Rubio to Trump: 'America is great' right now

GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Tuesday continued to push back against front-runner Donald Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again,” instead of going after the billionaire businessman himself.

“There’s one other candidate running, he says he’s going to make America great again,” Rubio told about 200 people gathered in a community center in Nevada, according to The New York Times.

“I understand what he means by that. I don’t mean that as a slight," the Florida senator insisted, according to the newspaper.

“I would remind everyone America is great,” Rubio continued. “There’s no nation on earth I would trade places with. There’s no other country I would rather be. The issue is not that we’re not great. The issue is whether we will remain great. The issue is, we can be even greater than we are now. We can be even more prosperous, more powerful."

Rubio, who has shied away from directly attacking Trump, has repeatedly taken issue with the slogan that has become synonymous with the real estate mogul’s 2016 White House bid.

"In comparison to where the world is today, yeah, America's still a great country. But that's not due to our policies, that's despite our policies," Rubio told CNBC as part of an interview released last week.

Before that, Rubio said on Fox News that "America is a great country. ... We could be even greater."

Rubio, who has cast his own campaign as a bid for "A New American Century," has remained in the top tier of GOP candidates, placing fifth of 17 in the latest Public Policy Polling survey released on Tuesday.

Rubio: Our National Security Depends on Sugar Subsidies
National Review Online ^ | 31 Aug 2015 | Windsor Mann
Posted on 8/31/2015, 6:53:02 AM by Eric Pode of Croydon

You may not know this, but Brazilian sugar is a threat to U.S. national security. At least, that is the view of Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.).

Asked this month about his support for sugar subsidies, Rubio said he would eliminate them if “the countries that export sugar into the U.S. get rid of theirs as well, and here’s why: Otherwise, Brazil will wipe out our agriculture and it’s not just sugar.”

If we eliminate our sugar subsidies first, Rubio warned, “other countries will capture the market share, our agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate, you know, housing and so forth, and then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”

Let’s try to untangle this. If we get rid of sugar subsidies, Americans will turn their sugar farms into condominium lots and start buying sugar from foreigners, who will starve us until we surrender to ISIS. Or something like that.

The federal sugar program, which consists of price supports, import quotas, loan guarantees, and other anti-market contrivances, costs $1.9 billion annually, according to an estimate by the GAO. The Coalition for Sugar Reform, which advocates the repeal of sugar subsidies, says the program has cost $15 billion since 2008. American consumers must bear these costs for the privilege of buying sugar at more than twice the world rate. The benefits, meanwhile, accrue to the fewer than 4,500 domestic sugar producers.

In 1934, the U.S. government decided to subsidize sugar on a “temporary” basis. As often happens in Washington, at some point in the intervening decades, “temporary” came to mean “forever.” The result is a system in which the less-than-1 percent enrich themselves at the expense of the 99-plus percent, thanks to unremitting bipartisan support.

The justifications for sugar subsidies are limited, both in number and in cogency. Senator Al Franken (D., Minn.), whose state is home to sugar-beet farmers, said the sugar program is “critical to jobs and economic development.” In similar fashion, Rubio called the sugar industry “an important job creator in Florida.” It would be more accurate to say that the sugar program is critical to the sugar industry.

In this case, job creation has its downsides. For every sugar-related job created, three jobs in confectionery manufacturing are forfeited as a result of the high prices. “No regulation of commerce,” Adam Smith observed, “can increase the quantity of industry in any society. . . . It can only divert a part of it into a direction into which it might not otherwise have gone.”

We have as much reason to grow our own sugar as Lithuania does to make its own cars: none. The fact is that other countries produce certain things more cheaply and efficiently than we do. That is why we trade with them. If only our government would butt out, we could buy sugar even more cheaply.

Trade embargoes invariably break down. Even though North Korea and the United States have no trade relations, Kim Jong Un’s brother managed to get himself a Chicago Bulls jersey. Fidel Castro, likewise, has been spotted wearing Adidas apparel. Not every trading partner of ours is precluded from trading with our enemies. Eventually, in a global economy, everybody trades with everybody. If for some reason Brazil decides not to sell sugar to us, we can buy it from countries that buy it from Brazil. Presto! It really is that simple.

Oftentimes, invoking “national security” to defend a particular subsidy is just a pretext for maintaining a racket. In 1954, the U.S. government established price supports for domestic wool and mohair production “as a measure of national security.” (Seriously.) Sixty-one years later, politicians from sugar-producing states insist that preserving sugar subsidies is tantamount to preserving our national independence. “Our food security and, therefore, our national security depends on it,” Rubio said in 2012, “it” being the U.S. sugar industry.

The national-security rationale proved compelling during the Cold War, particularly after Castro took power in Cuba and seized control of its sugar production. At the time, American sugar interests argued that expanding domestic quotas would prevent “more Castro-like revolutions in Latin America.” In response to concerns about the supposed unreliability of sugar imports during wartime, an official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture offered the following rebuttal: “In any limited war there would be no serious sea transport problems and if we have an unlimited war with thermonuclear bombs and warheads, a shortage of sugar will be the least of our worries.” Indeed.

The Cold War is over, but the excuses for sugar subsidies persist. If protecting Americans’ lives were the goal, Rubio would be calling for a ban on sugar, not a subsidy. After all, sugar kills more Americans than terrorists do. According to a recent study published in the journal Circulation, sugar-sweetened beverages account for one in every 100 obesity-related deaths. Each year an estimated 25,000 Americans die as a result of consuming them.

Obesity causes deaths. Sugar causes obesity. The government subsidizes sugar. You subsidize the government. You subsidize death. The terrorists win.

This syllogism makes at least as much sense as what Rubio said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3331216/posts

Might be a good time to examine this "making America great again" meme by the standard of a Black Legislator and Minister who helped to celebration the 100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The following paragraph is excerpted from the CENTENNIAL Thanksgiving Sermon, DELIVERED BY REV. B. W. ARNETT, B. D., AT ST. PAUL A. M. E. CHURCH, URBANA, OHIO 1876 - available in the "Library of Congress - Historical Collections" - "African-American Pamphlets from the Daniel A. P. Murray Collection," 1820-1920; American Memory, Washington, DC.

This historical treasure is one which should be prominent in our national discussions, especially now, when our philosophical foundations are being challenged, and when the views of a learned man like Dr. Arnett might shed light on centuries-old ideas about America's history. His theme: Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, but Sin is a Reproach to any People."

"Withdraw from Christendom the Bible, the Church with its sacraments and ministry, and Christian morality and hopes, and aspirations for time and eternity; repeal all the laws that are founded in the Christian Scriptures; remove the Christian humanities in the form of hospitals and asylums, and reformatories and institutions of mercy utterly unknown to unchristian countries; destroy the literature, the culture, the institutions of learning, the art, the refinement, the place of woman in her home and in society, which owe their origin and power to Christianity; blot out all faith in Divine Providence, love, and righteousness; turn back every believer in Christ to his former state; remove all thought or hope of the forgiveness of sins by a just but gracious God; erase the name of Christ from every register it sanctifies—in a word annihilate all the legitimate and logical effects of Christianity in Christendom—just accomplish in fact what multitudes of gifted and learned minds are wishing and trying to accomplish by their science, philosophy, and criticism, and what multitudes of the common people desire and seek, and not only would all progress toward and unto perfection cease, but not one of the shining lights of infidelity would shine much longer. Yes, the bitterest enemies of this holy and blessed religion, owe their ability to be enemies to its sacred revelations - to the inspiration and sublimity of that faith which reflects its glories on their hostile natures. They live in the strength of that which they would destroy. They are raised to their seats of opportunity and power by the grace of Him they would crucify afresh; and is it to be thought that they are stronger than that which gives them strength? Can it be supposed that a religion which civilizes and subdues, and elevates and blesses will succumb to the enmities it may arouse and quicken in its onward march? Are we to tremble for the ark of God when God is its upholder, and protector, and preserver?” - Dr. Benjaming W. Arnett, St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio, Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, November 1876

Dr. Arnett, an A.M.E. Minister and Ohio State Legislator, was invited to publish this remarkable sermon commemorating the Centennial of the Declaration of Independence by the following method:

To:

Rev. B. W. ARNETT, B. D.

Dear Pastor:

Will you please prepare your “Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon” for publication: together with whatever matter pertaining to the colored people of this city, you deem worth preserving.

We make this request of you, believing that the publication of such matter, will be of benefit to the present and succeeding generations.

Yours Respectfully,

J GAITER
J. DEMPCY
C. L, GANT
Trustees W. A. STILGASS, W. O. BOWLES

Urbana, O.

December 7th, 1876

J GAITER, J. DEMPCY, C. L, GANT

Trustees W. A. STILGASS, W. O. BOWLES

Yours is at hand, requesting me to prepare my "Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon" for publication. If you think that my words will be of any advantage to you, and those whom you have the honor of representing, I am willing to leave it to your judgement and will prepare my feeble effort for the press: hoping that, if there is nothing new in it, at least I may awaken some one to follow "the Moccasin tracks of Righteousness, and the Foot Prints of sin on the sands of time," and be better prepared for the duties they owe to themselves, their families, their country, and their God.

I am, yours,

BENJAMIN W. ARNETT

____________________

At another point in his long "Thanksgiving Sermon," Dr. Arnett made the following assertion about America and "wherein lies its greatness":

"Let us see what it is that makes us so great; wherein lies our strength. What has made us one of the greatest powers of the earth, politically and intellectually? Have we come to the conclusion that it is Righteousness that exalteth a nation? We have met to-day at the request of the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, and also the Governor of our beloved State, Rutherford B. Hayes. For what? Why call us from our homes? Why come to the house of God? Why not go to the hall of mirth and to the places of amusement to-day? No that is not what they want us to do. We are commanded to go to our 'several places of worship, and there offer up thanks to Kind Providence which has brought our nation through the scenes of another year, and blessed the land with peace, plenty and prosperity.' Then as Americans we have reason to rejoice and congratulate ourselves on the greatness of our beloved country; at this the close of the first hundred years of experimental government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To be a citizen of this vast country is something, and to share in its privileges and duties is more than something." - Dr. Benjaming W. Arnett, St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio, Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, November 1876

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.