Poll: 78 % of Americans say they are willing to pay more to avoid Chinese goods

[donnay]

Hmm.

Except, none of the above is "free-trade" - it is the opposite.

They should just call it for what it is: support for government to decide winners and losers.

Free Trade is nothing but an Orwellian term that leaders use to pacify the masses. When our country makes nothing we are beholden to others countries. Our country needs to be self-sufficient and China for the past 40-plus years has been on the winning end of the "Free Trade agreements."

We call ourselves humanitarians but have absolutely no problem with other countries making goods with slave labor so we can have a cheaply made thing that we want. So very sad.

[PAF]

No new revelation...I can pull ten year old posts of mine saying the same thing.

Where's that guy now?

Remove manufacturing and you remove the good paying jobs that can support families.

Yep. But blaming the wrong people/country will not solve the problem. It just keeps the momentum chugging along.

That fosters generations of bone idleness and welfare dependency.

See above.

That in turn fosters campaigns like Bernie's and young brigades of communists.

See above again.

Then that, in turn, means we all lose our liberty.

See above, yet again.

Tariffs and excises are constitutional, the only form of taxation that is, I maintain.

Yes, the centralist constitution incorporated that.

And a metric $#@! ton less intrusive than income, property or "user" taxes like pay by mile tracking.

Until the hearts and minds of the people change, and learning a little history, keep it chugging along.

[PAF]

Free Trade is nothing but an Orwellian term that leaders use to pacify the masses. When our country makes nothing we are beholden to others countries. Our country needs to be self-sufficient and China for the past 40-plus years has been on the winning end of the "Free Trade agreements."

We call ourselves humanitarians but have absolutely no problem with other countries making goods with slave labor so we can have a cheaply made thing that we want. So very sad.

I will let you slide on that until you read my Post #24, and then re-read my signature.

[Anti Federalist]

Until the hearts and minds of the people change, and learning a little history, keep it chugging along.

It's been about fifty years now that the open border, free trade, de-industrialization, globalist model has been in place in the US.

In those 50 years, are individual citizens more, or less, free than they were fifty years ago?

[PAF]

It's been about fifty years now that the open border, free trade, de-industrialization, globalist model has been in place in the US.

In those 50 years, are individual citizens more, or less, free than they were fifty years ago?

In every case, it was FED.GOV intervention that mucked things up.

US President George H. W. Bush approved the initial 14 miles of fencing along the San Diego–Tijuana border. Construction began on this section in 1990, and was complete by 1993. Further barriers were built from 1994 under the presidency of Bill Clinton as part of three larger operations to taper transportation of illegal drugs manufactured in Latin America and immigration: Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona. Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which authorized further barriers and the reinforcement of Bush's fence.

The Real ID Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 11, 2005, attached a rider to a supplemental appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which went into effect in May 2008:

etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico...States_barrier

There was no true "free trade", and the prevention of "Circular Flow" caused the problems we have now.

[Anti Federalist]

In every case, it was FED.GOV intervention that mucked things up.

So then the policies of the FedGov prior to 50 years ago, when the FedGov at least paid lip service to placing the needs of the citizens first, resulted in individuals having more freedom and less tax burdens than they do now?

[PAF]

So then the policies of the FedGov prior to 50 years ago, when the FedGov at least paid lip service to placing the needs of the citizens first, resulted in individuals having more freedom and less tax burdens than they do now?

We were freer way back then. We have been in a slow decline. Now, it is happening exponentially, because of all of the FED.GOV intervention throughout the decades.

[Anti Federalist]

We were freer way back then. We have been in a slow decline. Now, it is happening exponentially, because of all of the FED.GOV intervention throughout the decades.

Good, glad we agree.

Therefore it makes sense to reset at least back to that point in time.

[PAF]

Good, glad we agree.

Therefore it makes sense to reset at least back to that point in time.

To do that, we must End the War on Drugs, tear down that Wall, stop the eVerify/Biometric rollout, and let the land owners/farmers freely negotiate pay without government mandates/reporting. Then and only then can we truly reduce the size of the ever-growing Fed.

