Does anyone else feel like I do when it comes to Free Trade? That until we do away with it we will never recover economically?
Until we make it impossible to make goods in some 3rd world country and ship them here cheaper than they can be made here we will never fully recover.
The only people this benefits is the corporations. Not the people, who have seen all their jobs shipped overseas. Ill pay a couple more bucks for things if it means American jobs, which in the long run will restrengthen the dollar, and thus truly making them cheaper.
Sure at the time it was enacted we were doing well, and it seemed great, the dollar was strong and the prices on everything bottomed out. However, it has slowly bled us and the dollar to a point now we are much worse off. Its time to correct that mistake
A libertarian's response would be that we need a free market, a person has the right to choose to spend his or her income and spend it anyway they wish (imports).
However, I disagree with my party on this point. I think that we need to raise the tariffs to the point that it would cost more for the companies to make the product over seas than here.
Now, saying that, this would cause higher tarrifs on the exports that we ship out. This would have a devastating effect on our state alone. Coal would take a major hit due to we export most of the coal that we mine to China.
Also, the tobacco industry would be hit as well, as less than 30% of Americans use tobacco products now, but 80% use tobacco products in China. ( I know I keep coming back to China, but our state does greatly beneift from them, even though they own us).
Another point that must be brought up is how many companies would leave the US... Toyota, Sony, BP. I don't think they would, be it could happen.
Also, I think you must consider when you buy a product, where it comes from, which is your main point. However, as cost goes up for the products that you buy, you are likely to buy less of them. Which in turn means less people working, not in making the product but in selling the product. Wal-Mart for an example would more than likely have to fire a few employees to maintain its stead growth, which appeals to Wall Street. It is possible that we would see higher unemployment because of this action.
Also, I believe the days of the assembly line are long in gone. We have now better technology that replaces what a human can do. From a cost standpoint, up front, it is cheaper to buy humans, but long term, the benefits of a machine, outway that of a human, (i.e. no healthcare, no unemployment insurance, occupational taxes, etc.). So I don't know how well free trade accounts for that.
Finally, I would think that the minimal wage is artifical at best and sets up things like inflation. I say that because in the free trade talk, this issue must be addressed, because again, it goes back to cost.
Valid points tvtimeout, however, negotiating proper trade agreements could prevent this. Obviously China needs our coal, and we need to export it to them, they need our market to sell their goods, so in exchange for them keeping the tariffs low on coal or other goods we export to them, we could in exchange offer lower tariffs to them for certain commodities so that it balances out.
Our economy cant and wont survive with the way things are now. What has led to this current economic situation? An increase in unemployment is one, which has led to more uninsured, which has led to poorer wages in the HC industry and a decrease in jobs. Thats just a small portion of the cycle. Also the increase of people defaulting on loans due to job loss, which has put a huge strain on the banks, which resulted in less money being loaned out to businesss, and also adding to the job problem. While doing away with free trade is not the 100% solution to the problem, it by far contributes the most to the problem.
Then we can get into the regulation the market needs, something must be done with what is going on on Wall St. The price of oil has been skyrocketing for years due to commodity investors driving up the price, and not based on supply and demand. The demand for oil here has stayed about the same for almost 15 years, and our usage of "electric" energy has actually decreased. Now there has been an increase in the usage of oil in places like China and India, but not nearly enough to see the prices we have seen, and will see this summer.
tvtimeout Wrote:A libertarian's response would be that we need a free market, a person has the right to choose to spend his or her income and spend it anyway they wish (imports).
However, I disagree with my party on this point. I think that we need to raise the tariffs to the point that it would cost more for the companies to make the product over seas than here.
Now, saying that, this would cause higher tarrifs on the exports that we ship out. This would have a devastating effect on our state alone. Coal would take a major hit due to we export most of the coal that we mine to China.
Also, the tobacco industry would be hit as well, as less than 30% of Americans use tobacco products now, but 80% use tobacco products in China. ( I know I keep coming back to China, but our state does greatly beneift from them, even though they own us).
Another point that must be brought up is how many companies would leave the US... Toyota, Sony, BP. I don't think they would, be it could happen.
