PDA

View Full Version : Old Fashioned Conservative



Marvin S
02-01-2011, 07:07 PM
On a previous thread, Franco lays claim to being the only one of this breed on this forum. When asked to clarify, even being allowed to briefify his answers, he begins to act like someone from General Mills, waffling all the way prior to leaving the thread. IMO Having read several thoughtful posts related to the subject of fiscal conservatism, Franco's positions don't even rate JV consideration in comparison to many on this forum. I have to edit to say he finally answered, but will continue here any way.

The nation is facing deficits of around $1.5 trillion for several years. To balance the books will require serious cuts & policy that encourages private sector job creation.

The goal is identifying $1.5 Trillion in cuts? How do we get there from where we are, any ideas? If this is good enough I will forward to Senator DeMint, Speaker Boehner & Paul Ryan, we'll see how serious they are about doing the correct thing.

Please make this a serious discussion :cool:. If some would like to discuss the social stuff, please start your own thread.

road kill
02-01-2011, 07:14 PM
On a previous thread, Franco lays claim to being the only one of this breed on this forum. When asked to clarify, even being allowed to briefify his answers, he begins to act like someone from General Mills, waffling all the way prior to leaving the thread. IMO Having read several thoughtful posts related to the subject of fiscal conservatism, Franco's positions don't even rate JV consideration in comparison to many on this forum. I have to edit to say he finally answered, but will continue here any way.

The nation is facing deficits of around $1.5 trillion for several years. To balance the books will require serious cuts & policy that encourages private sector job creation.

The goal is identifying $1.5 Trillion in cuts? How do we get there from where we are, any ideas? If this is good enough I will forward to Senator DeMint, Speaker Boehner & Paul Ryan, we'll see how serious they are about doing the correct thing.

Please make this a serious discussion :cool:. If some would like to discuss the social stuff, please start your own thread.

Hold Department of H&HS to 2009 budget, that alone would cut 1/3rd of the deficit.
Do not spend the unspent portion of the stimulus package, another 1/3rd of the deficit.


Good first day???:cool:



RK

BonMallari
02-01-2011, 07:42 PM
I put this answer on the other thread but I would eliminate the NASA budget (15-20 Billion)...sorry to the engineers and space explorers out there but it HAS to take a back seat to what is happening on this planet

ducknwork
02-01-2011, 07:57 PM
I put this answer on the other thread but I would eliminate the NASA budget (15-20 Billion)...sorry to the engineers and space explorers out there but it HAS to take a back seat to what is happening on this planet

I could be wrong, but I have heard that every dollar spent on the space program, there are several dollars ($4-5?) spent in the private sector to support the govt side. Maybe not the best idea to cut NASA.

Drug tests for anyone receiving a govt check.
DeLuxurize prisons. Model them after Joe Arpaio's jail. No way criminals should have great meals, ac, recreational activities, and amenities that some of us working folk don't have time/money to enjoy because we are working and obeying the law.

Franco
02-01-2011, 08:00 PM
On a previous thread, Franco lays claim to being the only one of this breed on this forum. When asked to clarify, even being allowed to briefify his answers, he begins to act like someone from General Mills, waffling all the way prior to leaving the thread. IMO Having read several thoughtful posts related to the subject of fiscal conservatism, Franco's positions don't even rate JV consideration in comparison to many on this forum. I have to edit to say he finally answered, but will continue here any way.

The nation is facing deficits of around $1.5 trillion for several years. To balance the books will require serious cuts & policy that encourages private sector job creation.

The goal is identifying $1.5 Trillion in cuts? How do we get there from where we are, any ideas? If this is good enough I will forward to Senator DeMint, Speaker Boehner & Paul Ryan, we'll see how serious they are about doing the correct thing.

Please make this a serious discussion :cool:. If some would like to discuss the social stuff, please start your own thread.

What part of my post on the other thread was "corporate" or
waffling"? I gave more cuts than you offered up.

Have you seen the actual budget?

Have you mentioned anything about cuts to Medicare and Medicade ?

Oh and BTW, I don't know of many Conservatives that falsely accuse others on POTUS for having an alias and then not publicly apologize to that person when they are wrong!

