[DugwayDuke]

I don't doubt that you are a registered republican. But can you explain the difference between tarriffs to "protect jobs" and a "living wage"? That's really my whole point, these arguments are indistinguishable, one from another. If you're going to subsidize the income of one segment of the population by limiting competition, then how can you oppose subsidizing the income of another segment because they too are underpayed?

[samuel_adams_us]

It's not my job to help india, last time I looked I lived in the United States. I guess some of us forget where we live?

[harpseal]

I don't doubt that you are a registered republican. But can you explain the difference between tarriffs to "protect jobs" and a "living wage"? That's really my whole point, these arguments are indistinguishable, one from another. If you're going to subsidize the income of one segment of the population by limiting competition, then how can you oppose subsidizing the income of another segment because they too are underpayed?

Since ytou are asking a reasonable question here you will get a reasonable answer. A "living wage" is a government mandate that is a direct order to companies to pay a specified level of compensation. A prtective tariff is a duty laid on imports that provides an envirornment whereby investment and the Free market will provide wages. It is a protection of investment not a direct madate on wages or a subsidy. It is an encouragement fort free market activity by providing an envirornment where predatoryy practices by foreign entities usually gobvernments are not allowed to destroy competition within the American market. It functions very simnilarly to the anti-trust laws in preventing pedatory practices. I am presuming from your past statements regarding unions you are in favor of anti-trust laws since they are the original means of stopping unions.

You aske dfor an explanation you have one. when you are discussing issues instead of making false assertions you get a whole different type reply.