Also, I think you must consider when you buy a product, where it comes from, which is your main point. However, as cost goes up for the products that you buy, you are likely to buy less of them. Which in turn means less people working, not in making the product but in selling the product. Wal-Mart for an example would more than likely have to fire a few employees to maintain its stead growth, which appeals to Wall Street. It is possible that we would see higher unemployment because of this action.
Also, I believe the days of the assembly line are long in gone. We have now better technology that replaces what a human can do. From a cost standpoint, up front, it is cheaper to buy humans, but long term, the benefits of a machine, outway that of a human, (i.e. no healthcare, no unemployment insurance, occupational taxes, etc.). So I don't know how well free trade accounts for that.
Finally, I would think that the minimal wage is artifical at best and sets up things like inflation. I say that because in the free trade talk, this issue must be addressed, because again, it goes back to cost.
If this is truly what you believe, why did you join the Libertarian Party? Economic and personal liberty are the cornerstones upon which the libertarian philosophy rests.
China imports our coal? Really? They have the third largest reserves
Protectionist tariffs don't work
Our federal government alone currently spends 20 percent of everything that this nation produces and borrows the equivalent of another 3 percent of our GDP. Add the cost of local and state government to that total. Now, add the indirect costs of over-regulation by local, state, and federal governments to the tab.
This country does not have a free market and yet liberals blame it for the economic collapse that our politicians caused - along with under-regulation, which also is nonexistent.
As long as our economy is saddled with the enormous cost of our bloated government, we will come up on the short end of the free trade stick. Tariffs have failed before and they will fail again if politicians decide to dangle them as false hope for prosperity to the gullible.
nky Wrote:China imports our coal? Really? They have the third largest reserves
They do import coal and my guess is that much of it is metallurgical coal. China's coal reserves are generally poor quality compared to central Appalachian coal, which includes the highest quality bituminous coal in the world.
I wanted to clarify my statement on why I disagree with my party on this issue. It is not that I do not believe they are correct in the idea of personal choice and the free market. I believe that strongly within the U.S.
If the world played by the free market rules inparticular currencies (which China manipulates theirs), the libertarian philosophy would work globally. However, each country to their own. Therefore, because of this manipulation of keeping the currancy low, it curupts the market place.
That is why I would impose a tariff on China...unless their monitary policies change.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Our federal government alone currently spends 20 percent of everything that this nation produces and borrows the equivalent of another 3 percent of our GDP. Add the cost of local and state government to that total. Now, add the indirect costs of over-regulation by local, state, and federal governments to the tab.
This country does not have a free market and yet liberals blame it for the economic collapse that our politicians caused - along with under-regulation, which also is nonexistent.
As long as our economy is saddled with the enormous cost of our bloated government, we will come up on the short end of the free trade stick. Tariffs have failed before and they will fail again if politicians decide to dangle them as false hope for prosperity to the gullible.
I agree with you whole heartedly, I don't see either side of the aisle really taking the stand on this issue either. As long as I get mine seems to be the attitude.
[quote=Beetle01]Valid points tvtimeout, however, negotiating proper trade agreements could prevent this. Obviously China needs our coal, and we need to export it to them, they need our market to sell their goods, so in exchange for them keeping the tariffs low on coal or other goods we export to them, we could in exchange offer lower tariffs to them for certain commodities so that it balances out.
Our economy cant and wont survive with the way things are now. What has led to this current economic situation? An increase in unemployment is one, which has led to more uninsured, which has led to poorer wages in the HC industry and a decrease in jobs. Thats just a small portion of the cycle. Also the increase of people defaulting on loans due to job loss, which has put a huge strain on the banks, which resulted in less money being loaned out to businesss, and also adding to the job problem. While doing away with free trade is not the 100% solution to the problem, it by far contributes the most to the problem.
Then we can get into the regulation the market needs, something must be done with what is going on on Wall St. The price of oil has been skyrocketing for years due to commodity investors driving up the price, and not based on supply and demand. The demand for oil here has stayed about the same for almost 15 years, and our usage of "electric" energy has actually decreased. Now there has been an increase in the usage of oil in places like China and India, but not nearly enough to see the prices we have seen, and will see this summer.[/QUOTE]
The reason why there are a decrease in jobs, is that it cost to much for people here in the US. Companies are still doing very well, look at the financial statements, most companies on the S and P have shown growth in the last 2 qts. Most companies also are having a reserve build up at the moment, because of the cost to do business in this great land of ours.