So if you want to attack my brand of Conservatism then you need to build some cred first;-)

BonMallari
02-01-2011, 08:12 PM
I dont care to get into a urinating match as to who is more or less conservative on here...I know some are to the right of me and some are to the center left of me and to those to the right of me, you might think everyone except you is a RINO...because at the end of the day when we cast ballots I think we still vote in the same general direction..and the last Dem I voted(back in the 70's) for was my friend the late Ken Cory and he was one heck of a field trialer too

Franco
02-01-2011, 08:54 PM
The Congressinol Budget is mind-boggling. Just try going through the Dept of Energy's section will make one dizzy.

Maybe they should look at the tough decisions Bobby Jindal is making to see how he is balencing the budget. He is doing it with decreased revenue from oil production as well. He was hired to do a job and he's doing it all the while pissing a lot of people off.

Obama is going to have to make huge cuts and be brave enough to handle the fallout. I doubt he'll do it and I'm not convinced the Republicans can do it either. Certainly not the deep cuts that will have to be made.

BrianW
02-01-2011, 10:26 PM
The first step in my budget cut(s) is the $598,292,101 (2009) assessed contribution to the UN regular budget -- 22%.
Only 1/2 a billion out of 1,500, but hey, gotta start somewhere.

If Cuba .043% of the regular budget & oil-rich Saudi Arabia .713%. think so much of it, let them pony up some extra change.
And if the UN wants to keep it's sweet space in NYC then they can cough up the going rate per sq ft for prime office location. Not only a cut but $'s coming back in.

Next come the the "peacekeeping" operations budget where the forces rape the local population (literally) and the cost of international courts and tribunals that consistently rule against our interests or have no power to enforce their "judgments". What's the point?. The level of these contributions is based on their assessed contributions to the regular budget plus variations which take account of permanent membership on the Security Council.

UN members also make "voluntary contributions" to UN specialized agencies and subsidiary organizations. The only thing "united" I feel like donating to right now is the USO.
No more paying for studies to self flagellate ourselves at Human Rights Commission report cards either. If other countries want to "dis" us, then let them pay for it. :-P

Then comes any contributions to developing Indonesia's space program.
If we can't afford NASA, we sure as hell can't afford "shariah" satellites.
I don't care if PBO went to school there or not or even stayed there in a Holiday Inn Express, let the Muslim Brotherhood fund their own moon shot or Mars probe.

Next in my sights is foreign aid to countries that vote against us at the UN.
Yes, you're free to vote as you'd like but you don't get my dollars to do it.

BonMallari
02-01-2011, 10:40 PM
The first step in my budget cut(s) is the $598,292,101 (2009) assessed contribution to the UN regular budget -- 22%.

Next in my sights is foreign aid to countries that vote against us at the UN.
Yes, you're free to vote as you'd like but you don't get my dollars to do it.

Foreign aid is nothing but extortion money, a prime example is all that money we wasted pumping up the sham of a govt in the Philippines with Marcos, then to get kicked out by Aquino...since then the country has fallen to a bigger more corrupt ways and the emergence of Abu Sayef (Filipino version of Al Qaeda)...I'm with you on cutting foreign aid, humanitarian or not,lets take care of business at home....I will leave fundraising in Darfur to George Clooney, maybe if he sold the villa on the Riviera...

Marvin S
02-01-2011, 11:53 PM
What part of my post on the other thread was "corporate" or
waffling"? I gave more cuts than you offered up.

Have you seen the actual budget?

Have you mentioned anything about cuts to Medicare and Medicade ?

Oh and BTW, I don't know of many Conservatives that falsely accuse others on POTUS for having an alias and then not publicly apologize to that person when they are wrong!

So if you want to attack my brand of Conservatism then you need to build some cred first;-)

Franco, You are what You are & it shows in your posts. & it's certainly not conservative though you are not a RINO.

I believe I did post that I was somewhat sorry & though I believe I had enough ammo to back my statement will not pursue it any further. I got fooled by Dippity :). I would post what my rationale was but dnf doesn't post on POTUS any more so couldn't defend himself, at least that's what he said :confused:.

Don't lump Medicare (a paid for benefit administered by the government) with Medicaid (a welfare program). They are not the same. The Drug benefit is something I have gone on record as opposing & would like to see it discontinued. I pay more for insurance than I receive in benefits, it's self preservation.

I'll get back later with more cuts, I'd like to see what others think.

charly_t
02-02-2011, 12:46 AM
Franco, You are what You are & it shows in your posts. & it's certainly not conservative though you are not a RINO.

