Replies

Ignoring 200 years of American history? Ignoring Republican Party platforms when America was great?
Just offering insults about welfare?

OPIC and the Export-Import bank are the CORPORATE WELFARE that allow offshoring to take place.

Here's how important these funds which are AMERICAN TAX MONEY were to Enron.

"Ex-Im Bank, OPIC backed 18 of firm's overseas projects to tune of $1.7 billion"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26159

"The absence of OPIC and Ex-Im Bank financing created serious problems for Phase II planning. Publicly, Enron would not comment on the extent of the damage done by the loss of OPIC and Ex-Im Bank funding, stating only: “We are monitoring the situation and it is premature for us to predict any potential impact on our projects.”292 Later, the company would again reassure investors that sanctions would not affect the construction of Phase II of the Dabhol Power project."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron/enron8-3.htm

3rd World Countries are places of near slave-wages and high risk. Their governments are unstable. The "U.S. based multi-national" corporations could tumble right along with the unrest of the country they are offshoring to.

Add in the National Security Risks that have been written about and I can provide plenty of links, including Kissinger (who said he doesn't care about the economics of it, just the politics) and there is no case to continue offshoring American jobs:
“I don’t look at this from an economic point of view but the political and social points of view. The question really is whether America can remain a great power or a dominant power if it becomes a primarily service economy, and I doubt that. A country has to have an industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. And I am concerned from that point of view.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947266/posts

Before the Civil War the North imposed tariffs on the South because Slavery gave the South an unfair (and immoral) advantage. The last tariff brought on the Civil War and an end to Slavery. Here's Walter Williams:
"The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.
Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.
That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp

Americans are competing against Slave-Wages of Third World Countries. It is an unfair advantage. China has devalued its Yuan and created an unfair advantage resulting in a huge Trade Deficit and the loss of many small and mid-sized AMERICAN manufacturing firms.
The U.S. Constitution granted power to Congress to "regulate commerce".
Congress is not doing its job to protect Americans and America.

It was not my intent to insult, only to point out the similarities between subsidizing life styles through protective tarriffs and subsidizing life styles through welfare. Both should be considered anathma by a conservative.

There are indeed valid reasons for tarriffs, funding the government is one. There are also valid reasons to restrict certain imports or exports on national security grounds. However, that is not the argument commonly made in these threads. Nor are those arguments made in the article posted. Instead, the argument made by this article is that some one has lost a job and that the government should intervene to protect that job. That is not an argument to use tarriffs to fund the government nor is it a national security argument. It is, clear, plain and simple, an argument to protect, or enhance an individual lifestyle.

We've been over OPIC before. There website claims OPIC is a creator of jobs. I'm sure they overstate that, but there is really no credible way of verifying that they have either produced a net increase or decrease in jobs. But, I wouldn't be in favor of OPIC even if they were a net creator of jobs on constitutional grounds. The government should not be involved in creating or destroying jobs or increasing or decreasing lifestyles.

I can't agree with your logic on tarriffs and the civil war. If you want to argue that the South had an "immoral" advantage due to slave labor being lower cost than labor in the free states, then you'll also have to argue that the tarriffs were instituted to increase the cost of goods produced in the south. But, the tarriffs were not placed on southern exports, but on southern imports. Also, you would have to argue that the northern free states were in competion with the south to produce cotton, the principal export of the south. No, those arguments don't hold. The tarriffs were placed on goods imported from abroad, principally from France and England. Surely, you do not intend to argue that France and England were slave states?

Of course Congress has the power to regulate commerce. That power was reserved to Congress to preclude the states from using protective tarriffs to benefit their industries at the cost of industry in other states. That power was not given to Congress to protect some ones job, their wages, or their lifestyle.

Republican platforms supported subsidies to railroads (dumb), government-monopolized money (bad idea, and tariffs (terrible business/competitive policies). The Republicans succeeded because of their CORE value, liberty of the individual---"free labor" (note, not "subsidized labor") and no slavery.

The problem was that the Dems believed in even LESS individual liberty---no companies at all; a rigid gold standard that didn't allow people to start banks; and slavery. Of the two, the GOP had the better policies, but hardly perfect. If you are trying to find cohesion in the economic policies of the early Republic or the early GOP, good luck. Hamilton never even read Adam Smith as far as I know---he was an old fashioned mercantilist at a time that Spain was COLLAPSING in mercantilism. But what Ham. did know was that the best way to fund the government was through loans of the wealthy (i.e., bonds), not taxes and not tariffs. The tariff was for "protection," which, by all studies we have now, was negligible in its impact and certainly was harmful after 1840.