Um, tariffs are marxist. They deny that individuals can creat their own value.
Um...
Our nation used protective tariffs for the first 200 years. You know, the first 200 most productive, most amazing, most spectacular years. When we built a middle-class the envy of the entire world. When we built a nation more prosperous and strong than any in history.
And, until recently, the Republican Party adhered to protectionist trade policies. Here are some excerpts, the links follow:
1892 Republican Party Platform excerpt:
We reaffirm the American doctrine of protection. We call attention to its growth abroad. We maintain that the prosperous condition of our country is largely due to the wise revenue legislation of the Republican congress.
We believe that all articles which cannot be produced in the United States, except luxuries, should be admitted free of duty, and that on all imports coming into competition with the products of American labor, there should be levied duties equal to the difference between wages abroad and at home. We assert that the prices of manufactured articles of general consumption have been reduced under the operations of the tariff act of 1890.
We denounce the efforts of the Democratic majority of the House of Representatives to destroy our tariff laws by piecemeal, as manifested by their attacks upon wool, lead and lead ores, the chief products of a number of States, and we ask the people for their judgment thereon.
We point to the success of the Republican policy of reciprocity, under which our export trade has vastly increased and new and enlarged markets have been opened for the products of our farms and workshops. We remind the people of the bitter opposition of the Democratic party to this practical business measure, and claim that, executed by a Republican administration, our present laws will eventually give us control of the trade of the world.
1904 Republican Party Platform excerpt:
Protection, which guards and develops our industries, is a cardinal policy of the Republican party. The measure of protection should always at least equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad. We insist upon the maintenance of the principle of protection, and therefore rates of duty should be readjusted only when conditions have so changed that the public interest demands their alteration, but this work cannot safely be committed to any other hands than those of the Republican party. To intrust it to the Democratic party is to invite disaster. Whether, as in 1892, the Democratic party declares the protective tariff unconstitutional, or whether it demands tariff reform or tariff revision, its real object is always the destruction of the protective system. However specious the name, the purpose is ever the same. A Democratic tariff has always been followed by business adversity: a Republican tariff by business prosperity. To a Republican Congress and a Republican President this great question can be safely intrusted. When the only free trade country among the great nations agitates a return to protection, the chief protective country should not falter in maintaining it.
1964 Republican Party Platform excerpt:
4. We hold that trade with Communist countries should not be directed toward the enhancement of their power and influence but could only be justified if it would serve to diminish their power.
5. We are opposed to the recognition of Red China. We oppose its admission into the United Nations. We steadfastly support free China.
1968 Republican Party Platform excerpt:
maintain a favorable balance of trade and balance of payments
...
It remains the policy of the Republican Party to work toward freer trade among all nations of the free world. But artificial obstacles to such trade are a serious concern. We promise hard-headed bargaining to lower the non-tariff barriers against American exports and to develop a code of fair competition, including international fair labor standards, between the United States and comparable principal trading partners.
A sudden influx of imports can endanger many industries. These problems, differing in each industry, must be considered case by case. Our guideline will be fairness for both producers and workers, without foreclosing imports.
Thousands of jobs have been lost to foreign producers because of discriminatory and unfair trade practices.
The State Department must give closest attention to the development of agreements with exporting nations to bring about fair competition. Imports should not be permitted to capture excessive portions of the American market but should, through international agreements, be able to participate in the growth of consumption.
Should such efforts fail, specific countermeasures will have to be applied until fair competition is re-established. Tax reforms will also be required to preserve the competitiveness of American goods.
The basis for determining the value of imports and exports must be modified to reflect true dollar value.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/doc_platforms.php?platindex=R1892 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/doc_platforms.php?platindex=R1904 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/doc_platforms.php?platindex=R1964 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/site/docs/doc_platforms.php?platindex=R1968Tariffs protect private property, which is the cornerstone of the American Republic. They protect property by allowing the owner to keep its value relative to our nation's economy and not relative to an economic standard set by another nation. The American economic engine has been an entity unto itself and has done very well by the American people and yes, tariffs have assured this.
Through globalist socialist free trade the protective value of the tariff has been lost. You can see that now private property of Americans is now being related to the lowest economic standards in the world, those of low wage or slave labor nations.
It is marxist to promote the idea that Americans should lose all their wealth is it not? Isn't this the loss of private property Marx was so eager to accomplish?
You are destroying the meaning of the word tariff by expanding its meaning to be that it denies individuals the ability to create their own value. The fact that you are trying to do this is classic imposition of Marxist thought on another culture.
Here is what a tariff is:
A list or system of duties imposed by a government on imported or exported goods.
Remember our government was chartered by our founding fathers to _protect_ the individual, and that means protecting the value of his property, his money, his way of life, then so be it.
Our governments job is _not_ to give global corporations and third world countries the right to bankrupt us and throw our economy into chaos, which is clearly what it is doing now.