RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:Since the before NAFTA, the left in this country have been screaming about fair trade vs. free trade.

It was a Democratic President that gave us NAFTA, and it hasn't just been the left that's been complaining about Free Trade. Fair Tax proponents are also against free trade. Free trade is a buzz word meant to stir the emotions of freedom-loving Americans. It's not free trade when it costs us so much in terms of yobs. BTW, I was at the Fair Tax rally in Columbia, SC. There were Libertarians and Republicans. The Republican speakers, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, etc., railed against free trade.

Clinton isn't a liberal, and neither is the Democratic party.

I've been to rallies against free trade, and we are all the left. I've been reading about fair trade in left wing publications since the nineties. It's a staple of a liberal philosophy.

Sophandros Wrote:Clinton isn't a liberal, and neither is the Democratic party.

I've been to rallies against free trade, and we are all the left. I've been reading about fair trade in left wing publications since the nineties. It's a staple of a liberal philosophy.

The Democratic party isn't liberal? What is it, conservative? Soph, maybe the reason most of the rallies you went to were all liberals is because when it comes to politics, well, we don't want to hang out with each other. The Fair Tax rally "should" have been something that crosses all boundaries, but it didn't. As for Free Trade, I don't think liberals have a monopoly on the word. Someone you probably think is far to the right, Michael Savage, also doesn't like free trade. Most conservatives I know don't like NAFTA anymore than they like CAFTA. You're simply putting all conservatives in the same boat as a billionaire CEO that only cares about profit.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:Clinton isn't a liberal, and neither is the Democratic party.

I've been to rallies against free trade, and we are all the left. I've been reading about fair trade in left wing publications since the nineties. It's a staple of a liberal philosophy.

The Democratic party isn't liberal? What is it, conservative? Soph, maybe the reason most of the rallies you went to were all liberals is because when it comes to politics, well, we don't want to hang out with each other. The Fair Tax rally "should" have been something that crosses all boundaries, but it didn't. As for Free Trade, I don't think liberals have a monopoly on the word. Someone you probably think is far to the right, Michael Savage, also doesn't like free trade. Most conservatives I know don't like NAFTA anymore than they like CAFTA. You're simply putting all conservatives in the same boat as a billionaire CEO that only cares about profit.

The Democratic party has been moderate since the 1992 elections, when Clinton dragged it to the center. There's a reason that many of us on the Left feel betrayed by the donkey.

There has been a massive void in the American Political Left for 15 years now. Shoot, when I lived in Dallas, a friend of mine who worked with the local Democratic party was trying to convince me to go back, and he admitted that they need to go shift back to the Left from where they are.

The reason that you and many others on this board are deluded into thinking that the Democrats are on the Left is that your perspectives are so far to the Right that anyone in the middle looks left-wing to you. Give credit to Newt and his buddies for that. They realized that, after Clinton dragged the Dems to the middle, the Republicans needed to distinguish themselves from them, which is when they made a drastic leap to the far right, in particular catering to the religious conservatives.

Oh, and about the free trade/fair trade thing, that's the point of my "you're sounding like a liberal" comment. It's interesting how certain concepts reach across all aspects of the spectrum, yet one side or the other want to claim it instead of working together to acheive our goals.

If you REALLY examined certain issues from varied perspectives, you'd find that there's more agreement between political philosophies that you previously thought wouldn't get along than you think.

Sophandros Wrote:If you REALLY examined certain issues from varied perspectives, you'd find that there's more agreement between political philosophies that you previously thought wouldn't get along than you think.

I've never claimed to be conservative on everything. However, I still don't think support for free trade is necessarily a liberal trait. It's no where in the definition of liberal.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:If you REALLY examined certain issues from varied perspectives, you'd find that there's more agreement between political philosophies that you previously thought wouldn't get along than you think.

I've never claimed to be conservative on everything. However, I still don't think support for free trade is necessarily a liberal trait. It's no where in the definition of liberal.

I said FAIR trade, not free trade. Re-read what I said.

FAIR TRADE is a liberal trait, because it involves the prevention exploitative labor practices, for one.

Sophandros Wrote:I said FAIR trade, not free trade. Re-read what I said.

FAIR TRADE is a liberal trait, because it involves the prevention exploitative labor practices, for one.

I meant Fair Trade and I totally discount it being a solely liberal trait.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:Clinton isn't a liberal, and neither is the Democratic party.

I've been to rallies against free trade, and we are all the left. I've been reading about fair trade in left wing publications since the nineties. It's a staple of a liberal philosophy.

The Democratic party isn't liberal? What is it, conservative? Soph, maybe the reason most of the rallies you went to were all liberals is because when it comes to politics, well, we don't want to hang out with each other. The Fair Tax rally "should" have been something that crosses all boundaries, but it didn't. As for Free Trade, I don't think liberals have a monopoly on the word. Someone you probably think is far to the right, Michael Savage, also doesn't like free trade. Most conservatives I know don't like NAFTA anymore than they like CAFTA. You're simply putting all conservatives in the same boat as a billionaire CEO that only cares about profit.

NAFTA was a present from George H. W. Bush.

Quote:The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate.

True, Clinton signed it into law when it finally passed but Bush negotiated it.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:True, Clinton signed it into law when it finally passed but Bush negotiated it.

Ah, so the entire blame falls onto HW Bush, right? Clinton is absolved. Right? You're an idiot.

...and just for the record, I voted for Perot in '92. Of course, you were probably still in grade school when that happened.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:True, Clinton signed it into law when it finally passed but Bush negotiated it.

Ah, so the entire blame falls onto HW Bush, right? Clinton is absolved. Right? You're an idiot.

...and just for the record, I voted for Perot in '92. Of course, you were probably still in grade school when that happened.

Perot? You're the idiot.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Perot? You're the idiot.

Ok, who did you vote for in your election? Assuming they still have mock elections in grade school.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Perot? You're the idiot.

Ok, who did you vote for in your election? Assuming they still have mock elections in grade school.

I could've voted for sack of rocks and it would've been a better choice than Perot.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I could've voted for sack of rocks and it would've been a better choice than Perot.

So I guess the 6th grade doesn't have those fake elections anymore. Or was it the 1st?

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I could've voted for sack of rocks and it would've been a better choice than Perot.

So I guess the 6th grade doesn't have those fake elections anymore. Or was it the 1st?

I have voted in 5 Presidential elections. Do the math........if you can.

RebelKev Wrote:So, you're one of those that thinks Clinton was out getting jobs? Not Microsoft, the I.T. sector, or anyone else, right? Clinton was out getting all those people jobs. That what you're telling us? And after the tech bubble burst, which I, as a Cisco-Certified network engineer, was part of, that had nothing to do with the rise in unemployment? The fact that many of us couldn't buy what we used to buy, eat out as much, watch movies, take vacations, etc., that had nothing to do with it, right? Then 9/11 crashed the stock market, but that had nothing to do with unemployment, right? Then Enron, WorldCom, and other companies such as that, that started their shenanigans in the 90's, that had nothing to do with it, right?

Face it, you know dick about economics. A president is very, VERY limited in what he can do to an economy. Nice try though, Junior.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

However, the president gets the credit or blame for the unemployment rate in the country like you mistakenly tried to give credit to Bush over Clinton for unemployment rates. You know this

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:Since the before NAFTA, the left in this country have been screaming about fair trade vs. free trade.

It was a Democratic President that gave us NAFTA, and it hasn't just been the left that's been complaining about Free Trade. Fair Tax proponents are also against free trade. Free trade is a buzz word meant to stir the emotions of freedom-loving Americans. It's not free trade when it costs us so much in terms of yobs. BTW, I was at the Fair Tax rally in Columbia, SC. There were Libertarians and Republicans. The Republican speakers, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, etc., railed against free trade.

If you call HW Bush a democrat then yes he gave us NAFTA.

I blame both Clinton and Bush for NAFTA, it is wrong no matter your party affiliation.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As an independent, I'm for FAIR trade, not FREE trade.

You're starting to sound like a liberal...

I don't see that as a liberal trait. No way can we compete with a country with a country that pays their workers 2 dollars a day in terms of trade. Their manufacturing costs are at least a 10th of ours.

then that is our fault. we can find ways to compete, we just have to find a new way. our country has always done that....innovation has always been our best trait....whether you are talking about our founding fathers, inventors(like edison) or the homesteaders who had to survive on instincts, hard work, and their innovation. we always have, must continue in order to survive as a nation. restricting trade will only delay any problems we might have for a very short time. we must shift our thinking to compete economically in a globalized system.

aTxTIGER Wrote:then that is our fault. we can find ways to compete, we just have to find a new way. our country has always done that....innovation has always been our best trait....whether you are talking about our founding fathers, inventors(like edison) or the homesteaders who had to survive on instincts, hard work, and their innovation. we always have, must continue in order to survive as a nation. restricting trade will only delay any problems we might have for a very short time. we must shift our thinking to compete economically in a globalized system.