But, those seem to be off the table with todays "nationalist-republicans".

[CCTelander]

So then the policies of the FedGov prior to 50 years ago, when the FedGov at least paid lip service to placing the needs of the citizens first, resulted in individuals having more freedom and less tax burdens than they do now?

The exact same question could have been asked 50 years ago resulting in the exact response you're attempting to lead the discussion to now. And this game can be played all the way back to the Revolution. In all cases there is one constant: the more policy (interventions into the market) government imposes, the greater the burden of slavery the people suffer under. There wasn't less onerous slavery 50 years ago because of the policies extant at the time. There was less slavery then because all of the additional policies enacted since did not yet exist. More government intervention always equals more slavery.

Yet here you are advocating for more intervention, in this case in the form of protectionist tariffs. And, since protectionist tariffs absolutely do constitute central economic planning regardless of how some advocates may try to spin their way out of it, they most certainly are socialistic.

Essentially, you're arguing that we must impliment more socialism to prevent more socialism. It's nonsensical.

[CCTelander]

Good, glad we agree.

Therefore it makes sense to reset at least back to that point in time.

Once again, we weren't less enslaved back then because of the policies in effect at the time. We were less enslaved back then because a great many additional policies had not yet been enacted. The policies in effect back then were not the causal agent. They in fact had people then suffering greater enslavement than people 50 years earlier forvexactly the same reason. Greater government intervention always results in a more enslaved people.

[oyarde]

It's been about fifty years now that the open border, free trade, de-industrialization, globalist model has been in place in the US.

In those 50 years, are individual citizens more, or less, free than they were fifty years ago?

Decline

[Swordsmyth]

It's been about fifty years now that the open border, free trade, de-industrialization, globalist model has been in place in the US.

In those 50 years, are individual citizens more, or less, free than they were fifty years ago?

Don't bother with these people, they don't care about facts or logic.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm still waiting to hear anyone explain how government intervention in the marketplace by a hostile foreign government is a good thing.

[Krugminator2]

Good, glad we agree.

Therefore it makes sense to reset at least back to that point in time.

How about going back to the early 1900s with fewer tariffs than exist today and basically open immigration? Was the United States more or less free at that time? Since there was significantly more freedom, I win. No tariffs. Immigration for those who are self sufficient.

[Anti Federalist]

Once again, we weren't less enslaved back then because of the policies in effect at the time. We were less enslaved back then because a great many additional policies had not yet been enacted. The policies in effect back then were not the causal agent. They in fact had people then suffering greater enslavement than people 50 years earlier forvexactly the same reason. Greater government intervention always results in a more enslaved people.

Exactly: globalist policies of cheap money, debt, free trade and unlimited open migration.

All of those were put in place and now the nation is bankrupt, the money is worthless, saving is a joke, endless war, constant surveillance, massive taxes and floods of migrant invaders.

And we, individuals, are now less free.

[Krugminator2]

Free Trade is nothing but an Orwellian term that leaders use to pacify the masses. When our country makes nothing we are beholden to others countries. Our country needs to be self-sufficient and China for the past 40-plus years has been on the winning end of the "Free Trade agreements."

We call ourselves humanitarians but have absolutely no problem with other countries making goods with slave labor so we can have a cheaply made thing that we want. So very sad.

Yes. Comrade. More socialism is the answer.

We need to have a Great Leap Forward where we abandon individualism, reason, and live as one community. From each according their ability to each according to their needs. The cutthroat competition of a capitalist system where consumers ruthlessly choose the products they want needs to be replaced with love and Jesus. Who needs 20 brands of deodorant when you have starving kids? Amirite?

[Swordsmyth]

How about going back to the early 1900s with fewer tariffs than exist today and basically open immigration? Was the United States more or less free at that time? Since there was significantly more freedom, I win. No tariffs. Immigration for those who are self sufficient.

