Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Crickets?
And I can't let the above comment pass without notice. I have done nothing to demean Reagan on this thread. The fact that you are trying to paint me in such a manner simply indicates that you are not interested in arguing at all . . . .
Yep. Ronald Reagan used tariffs and he didn't write, negotiate, pass or sign NAFTA.
Keep painting yourself into that corner.
What is your intention in regard to asking me that question? What do you intend to accomplish when you get my answer? Seriously.
Others are playing ping-pong on this thread.
Then what was did your snide comparison of his actions with Bush mean?
[crickets]
Too busy kicking it.
He’s all yours. Hope you enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.
I was not being “snide.” You simply think I was being snide because you’ve been so busy constructing other strawmen and otherwise putting words in my mouth that you’ve lost track of reality.
Meaning that, you think you’re kicking ass, but you’re too stupid to understand you’re trying to kick an illusion you’ve created.
2. I was not being “snide.”
Honesty isn't your thing.
And answering questions (honestly or not) isn’t yours.
I- along with a few others - have been warning for many years that all these job exporting ideas would lead us to voting for a socialist/Marxist.
As a conservative and a capitalist, I tend to think long term. These individuals who support the present free trade policies - while claiming to be capitalists - are merely opportunists with a very short outlook.
Ex-texan and I along with many others were regularly hammered as we knew these policies (and GW Bush's stupidity) would get us a leftist President. And you know it - but can't bring yourself to admit Zero is one. Correct?
Warning: Baited trap!
The reason folks were being made fun of (for example, I note that you pinged ex-Texan, who once regaled me and others with portions of Marxist Monthly, or some such nonsense), is that I do not agree that conservatives should move to the left in order to placate or otherwise pander to the "working class." Reagan didn't do it, and we shouldn't either.
(Mojave will be by shortly to explain otherwise about Reagan. Revised history, and all that).
Which is what Ronald Reagan did, much to the dismay of the simplistic ideologues who dream of some sort of global borderless "free trade" utopia.
Where Ronald Reagan saw trade regulations, restrictions or tariffs that didn't serve the best interests of the American people, he would work to remove or amend them. Where Reagan saw that regulations, restrictions or tariffs that served our national interests, he would retain or create them.
That's why for all their fabrications and hysterical yammering, none of the historical revisionists and other Clintonistas on this thread could reconcile their false portraits of Reagan as a knee-jerk "free trader" with his actual record in office.
No, it is not. It's called looking out for some Americans over others. That's what protectionists fail to understand, and free traders will continue to point out. You want to raise taxes on Americans in order to protect Americans.
Perhaps Mojave will chance along and fabricate Reagan's record on that score.
Oh, and why did you ask me if Obama was a leftist? Just trying to make conversation?
So it's starting to look like economics/free trade is a zero net sum game.
Ya everyone want to have their old lady buy her XXXL stretch pants from China, but where is the money coming from?
What happened to the economy when we tried free trade? What's happened politically is a result of the Government interfering in the economy, essentially stunting free trade and capitalism. Government influence unbalances the situation.
Obama was elected because of the economic melt-down of the mortgage markets, which was a direct result of Governmental meddling. That's about as far from free trade and capitalism as you can get!
Ever done any international shipping - export or import? There are port taxes for transport, customs brokerage fees, customs inspection fees, dock fees, longshoremen fees, dock transport fees. There's tons of fees already which should cover the costs of the physical operation and maintenance of the ports. I know, I have to pay them on top of the duties (tariffs) required.
The fact your port authority mismanages its money is not because of free trade, but because of Government greed and graft. If it's anything like the Port of Seattle, somehow they can blow through hundreds of millions of dollars and still always need more to build the newest Port Authority office complex, or finance a dozen more trips abroad to see the port of Bali, or some other waste of dollars.
Government mismanagement of funds is not a result of free trade!
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.