I can personally agree to this statement. I had to form a C-Corp just to hopefully raise enough capital to start business.
China is a major player in the oil right now, but can you guess where we get most of our oil...
tvtimeout Wrote:I agree with you whole heartedly, I don't see either side of the aisle really taking the stand on this issue either. As long as I get mine seems to be the attitude.
If you don't see either side of the aisle taking a stand, then you are not looking closely enough. A substantial number of Republicans have been taking a stand and forcing their party leaders to compromise with Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Fiscal conservatives are taking stands in Washington, there just are not enough of them to dictate to the "bipartisan" majority of big spenders.
Why does this matter? It matters because as our economy continues to decline, the influence of responsible House members like Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachman, Mike Pence, and others will grow. If our nation's fat is to be pulled from the fire, then people will turn to elected representatives who have been delivering the right message consistently throughout their careers.
Broad brushing the many good people in the House of Representatives with the same brush as you use on liberals does not make much sense.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:If you don't see either side of the aisle taking a stand, then you are not looking closely enough. A substantial number of Republicans have been taking a stand and forcing their party leaders to compromise with Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Fiscal conservatives are taking stands in Washington, there just are not enough of them to dictate to the "bipartisan" majority of big spenders.
Why does this matter? It matters because as our economy continues to decline, the influence of responsible House members like Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachman, Mike Pence, and others will grow. If our nation's fat is to be pulled from the fire, then people will turn to elected representatives who have been delivering the right message consistently throughout their careers.
Broad brushing the many good people in the House of Representatives with the same brush as you use on liberals does not make much sense.
lip service... the best line I heard to described what I am talking about comes from the movie "The American President", (yes a libreal movie) but at one point Micheal Douglas says "you know how you get elected in elections, you get the middle class, the middle income folks and you talk about the good times they had, and then you point at the other guy and say there is your problem...", well, in my mind both parties say the same thing. I saw what happened when the Republicans had both houses and the President, I saw what happened when the Democrats had both houses and the President. All of which has happened in the last 11 yrs. One question and I only have to ask one "Is our country better off 20 yrs ago then it is today?"
I know it is not fair to paint with such a wide brush. However, I do everyday, either it be a Islamic group of people, who just want to live their lives (I look at them differently), not fair! All the people who get assistance with Medicaid and Welfare (I look at them as lazy, even though I know that some would desprately need it). I look at all Democrats (they are all socialists, I know some especially in the south i.e. Lousiana are not) I look at all Republicans (all are lock step and key with big corps and will do anything for the mighty dollar, and try to tell me how immoral I am as they do it; they are all not like this, you sited 4 that are not).
Again, not fair, but you are known by the associates you run around with period!
If you say the Republicans are not what I paint of them and show me why, my paint brush might change. Please tell me that was not the Republican Party that started to bail out failed companies, that is not a free market approach. Please tell me that it was not the Republican party that passed a drug package for our seniors for four dollars. Please tell me that it was not the Republican party who says to this very day that people who choose to live an alternative lifestyle does not deserve the same tax break priviledges as the rest of the country. Please tell me it was not the Republican party, the party of fiscal responsiblity that first got us into a deficit. (Please don't tell me the democrats are worse, I know, that is why I am not a democrat).
If you can do this, I will be more than happy to go back to the Republican Party. I think the old saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"!
tvtimeout Wrote:lip service... the best line I heard to described what I am talking about comes from the movie "The American President", (yes a libreal movie) but at one point Micheal Douglas says "you know how you get elected in elections, you get the middle class, the middle income folks and you talk about the good times they had, and then you point at the other guy and say there is your problem...", well, in my mind both parties say the same thing. I saw what happened when the Republicans had both houses and the President, I saw what happened when the Democrats had both houses and the President. All of which has happened in the last 11 yrs. One question and I only have to ask one "Is our country better off 20 yrs ago then it is today?"
