Is protectionism America's future? Pat Buchanan praises Bush's barriers

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, July 29, 2002 | Pat Buchanan

[Tailgunner Joe]

Forcing out foreign producers for the purpose of defending uncompetitive and poorly run unionized industries is the furthering of the socialist agenda

Trade barriers for the purpose of fighting capitalist competition are socialist by their very nature and anyone who supports them is a bleeding red socialist

You mean, like the Founding Fathers?

Commies, They were Not!

[ex-snook]

"Blaming the Depression on Smoot-Hawley is one of the biggest lies of all time. "

Righto just a big lie that keeps getting repeated. Crash 1929, Smoot-Hawley June 1930.

[Zack Nguyen]

The "base" would be described as dependable conservative/Republican voters who vote often, and would naturally trend toward Bush. They are the voters a candidate must have to win.
<p.
A significant number of Bush voters were not "base." These voters could go back and forth from election to election. Probably some of Bush's voters went for Clinton in 1996 and Perot in 1992. These are the voters you get when you can, after your base is secure.

[ex-snook]

"An economist I read years ago noted that when a country 'dumps' goods, steel for example, that in effect, they are giving a gift to all American consumers. "

Ah yes the consumer society. But then we are making a gift of our factories and jobs to them plus the money to buy assets here. Sort of swapping our seed corn for a bowl of porridge or let's say cheap sneakers. Ask that economist about monopoly theory - like what happens to prices and our economy when we just have just shopping malls for consumers.

[Mudboy Slim]

Stephen Moore is one of my favorite young Conservative movers and shakers...Pat's WRONG on this issue, and his <1% election returns demonstrate that the Sheeple understand Protectionism is a Fool's Errand!!

FReegards...MUD

[Michael2001]

Tariffs and quotas are just bad for Americans, though. When there is a tariff, everyone loses.

True, but if other countries (Japan being a very good example) put so many restrictions on our goods, then we should respond in kind. Same in steel, if the Europeans are subsidizing their own, then our business will go bankrupt not because they aren't good enough but because of unfair competition on the part of the Europeans.

[Conagher]

I guess capitalism is great as long as it's only within our borders.

The simple fact of the matter is the labor in this country has priced itself out of the market. How restricting free trade is in any way different than corporate welfare has yet to be satisfactorally explained to me. Unions literally have a stranglehold on American labor and are slowly choking it to death.

Blue-collar workers have the luxury of making $17/hr (plus benefits) bucking rivets far below the quality and quantity of machines. It's just a matter of time before the free ride comes to an end.

[FreedomFriend]

Buchanan gets it right.

[FreedomFriend]

What are you observing, though? Deindustrialization, and it is the result of "Free Trade" and anti-American economic policies.

Don't slander Buchanan, he knows what he's talking about.

[FreedomFriend]

I agree. It's blatantly obvious. It's common sense, and I'm surprised that more do not see it.

Death to "FREE TRADE".
SUPPORT AMERICA-FIRST ECONOMIC POLICIES

[FreedomFriend]

Exactly. Free Trade is not fair trade, nor is it free. China places a 40% tariff on our goods, while we place a 2.2% tariff on their goods. Is that free? Meanwhile, the WTO is manipulating the whole arrangement with so many stipulations, piles of regulations, etc., that America's economic downfall is coming swiftly. I do think that the whole plan is to deindustrialize America into an import-based economy, of which we'll be weakened and subject to the whims of a world government. You've got it.

The new America-First Party appears the best way to go. However, given the blinders that most people have, and their lapping up of the nonsense coming out of the media, I doubt whether things will turn around.

[FreedomFriend]

Stephen Moore is one of my favorite young Conservative movers and shakers...Pat's WRONG on this issue, and his <1% election returns demonstrate that the Sheeple understand Protectionism is a Fool's Errand!!

No, Pat's showing is the result of the engrained two party system that pervades the whole country, not only in discrimination among polls and debates, but also news coverage, condition to the system, etc. The demonization of Pat in 1992 also hasn't helped.

[Republican Wildcat]

Tariffs are nothing more than another version of government subsidation of industry. Pure socialism. I have great respect for the President and support him, but I cannot support this particular move toward tariffs.

[Republican Wildcat]

Let's say it does save steel workers' jobs, and for every steel workers' job saved, 10 others in another industry lose theirs because of the increase in steel prices. How can you call that saving jobs?

[FreedomFriend]

Okay, so you call it socialism. However, what's the alternative? Global Socialism? That is where we're headed if we do not develop AMERICA-FIRST economic policies. Do you want our country to weaken ever more so, eventually down to a third world state?

You speak of free markets. However, there are two things flawed with what you are suggesting. First, "Free Trade" is not free, for it is not fair. These free trade policies are hurting American competition, for trade barriers placed on America are many times more than those placed on other countries. Secondly, trade with the third world will continue to produce bad results for America, for their cost of labor and production is vastly lower than that of America. Thirdly, capitalism works best within individual countries. Yes, it is the best system, but it has to work to America's benefit. Otherwise, it is working towards America's demise.

[FreedomFriend]

Most of us prefer low to moderate import tariffs across the board, not specific industries.

[Republican Wildcat]

I would bet significantly more jobs are being lost than gained by this.

Yes, and you cite the perfect example. This was a very, very bad move. More jobs will be heading overseas as people buying these supplies go to other suppliers where the steel tariff is not a factor in pricing.

[Republican Wildcat]

No, the alternative is capitalism. Not socialism.

The counter-tariffs in response from other nations to our tariffs will create the "Global Socialism" scenario you claim to be against.

[nopardons]

Pat doesn't know what he's talking about and neither do you ! As to " slander ", look that word up, before you use it again, dear. Your comprehension of English, is only surpassed by your abject lack of knowledge of economics, history, and politics. :-)

" DEINDUSTRIALIZATION " ? We left the age of " INDUSTRIALIZATION " long ago. Children no longer work in mines or factories, the USA still makes things, though, and Free Trade is what this country was based on. Anti-Americanism is NOT , i repeat, NOT , an outgrowth of our Free Trade policies; nor lack thereof.

Here's a little something for you, dear LUDDITE, perhaps we should all just go back to a preindustrial age, make our own cloths, grow our own food stuffs, make our own furniture, and be leeched, by doctors, who think that blood letting is the way to cure most everything. That would fit your and Pat's mentality. LOL

[nopardons]

Then you're saying that this nation was founded by SOCIALISTS. Tarrifs, after all, were the main source of taxation and income for the government, of this country, as proposed by the FFs, and carried through this nation's history, until quite recently. :-)

I suggest that you keep right on supporting President Bush ; however, an econ 101 and an American history 101 class, would help you.