Never said we couldn't compete technologically, I was referring to economically, and with free trade, we cannot. Workers in China are paid beans compared to ours. This brings their cost of production down. WAY down. How can we compete by selling a product made in the USA and of the same quality as one from China, when the one from China is a dollar and the one from the USA is 15? People are ALWAYS going to look for the good deal. Yes, there are people that say, "Hey man, I ain't buyin' nutin but 'Merican", but they are few and far between. We're a nation of consumers. It's in our makeup. We ARE going to shop for the best deal. So, you either A) keep it like it is, without making the trade system fair, which causes a continuation of job loss, or B) place import taxes on countries that have significantly lower prices for their comparable goods. Keep in mind, I am a fiscal conservative and Capitalistic as hell. I believe in competition, when the playing field is fair like in the United States. So, in essence, I look at it like this, you have two countries to prop up, yours or someone elses. Which one are you going to help?

RebelKev Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:then that is our fault. we can find ways to compete, we just have to find a new way. our country has always done that....innovation has always been our best trait....whether you are talking about our founding fathers, inventors(like edison) or the homesteaders who had to survive on instincts, hard work, and their innovation. we always have, must continue in order to survive as a nation. restricting trade will only delay any problems we might have for a very short time. we must shift our thinking to compete economically in a globalized system.

Never said we couldn't compete technologically, I was referring to economically, and with free trade, we cannot. Workers in China are paid beans compared to ours. This brings their cost of production down. WAY down. How can we compete by selling a product made in the USA and of the same quality as one from China, when the one from China is a dollar and the one from the USA is 15? People are ALWAYS going to look for the good deal. Yes, there are people that say, "Hey man, I ain't buyin' nutin but 'Merican", but they are few and far between. We're a nation of consumers. It's in our makeup. We ARE going to shop for the best deal. So, you either A) keep it like it is, without making the trade system fair, which causes a continuation of job loss, or B) place import taxes on countries that have significantly lower prices for their comparable goods. Keep in mind, I am a fiscal conservative and Capitalistic as hell. I believe in competition, when the playing field is fair like in the United States. So, in essence, I look at it like this, you have two countries to prop up, yours or someone elses. Which one are you going to help?

but the playing field is never fair. if you want to impose large enough tariffs to make those goods just as expensive as american made goods would be, then you are on a dangerous road towards high inflation, which would be worse on our economy than the status quo. i agree with you that something needs to be done about our ability to compete, we just disagree on how that should be done. im of the opinion that the consumer goods(from toasters to most automobiles) manufacturing market has passed us by, however, that doesnt mean we cant compete in other areas of manufacturing and development in a global economy.
we just need to invest in those new areas of technology and in the workers who will be needed to make it possible(i.e., actually teach kids science and math) brute force and strong backs are not the future of manufacturing.....deductive reasoning, logical thinking, and math ability above the multiplacation tables are.

aTxTIGER Wrote:but the playing field is never fair. if you want to impose large enough tariffs to make those goods just as expensive as american made goods would be, then you are on a dangerous road towards high inflation, which would be worse on our economy than the status quo. i agree with you that something needs to be done about our ability to compete, we just disagree on how that should be done. im of the opinion that the consumer goods(from toasters to most automobiles) manufacturing market has passed us by, however, that doesnt mean we cant compete in other areas of manufacturing and development in a global economy.
we just need to invest in those new areas of technology and in the workers who will be needed to make it possible(i.e., actually teach kids science and math) brute force and strong backs are not the future of manufacturing.....deductive reasoning, logical thinking, and math ability above the multiplacation tables are.

Then we will continue to lose manufacturing jobs and continue to turn ourselves into a service-based economy. There's a downside to that, we become subservient to importing countries. I do think the Fair Tax could relieve a lot of this by removing tax liabilities imposed on companies. They aren't paying them now anyway, it just increases their costs, which they pass on to us.