Quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the rich

Yeah. It boosts profits for the companies and their stockholders. FOR THEM, it's great. And for American workers, it's a disaster. And NO, it doesn't have to be adapted to. In fact, free trade could be shut down entirely. Normal trade sustained this country for many decades. It can do that now too.

 

I don't know what you're talking about, nor do I care.

 

two things in our favor >

1. their massive shipping costs

2. Tariffs

 

Absolutely correct. Which is why I vote registered Independent (if I vote at all). Problems came from Rs & Ds acting on behalf of profit-seeking companies, instead of the country, as they should.

 

So what ? That doesn't mean that illegal immigration (and legal immigration as well) is not a problem.

 

It wasn't a problem when we were running massive federal budget surpluses. Why do you believe it was a problem then?

 

It's ALWAYS a problem because it deprives Americans of jobs, deprives America's economy of $40 Billion/year due to remittances plus Billion$$$ more lost in social services through the anchor baby racket. And all THESE things :


Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

 

Until Reagan slapped the crap out of them with tariff's, and they stopped.

Reagan and Nixon wrote the playbook to put a stop to this, the fact that we don't, is just evidence our government is no longer beholden to the American people!

 

Spot on. Can't argue with that.

 

Yes...LOL...We're all much too greedy...except for them. They "earn" it the old fashioned way...they outsource it, or just ask for bailouts.

 

We had the lowest unemployment in thirty years during the dot com boom and our federal government was running massive budget surpluses instead of massive federal budget deficits.

What you are describing is less efficacious public policy choices on the part of our elected representatives to government. There is no reason why we could not have built state-of-the-art infrastructure and that form of provision of the general welfare, instead of anything and everything that may even considered the general warfare and the common offense under a warfare-state regime instead of what our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated; a welfare-state that may eventually secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

 

Why do you distinguish between trade among several States?

If trade is good in one political-economy, why would it be worse in a larger political-economy?

 

The greater the amount of trade, the greater the exponential effect tends to be (assuming it is not coerced trade or trade between partners where one partner holds all the cards). By this measure global free trade is a good thing and it discourages major trading nations from disrupting such trade with tariffs or wars.

This doesn't mean that a particular nation will realize a net benefit from the situation. The United States is a high price high value nation and that means that most nations it trades with globally are lower in price and value. The classic example has been China, which was very low price and very low value when serious trade began with that nation. Factories were effectively moved there because the wage costs and social costs were so much less so the products could be produced for less and still generate a higher profit margin.

Over time, the economic models for free trade show that China will rise in cost and value and become less competitive. This will mean much higher wages and more social cost so that China will be developed and will have a much more mature consumer base (more likely to buy American products). The downside is that the same model shows that the United States will have to have substantially lower wages and less social cost before it reaches equilibrium (it shouldn't fall as much as China rises, but it should be quite a drop). Once equilibrium is reached the arrangement should truly benefit both nations about the same (assuming some African nations don't become the new China).

So global free trade accomplishes two things from the point of view of the USA; it produces more economic activity that generates more profit for corporations and it puts downward pressure on the standard of living (wages and social costs). GFT is a massive exercise in charity that dwarfs anything that useless institution the United Nations might think of: we are helping to develop the life and economy of perhaps a third of the world's population at the expense of ourselves and of Europe on the assumption that the net result will be beneficial in the very long term.

 

This is a good list for illegal immigration. Some of the objections here were complaints about legal immigrants from Europe in the early 20th century, but when you compare legal immigrate to illegal, your list gets cut in half, and legal immigrants have always proven to give more value to this country than problems.

 

I believe we could simply use a social safety net that could be as easy to administer as our current regime of minimum wage laws is now, with our existing laws regarding employment at will and unemployment compensation.

We could be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants away from more expensive, means tested welfare.

 

F the rich. They've destroyed a once great country and turned it into Rome 2.0...

 

And best not to inquire too closely just how it got to be "yours"...

They can, and do:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
-- Warren Buffett