Republican Party has ignored its principles

The Greenville News ^ | March 26, 2004 | Robert G. Butch Taylor (letter to the editor)

[Willie Green]

In a recent letter to the president of the United States, I informed him of my resignation from the Republican Party in Greenville. I shall continue to be involved in the local political arena, but not as a Republican.

I am sick and tired of the Republicans selling us down the river. No matter how hard I try to institute positive change, Republicans and the Republican Party ignore my pleas. For this reason I have joined the U.S. Constitution Party and urge other conservatives to do the same.

[Jim Robinson]

Yup. He was one of my favorites too.

Hey, did you know the stuff that drains off the garbage dump in their swamp is 80 proof?

[Dr. Zoo]

Hic!

Uh huh. We bottled several hundred Fifth's of it in 1957. Funny thing is, only Democrats and Enviromental Wackos will buy it...

:>)

[Joe Hadenuf]

Apparently so. If you don't like the idea of One Way Trade deals with Communist Nations that are fleecing our jobs, technology, and manufacturing infrastructure—especially the one that threatened to Nuke us 3 years ago, or don't like mass illegal immigration and open borders.... You’re a Commie.

Strange how things have changed, isn't it? This is what happens when people put their candidates, and political parties before country and Constitution. It's disturbing.

[Torie]

That about sums it up.

[Dec31,1999]

If you thought Clinton was good, you are just gonna LOVE Mr. f'n K as president.

Oh, let's see: I have my principles. My principles command that I get everything I want in ONE election cycle. Otherwise. I will cu off my nose just to spite my face. Yeah, that'll learn'em!

[Saundra Duffy]

If you can't trust Republicans, who can you trust?

[K1avg]

Think of it this way: A vote that is not for Bush is basically a vote for Kerry.

Who would you rather have: A moderate Republican or a liberal Democrat.

That's what I thought...

[Dan from Michigan]

This is the big problem I have with many in both parties, especially since Jesse Helms retired.

GATT and NAFTA are killing us.

[William Terrell]

I think so, too. Luis differs, though.

[WRhine]

Strange how things have changed, isn't it? This is what happens when people put their candidates, and political parties before country and Constitution. It's disturbing.

Roger that. May I submit that we would not being seeing much of a defense here on FR of our present trade and immigration predicament if Al Gore was in office. No, it would be unmitigated outrage for the most part like it was in the old Clinton days heh heh--with the exception of a RINO here or a Neocon there.

Both parties have an incredibly strong gravitational pull on the politics of most of their respective partisans and how they react to issues. It is a sight to behold. And yes it is disturbing, especially when circumstances necessitate a radical re-thinking of policies in critical areas like trade and immigration and both parties want to stick with the status quo.

[William Terrell]

As I said, yours is an absolutely disingenuous argument that has at it's core a lie. You do not like the new procedures and penalties attached to the crime of entering or remaining in the country illegally, so you lie about what those new procedures and penalties are by calling them an amnesty. You aren't intellectually honest enough to say that, so you lie for the benefit of the rubes.

*sigh*

So, I know that the Bush amnesty is really just another way of cracking down on illegals, but I lie and say it's an amnesty. For the "rubes".

Why would I do that, Luis? Because I hate Bush and will say and do anything to see he's not reelected?

[Torie]

I take it you dissent from the doctrine of comparative economic advantage. Or do you just think folks have a right to make buggy whips for life? What would kill us is to become protectionist. The US would rapidly cease to be cutting edge. It is a good thing that the US is getting out of the commodity furniture manufacture and textile business.

[Dan from Michigan]

I don't dissent from the theory behind it, but theories aren't always reality when governmental structures and laws are set in. I think comparative advantage is great within the 50 states, and even among Western Countries(providing they aren't subsidizing).

First, our trade defecit is a record level. Debt is bad enough. But what will happen when that interest to service it is so much it can't be paid. There goes our credit rating. Foreign debt is worse.

Also, the WTO puts trade in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That's a big problem right off the bat.

Second, even in Western Countries, we have problems with dumping. Steel dumping from Japan(which subsidies some of their business) hurts our business here at home.

China is also a particular problem. They aren't the most friendly government around, and their governemnt has influenced some of our elections. They have HIGH tariffs on our goods, but we have MFN for their goods? That's free trade? That also does not account for their human rights record.

Also, who will manufacture our goods if we have to start building more tanks, mech I's(lighter), and missiles again?

You lived in Michigan for awhile, so I'm sure you know what's happened to Highland Park, Willow Run, Flint, and the like due to outsourcing. Company Towns are becoming ghost towns and ghettoes.

