Posted on 08/06/2003 4:42:34 AM PDT by Texas_Dawg
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:49:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Well I suppose that all depends on how soon you realize that when Pennsylvania loses more private industry and steelmaking jobs, more of the state's tax burden is going to fall on YOUR shoulders. And when your community declines because of the loss of this tax base, the value of YOUR property declines right along with it.
Or... you can elect Pat Buchanan and just drop nuclear bombs on the enemy once you realize that your market manipulations through the federal government still won't work.
Oh well. Better find something else to do then. That's life in a free world.
The steel industry once did the same thing. Unfortunately, its best days have passed. Imposing trade barriers would only encourage other countries to reciprocate by imposing tariffs on me. That hurts my employees, who are working like hell to be part of the solution to my community's dilemma.
What you are proposing would do more harm than good, as has been well-known by economists for several decades. It's the worst sort of short-term liberal bandaid thinking.
Yep. Willie actually agrees with several of Karl Marx's economic theories though. Karl Marx believed free trade would help expedite his communist revolution. Willie agrees. Just ask him.
No, probably not. I'd support Milton Friedman or Steve Forbes if either of them were running.
I voted for Bush in the '00 general mostly because I live in Pennsylvania, which was a critical state. Otherwise I'd probably have voted for the Libertarian just to try to keep the Republicans from taking my vote for granted.
I will decide how to vote once I see the reality of the moment. If it looks close in Pennsylvania I'll probably hold my nose and vote GW against any one of the nine dwarves. But that won't keep me from objecting to his policies when I think he's wrong.
In the meantime, I'm hoping against hope that Toomey can win the primary against Specter. Specter has all of the establishment out for him: veterans groups, country club types, etc. I sent him my business card the day he voted against impeachment. On it, I wrote the following: I AM ASHAMED THAT YOU ARE MY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE US SENATE. Hopefully, Toomey will give us true economic conservatives the opportunity to send him into retirement.
Haha. Of course.
I totally agree with you on the Toomey part as well.
Isn't it funny that Bush passed these steel tariffs and bloated farm subsidies yet you and I will probably still vote for him... yet Willie Green and the paleos who support that crap and who he was trying to appease by doing that, still hate him just as much as ever? Amazing.
I don't know what Karl Marx thought, but the implementation of communism and its subsequent demise were one ofthe strongest cases that can be made against trade barriers. Why do you think they called it the iron curtain? Their entire society was the epitomy of trying to protect a closed economy from outside products -- goods, services, and ideas. Communism and protectionism are part ofthe same animal, my friend, in spite of your fancy rhetoric.
I agree totally (I assume you mean Willie's fancy rhetoric). Many communists joined up with the national socialists in Germany to form the National Socialist party for good reason. The only difference in socialists of the Left and Right is who they want the government to force you to give your money to. The Left likes welfare and Willie likes tariffs because they redestribute the wealth to good solid white folk (as many FReepers will tell you).
Other countries already impose trade barriers against you. It is OUR country that has been unilaterally lowering tariffs while permitting an excessively lenient time frame for other nation's to reciprocate, if at all.
Furthermore, I do NOT advocate tit-for-tat retaliatory trade policies. Quite the opposite. I advocate a relatively low, one-rate applies to everybody and everything, revenue tariff. The proceeds from such a tariff would offset further reductions in other forms of domestic taxation, providing benefit to domestic industries in our own domestic market.
Why, power, of course. Isn't that what its all about for most of them?
Yep. Should have made that clear.
It might surprise you to know that I could support this but only if it meant the abolition of the income tax. But it's a pipe dream.
The numbers are in the right ballpark. (A Proposal to Abolish the Corporate Income Tax). It's a matter of bashing the congresscritters until they get it through their thick skulls.
True, but there are ways around them. I'll say no more, except that I'd like to keep it that way. Also, these countries only end up hurting themselves. Look at Japan. Look at Europe. I wouldn't trade our economy for theirs in a heartbeat.
And over a period of decades, business interests have successfully lobbied to shift a major portion of the burden away from corporate income tax to individual income tax. But getting in a dispute over who should pay more, individuals vs. business seems counterproductive when we're all in the same boat. I'd just as soon promote domestic production in a fashion that benefits everybody: levy a revenue tariff on imports and use the proceeds to lower the income tax: corporate or individual or both in whatever proportion the congresscritters can agree upon.
It doesn't matter who the unions support ---they always support the democrats ----what matters is that what Bush did for steel is apparently helping the economy ---because right after he did it, we got some nice reports of the economy doing a turn-around. "It's the Economy Stupid" so they say. If Americans are happily employed and feel they're moving ahead, Bush will win. If people are watching everyone around them get the pink slips and lose their homes, Bush will lose.
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.