Re: Free Trade: Republicrats Pissing Down Our Backs. . .

"Republicrats" don't control congress, the White House, and the
federal judiciary. Republicans do. Leave the Democrats out of
the fucking mess we have now.
WS


"Holliston Perni" <hPerni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125333764.df172c7191000ccadb5c09d3e4ec8dc8@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Please visit: http://www.AmericanJunta.com
>
>
>
> There's an old saying that goes something like: "Don't piss down my back
and
> tell me it's raining," in other words, don't try to mislead me. But this
is
> precisely what our so-called representatives in Washington are doing to us
> under the guise of fair trade.
>
>
>
> First of all, we need to be cognizant of the insidious chain of influence
in
> this country, and how it has come to operate.
>
>
>
> We exist under the ILLUSION that we are participating in a democratic
> process; that is, that we elect representatives who will truly vote the
will
> of their constituencies. We need not look too far to witness how these
> subversive scoundrels no longer even concern themselves with the
appearance
> of representing the will of the people. Who, then, DO they represent?
That's
> not too difficult to see either.
>
>
>
> While political contributions to a specific politician are closely watched
> and somewhat controlled, precisely in order to ensure that they do not
> function as bribes, money can be poured into the PARTIES' coffers without
> much regulation. As we've seen time and time again, we have reached a
> juncture where these traitorous politicians vote the will of their
parties,
> rather than their conscience or the will of their constituents.
>
>
>
> As a prime example consider the case of George V. Voinovich, who stood up
> for his beliefs by pleading--pleading to the point of tears--that he so
> deeply opposed the appointment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Then, when
> it came time for the vote, he voted in favor of sending the appointment to
> the Full Senate. There could be no clearer evidence that these hypocrites
> put the party position above personal integrity or the will of the people.
>
>
>
> Indeed, the illusion of contention between the parties is about as real as
a
> professional wrestling contest. Both parties are deeply indebted to the
same
> corrupt big-business interests-the Enrons, Worldcoms, Halliburtens , , ,
NOT
> you, not by a long shot. Why else would these crooked businesses pour
> millions of dollars into BOTH parties? They want to ensure that whichever
> party wins, THEY win. Which brings us to the free-trade debacle.
>
>
>
> This is a complex issue, but there is one obvious fact that cannot be
> denied: The existence of a $370 billion trade deficit means that we send a
> lot more money out through our borders than we get back in. It means we
buy
> a lot more of other countries' stuff than they buy of ours. It means that
a
> lot more foreign companies employ their people than ours do. It would be a
> mistake, however, to think that it also means that foreign companies are
> making more profit than we are. (If that were the case, you can bet your
> bottom dollar that the Republicrat government would put a stop to it, and
> fast.)
>
>
>
> You see, it's a lot cheaper to be a wheeling-dealing broker of goods and
> services, than to operate an honest company that actually employs people
to
> turn raw materials into finished goods. And who benefits? Top executives,
> and big shareholders. Are YOU part of either of these groups? Even if you
> own a few stocks or mutual funds, the resultant benefit can't possibly
> offset the loss of a job, or reduction in income. The gap, obviously, is
> about $370 Million dollars, and you can be pretty certain that money isn't
> coming out of the pockets of the rich.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, , we need to acknowledge that, at the most fundamental
> level, we, the people, 'vote' for our trade policy with our buying habits.
> If you regularly buy that Chinese-made tee-shirt at Walmart, rather than
an
> American-made garment (is there any such thing any more?) for, say, a
dollar
> more, you have just placed your vote. Today it's a garment-worker's job in
> Massachusetts that vanishes. Tomorrow it will be yours. In the absence of
a
> paycheck, does that dollar you saved still look like such a bargain?
>
>
>
> Our goods cost more because people like you and I like to drive cars to
> work, rather than pedaling bicycles. We like to take our fishing boats out
> every weekend, and we like to live in brick houses instead of tarpaper
> shacks.
>
>
>
> At the risk of stating the obvious, Chinese (or Indonesian, or Korean, or
> Indian. . .) goods cost less because:
>
>
>
> -- the people who make them work for pennies a day,
>
>
>
> -- the businesses in developing countries operate with far fewer
government
> and environmental restrictions,
>
>
>
> -- countries like China artificially deflate the value of their currency,
so
> their export goods seem even more attractive, and,
>
>
>
> -- in many instances, foreign businesses are subsidized by their
> governments.
>
>
>
> Obviously, there is no way that American-made goods can compete on such an
> uneven playing field. Actually, there is one way: YOU will have to start
> working for pennies a day in an unsafe sweatshop. Since few Americans are
> willing to make such a sacrifice so that their employers can get even
> richer, the only other answer is the institution of protective tariffs.
>
>
>
> Goods and services (including outsourced information technology services)
> should be taxed in proportion to the ratios of labor costs to that of the
> United States. That means that so long as the foreign workers are making
> pennies to our dollar, tariffs will raise the cost to the American people
to
> the point where the goods cost the same as an American-made product. If
the
> foreign government raises the salary of their workers, we will reduce the
> tariffs accordingly. This will allow American products to compete on the
> basis of quality alone, while still raising standards for workers in
foreign
> lands. This is not "protectionist" (which has somehow been spun into a
dirty
> word.) It simply encourages balance and fairness.
>
>
>
> In terms of business outsourcing, if, as the deceitful corporations are so
> fond of saying, the issue is that they can't find adequate local talent,
> then they should have no problem with paying an American pay scale when
they
> find that talent overseas. Hence, the government should impose an
> outsourcing tax that would ensure that the cost of outsourcing is not the
> deciding factor in exporting American jobs.
>
>
>
> Yes, that means that your tee-shirts are going to cost a bit more, but it
> also means that you and your children have an even chance of keeping your
> jobs so you don't lose the very shirts off your backs.
>
>
>
> Hollis
>
> http://www.AmericanJunta.com
>
>


.