Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 For those of you who are unfamiliar with the situation... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov30.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/02/...f.ap/index.html Personally, I think Rove & Co. made a huge mistake by issuing the tariffs to begin with. While I may not look like much of a free-marketer to most people (and, to some extent, I'm not; I'm often horrified when I read about the damage the WTO and World Bank do to third world countries), I acknowledge that tariffs and trade wars are a thing of the past. When Bush decided to pander to the steel interests and raise protective tariffs, some of us acknowledged that this could throw us into a trade war with Europe, and it's still quite possible that this still might happen. However, if he removes these tariffs, he risks losing Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia (steel producing states) in the 2004 election. On the other hand, if he starts a trade war, he could cede Florida, Iowa, and another state which I have currently forgotten. The reason for that being that the EU has threatened to tariff major products in those countries. If you were president and inhereted this problem (assume for a moment that it was already in affect; answering "not issue them in the first place" isn't the point), how would you get out of it? Personally, I don't think Bush has any choice but to bite the bullet and revoke the steel tariffs. He absolutely cannot afford to lose Florida -- as was proven in 2000 -- and he's damned either way. Thoughts?
kkktookmybabyaway Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 He should not have had the tariff's to begin with, and if anyone in his staff thought Big Labor would vote for him as a result of doing this then they need to get off the crack pipe. Bush isn't losing Ohio because he'll lift the tariffs. He won't win PA if he keeps the tariffs as-is. W.Va -- who knows? The fact that he won it in '00 surprised me to begin with...
Stephen Joseph Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 tariffs just dont make sense economically...the only arguement for them, infant industry preservation has been proven false. The problem we run into is that free trade encourages job displacement, as companies move moreso lesser paying jobs to other places to take advantage of lower costs. In the long run, with our tech advantage, free trade creates more jobs than are lost, and those jobs pay more, thusly making us better off...no protectivist nation or policy has ever been of any benefit...thought I admit the jacksonian debacles could disprove this.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 3, 2003 Author Report Posted December 3, 2003 no protectivist nation or policy has ever been of any benefit Louis XIV: "Huh huh, I disagree." God, he's ugly.
starvenger Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 If I'm Bush I do what benefits me the most within the US. His image is shit outside of the States so you might as well try and do the best you can at home. I'd say that it doesn't matter as he's a one-termer, but then again I'm a Canadian with more of an "outsiders" view of things, and I plan to be back in Canada by end of next year anyways...
Cartman Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 Bush's image in the US is fading fast as well. No matter what the right-wing conservatives want to tell you. Sad part is all the Democratic candidates are retards(and there's a reason for that happening) so it's a lose-lose for the American people...until 2008 that is.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 3, 2003 Author Report Posted December 3, 2003 Sad part is all the Democratic candidates are retards Uh, right.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted December 3, 2003 Report Posted December 3, 2003 Bush's image in the US is fading fast as well. No matter what the right-wing conservatives want to tell you. I wouldn't say it's "fading fast." If anything he looks to have gotten a slight postitive bump. He's not as popular as he was right after 9/11, but that was to be expected. Oh, wait. I'm a right-wing conservative. Nevermind...
Hogan Made Wrestling Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 Bush's image in the US is fading fast as well. No matter what the right-wing conservatives want to tell you. Sad part is all the Democratic candidates are retards(and there's a reason for that happening) so it's a lose-lose for the American people...until 2008 that is. 2008 has the possibility of a Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton election. How can that be better than anything offered up in 2004? (other than say, Moseley-Braun getting the nomination for the Dems)
Justice Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 Personally I'd like to see Condoleeza Rice go for it against Hillary. I think she could utterly stomp her because she lacks any real enemies while Clinton has no friends on the right side of the aisle and even causes bitter looks among some Democrats.
Vern Gagne Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 Bush's image in the US is fading fast as well. No matter what the right-wing conservatives want to tell you. Sad part is all the Democratic candidates are retards(and there's a reason for that happening) so it's a lose-lose for the American people...until 2008 that is. 2008 has the possibility of a Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton election. How can that be better than anything offered up in 2004? (other than say, Moseley-Braun getting the nomination for the Dems) Remember the name Bill Owens, the Governor of Colorado. Owens/Rice 2008
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Posted December 4, 2003 Rice has plenty of enemies after all of the lying nonsense.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 Schwarzenegger: 2012. Mwahahaha
Guest Kamui Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 Schwarzenegger: 2012. Mwahahaha Uh, unless they lied to me in my society class, isn't that impossible?