I believe I did post that I was somewhat sorry & though I believe I had enough ammo to back my statement will not pursue it any further. I got fooled by Dippity :). I would post what my rationale was but dnf doesn't post on POTUS any more so couldn't defend himself, at least that's what he said :confused:.

Don't lump Medicare (a paid for benefit administered by the government) with Medicaid (a welfare program). They are not the same. The Drug benefit is something I have gone on record as opposing & would like to see it discontinued. I pay more for insurance than I receive in benefits, it's self preservation.

I'll get back later with more cuts, I'd like to see what others think.

I wish that the government had never started medicare. I wish they would do away with it for all but the poor that are past 65. I am not smart enough to lay out a plan for them to do it. Hubby and I are not really in need of government help and I feel that a lot of people our age are in a position to buy their own medical insurance. On the other hand I don't know about the meds........maybe it needs to be a different plan. Our company insurance was and still is good so I really don't know what others need. What I do know is what a plain old American farmer once said that rings true.........."you can't send a dollar to the USA government and have it turn around and come back to anyone and it still be worth a dollar". The cost of administering that dollar has gotten to be out of control. Much worse than when the farmer made that statement.

ducknwork
02-02-2011, 06:16 AM
How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products.
3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US.

2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks.

I understand that this thread is about cuts, but there are two sides to finances...income and expenditures. Raising income accomplishes the same goal as decreasing expenses. We need to attack our current problem on both fronts.

Marvin S
02-02-2011, 10:51 PM
How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products.
3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US.

2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks.

I understand that this thread is about cuts, but there are two sides to finances...income and expenditures. Raising income accomplishes the same goal as decreasing expenses. We need to attack our current problem on both fronts.

I believe that's what started the big one in in the early '30s. I believe in free open markets, with similar conditions. If a country doesn't want to do that, then they get no access to our markets. somehow those who negotiate these trade agreements can't seem to fathom that. I believe in the American worker's ability to turn out a superior product given a level playing field. I had a long time involvement in the manufacturing sector, rampant unionism & poor management were just about able to turn that advantage in the wrong direction. It has happened in other sectors :o.

On a different note, reading an article from a reliable source says "State spending on Medicaid nationwide is higher than the spending on K-12 education. While I consider the K-12 spending more than adequate, does anyone find that level of spending on Medicaid unreasonable?

cotts135
02-03-2011, 05:46 AM
The assumption in this thread is that program cuts are the only way to balance the budget. A serious discussion on balancing the budget has to include raising taxes, if not then your just going fishing without any bait.
As I have stated before the people benefiting from the claim that tax cuts are the panacea to all our financial woes are the Politicians. If tax cuts were so good then why not eliminate them completely? Most of us here can figure that out on our own, but just as it is ridiculous to have the tax rate at zero it is just as deleterious to have them at these historical low rates. There is a balance here and we havent' found it.
Of course I agree completely that the same can be said for the spending side. Things have to be cut, but cutting alone will not solve this issue.

road kill
02-03-2011, 05:50 AM
The assumption in this thread is that program cuts are the only way to balance the budget. A serious discussion on balancing the budget has to include raising taxes, if not then your just going fishing without any bait.
As I have stated before the people benefiting from the claim that tax cuts are the panacea to all our financial woes are the Politicians. If tax cuts were so good then why not eliminate them completely? Most of us here can figure that out on our own, but just as it is ridiculous to have the tax rate at zero it is just as deleterious to have them at these historical low rates. There is a balance here and we havent' found it.
Of course I agree completely that the same can be said for the spending side. Things have to be cut, but cutting alone will not solve this issue.

Like I said earlier, providing a Trillion instantly without any cuts, use existing budgets for bureaucratic agencys such as HHUS.
(that budget is to grow by $500 billion itself since 2009)
Don't spend unspent stimulus money.
($500 billion unspent as yet)

It is truly that simple.


I know, let's not go there.



RK

Duck Blind
02-03-2011, 05:55 AM
Privatize USPS.
Privatize AMTRAK

ducknwork
02-03-2011, 06:10 AM
I believe that's what started the big one in in the early '30s.

So you think charging tariffs on imported products started the depression? Explain, please.

I'm not being argumentative, but I am very curious about that line of thinking. I don't see how it could do anything but good for the US and our workers.

cotts135
02-03-2011, 07:40 AM
Like I said earlier, providing a Trillion instantly without any cuts, use existing budgets for bureaucratic agencys such as HHUS.
(that budget is to grow by $500 billion itself since 2009)
Don't spend unspent stimulus money.
($500 billion unspent as yet)

It is truly that simple.


I know, let's not go there.



RK

Your right with your last statement since very few people want to give up their Medicare benefits especially since they have paid into that fund already. Cuts..........yes Elimination.................not possible

Hew
02-03-2011, 07:46 AM
How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt. It is a given that imposing tariffs will increase the cost of goods purchased by US consumers, no? If you agree with that given, then your Item 1 presumes that the govt. better knows how to spend a surplus of money than you do (i.e. a non-tariffed t-shirt that you buy is $5 and a tariffed t-shirt would cost you $6...do you want the govt. to have that extra dollar or do you want to save that extra dollar?). One could make respectable arguments on either side, but you can't really claim that giving that dollar to the govt. is rooted in Conservative idealology.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products. Using my t-shirt example above, what's better...to save one $10 hour American job making t-shirts or to save thousands of Americans who buy the t-shirt a dollar? I honestly don't know the answer, but I would think as a country we get more economic bang for our buck with the lower priced t-shirts than proping up a job that can only be profitable via govt. interference.
3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US. Most of the lost jobs are in cheap labor industries. It doesn't make any more sense for our govt. to artificially prop up, say our textile industries, than it would have been wise for the govt. to subsidize horse carriages after the arrival of the Model T. Those types of jobs are lost forever and tariffs will only make our remaining industries less competitive internationally when all the countries we slap tariffs on turn around and do the same to our goods.

2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks. Using my rebuttal of your Item 1, tariffs will suck money out of the economy (particularly, if as you said, the govt. should use tariff revenue to be applied to the debt).

I'm not big on protectionist tariffs to subsidize non-competitive industries and as a means of revenue for the govt (at the consumer's expense). That said, however, we shouldn't be international patsies to other country's unfair trade practices (mainly China and Japan). If one of our industries in getting screwed by another country's tariffs/unfair practices (like when Japan would let our fruit sit days at the dock waiting for inspection ((also known as rotting :rolleyes:))) then I think we can use tariffs as a big stick to assure fair treatment.

...........

road kill
02-03-2011, 07:58 AM
Your right with your last statement since very few people want to give up their Medicare benefits especially since they have paid into that fund already. Cuts..........yes Elimination.................not possible
I proposed no cuts, just hodling current wasteful spending practices until we can catch up.
Very difficult concept to grasp.

Holding spending is not cutting.



RK

cotts135
02-03-2011, 08:41 AM
I proposed no cuts, just hodling current wasteful spending practices until we can catch up.
Very difficult concept to grasp.

Holding spending is not cutting.



RK

Easy, easy, easy, I misunderstood you. :rolleyes:

The definition of a cut, at least in New York State, is when you have an annual 13% increase in spending that is grandfathered into legislation and takes effect automatically every year and you slash that by 6-7%. :confused:
http://www.silive.com/opinion/editorials/index.ssf/2011/02/albanys_budget_sham.html

road kill
02-03-2011, 08:45 AM
Easy, easy, easy, I misunderstood you. :rolleyes:

The definition of a cut, at least in New York State, is when you have an annual 13% increase in spending that is grandfathered into legislation and takes effect automatically every year and you slash that by 6-7%. :confused:
http://www.silive.com/opinion/editorials/index.ssf/2011/02/albanys_budget_sham.html


We agree here.
And that in and of itself is the BIGGEST issue we face as a nation in regard to spending!!!


stan b

Gerry Clinchy
02-03-2011, 09:09 AM
I wish they would do away with it for all but the poor that are past 65. I am not smart enough to lay out a plan for them to do it. Hubby and I are not really in need of government help and I feel that a lot of people our age are in a position to buy their own medical insurance.

I think we need to get one thing clear on Medicare. In addition to what a person has paid in, which only covers hospital expenses, one must additionally pay about $100/mo (subtracted from SS check or paid for if one has not started collecting SS) for other medical expenses outside of hospital confinement.

Additionally, I pay about $130/mo. for a Medicare supplement. Prescription coverage is then also additional, which can range from $15 to $115, depending on the plan you choose. I also have additional long-term care coverage for $54/mo.