I know it is not fair to paint with such a wide brush. However, I do everyday, either it be a Islamic group of people, who just want to live their lives (I look at them differently), not fair! All the people who get assistance with Medicaid and Welfare (I look at them as lazy, even though I know that some would desprately need it). I look at all Democrats (they are all socialists, I know some especially in the south i.e. Lousiana are not) I look at all Republicans (all are lock step and key with big corps and will do anything for the mighty dollar, and try to tell me how immoral I am as they do it; they are all not like this, you sited 4 that are not).
Again, not fair, but you are known by the associates you run around with period!
If you say the Republicans are not what I paint of them and show me why, my paint brush might change. Please tell me that was not the Republican Party that started to bail out failed companies, that is not a free market approach. Please tell me that it was not the Republican party that passed a drug package for our seniors for four dollars. Please tell me that it was not the Republican party who says to this very day that people who choose to live an alternative lifestyle does not deserve the same tax break priviledges as the rest of the country. Please tell me it was not the Republican party, the party of fiscal responsiblity that first got us into a deficit. (Please don't tell me the democrats are worse, I know, that is why I am not a democrat).
If you can do this, I will be more than happy to go back to the Republican Party. I think the old saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"!
Lip service is saying one thing and doing another. Getting elected by running as a fiscal conservative and then voting that way is not lip service. The young Republicans in the House are under a lot of pressure to follow their party leaders' calls to play it safe by backing only small budget cuts but many of them have refused to do so.
Find Democrats who are consistently talking
and voting like Paul Ryan or Rand Paul. Find Democrats who are fighting to combat waste, fraud, and corruption in the executive branch the way that Darrell Issa is and then tell me that there is no difference in the two parties. Ryan, Paul, and Issa represent only a minority within the Republican Party but it is a growing faction of the party's membership.
Find me a single Libertarian Party member who is making any real difference in Washington and then explain how they will ever make a real difference when they cannot get elected - even when people are more desperate for competence, leadership, and accountability in Washington than they have been in decades.
Even at the state level, it is Republicans like Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and Doug Christie who are successfully pushing through real reforms. The Libertarians and the Democrats are MIA from the process.
Also while I am thinking of it. if you want to talk about well the Republicans are for a small gov't. Really? Patriot Act and Homeland Security (I thought we had a Department of Defense).
Then, if you want to talk about safety? Really, securing the boarders, during Bush's eight years, would have been a good start, using our military. (however, let us send up boarder patrol agents, and get another agency going)
Don't forget the war on legal I mean illegal drugs. Let us spend more money on fighting a legal drug problem, started by the Republicans as previously mentioned in '04.
Also, please try not to bring in democrats in on the debate, I know and so does all of the country know that they spend money, they are for big gov't, work for the collective, not the individual. I know this because they tell you this in everything they say and do. They also believe that they are right!
hey, didn't know you were on excellent let us debate
You know that the election laws are stacked up against Libertarians, that is why you don't see them in Washington
Ron and Rand Paul on who is making a difference, Libertarians in Republican clothing
I would say they have not voted on anything yet, let us see, push come to shove by April 8 or whenever that deadline is... then we will see where these fiscal conservatives are standing.
tvtimeout Wrote:Also while I am thinking of it. if you want to talk about well the Republicans are for a small gov't. Really? Patriot Act and Homeland Security (I thought we had a Department of Defense).
Then, if you want to talk about safety? Really, securing the boarders, during Bush's eight years, would have been a good start, using our military. (however, let us send up boarder patrol agents, and get another agency going)
Don't forget the war on legal I mean illegal drugs. Let us spend more money on fighting a legal drug problem, started by the Republicans as previously mentioned in '04.
Also, please try not to bring in democrats in on the debate, I know and so does all of the country know that they spend money, they are for big gov't, work for the collective, not the individual. I know this because they tell you this in everything they say and do. They also believe that they are right!
I am not bringing Democrats into the debate you are, every time that you claim that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Bash Bush all you want on border security, spending, etc. - I am not here to defend him against valid charges.
My issue with your posts is that you fail to recognize that virtually all of the people who are fighting to reduce the size of the federal government and who are in position to actually influence the debate are members of the Republican Party.
What has the Libertarian Party ever done to resolve the issues that you listed above? Why should anybody waste a vote for any national Libertarian candidate when they have almost no chance of being elected and even if they manage to get elected, will have no power to affect changes?
