Bush: Protectionism will cost U.S. jobs

Yahoo ^ | 10/12/07 | JENNIFER LOVEN

[nyyankeefan]

you have basically said it all...

except ~ muchas gracias jorge bush!!!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

What a surprise. Bush immediately produces a straw-man argument. Those who oppose managed "free" trade by unelected internationalists are "protectionists." Just like those who oppose illegal immigration are "racist."

"We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish."

RON PAUL LIBRARY

[Joe Boucher]

I lived there for a year and wanted to bring a Harley Davidson there. Price at the time new about $18,000. After import duties, about $60,000.
NOw as for a new American car?????

[1rudeboy]

We need to enact the South Korea FTA as soon as possible, I agree.

[bill1952]

Make sure that they are more expensive to produce here then in the target country and to provide the plan clearly showing how to sell these overpriced goods there.

[Wolfie]

The second they anoint Hillary, all the Freepers who support Bush on this issue will suddenly be against it.

[1rudeboy]

Gladly. And the target date for your bankruptcy is when?

[Joe Boucher]

You are correct in many circumstances.
For instance our sugar industry is subsidized for every pound of sugar they produce. World proce is about a dime a pound and we give producers another dime for every pound they come up with.
Fanjul family here in South Florida own the govt. the land and pollute like they live somewhere else.
They shake down the govt and politicians are bought and paid for .
And yes trade is great for bringing folks together BUT many many countries like the Chi-coms and the South Korea send us their crap and don’t want to take ours if they have a fledgling home producer.

[1rudeboy]

Actually now that I think about it, just mark-up the price of whatever product your company sells by 1000%, call up someone in Canada or Mexico, and off you go. Best wishes.

[capitalist229]

Free trade has cost created U.S. jobs.

There. Fixed it.

BUMP

[ex-snook]

"Free trade has cost the U.S. jobs."

'Fleece' Traders claimed that this would increase 'good jobs'. However, they have yet to identify who is now holding these 'good jobs'. Perhaps they should check out China to find them.

Trade is we buy from you and you buy from us. Not we'll trade you our jobs and our Treasuries for your cheap expendable goods.

'Free' trade, another addition to the Administration's '101 more ways to elect Democrats'.

[RightWhale]

Do we favor free trade or not? Seems to depend. When the commodity exchange is open we favor it. When it is the weekend they are all commies.

[Mr. Mojo]

I like Duncan Hunter’s idea: “mirror tariffs” — maintaining the same tariff rates as our foreign trading partners.

[isthisnickcool]

So in other words, you are opposed to a trade agreement with, say, South Korea because we have an illegal immigration problem.

If I had wanted to make my point using other words I would have used other words.

Asking me if I apposed trade agreements because several female celebrities have not worn underwear in public recently makes about as much sense as the question you asked in response to my post. Maybe more sense actually.

[rbosque]

He’s selling us out. We are a sovereign nation George. Stop importing poverty, stop NAFTA.

[1rudeboy]

No, you can't wriggle off the hook so easily . . . one can presume that you were speaking of our illegal immigration problem, and not underwear, when you wrote about getting "$20+ million of us to move to Mexico and live off their sociaty for free."

[Will88]

“Asking me if I apposed trade agreements because several female celebrities have not worn underwear in public recently makes about as much sense as the question you asked in response to my post. Maybe more sense actually.”

I vote that it makes more sense. 1rudeboy specializes in the inane one-liner. Others have called his responses obtuse, but I think your response might be the most creative and on point that I’ve seen, Lol.

[bill1952]

>, just mark-up the price of whatever product your company sells by 1000%, call up someone in Canada or Mexico, and off you go.

I still think that you should change that screen name to 1dumboy. It resonates.

I had reduced the argument to the absurd in the very first post, but that passed you by in your haste to bash every poster here who had the temerity to disagree with you.

One cannot sell goods there that cost more to produce here than anywhere else, yet you panted and blathered, then chunked up a huge waste of bandwidth to deny that.

I even asked you if you had truly read the post, but nothing was forthcoming except more distortions and nonsense.

Your posts are meaningless.

[1rudeboy]

"We cannot export things to poorer nations that cost more to manufacture here then everywhere else, and most of our things do." [emphasis added]

That is the portion of your reply that drew my comment. Don't forget.

[1rudeboy]

So he brought-up illegal immigration by accident? Please help him out.