Add that up & you get $300/mo (with the low scrip coverage) ... for one person.

The reason for Medicare is that regular medical insurance will increase with age. Based on statistics (that all of us can relate to if we're over a certain age), you're more likely to get sick (and seriously sick) the older you get. Total private insurance for people over 65 would have rates through the roof, if Medicare wasn't picking up some of the first-tier expenses. M&K can probably add some #s to this.

The statistics are gloomy, but real. If you get all persons over 65 paying for coverage (which they do), some will die quickly, and some will live longer & stay relatively healthy ... and that will offset the risks of those who will have expensive, protracted illnesses.

That is the whole basis for Obamacare as well. Many with pre-existing conditions CAN get insured, but the price is astronomical. One example might be $30K/year (or some such #) for someone who has had a previous heart attack. The insurance company is betting you'll either have another one or be subject to some protracted care to prevent that. They make out if you just fall over one day ... but if you need long-term, expensive care to prevent it, they'll take a hosing.

By the time someone gets to 65, there's a good chance they'll have some kind of pre-existing condition ... which is not likely to get a whole lot better between 65 and 75. I used the word "likely" ... not impossible. It's a matter of the laws of probability. And if one condition improves, it is fairly likely that you'll have one of the other parts wear out :-) ... survive the heart attack, then need a hip or knee replacement, or cancer care.

So, with Medicare, you have the largest group of persons with pre-existing conditions and lower incomes (generally, after retirement).

Many people believe Medicare is in trouble ... and the basic A premiums do continue to increase. And, we're told, the program is not sustainable in its present form.

Those who do not provide for a supplement or long-term care coverage, end up on Medicaid.

Essentially, Obamacare is Medicare on steroids.

There will still be premiums to be paid for insurance. Those who cannot afford the premiums or cash payment will end up in Medicaid.

Steve Hester
02-03-2011, 10:00 AM
Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses. :-x

huntinman
02-03-2011, 10:05 AM
Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses. :-x

Here, here... you hit the nail on the head.

mjh345
02-03-2011, 10:35 AM
Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses. :-x

Well said Steve!!

M&K's Retrievers
02-03-2011, 10:50 AM
Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses. :-x

There you go making sense again. What were you thinking?

Julie R.
02-03-2011, 11:00 AM
Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses. :-x


Exactly right--Social Security was designed to be self sustaining, but then again it was never meant to pay out benefits to those who didn't pay into the system.

Jason Glavich
02-03-2011, 11:20 AM
So I have a question about SS for all of you then, my grandmother was a homemaker, never worked outside of taking care of a family and grandchildren. My grandfather would not allow her to work, common for the times I think. She has never even driven a car. He passed on a few years after retirement, Should she recieve SS? I am not offended either way so don't worry about that. My granfather retired from 2 jobs served in the Military(did not retire) and his companies pensions went into the tank when everyone recieved bailouts and old timers pensions and health benefits were the first to go. So he paid in a never got to use it, should she recieve it?

IMO there is alot of abuse of that money.

ducknwork
02-03-2011, 11:28 AM
How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt. It is a given that imposing tariffs will increase the cost of goods purchased by US consumers, no? Yes, that is correct.If you agree with that given, then your Item 1 presumes that the govt. better knows how to spend a surplus of money than you do (i.e. a non-tariffed t-shirt that you buy is $5 and a tariffed t-shirt would cost you $6...do you want the govt. to have that extra dollar or do you want to save that extra dollar?).I see it as 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Are they going to take that extra dollar via tariffs or are they going to eventually grow enough nuts to let the tax cuts expire? One advantage for the tariff argument is that you are not forced to pay it....unless you choose to spend your money on imported goods....so, buy American and run the Japs/Mexicans/Koreans/Chinese out of business... If the govt is getting that dollar via income tax, you have no choice but to pay it, regardless of how you spend your money. One could make respectable arguments on either side, but you can't really claim that giving that dollar to the govt. is rooted in Conservative idealology.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products. Using my t-shirt example above, what's better...to save one $10 hour American job making t-shirts or to save thousands of Americans who buy the t-shirt a dollar?Yeah, like only one person works in a t shirt factory. But it's not really fair to talk only small goods, like t shirts...what about automobiles, appliances, techonology, etc? I honestly don't know the answer, but I would think as a country we get more economic bang for our buck with the lower priced t-shirts than proping up a job that can only be profitable via govt. interference. How are we (americans) getting ANY bang for our buck by buying a t shirt that is made in china?

