Replies

The longer your responses get, the more BS they contain. Let's get to the nut of your last: LOL, and you present this as an example of how that doesn't apply to you? You are the moronic contributor that keeps on giving aren't you..

The United States can use tariffs, tax incentives, and other enticements to move more commerce back to the United States. Trashing one or all of them before anyone has even made a detailed suggestion, shows massive ignorance on your part.

I shouldn't have to remind you that, on a conservative website, raising taxes to "move" commerce anywhere is a dicey proposition. When an economist makes the argument, "trashing" the idea is par for the course.

To show how much grasp you have of this topic, raising taxes was not on the table here Sparkey. Tax incentives references reducing taxes to make it more profitable for businesses to conduct busines in the United States. Oh, it's now your take that Conservatives don't approve of that? Really?

You, not an economist, hold yourself immune to such criticism because you claim you are being patriotic.

If you want to address tariffs, I suggest you use the word 'tariffs' and not 'taxes' so folks will know what the heck you're talking about. Oh nevermind, you're an expert on this stuff. Nobody needs to tell you anything. LMAO.

It's funny how, on a website (for the most part) dedicated to rooting-out governmental fraud, abuse, and corruption, one can see people arguing, "the government must raise your taxes for your own good, and I can say so because I'm a patriot."

Please link me to where I mentioned raising taxes. Thanks.

Apart from such arguments, that really don't deserve any time at all, let's get a little more specific.

Hmmm, would that go double when they weren't made in the first place...

Obama placed higher tariffs on Chinese tires some time ago (I don't know if the higher tariff has been lifted since then, or not).

Since I haven't advocated tariffs on this thread, I don't actually give a rip. Why don't you have that conversation with yourself, since you're the only one harping on it.

Once again, no mention of 40% Chinese tariffs on our goods. That is the tariff that makes it very hard for anything made in the United States, to make it's way into China. Which nation's people lose jobs because of that? Tell me Sparkey! Chinese nationals or United States nationals? And here you are humping the U. S. tariff subject as if it is costing U. S. jobs. You don't have the slightest grasp of this subject. And on and on you prattle, completely oblivious to the fact you're ripping yourself to shreds here.

Who brought up the issue of tariffs here? You? Me? It was you Sparkey. I didn't address them until after you ranted on about the evils of them. None the less, our Founding Fathers supported tariffs as a way to finance the federal government. I didn't. When you wax on about tariffs, you're not trashing me. You're trashing our Founding Fathers.

We didn't have the income tax until the 20th century. Tell me, is our nation better off now that tariffs aren't used to finance the federal government? The income stream to the government allowed it to federalize all sorts of programs. Are we better off?

The Founders of our Nation were some very learned men. They weren't union bosses, Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or anything of the sort. So when you trash me, you're trashing them. I haven't advocated tariffs on this thread. I have merely stated that they can be used. Our Founding Fathers agreed. There are merits to their use. There isn't a single merit to individual and business income taxes.

The question is, which is a better way to keep the government in check? Which is the better way to have a free economy? Which is the most limiting way to keep the federal government small?

How many jobs did he save?

Link me to one place on this thread where I actually advocated for using tariffs. Look for it. Link me to it. I said they can be used. I did not advocate for it. Are you functionally literate enough to understand the difference?

If no jobs were saved, why weren't they (perhaps some other governmental reason)? If a certain number of jobs were saved, at what cost were they saved?

This is a conversation you need to have with yourself. I haven't advocated for tariffs on this thread.

The very last question sends protectionists into fits. But economics usually does.

As if you would know...