Posted on 08/01/2002 2:33:14 PM PDT by StopDemocratsDotCom
The line-item veto is a dead issue with the GOP, along with term limits, balanced budget amendment, etc. etc.
No, but Rumsfeld has.
I agree too. With every word he has uttered on the matter. That is not the point. I am concerned that he will not follow through.
However, we should expect that in all of our major trade relationships our trade 'partner' is willing to buy american products, services or commodities as freely as we buy are willing to buy theirs'. This is true with most of our significant trade partners, but not with all.
Our economy can produce and sell any type of product or service pretty effectively. We have our niches that are strong, we have our niches that are weak, but on an overall basis we're pretty darn competitive in a wide variety of products and services as compared to virtually all nations on earth. Whoever has money but can't find something to buy in the american economy is trying not to find anything to buy in that economy.
China's economy has been growing as rapidly as any on earth for 15 years. When they were a charity case 15 years ago, then having no tariffs on their products and tolerating the one way street in trade is reasonable. But times have changed. In the next year the chinese economy will purchase more personal computers than the japanese economy, the germany economy or the english economy. They are without means no more.
Someone should find the latest stats, but I believe that for every $8 of product we buy from them they buy $1 from us. The annual loss in manufacturing jobs reached one million per year about 2 years ago. Our largest manufacturer, Boeing, is now evidently going to produce in china and export.
If they can't find american products, services and commodities to buy so that the ratio of trade goes back to no more than 1.5 to 1.0, then we should impose tariffs on a graduated scale. For a nation with an 8 to 1 ratio, we should have 100% tariff. For a nation with 1.5 to 1.0 ratio the tariff should be zero. For 2.0 to 1.0 ratio the tariff should be 5-10%. For 3.0 to 1.0 it should be 30%, etc.
In this way our interests will be protected. President Bush's, Reagan's, Clinton's, Ford's, bureaucrats could not ever negotiate trade treaties that would actually prevent foreign governments and institutions simply slamming american sourced goods & services unfairly and in a manner that we wouldn't do. It's their right to do that, we can't stop them from doing what they want in their country, no matter how much negotiation occurs. If the WTO seeks to get over that problem and somehow force other nations to get rid of their practices that protect domestic industries, then they will be a tyrant, that's how much strength it takes to enforce those agreements negotiated behind closed doors. Some nations have legitimate reasons to throw up tariffs and protect some industries. Witness Bush' steel efforts. India has hundreds of millions of people who depend for their sustenance on farmers who labor on the land to produce food. The food can easily be under-priced by foreign (american and other) producers, but will India's government let it in and thus let several hundred million people lose their jobs? don't count on it, except under the heel of a boot. We should not stop other nations from protecting their legitimate interests.
People who oppose the current trade status quo on policy are not anti-trade. But instead wish that our elected representatives would make the rules in the open, not deals done by bureaucrats. We also think it reasonable that trade benefit both parties to the agreement. I heard president clinton's trade negotiator say on pbs that perhaps china would be closed to significant exports from the US for another 50 years, but that we would wait. I'm not kidding you, that's what she said in an interview.
I do applaud president bush' efforts to let the very poor countries with no economy export to US for set periods of time with no tariffs. China was in that category 10-15 years ago.
The pro 'free-trade' people also are failing to learn the lesson of our difficult efforts to compete under globalism. In China taxes are very very low. They've collected a LOT of money from tariffs instead. Their government doesn't spend money like drunken congressmen (I wouldn't insult a sailor) like ours' does. They don't regulate industries into the ground, like we do. In other words, they are using 'supply-side' economic polices and we are not.
The pro-free trade people are unconcerned that many and large segments of the american economy become creatively destructed and thus willing to give it up with 'free' trade, but they also don't seek the supply side fixes for our difficulties.
When you only consider taxes, why shouldn't an american company produce in china. Taxes are much lower in china on anyone who lives or produces. The medical industry over there certainly doesn't have to pay the high insurance for american tort laws that we have to pay. When you export from america to china you have to pay a tariff also, but not the other way.
If we can't produce more here, then we won't be able to afford our social security and medicaire programs. Adam Smith tried to convince the king that letting a busines pursue its' private interests by keeping his interference down and his taxes would cause the producers to produce so that the king could benefit. Our government is discouraging producers, not encouraging them.
...I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:69
A politician who hates business people and is willing to wreck the economy so his political enemies are hurt....no wonder the Democrats consider Jefferson to be the father of their party!
And Osama bin Laden's connection to fast track authority for the President to negotiate trade treaties is what exactly?
OPEC Oil.
Just where the heck do you think Osama gets his financing?
You sound like one of them "open borders" types who doesn't care if Osama's little minions come pouring across our borders to take flight lessons either. As long as they have cash to pay for the instruction, "free trade" is "free trade".
I was right.
American sovereignty and Independence doesn't mean a tinker's damn to you, either.
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you on fast track authority (and the notion that Thomas Jefferson ever had a rational thought on trade that is instructive in the current debate over US trade policy) is an Al-Quaeda sympathizer and thinks that we should open the borders to anyone who feels like coming here to steal our women and drink our beer. If only Fritz Hollings had presented the argument this way, I'm sure he would have won the vote in the Senate.
Just where the heck do you think Osama gets his financing?
You sound like one of them "open borders" types who doesn't care if Osama's little minions come pouring across our borders to take flight lessons either. As long as they have cash to pay for the instruction, "free trade" is "free trade".
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."-Neil Stephenson, author.
Having now realized that I have violated the first rule of Internet discussion groups, I will now sign off and do some work. Willie, it's been fun! Good luck to you!
No, they're just deliberately negligent that trade policies impact our nation's sovereignty, liberty, self-sufficiency and Independence.
You're more than welcome, Red.
I gotta admit, I was unfamiliar with this particular incident until I did a little research on the Web in preparation for my reply. It is a fascinating story. More information can be found here: Prelude to the War of 1812: The Chesapeake Affair of 1807.
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.