Greenville just closed their plant here(appliances). 2700+ jobs out of a town of 10,000. Not only does that hurts the workers in that area, stores, restaurants, and bars there will have less business since those workers can not afford it. They will cut down their spending(lower tax revenues). Many will move, and real estate values drop as well.

There needs to be less governemnt regulation and taxes here(I prefer the NRST, and a banning of the IRS), a ton less spending, incentitives for opening up factories and businesses here, and decentives for so called "American" companies that outsource work to non Western Countries and then import it back here.

[Torie]

Dumping is illegal, and is a minor issue. China protectionism is a minor issue. Even without it, the trade imbalance would be huge. In the end, the trade books will balance. The cash flow always balances. If China decides it dislikes holding dollars, the currency exchange rate will change. Japan used to be the one that was eating us alive. It is odd that the country that was eating us alive, has been an economic basket case for 15 years, while the US economy has been an economic dynamo, who has widened the gap as the richest income per capita nation in the world, except Luxembourg.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Protectionism will break it in a hurry. And of course, the protectionists, just assume foreign lands will take it lying down. They will not, which is why the US had to backtrack from Bush's ill advised steel tariffs with ignomy and embarrassment.

[Dan from Michigan]

Those that are voting third party do so since a major candidate has not EARNED their vote. Perot didn't cost Bush I. Bush I did since he didn't EARN those votes.

To those here that do not want a repeat here, I have two strong suggestions(and I am voting Bush BTW unless he signs an AW ban)
1. Those here who are sneering and are acting as arrogant as John Kerry himself need to sit down, look at how many people who are pissed off at it, and think how many there who were on the fence that are now solidly voting 3rd party or even for Fonda Kerry just as an eff-you to the sneerers.

2. Give those who are voting third party a reason not to, something besides "the other guy" being worse(or at least give documented reasons why to back up WHY the other guy is worse). Those who are more afraid of the other guy are voting for Bush anyway.

I won't slam a 3rd party voter. I'll save it for the Kerry voters.

[Torie]

By the way, "disincentives" for outsourcing would also provoke trade retaliation. As it is, the US has one of the most hostile tax regimes for outsourcing of any industrial democracy. In most countries, only the profits attributable to activity in a given country are taxed, not foreign operations. As it is, the US taxes all passive income earned by foreign subsidiaries abroad immediately. Thus the profits of foreign subsidiary cash cows are already taxed in the US.

[Dan from Michigan]

Don't sit it out since that's defeatist to the core. Leave the president's spot blank if you must, but there's other offices up besides the presidency. A blank spot with a record of showing up is still a vote and is recorded by the clerk.

Where I'm at, and I'm sure it's similar where you are at, there's congress, state representative, State Supreme Court and other JUDICIAL RACES(I'd show up just for that), county commissioner, and the University boards.

[Dan from Michigan]

If the millions of Mexicans in California today managed to take California from the US and annex it to Mexico, they would be heroes to Mexicans, and thiefs to Americans.

Does that mean Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Hollywood, Gray Davis, Henry Waxman, Pete Stark, and Loretta Sanchez become Mexican?

Sign me up...:)

[Joe Hadenuf]

I completely agree.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let's straighten you out on a few things:

If you wish to discuss government trade deals, we can discuss government trade deals. If you wish to discuss free trade, we can discuss free trade.

But don't muddle up the conversation by talking about both, and calling them the same thing.

But to argue that free trade is something that happens between two governments is simply uneducated.

There can be no free trade with China as long as China's people are not free to trade freely, so you can't talk about trade with China as being an example of free trade. What trade with China is more than anything else, is a great demonstration of the "why" in fighting increasing government control of industry.

In China all jobs are protected by the government, and their markets are carefully guarded from competition.

A veritable protectionist's Shangri-La.

If you want to discuss trade with India, then we can discuss free trade, or along the way, we can discuss the tariffs in place right now. I say that they would benefit more from lowering their tariffs, and we would benefit less by raising ours.

If you want to discuss jobs, and whether private industry should be allowed to offshore, outsource, or subcontract work to international (free nation) sources, we can discuss it. I'll tell you that in my opinion, neither the government, nor the individual has any input in that; to argue that they do, and that the government should impose sanctions, or in any way not allow for those types of transactions to happen naturall and legally, is to show support for a communist/socialist economic model to one degree or another.

Marx said once that he supported free trade, he said that it would lead to general discontent, and lead to revolution, and that this revolution would lead to communism, which is complete government control of industry and labor.

A protectionist's basic argument is that in order not to become like Red China, we should have a government that guards our markets from external competition, and protects the people's jobs.

Protectionist's are leading the charge into Marx's communist revolution.