3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US. Most of the lost jobs are in cheap labor industries. Link?It doesn't make any more sense for our govt. to artificially prop up, say our textile industries, than it would have been wise for the govt. to subsidize horse carriages after the arrival of the Model T. Those types of jobs are lost forever and tariffs will only make our remaining industries less competitive internationally when all the countries we slap tariffs on turn around and do the same to our goods.Don't many countries already make it very difficult for us to export goods to them? And geez, if Americans won't even buy American made washing machines because they are more expensive than Korean ones, what makes you think that Koreans would buy USA made goods over their own cheap labor?
2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks. Using my rebuttal of your Item 1, tariffs will suck money out of the economy Not really. It will keep money in this economy because Americans will be much more likely to BUY AMERICAN if the prices are more comparable to imported goods, therefore, keeping more AMERICANS employed, who can take their money (which now is not coming from UE benefits--ooo more money saved) and spend it on more american made goods...see the cycle?(particularly, if as you said, the govt. should use tariff revenue to be applied to the debt).Once again, they are going (or should) pay down that debt via taxes or tariffs. I'd rather they paid the debt with China's money rather than mine.

I'm not big on protectionist tariffs to subsidize non-competitive industries and as a means of revenue for the govt (at the consumer's expense).What are other ways that the govt can raise it's income rather than just lowering expenses (budget cuts)? That said, however, we shouldn't be international patsies to other country's unfair trade practices (mainly China and Japan). If one of our industries in getting screwed by another country's tariffs/unfair practices (like when Japan would let our fruit sit days at the dock waiting for inspection ((also known as rotting ))) then I think we can use tariffs as a big stick to assure fair treatment.



It has been proven that Americans don't care whether a product is made here or not. The number 1 factor in buying a product is price. With that mentality (which won't change, especially when people are unemployed and strapped for cash), how do we get people to change their mind and support domestic companies? Answer: Make the prices comparable to imported goods. So, do we do that be restricting wages of workers in this country in order to lower prices? Or do we do it by making it more expensive for China to sell their t shirts here?


In the future, what will our economy be based on when their is no manufacturing?

M&K's Retrievers
02-03-2011, 11:49 AM
So I have a question about SS for all of you then, my grandmother was a homemaker, never worked outside of taking care of a family and grandchildren. My grandfather would not allow her to work, common for the times I think. She has never even driven a car. He passed on a few years after retirement, Should she recieve SS? I am not offended either way so don't worry about that. My granfather retired from 2 jobs served in the Military(did not retire) and his companies pensions went into the tank when everyone recieved bailouts and old timers pensions and health benefits were the first to go. So he paid in a never got to use it, should she recieve it?

IMO there is alot of abuse of that money.

My guess is she is not entitled to any SS income benefits other than perhaps a small -and I do mean small- death benefit from her husbands participation in SS. Medicare is an entirely different animal and would depend on her specific situation. Go to medicare.gov/medicareeligibility for specifics.

Marvin S
02-03-2011, 12:03 PM
So you think charging tariffs on imported products started the depression? Explain, please.

I'm not being argumentative, but I am very curious about that line of thinking. I don't see how it could do anything but good for the US and our workers.

I believe it was Smoot-Hawley but not sure, as I believe Glass-Steagal to be the banking bill, both from the depression. That & some fairly poor assumptions on the part of our then sitting president & a SOtH that coveted his position.

Tariffs create other tariffs from the other side & nobody ever wins. We need to export a lot of value added stuff to cover all the union sympathizers who shop for Chinese stuff at Wally World ;-).

Jason Glavich
02-03-2011, 12:05 PM
My guess is she is not entitled to any SS income benefits other than perhaps a small -and I do mean small- death benefit from her husbands participation in SS. Medicare is an entirely different animal and would depend on her specific situation. Go to medicare.gov/medicareeligibility for specifics.

I guess I should have said it different, she does receive it, but do you think she should? Women working wasn't as common back in the day as it is now, just curious as to what you guys think.

huntinman
02-03-2011, 12:12 PM
I guess I should have said it different, she does receive it, but do you think she should? Women working wasn't as common back in the day as it is now, just curious as to what you guys think.

I think she should because I believe your grandpa earned it.