Sugar Farmers hope for help from Congress

I'm trying to stay out of the manufacturing vs. no-manufacturing deal. I want a healthy economy based on durable goods and service industries but with as little regulation and hinderences as possible....i.e. taxes, tariffs, red tape to new markets.

Most liberals site deregulation as spawning the Enron's and the WorldCom problems. It did no such thing. This robust economy is riding the wave of deregulation. There are laws to deal with the people of Enron and Worldcom. Let the laws take care of them. The stock market is risky. So because there's an Enron, we're going to go backwards is foolish.

 

and i enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of so-called economists. those who can only function in the theoretical world. it brings back memories of numerous college professors i had who couldn't hack it in the real world and retreated to the friendlier confines of campus life.

 

Aren't these the very people you're trying to protect? Those that can't compete because they're dumb, lazy, or both?

 

I have not noticed a significant reduction in prices in this country as a result of NAFTA in 1994.

CAFTA will accomplish the same thing. I doubt we'll see cheaper goods and products. But I'm sure it will help those other countries.

These trade agreements are done to assist other countries and help build stronger allies ... its purpose is not to directly strengthen the US economy. The republican leadership was touting CAFTA as a national security issue yesterday, not an economic issue.

If you really want free trade, we'll have to eliminate minimum wage, child labor laws and all those other burdensome regulations like OSHA to help us compete in the global economy. And of course the labor unions need to go as well.

That won't ever happen...

 

Were you seriously expecting to see a noticeable difference at the store after NAFTA passed?

Eliminating minimum wage would be a great start, but that's not the point. We would have to do those things if we want to compete in some industries globally. Like making shoes. Or processing bananas. Or any number of industries I'd rather just exploit, and have Americans doing something worthwhile and skilled. If they're NOT doing a skilled job, why do we waste so much money on schools?

 

the jobs i'm trying to protect are not for the lazy. if they were lazy, they'd be on welfare already. however, like the movie says , "the world needs ditch-diggers too". only there aren't enough ditches to go around to employ them all. we either ensure they have jobs or they'll be supported directly by the state. (or, i guess we could allow them to starve.) i want to protect all american's inalienable right to work. period.

 

There is no such thing. Check Communism or Socialism.

 

Nope, but i see some arguing that free trade results in lower costs. I don't buy that argument.

If everyone were skilled in this country, who would collect my garbage? Who would serve me at McDonalds? Who would clean my home? Oh man, the thought of cleaning my own home is scary! :yelwink2:

I don't know if eliminating many of those jobs you mentioned will help or hurt our economy in the long run. Manufacturing and farm jobs did its part in making us the richest nation on earth. I do have some concern about relying too much on other countries for my goods. If we become too dependent on them, prices could increase and we would be in a pickle ... much like oil.

 

check the definition of inalienable rights and read the constitution. :usaflagwa

 

:rofl::rofl: I want your version of it. Does it mention a right to nachos? That would be great.