Guest MikeSC Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 Rice has plenty of enemies after all of the lying nonsense. NOTHING compared to Hillary. She has all of Bill's negatives and none of his positives. Her run will be one of the bigger train wrecks in recent history. -=Mike
kkktookmybabyaway Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) Schwarzenegger: 2012. Mwahahaha Uh, unless they lied to me in my society class, isn't that impossible? Not unless the Constitution is altered. But yeah, it looks like Arnold has hit the political glass ceiling with being governor... Edited December 4, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Posted December 4, 2003 Her run will be one of the bigger train wrecks in recent history. -=Mike I don't disagree, but I don't think Rice will have it much better.
Stephen Joseph Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 The tariff was there to woo votes, but those votes officially endorsed dean a bit back, so of course bush is getting rid of it he's stupid, but not as stupid as the american people
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Posted December 4, 2003 You still haven't addressed Louis XIV, Popick.
Guest Razor Roman Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 I think Bush should give other tax advantages to Domestic manufacturing as a whole, allowing American manufacturers of steel, cars, etc. , to offset the higher costs of doing business here and giving them better pricing compared to the foreign goods. But were we even talking about tarriffs anymore?
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Posted December 4, 2003 I think Bush should give other tax advantages to Domestic manufacturing as a whole, allowing American manufacturers of steel, cars, etc. , to offset the higher costs of doing business here and giving them better pricing compared to the foreign goods. WTO still frowns upon subsidies.
Michrome Posted December 4, 2003 Report Posted December 4, 2003 I still think surrendering America's right to determine its own trading policy was one of the hugest mistakes. America is outvoted 15-1 by Eurosocialists with the EU's best interest in mind, which is entirely unfair. If the EU has 15 countries voting for it, then the U.S. should get 1 vote per state, because it's ridiculous to have economically weak countries bullying the U.S. We should determine our trade policy on our own. Europe does not want a trade war...a real trade war, because they would get smashed.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Posted December 4, 2003 I still think surrendering America's right to determine its own trading policy was one of the hugest mistakes. America is outvoted 15-1 by Eurosocialists with the EU's best interest in mind, which is entirely unfair. If the EU has 15 countries voting for it, then the U.S. should get 1 vote per state, because it's ridiculous to have economically weak countries bullying the U.S. We should determine our trade policy on our own. Europe does not want a trade war...a real trade war, because they would get smashed. That comment just shows how little you understand economics. Overwhelmingly, the WTO/World Bank agreements favor us. Just because one thing didn't go our way doesn't mean that this thing is a sweetheart deal for Europeans. Please read up about things about which you plan to comment. Thanks.
Michrome Posted December 5, 2003 Report Posted December 5, 2003 I know plenty, and even though the WTO generally has sided with us, the EU hasn't exactly been around that long either. The bottom line is that we're outvoted by the EU at the WTO, and unelected officials are determining America's trade policy.
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 5, 2003 Author Report Posted December 5, 2003 We weren't OUTVOTED by anyone. The WTO is flagrantly pro FREE TRADE. WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD THEY VOTE ON OUR SIDE WHEN WE TRIED TO IMPEDE FREE TRADE?!? You can't MAKE this shit up.
tommytomlin Posted December 5, 2003 Report Posted December 5, 2003 Anybody who says the U.S is disadvantaged in the WTO is a moron. It took Australia a coalition with a dozen or so other 'middle' powers like Canada in the form of the Cairns Group to get agricultural trade liberalised, and even then all the members of the Cairns Group get screwed over by the massive subsidies the U.S and European Countries still place on their agriculture. I know that's just the balance of power in the world, but compared to every other country outside powerful blocs like the European Union, the U.S has it very easy.
Guest Cerebus Posted December 5, 2003 Report Posted December 5, 2003 If I were Bush I guess I would do this.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted December 5, 2003 Report Posted December 5, 2003 If I were Bush I guess I would do this. WTF?!?! Headline: Bush Tariff Repeal a Political Quagmire Everything's a goddamn quagmire now...
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted December 5, 2003 Author Report Posted December 5, 2003 (edited) Well, to a certain extent, it is. It's going to cost him electoral votes either way, thus the snarky attempt at defaming Bush that is this topic. Edited December 5, 2003 by Tyler McClelland
kkktookmybabyaway Posted December 5, 2003 Report Posted December 5, 2003 (edited) Practically anything Bush, or any other public official, does results in that person ticking off a group of voters. My point was I've been hearing the "Q" word quite a bit and it's starting to drive me mad. I'm in a bit of a quagmire myself. I can't decide whether to have Shredded Wheat for breakfast or Reese's Puffs. The Fiber Bloc and ever-important Teeth Lobby (and boy those molars sure go to the polls in force) are hoping I choose Shredded Wheat, but my taste buds, which have filled up my War Chest with cash for years, is pulling for the Puffs. I think I'll see what the focus groups say I should do... Edited December 5, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now