Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trade and Tea Party: Not exactly a happy couple
FORTUNE ^ | November 1, 2010 | Tory Newmyer with Jennifer Liberto

Posted on 11/02/2010 5:11:48 AM PDT by expat_panama

Big business interests are hopeful that a Republican takeover of the House -- now looking more likely than not -- will thaw free-trade deals that have languished since President Obama took office. Those agreements are on a short list of priorities the White House has in common with GOP leaders.

But a rising protectionist tide brought about by the sour economy is threatening to complicate the task. And business groups in Washington are already preparing for the possibility that a new Republican majority stocked with populists from Rust Belt districts and beyond will present a less receptive audience than they once anticipated.

"We're going to have our work cut out for us," says Christopher Wenk, the senior director of international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Even under the current Congress, Republicans have proven more inclined to register protectionist sentiment. That was on stark display in late September, when 99 Republicans joined 249 Democrats in approving a measure to strengthen the administration's hand in pushing the Chinese to let their currency rise.

(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: business; protection; teaparty; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last
To: cripplecreek
We support lower taxes, less regulation, and right to work.

How about a $2 per day for factory workers? Because that's the reason why jobs go overseas, not regulations or unions or taxes.

61 posted on 11/02/2010 10:15:13 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
Are you saying they should only be on internal trade and not external?

Yes. Some want to tax some goods twice because they originate outside of our borders. This leads to higher prices for consumers within our borders and higher production costs for businesses operating within our borders. It doesn't take much imagination to see why such policies do not translate into job creation within our borders.
62 posted on 11/02/2010 10:19:40 AM PDT by JHBowden (Keep the Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Because that's the reason why jobs go overseas, not regulations or unions or taxes.

Exactly. Otherwise Germany, which is unionized right down to the candy store clerks and has regulation and taxes in spades, wouldn't be the world's largest exporter with a population 1/4 of the US and have lower unemployment.

They are protectionist though, even though they talk a good game on free trade for the cameras

63 posted on 11/02/2010 10:23:06 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JHBowden
This leads to higher prices for consumers within our borders and higher production costs for businesses operating within our borders.

So can internal taxes. So you must be an anarcho-capitalist I take it.

64 posted on 11/02/2010 10:26:33 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek; Mase; 1rudeboy; 10Ring; expat_panama
We support lower taxes, less regulation, and right to work.

So do all the free traders I know.

65 posted on 11/02/2010 10:29:35 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
So you must be an anarcho-capitalist I take it.

No, I'm a neoconservative. If you're trying to find a label to stop yourself from thinking, use the word "globalist."
66 posted on 11/02/2010 10:30:56 AM PDT by JHBowden (Keep the Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JHBowden
No, I'm a neoconservative.

I'm just trying to understand the free trader position that taxes on trade between Americans is preferable to taxes on trade between Americans and foreigners. Or one is a third option which is anarchist - no taxes on anything.

67 posted on 11/02/2010 10:37:17 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
taxes on trade between Americans

What taxes are there on trade between Americans?

68 posted on 11/02/2010 10:39:41 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
We're going to have taxes, so no reason some of them or even most of them can't be tariffs.

The free traders I know are pragmatic people. They understand that federal income taxes aren't going away and that repealing the 16th Amendment is for the Pollyannas among us. That being so, we support free trade agreements that lower tariffs to zero. It's good for consumers and good for industry.

You can spend hours defining terms and labeling people but, at the end of the day, I'm only interested in what's going to work, and work quickly. Arguing that we should lower federal income taxes in favor of increasing tariffs might make for great classroom discussion but that's all it is.

69 posted on 11/02/2010 10:51:00 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
What taxes are there on trade between Americans?

And toddsterpatriot fires up the band for his well-worn Socratic method cum sophism/semantics dance.

70 posted on 11/02/2010 10:54:03 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
Or one is a third option which is anarchist - no taxes on anything.

Just for the record, I haven't seen anyone here argue in favor of no taxes on anything yet. You?

I think conservatives here will agree that taxes are necessary and legal. You appear to be working hard to find an argument.

71 posted on 11/02/2010 10:54:48 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values; Toddsterpatriot
And toddsterpatriot fires up the band for his well-worn Socratic method cum sophism/semantics dance.

Hey Toddster, looks like it's time to play Guess the retread again.

Hey TV, what was your previous screen name and why were you banned?

72 posted on 11/02/2010 10:57:24 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mase; Toddsterpatriot
Hey TV, what was your previous screen name and why were you banned?

None and no reason. I think if you look at my posts you'll see I have a fairly unique outlook on things that would be pretty recognizable.

But when you look through someone's posts and 70% are in the form of a question, it's pretty easy to pick up on what their game is. It's not like toddsterpatriot invented the tactic.

73 posted on 11/02/2010 11:07:04 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

No answer? I’m shocked!


74 posted on 11/02/2010 11:07:31 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mase
It's good for consumers and good for industry.

There are winners and losers and we're arguing over who and whom.

Arguing that we should lower federal income taxes in favor of increasing tariffs might make for great classroom discussion but that's all it is.

As quickly as we've gotten to here it's in no way merely an academic debate to reverse course. The tax regime in place now isn't holy writ.

75 posted on 11/02/2010 11:16:58 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
No answer? I’m shocked!

Can you not name any tax on trade between Americans? See, I can play too.

76 posted on 11/02/2010 11:18:53 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
Exactly, our real problems are issues like excessive taxes. So how about we start tax-cutting by eliminating taxes on imports?

Lol, who, other than you, decreed what our real problems are? That's very much subject to debate, and it's a debate that needs to be had. Too much of the public discourse in the past has been left to those peddling these one-sided trade deals our government has been entering for half a century or more.

77 posted on 11/02/2010 11:20:26 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mase
I think conservatives here will agree that taxes are necessary and legal.

Good, now I just take it from the general to a specific and say that import taxes are necessary and legal. Or compromise and say no less necessary and legal than internal taxes.

78 posted on 11/02/2010 11:22:27 AM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
You made the claim, I didn't.

Can you back it up? We'll see.

79 posted on 11/02/2010 11:30:40 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Mase
The American people have been lied to about the fact that more government intervention in the market means higher prices and lower efficiency?

Few things over the past fifty years illustrate government intervention more than all these one-sided trade arrangements they have agreed to since the 1950s. Absolutely government intervention with a lot of one-sided trade deals and deficits as the result.

You really need to stop your single entry, one-sided accounting for the economy. Our mushrooming expense for food stamps, medicaid, EITC, unpaid medical bills, and all the government subsidy programs for low wage earners are a cost of our current economic and trade policies. Every trick available to increase the supply of labor and decrease the cost has been used. It saves nothing, but just transfers the cost to present and future taxpayers.

The policy of exporting jobs to cheap labor, and the policy of allowing employers to lure cheap, illegal alien labor to the US saves nothing. It's all paid for in the growth and existing, and creation of new (Obamacare) programs for the lowest wage earners in the US.

You and many others need to spend some time studying the growth in our government's low wage subsidy programs: EITC alone is now $60 billion per year.

Stop kidding yourself.

And today is election day, a better day for focusing on the political changes that are coming than for dragging this discussion out. It will be discussed again, and at much higher levels.

80 posted on 11/02/2010 11:35:25 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson