Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: PugetSoundSoldier

In the context that I used the word “tariff,” which you quoted in your post, I clearly was talking about a revenue-type tariff to relieve the costs born by taxpayers of such trade. And yes — you most obviously misunderstod my point.

One more time — I said the cost of imports should not be subsidized and should be charged to those who receive the direct benefit. Whatever term you would like to attribute to that charge (tax, fee, tariff, contribution, donation) matters little to me.

I did not “call for the costs at ALL ports to be increased.” Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?


309 posted on 05/11/2009 3:23:06 PM PDT by calcowgirl (RECALL Abel Maldonado! - NO on Props 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies ]


To: calcowgirl

When you use the word tariff rather than fee, that means it applies to all ports not just yours. It appears that the words being placed in your mouth are from your own inaccurate statements.

You have now clarified that you don’t care how it’s paid for; thus we can have free trade with zero tariffs, and as long as the fees charged by your local port covers the costs of importing you’re happy with that. Correct?


311 posted on 05/11/2009 3:25:53 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson