[1rudeboy]

You are incorrect. At a minimum, one would expect a conservative to consider the consequences of his proposals. At a minimum, one would expect that a conservative who claims to put "the interests and security of its citizens FIRST" be cognizant that the policies he proposes do the opposite. At a minimum, one would expect that a conservative have a basic grasp of economics and facts, instead of relying upon slogans about "the rich" and "third-world countries." At a minimum, one would expect that a conservative who is against "burdensome, costly regulations on business" be in favor of lower tariffs and more trade.

Finally, at an absolute minimum, one would expect that the anti-NAFTA cadres, whose allies include such esteemed personnel as Teamsters, Greens, and out-and-out socialists, explain the rise in real income, the drop in unemployment, and the increase in industrial production that distinguished the period after NAFTA was enacted.

And before you accuse me of only paying attention to the "boom" of the 1990's, I will remind you that I am not the one who is running around and yelping that the sky is falling now.

[WRhine]

At a minimum, one would expect that a conservative who is against "burdensome, costly regulations on business" be in favor of lower tariffs and more trade.

To be honest, I'm not sure where you were going with your other points but on this, my position is that tariffs are the ultimate "Market Opening Tool" for American Exports. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that as long as many of our trading partners put up structural barriers to our exports and sky-high tariffs on our goods it is in the interest of America, as the largest market in the world, to reflect these barriers to our trade in the form of higher tariffs on their exports to us.

If these nations want to have a freer exchange of trade with America like we enjoy with many countries in Europe then let them lower their barriers to our exports and open up their markets. If not, then they have to deal with high tariffs on their goods.

This is SMART Trade. Something totally lacking in the way our government manages our international trade. There quite obviously has to be an economic incentive for some of our trading partners to open up their long-standing closed markets. And as long as we roll over and drop our tariffs while allowing them to keep their barriers up we will keep losing vital industries while running up staggering trade deficits. Where is the incentive for them to do otherwise?

Finally, at an absolute minimum, one would expect that the anti-NAFTA cadres, whose allies include such esteemed personnel as Teamsters, Greens, and out-and-out socialists, explain the rise in real income, the drop in unemployment, and the increase in industrial production that distinguished the period after NAFTA was enacted.

Politics always makes for strange bedfellows--political opposites that have common ground on an issue for different reasons. Perhaps you have noticed the way Bush has been sleeping around with quite a few Socialists on Capitol Hill with some of his recent budget busting initiatives. And yes, I find your assertion that NAFTA produced the rise in real income and lower unemployment during the 90s ludicrous when it’s so obvious and well known that the high tech/telecom boom (now bust) was by far the largest factor in that burst of prosperity.

And before you accuse me of only paying attention to the "boom" of the 1990's, I will remind you that I am not the one who is running around and yelping that the sky is falling now.

It may not be falling, but the skies are hardly “Blue”.