Posted on 07/28/2005 8:26:19 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
American Families Are Hungry Too; CAFTA-DR's Passage Questioned
WASHINGTON, July 28 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Early Thursday morning the House passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a two-vote margin, 217-215. The Senate approved CAFTA-DR last month; it now goes to the President for his signature.
The agreement's said purpose is to open trade between the US, Central America and the Dominican Republic to promote higher paying and better jobs, investment in America and helping to forge relations with developing countries, supposedly cutting down on job loss and immigration issues.
"Why would America purposely give away American jobs to bridge relations with developing countries?" asks Janice McLean DeLoatch, syndicated TV host of Entrepreneurs Edge. "Americans are already suffering from manufacturing and textile jobs being lost overseas. I know this from my own personal business experience. Our families are hungry too. I would like to know if those in the US House had businesses deals that will be impacted by this agreement. Do we deserve to have American businesses go out-of-business for the sake of helping the democracies of Central America and the Dominican Republic succeed."
To schedule an interview with Janice McLean DeLoatch, call 410-515-2991, 443-299-7360 or email info@entrepeneursedge.org.
It is known that the money was used to subsidize Brazil's steel industry to the detriment of its competitors. This was brought up to the WTO, but as usual the US lost (WTO=bastion of American haters) so while technically you may be right about it being an IMF handout, it still went via Brazil's government directly to the steel industry. This is why global trading is inherently corrupt and unfair to American companies-while companies are not supposted to be subsidized. In foreign countries they are subsidized.
You can not seriously tell me our steel industry is alive and well? Where-not in Ohio or Buffalo. Where are these mills that produced steel located ( a fraction of what was once produced). the link doesn't work for me.
These things are real easy for you to say, but they're no help at all for my understanding why I should want part of my grocery money taken by the federal government to feed some other hungry family (American Families Are Hungry Too; CAFTA-DR's Passage Questioned).
Quote: My phone bill is down 75% in the last 2 years.
No friends left to call other than rude??
Well, you having to be able to put 2 and 2 together, and I am not certain you are capable of doing that, but in the forlorn hope you might.
Using traiffs as a funding source for govenment means that other funding sources, like income taxes, can be cut. So, right away we get an income tax cut. And since traiffs are only applied to import, one can buy domestic and not pay the traiffs if one chooses to do so. Now buying domestic means that American workers are being put to work making american products, those american workers are paying taxes too, so once again I get a tax cut. An then there are all the suppliers suppling american raw matrials to the american factories workers needed to make thier american products, more american tax payers, less tax on me.
It is a no brainer that traiffs will lower my taxes, but what about the cost of those domestic products vrs the cost of the cheap imports? Well it is also a no brainer the the cost ofstuff will go up. But I'll have more money (less taxes) and more people will be working (less taxes again, less welfare, few unemployed) and all the money would stay in the usa (higher profits, less taxes on me yet again).
Also, some smart inventer might decide to invent a robot that makes stuff, since labor costs in the usa is high. That means new robot plants making robots to lower the cost of the stuff I buy, so after a while the cost of domestic stuff goes down and workers get high payiing jobs in robot factories, plus the usa becomes the world leader in making robots! Engineering takes off and so does all kinds of R&D to develop new low costs products.
It's a win/win/win for the usa and usa workers.
184 by superiorslots Free Traitors are communist China's modern day "Useful Idiots"
185 by jpsb "you having to be able to put 2 and 2 together, and I am not certain you are capable"
Now that we've done such a nice job of addressing Todd's point, we are free to go back to discussing why we need to keep taxes high in order to feed "Hungry Families"
Still supporting the progressive income tax over a volutary comsumption tax i see.
Ok, I agree with you on how bad the income tax is. Now, back on topic-- this article says we need high taxes for big spending for hungry families. I say no. Why do you say yes?
I don't know how well the industry is, but it's alive enough that it produced 96.2 million tons of steel last year.
Where-not in Ohio or Buffalo. Where are these mills that produced steel located ( a fraction of what was once produced).
I don't know where the mills are. Look it up.
the link doesn't work for me.
The file is a PDF. You need Adobe Acrobat to read it.
You say no to a voluntray consumption tax, instead you want the current progressive income tax. I say yes to a voluntary consumption tax and no to a progressive income tax. As I have repeated stated, the money to run government has to come from somewhere, either taxes on workers like me, or taxes on foriegn importers like the Chicoms. Why should the Chicoms get tax free access to the usa market all that does is forces workers like me to higher income taxes. I have also pointed out that increased domestic economic activity, (replacing imports with domestic produced) would also generate more tax revnue lessoning the tax burden on me. win/win.
The Chicoms don't pay the tariffs, Americans do.
I have also pointed out that increased domestic economic activity, (replacing imports with domestic produced) would also generate more tax revnue lessoning the tax burden on me. win/win.
Sounds like a great idea. So the higher a country's tariffs the better their economy? I guess you can show some stats that agree with your theory?
Typical of the mindless BS you post, obvisiouly if traiffs or any other tax for that matter are too high then revenues will fall as people will simply avoid the activity that incurs the tax, but since you are incapable for putting 2 and 2 together I am not surprised you don't "get it".
Yes they do, they pay to gain access to the usa market, then hopefully for the Chicoms the product will sell at a profit with the cost of the traiffs build in. No garentee that will happen, as one may choose to not buy the product, strickly voluntray.
So, you have any examples where the majority of revenues are raised by tariffs? Where all revenues are raised by tariffs?
The federal government has serveral sources of income, including leases on federal lands, how ever prior to the adoption of the progressive income tax that yall free traders love so much (commie to the core), traiffs were a major source of income for the feds.
Yeah, great, prior to 1916 tariffs were a great source of income. I mean now, today, any country raise the majority of their revenue from tariffs? And hate to disappoint you protectionists, (economic illiterates to the core) free traders don't like the progressive income tax.
Yall, free traders have grown government so large, that I do not think a traiffs only based tax could support it. The size of government would have to be greatly cut back to just the powers enumerated in our Cinstitution for that to work. And you obviously like the progressive income tax, yall free traders (commie stooges) are the biggest supporters of the progressive income tax since you scream bloody murder when ever anyone suggests raising revenue with a voluntary consumption tax. Using free trade tare apart sucessful conservative tariff based economies is a big part of the communist agenda.
Yall ignorance is astounding.
And you obviously like the progressive income tax, yall free traders (commie stooges) are the biggest supporters of the progressive income tax since you scream bloody murder when ever anyone suggests raising revenue with a voluntary consumption tax.
You must have me confused with someone else. A consumption tax might work, but only if the income tax was eliminated first. Otherwise the Feds would bleed us with both. Like European governments do with a VAT tax on top of an income tax.
Of course you protectionists (stupid ass clowns) don't think that far ahead, typical.
Sorry, I'm new to the conversation. Just curious how you rationalize "outsourcing" our immigration & border policy to an international body, which CAFTA does.
I also would like to know how you explain why real wages & private sector jobs are down since 2001.
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.