Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should The Jones Act Be Repealed? (Skippers say "No")
gCaptain ^ | August 9, 2017 | Captains George Livingstone & Grant Livingstone

Posted on 08/10/2017 11:42:34 AM PDT by Oatka

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Alberta's Child

So rivers only. Why block those to foreigners to? Maybe they can do it cheaper?


21 posted on 08/10/2017 1:14:43 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

My first captain’s job was on an American flag tanker hauling British crude oil to British ports. They gave up most of their merchant marine.


22 posted on 08/10/2017 1:16:19 PM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Prohibiting foreign vessels from operating in the interior of the U.S. is clearly in this country’s best interests purely from the standpoint of national security, isn’t it?


23 posted on 08/10/2017 1:21:07 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart

I understand. My point is that the British empire was in decline long before that.


24 posted on 08/10/2017 1:21:58 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Prohibiting foreign vessels from operating in the interior of the U.S. is clearly in this country’s best interests purely from the standpoint of national security, isn’t it?

You don't see a national security need for a U.S. merchant marine capable of moving cargo from the continental U.S. to points overseas? Or from the continental U.S. to Hawaii or Puerto Rico or Alaska?

25 posted on 08/10/2017 1:24:37 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

And plenty of Freepers will fall for it. I remember when the OKI region had trucking regulated for interstate commerce by the feds and intrastate trucking regulated by each state (UH, IN, KY). After interstate trucking was deregulated the states kept theirs in place. To get around Ohio’s ridiculous rates we ship from Ohio to Ohio via Kentucky or Indiana. That would make the load interstate and exempt form Ohio’s union enabling crony capitalist scheme.

So if we must protect “our” jobs as a nation, then we need to protect them for my state, then we need to protect them for my city, but lets be honest I just want to eliminate competition and force you to deal with me only.


26 posted on 08/10/2017 1:26:17 PM PDT by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Let the U.S. military address any “national security needs” related to shipping in international waters.


27 posted on 08/10/2017 1:36:27 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oatka
Should The Jones Act Be Repealed?

If Loony McStain wants it repealed, it must be good for America. UP YOURS, McStain!!

28 posted on 08/10/2017 1:42:21 PM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

I believe the Jones Act can be suspended in a national emergency. By POTUS.

5.56mm


29 posted on 08/10/2017 1:49:43 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

There is one exception to the point about the equivalent Jones act for airlines: Anchorage, AK. A foreign airline carrying cargo, say JAL stops in Anchorage. They discharge some cargo, take on fuel, and so forth. The JAL can pick up domestic cargo at Anchorage and fly to LAX and discharge that domestic cargo. Domestic cargo-cargo that originates in the US.


30 posted on 08/10/2017 3:10:58 PM PDT by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Let the U.S. military address any “national security needs” related to shipping in international waters.

Why can't they deal with "national security needs" on inland waters as well? Isn't that one reason why we have a Coast Guard?

31 posted on 08/10/2017 3:57:57 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Inland waterways may have a Coast Guard presence, but every inland waterway I've dealt with lies within the borders of a state -- and therefore has a marine police (state or local) presence as well.

The U.S. Navy was established under Constitutional law to deal with matters of national defense on the "high seas" -- which is legally defined as international waters that are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.

I have no idea why Freepers would be supporting establishment of privately-owned transportation companies that basically operate in a "crony capitalist" environment as arms of the U.S. government. There hasn't been a national security issue that required the militarization of our merchant marine assets in decades; why would you want them to conduct business as a civilian industry when it isn't needed?

32 posted on 08/10/2017 4:12:27 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." -- President Trump, 6/1/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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