I have asked these questions repeatedly about the Libertarian Party and you have not answered it yet.
tvtimeout Wrote:I would say they have not voted on anything yet, let us see, push come to shove by April 8 or whenever that deadline is... then we will see where these fiscal conservatives are standing.
If that is what you would say, then you would be wrong. They have been voting since they were sworn in. Some may get weak-kneed if the polls turn against them but 57 percent of Americans currently favor a government shutdown over passing a budget without cuts. Many Republicans will not waiver on this issue and they deserve support.
tvtimeout Wrote:Ron and Rand Paul on who is making a difference, Libertarians in Republican clothing
Correction - they are
libertarians in the Republican Party. The understand that the
Libertarian Party is powerless in this country.
Beetle01 Wrote:Does anyone else feel like I do when it comes to Free Trade? That until we do away with it we will never recover economically?
Until we make it impossible to make goods in some 3rd world country and ship them here cheaper than they can be made here we will never fully recover.
The only people this benefits is the corporations. Not the people, who have seen all their jobs shipped overseas. Ill pay a couple more bucks for things if it means American jobs, which in the long run will restrengthen the dollar, and thus truly making them cheaper.
Sure at the time it was enacted we were doing well, and it seemed great, the dollar was strong and the prices on everything bottomed out. However, it has slowly bled us and the dollar to a point now we are much worse off. Its time to correct that mistake
I agree with you. Problem is, not everyone thinks like that.
The United States has Free Trade agreements with the following countries; Mexico, Canada, The Dominican Rep Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. We have multi-lateral agreements with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Peru, Oman and Singapore. We are negotiating with Malaysia, Thailand, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Switzerland and Brazil. Obviously we trade with far more countries than listed including Japan, China etc.
Not that I am supporting free trade but, the USA is hoplessly entangled economically with the global marketplace. Every thing is global, when it comes to money. The world is moving toward the consumation of a world government, and bank. That's debatable I know, but the indicators are beyond doubt for this to happen. With the world government, will come a world wide totalitarian state. We used to control the world because of our superpower status. Now it just looks like the more we try to control things the more they slip through our fingers.
I get an apocalyptic shiver everytime Obama defers to the UN to get permission or guidance on how our country should conduct affairs of foreign pollicy. When did we stop being a sovereign country? Obama didn't need to go to congress to get permission or backing to take military action against Libiya, cause the UN said for us to go ahead. That would be laughable if it weren't true.
The free trade tentacles are laced through our finance and GNP, GNI and GND to such an extent, I doubt whether anybody really has their arms around it all.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am not bringing Democrats into the debate you are, every time that you claim that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Bash Bush all you want on border security, spending, etc. - I am not here to defend him against valid charges.
My issue with your posts is that you fail to recognize that virtually all of the people who are fighting to reduce the size of the federal government and who are in position to actually influence the debate are members of the Republican Party.
What has the Libertarian Party ever done to resolve the issues that you listed above? Why should anybody waste a vote for any national Libertarian candidate when they have almost no chance of being elected and even if they manage to get elected, will have no power to affect changes?I have asked these questions repeatedly about the Libertarian Party and you have not answered it yet.
My grandmother asked me the very same question. We live in a very Republican County and there is from time to time a democrat, that I agree with, because the person registered a democrat, he or she has no chance in my area. However, I still choose to vote for the person. Did I waste my vote?
Let's say I lived in Jefferson Co. very Democratic area and from time to time there is a Republican that I agree with, because the person registered a Republican, he or she has no chance in my area. However, I still choose to vote for the person. Did I waste my vote?
I must choose with who I agree with. I disagree with the Republicans and the Democrats both. Where do I go? Does my voice mean any less? If I say I stand on principle, would I sell out, because this person can win, even if I disagree with them?
I disagree with the Libertarians on some things as well! I do believe we should educate all citizens to the age of 18 with a uniform policy that stretches from California to New York. I think this because it does give you a baseline. I disagree with the Libertarians on their stance of free trade outside of the U.S., because everyone does not play by the free market rules i.e. China and its currency. But, because we elect by parties instead of by people, I choose to stand with them. I choose them because of their stance that government should not interfer with your daily life (summing it up). People get to choose how they live, but more importantly, they are responsible for themselves. This is the only party that I see allows this happen.
Republicans want to tell me "How" to live with my morals, but not with my money.
