreign governments and not U.S. citizens.
This is why we are in such trouble.
If I own a manufacturing facility along the Gulf Coast, the shipping costs for steel from China are lower than the shipping costs for steel from Pittsburgh. How does that benefit people working in the U.S. steel industry in Pennsylvania?
I would also like to see a breakdown of McCain's math, and a consideration of all the factors that enter into the costs. Here's a recent Congressional publication about this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43653.pdf
It seems that the fleet of US-built ships is fairly small. This is part of the problem, because there are delays in booking these vessels. It also seems that most tankers in the world are already built in Korea, China, and Japan - so we've already ceded this industry to foreign nations in a big way.
I would like to see the opposite - a strategy to increase the number of US-built ships in the international fleet. Also, what are the potential security and environmental consequences of taking American control away from the building and piloting of these vessels?
You realize that repealing the Jones Act will also end the requirement that cargos going from one U.S. port to another must be carried in U.S. ships with U.S. crews? So those American jobs will go into the dumper.
That has nothing to do with the price of shipping oil and would slash federal funding for transportation projects, which is already far lower than it was 10 years ago.
Possibly. Take a tanker built in China and crewed by people from Asia and Africa and your costs will be much less.
I don’t know what the picture is about, or if its Photoshopped,
But he looks like a walking dead zombie, scary
So the American manufacturer has to deal with foreign competition, but the American ship builder and vessel operator do not? Does that make any sense at all?
Sorry, but this is a tough call for me. I can see the strategic importance of the Jones Act...as it’s tough to be a world superpower if you don’t have any ships in your name.
On the other hand, try taking a cruise from New York to Miami, for example. You CANNOT. I mean you could, but the ship would have to comply with the Jones Act, and thus be priced out of the range of its market...so no company does that...and hence no cruise options. Same for Alaska - you can certainly take a ship from Vancouver (Canada) to Alaska (international trip and thus Jones compliant), but you cannot take one from Seattle to Alaska, as the Seattle to Alaska ship would have to comply with the Jones Act, but not the Vancouver ship - so you have the pain in the butt of having to go to a foreign land (without gun rights or free speech) and also deal with customs twice, just to get around the Jones Act.
So maybe a compromise - lift the Jones Act for cruise ships, since it isn’t doing US shipping any good, anyway, but keep it for other shipping - for strategic interests.
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.