It became less free very rapidly due to those.
We got the Fed, the IRS and prohibition among many other evils because of those.

[Anti Federalist]

How about going back to the early 1900s with fewer tariffs than exist today and basically open immigration? Was the United States more or less free at that time? Since there was significantly more freedom, I win. No tariffs. Immigration for those who are self sufficient.

Coolidge signed the Immigration Act in 1924.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. Comrade. More socialism is the answer.

We have globalist socialism now, and are now moving to change our nation to emulate the most powerful Marxist nation on earth.

"Cuz if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao...you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow..."

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. Comrade. More socialism is the answer.

We need to have a Great Leap Forward where we abandon individualism, reason, and live as one community. From each according their ability to each according to their needs. The cutthroat competition of a capitalist system where consumers ruthlessly choose the products they want needs to be replaced with love and Jesus. Who needs 20 brands of deodorant when you have starving kids? Amirite?

It's socialism and not capitalism to allow Chinese socialists to interfere in our market.
And it causes more socialism here.

[Krugminator2]

It became less free very rapidly due to those.
We got the Fed, the IRS and prohibition among many other evils because of those.

Using that logic what did we get with massive tariffs like being proposed in the original post? Oh yeah, the Great Depression and FDR.

[Swordsmyth]

Using that logic what did we get with massive tariffs like being proposed in the original post? Oh yeah, the Great Depression and FDR.

Wrong, that was the Fed, which came from the progressives imported during the wide open immigration and the Banksters empowered by tariffs being replaced with domestic taxation.

[donnay]

Yes. Comrade. More socialism is the answer.

We need to have a Great Leap Forward where we abandon individualism, reason, and live as one community. From each according their ability to each according to their needs. The cutthroat competition of a capitalist system where consumers ruthlessly choose the products they want needs to be replaced with love and Jesus. Who needs 20 brands of deodorant when you have starving kids? Amirite?

No you are not right. Having a country self-sufficient and self-reliant is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination. How you came to that is beyond me.

[Krugminator2]

No you are not right. Having a country self-sufficient and self-reliant is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination. How you came to that is beyond me.

It makes absolutely zero sense to have a country make all of its own products. Zero. None. There is literally no argument for it.

You can call it fascism or socialism. I don't care. They are two sides of the same coin. It is government controlling the means of production. And the result will be a dramatically lower standard of living. Prosperity and freedom are built on trade.

Not to mention this is the complete opposite of a libertarian foreign policy. From Ayn 3:16

The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges—the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another. During the nineteenth century, it was free trade that liberated the world, undercutting and wrecking the remnants of feudalism and the statist tyranny of absolute monarchies.

[Swordsmyth]

It makes absolutely zero sense to have a country make all of its own products. Zero. None. There is literally no argument for it.

You can call it fascism or socialism. I don't care. They are two sides of the same coin. It is government controlling the means of production. And the result will be a dramatically lower standard of living. Prosperity and freedom are built on trade.

Not to mention this is the complete opposite of a libertarian foreign policy. From Ayn 3:16

Letting China control the means of production is communism.

And the argument for making much or all of what you need in your own country is simple, you can't be manipulated into becoming socialist or submitting to world government.

[devil21]

If the survey is accurate, the "petrodollar, initiated by Kissinger and Nixon, is ending, leading to massive devaluation but let's blame China for it instead of Kissinger, Nixon and the globalist bankers printing the currency into worthlessness" narrative must be running swimmingly. It's always so easy to get the sheeple to accept and even ask for $#@!tier standards of living as long as you tie a flag onto it somehow.

[TheCount]

Bump. You know why.

[Anti Federalist]

Bump. You know why.

Damn right...look at the mess we're in right now because the Marxist left through Biden the Puppet kneecapped domestic energy production.

[nobody's_hero]

Damn right...look at the mess we're in right now because the Marxist left through Biden the Puppet kneecapped domestic energy production.

Yep, plus it is hard to have a war for foreign oil if you're pumping domestically. (I guess I should say, "hard-er")