Democrats want to tell me "How" to spend my money, but don't care about how I live.
Either way, it is government interferance .Now, someone pointed out earlier in another thread I believe, talking about someone intruding on someone else's rights. That is where government intervention is suppossed to take place. To ensure all citizens of their rights.
Democrats push for pro-choice, alternative life-styles, drinking, education and gambling (at least in our Commonwealth). I agree with these issues, and I agree with these issues. However when someone drinks alot, gambles alot, and is not able to take care of themselves. The democrats will try to take care of them. I disagree with that notion.
Republicans push for supply-demand economic system (supposively), they want to lower corporate tax rates, they want to lower all tax rates (except if your gay, then you should pay what a single pays).
I agree with them on tax policies, it would seem to me this would add job creation. I disagree with them on spending so much on the military. I think we have no business being in 90 countries around the world. I also think we have no business trying to force a group of people to tlive the way we do i.e. Iraq, (or was it because of the weapons of mass destruction) .
I also disagree with both sides of the aisle when it comes to giving foreign aide. I don't care if the world might hate us, get over it. Both parties do this.
Now who should I vote for?
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or do what 50%+ do and not vote at all.
I choose to stand, it might not make a difference in this world, but I will at least be able to say. I took my stand even knowing that as of right now I will get beat. Maybe I should just run away. big bad political parties coming, :yikes:
TheRealThing Wrote:The United States has Free Trade agreements with the following countries; Mexico, Canada, The Dominican Rep Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. We have multi-lateral agreements with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Peru, Oman and Singapore. We are negotiating with Malaysia, Thailand, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Switzerland and Brazil. Obviously we trade with far more countries than listed including Japan, China etc.
Not that I am supporting free trade but, the USA is hoplessly entangled economically with the global marketplace. Every thing is global, when it comes to money. The world is moving toward the consumation of a world government, and bank. That's debatable I know, but the indicators are beyond doubt for this to happen. With the world government, will come a world wide totalitarian state. We used to control the world because of our superpower status. Now it just looks like the more we try to control things the more they slip through our fingers.
I get an apocalyptic shiver everytime Obama defers to the UN to get permission or guidance on how our country should conduct affairs of foreign pollicy. When did we stop being a sovereign country? Obama didn't need to go to congress to get permission or backing to take military action against Libiya, cause the UN said for us to go ahead. That would be laughable if it weren't true.
The free trade tentacles are laced through our finance and GNP, GNI and GND to such an extent, I doubt whether anybody really has their arms around it all.
I agree with everything you said! WOW! (Never thought you would here me say that).
vundy33 Wrote:I agree with you. Problem is, not everyone thinks like that.
If it was only accouple of dollars...
You forget about
Payroll taxes
Corporate Taxes
Energy Taxes
Property Taxes
Minimual Wage
Zoning Permits
Health Permits
Obama Care
Unemployment Insurance
Company Insurance
Who takes on all of these costs...
I would bet my farm it will not be the companies
tvtimeout Wrote:My grandmother asked me the very same question. We live in a very Republican County and there is from time to time a democrat, that I agree with, because the person registered a democrat, he or she has no chance in my area. However, I still choose to vote for the person. Did I waste my vote?
Let's say I lived in Jefferson Co. very Democratic area and from time to time there is a Republican that I agree with, because the person registered a Republican, he or she has no chance in my area. However, I still choose to vote for the person. Did I waste my vote?
I must choose with who I agree with. I disagree with the Republicans and the Democrats both. Where do I go? Does my voice mean any less? If I say I stand on principle, would I sell out, because this person can win, even if I disagree with them?
I disagree with the Libertarians on some things as well! I do believe we should educate all citizens to the age of 18 with a uniform policy that stretches from California to New York. I think this because it does give you a baseline. I disagree with the Libertarians on their stance of free trade outside of the U.S., because everyone does not play by the free market rules i.e. China and its currency. But, because we elect by parties instead of by people, I choose to stand with them. I choose them because of their stance that government should not interfer with your daily life (summing it up). People get to choose how they live, but more importantly, they are responsible for themselves. This is the only party that I see allows this happen.
Republicans want to tell me "How" to live with my morals, but not with my money.
