Posted on 08/04/2003 12:33:05 PM PDT by Willie Green
That is one of the requirements in the laws authorizing the H1-B visas.
Frankly, I'd be perfectly content to let General Motors collapse under the weight of its pension and insruance obligations. I don't think Willie Green would be too happy about that, though.
The gentleman made a valid point, one which you cannot refute. Neither can the administration. At least Bush refrains from making snide public remarks at the economic difficulties caused by massive taxation and regulation on working Americans.
Bush could help reverse the bleeding of jobs by pressuring Congress to shift the majority of the tax burden to foreign entities wishing to exploit our consumer market, and repealing 99.9% of the regulatory idiocy that stifles our productivity. The big question is: why is this not happening?
I can not speak for Willie but I would be perfectly happy to have any Company that can not meet its pension and Insurance obligations go under if teh alternative is increased sociaism. However, tariffs where appropriate (not automobiles at this time) are an alternative to sociaism when government practices have caused theproblems in teh first place. besides they are a very good way to raise revenue so the income tax could be lowered.
I'm not so sure about that. Medicare costs have definitely spiraled out of control, but I believe this is the result of more people being in the program, not higher individual costs. Any medical procedure covered by Medicare costs less (in terms of what the doctor is paid) than it would cost for a private insurance company.
And Medicare can deny treatment without ever facing the "sue your HMO" crowd, either.
If this sounds familiar, it is -- it's called "the European system."
That is the concern of many. If Bush had started yesterday to take corrective measures, it might not be be soon enough.
Any of the Democrats running, and the ugly one waiting in the wings, would turn this country into a police state nightmare with an economy like this.
It is too bad that people forget, or are too young to remember, how Democrats create a crisis and then use to increase their power over the people.
No... he really didn't.
I think we should completely scrap the income tax system - completely - and go back to funding the government with tariffs. Now I know, free traders start screaming, "Tariffs are Taxes!"
The difference is, tariffs work like a consumption tax, and in that regard are much more equitable than the current progressive tax system.
Brain last.
Nope, won't happen. They'll use the corporate plan, the government plan and probably have a plan or two more. Then they will b*itch and moan and complain if they have to spend $2.00 to get one of their many unneeded prescriptions filled.
Sounds pretty cool. Now, how would you feel if your job got outsourced offshore? (Anyone who works at a desk on a computer is at risk). Would this have any effect on your opinions about free-trade?
As I've said repeatedly, I would get up and go find something else to do. I definitely would NOT ask the federal government to take everyone else's money in order to protect my salary. That is the definition of pathetic.
Would this have any effect on your opinions about free-trade?
No. Because I understand economics. So does RDB3 (a FReeper with an IT degree who is every bit the free marketeer that I am).
I definitely would NOT ask the federal government to take everyone else's money in order to protect my salary.
Ok, you're saying tariffs would artifically inflate prices for consumers (govt taking everyone else's money). I agree.
Here's a question for you - say you were president, would you push for complete, total, free trade with all countries of the world? Complete unrestricted trade, no rules? How deep are your free-trade convictions?
No, only because most Americans do not still understand free trade. I would probably end up passing the tariffs and farm subsidies that Bush passed, even though I would hate having to do it, knowing how much money it takes from everyone, especially the poorest Americans who nees it most. I would do it only out of political expediency (as was Bush's only reason for doing these things; much like his signing of the campaign finance bill). But in a better economic and political world (and one we are getting closer to in America) I would. Yes, I would push for the other countries to remove their tariffs and protections as well (to minimize the near-term effects on our economy that those actions might have). (This is entirely the point of the WTO and GATT.) But ultimately, their refusing to remove their "protections" would not stop me from removing ours. We would completely benefit in the long run and they would eventually be forced to remove theirs (as all communist, socialist, and other planned economies have been or are being forced to do by our freer market; which just keeps growing and growing as far as world market share is concerned).
I'm kind of taken by the concept of India/Russia/China/Phlilipines/etc. coming on-line in the world. So many people producing so much great stuff & services. I think my fear is that this would mean America becomes third-world, instead of raising up other nations.
Anyway, last question for today - so this is freep (allegedly conservative) - what makes free-trade a conservative value?
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.