Skip to comments.What would happen if Sarah Palin suggested a more assertive US trade policy?
Posted on 01/18/2011 2:42:21 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
Sorry for back-to-back trade policy vanities.
Was reviewing the posts just now, and got to pondering.
The left reflexively opposes Sarah Palin. They don't know why, I think it's they're having flashbacks to Anita Bryant.
Meanwhile the right, is in a coma, regarding our trade policies. Willfully ignoring the problem, IMHO.
Solution to both problems:
The left would totally lose their bearings to such an extent, we could see a surge in "Palin Democrats", for all the same reasons there were so many Reagan Democrats.
And perhaps, it's what just might wake up some, on our side to the very real problem.
What say you? :)
theres nothing wrong with the trade policy, its the business/tax policy thats wrong. Free trade is good for society because it allocate resources more efficiently giving consumers the best and cheapest option
When we are creating history’s richest, strongest communist rival.
There’s something wrong with our trade policy.
I absolutely agree with you 100%. Free trade has destroyed the steel industry in Eastern Ohio and Western PA. If Palin took the side of Reagan Democrats on this issue, it would be to our benefit as a country.
The US is creating a powerful rival because it has totally hamstrung itself from effectively producing wealth.
China produces stuff for America because America is overegulated, overtaxed, miseducated (in Govt schools) and leaves crazy legal vulnerabilities hanging over its businesses.
Why should Americans be forced to buy expensive steel from inefficient, overtaxed, overregulated domestic suppliers?
Why do you want taxpayers to pay for a vast addition to the welfare state, in the shape of featherbedded steelworkers?
because it is OUR country
and we need to stop the overtaxation and regulation. Sarah Palin would agree.
Whatever the reason, we need to act.
No more time, for endless debates as the the reason(s) we’re in this national mess. I certainly don’t disagree with your reasoning, but this is not some intellectual exercise!
Our Republic is in terrible danger. Most have no clue, what we’re up against. And seem to prefer it that way.
I would expect that sort of willful avoidance from the left.
It’s disturbing, to see the same stubborn avoidance of uncomfortable realities, from our side.
Protectionist trade policies are what allowed unions to flourish and turned the US auto industry into the abomination that it is today. There’s no incentive for efficiency or improvement. As you fall behind more and more you just cry to the government for more protection. Meanwhile, it’s American consumers who are paying the price.
What you’re advocating is a nanny state for business.
That theory is BS when dealing with a Communist slave state. All countries are not created equally.
Tariffs would be a very good idea. Maybe a 10% duty from every communists country that wants to enjoy our free society and markets. Call it a freedom tariff.
Try building one of these without steel.
Yes, there will be wars. Next question.
Perfectly profitable non-union companies moved their production to China. Greed is good. Greed when it endangers National Security is evil. We the people get to make the call when things have gone to far. When companies start pussy footing with ChiComs, I have a problem.
theres No “we” are creating the history’s richest strong communist rival. “They’re” creating the history’s richest strong capitalist rival.
This makes me very sad. So called right wingers on here turn a blind eye to the ideology when they think their ideology is somehow responsible for destroying their country, which is misplaced.
It is really hard as a conservative to criticize the great unwashed in this country for being “lazy” when we outsource production and have an open border with Mexico.
I don’t think that artificially creating jobs through trade policy is the solution to that problem. That would be essentially no different from having them on welfare or paying them to break rocks.
There is nothing artificial about it. It is both socially less expensive and financially less expensive. OTH we could keep taxing the middle class to death to pay for our "lazy" workers.
Tariffs are the answer because oursourcing has a cost, whether you want to admit it or not.
Factories that make toys today can be converted into making armamants tomorrow, if needed. The problem is when you need the factory and it is now in enemy territory!
If Palin wants to WIN, getting the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats and even some Democrats, I recommend the platform below.
- no Wall Street careerists in the administration
- any bank “too big to fail” needs to be broken up
- no more borrowing from the government at 0% and lending to it at 5%
- time to value bank assets at market and bring transparency to balance sheets
Campaign slogan: In the Palin administration, the word “bailout” will refer only to jumping from airplanes.”
Let human nature and economics work for us instead of forcing humans to do what is not in their best interest. Common sense 101.
I think the more general theme for Sarah should be, “The President should be doing everything possible to grow the economy, help American companies who will employ American workers, and keep those jobs here.”
I am in favor of free trade. Unfortunately, countries such as China levy import duties and we do not match them. That’s not free trade; it’s allowing the other party unfair advantage.
Obama is anti-business which means he is anti-US jobs. Sarah can communicate that as well as Reagan did.