Democrats want to tell me "How" to spend my money, but don't care about how I live.
Either way, it is government interferance .Now, someone pointed out earlier in another thread I believe, talking about someone intruding on someone else's rights. That is where government intervention is suppossed to take place. To ensure all citizens of their rights.
Democrats push for pro-choice, alternative life-styles, drinking, education and gambling (at least in our Commonwealth). I agree with these issues, and I agree with these issues. However when someone drinks alot, gambles alot, and is not able to take care of themselves. The democrats will try to take care of them. I disagree with that notion.
Republicans push for supply-demand economic system (supposively), they want to lower corporate tax rates, they want to lower all tax rates (except if your gay, then you should pay what a single pays).
I agree with them on tax policies, it would seem to me this would add job creation. I disagree with them on spending so much on the military. I think we have no business being in 90 countries around the world. I also think we have no business trying to force a group of people to tlive the way we do i.e. Iraq, (or was it because of the weapons of mass destruction) .
I also disagree with both sides of the aisle when it comes to giving foreign aide. I don't care if the world might hate us, get over it. Both parties do this.
Now who should I vote for?
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or do what 50%+ do and not vote at all.
I choose to stand, it might not make a difference in this world, but I will at least be able to say. I took my stand even knowing that as of right now I will get beat. Maybe I should just run away. big bad political parties coming, :yikes:
In national elections, IMO, one should always vote for candidates who belong to the party whose agenda one agrees with most. If you are a liberal, that most likely means a vote for the Democratic candidate. if you are a conservative, it means a vote for the Republican candidate. If you are a rudderless moderate :biggrin: , then you have room to sway with the wind and disregard the candidates' party of choice.
The problem with voting for the "best man" for national office is that almost all conservatives elected to national office belong to the Republican Party and almost all liberals elected to national office are Democrats. The most fiscally conservative, most ethical conservative Democrat will vote for a liberal House Speaker or Senate Majority (or Senate Minority) Leader in the US Senate. Therefore, they will have very little influence despite their best intentions and efforts.
Which party's candidates you vote for is not something that I will tell you. However, it sounds like you fall toward the libertarian end of the political scale and you will not find many people with libertarian leanings in the Democratic Party. If you want to see which party is run by real control freaks, then compare the state taxes and restrictions on liberty in states like New York, Massachusetts, and California, to those in Texas, Tennessee, and Mississippi.
If you yearn to be free and are looking to relocate, then don't look at moving to a deep blue state.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:In national elections, IMO, one should always vote for candidates who belong to the party whose agenda one agrees with most. If you are a liberal, that most likely means a vote for the Democratic candidate. if you are a conservative, it means a vote for the Republican candidate. If you are a rudderless moderate :biggrin: , then you have room to sway with the wind and disregard the candidates' party of choice.
The problem with voting for the "best man" for national office is that almost all conservatives elected to national office belong to the Republican Party and almost all liberals elected to national office are Democrats. The most fiscally conservative, most ethical conservative Democrat will vote for a liberal House Speaker or Senate Majority (or Senate Minority) Leader in the US Senate. Therefore, they will have very little influence despite their best intentions and efforts.
Which party's candidates you vote for is not something that I will tell you. However, it sounds like you fall toward the libertarian end of the political scale and you will not find many people with libertarian leanings in the Democratic Party. If you want to see which party is run by real control freaks, then compare the state taxes and restrictions on liberty in states like New York, Massachusetts, and California, to those in Texas, Tennessee, and Mississippi.
If you yearn to be free and are looking to relocate, then don't look at moving to a deep blue state.
I agree in looking at the spectrum of the political parties, I personally shade a bit more right than left on the libertarian side.
Portugal went belly up today. They expect to ask the International Monetary Fund for at least 183 Billion to get them through their crisis. The USA is a member of the IMF and gives no small amount of money to help do the following; " 187 countries working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world ". Most Americans have no idea their government has pledged to fund, at least in part, global financial stability. That is one of the big problems I have with our federal government, they don't ask their constituents about decisions like this (fund the IMF) they just do it.
Free trade is just the tip of the iceberg. We are funding and moving inexorably toward the unilateral view supporting a global government. That's government, not community. We as a nation seem more than willing to be herded in that direction, without so much as a whimper.