CDZ Trump, The Wall, jobs and border security

[mudwhistle]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Nope.

It's about Democrats knowing their ideas are destructive and having to ship in new voters to stay in power.

Please go away, you offer nothing and violate the rules of the CZ.

Actually Clayton was just blurting and I was responding logically.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Nope.

It's about Democrats knowing their ideas are destructive and having to ship in new voters to stay in power.

Please go away, you offer nothing and violate the rules of the CZ.

Actually Clayton was just blurting and I was responding logically.

You responded logically? Bullshit, you echoed Trump and other fellow travelers who actually believe Trump has a clue on how to run our Government - for the record, he has NO CLUE and he flips, flops and stumbles his was from day to day.

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem is the wall isn't about border security or jobs, it's about bigotry, hate, and an unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Nope.

It's about Democrats knowing their ideas are destructive and having to ship in new voters to stay in power.

Please go away, you offer nothing and violate the rules of the CZ.

Actually Clayton was just blurting and I was responding logically.

You responded logically? Bullshit, you echoed Trump and other fellow travelers who actually believe Trump has a clue on how to run our Government - for the record, he has NO CLUE and he flips, flops and stumbles his was from day to day.

Actually he seems to have a better handle on it than Big Ears did.

I Had Dinner With the Afghan Ambassador. What He Said About the Differences Between Trump, Obama Is Stunning

 

[Correll]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

I believe we still throw American Dollars into foreign countries with the intent of propping up their economies. The idea being we can win them over with love better than with our military after they have a communist or worse revolution.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

There is a limit to this and I would like to be looked in the face as an adult and told when we were doing it though.

That was part of the argument for Free Trade.


But the Cold War is over, and Working Class Americans have been making that sacrifice for far too long.


Time to shit can that policy.

 

[Erinwltr]

Interesting food for thought.

 

[Correll]

Trade and immigration are obviously huge factors in that wage stagnation.


YOu aren't denying that are you?

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, but the that's not the issue, and it is not the sole reason for wage stagnation or the vast spread of wealth in our country.

This thread is about jobs, border security and diplomacy, seeking a win-win result.

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leaves our shores to exploit labor. Think of it as a sanction, and if the need exists here, it will benefit those businesses and their stock holders who remain.

 

[Kosh]

So the far left has proven that they hate when people have jobs, they hate the border being secure and they hate anyone trying to enforce the law.

I guess that about covers it..

 

[Toronado3800]

So the far left has proven that they hate when people have jobs, they hate the border being secure and they hate anyone trying to enforce the law.

I guess that about covers it..

I notice a good number of posters have this similar hateful view. Do you really think your local Democratic councilman/woman hates it when ppl have jobs? Perhaps they disagree with you on trickle up or trickle down but I don't think they hate it when ppl have jobs.

 

[Toronado3800]

Money would be better spent by creating an enterprise zone along the border, from Texas to California. A zone which employed Mexicans and Americans to create, build, maintain and promote commerce and trade at a lesser cost to the Americas.

Solar energy, used to create electrical power to widen the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers, building a R.R. system connecting the two, and providing a means to move products, produce and people from the east to the west, and the west to the east, without using the Panama Canal.

Lots of jobs would be created in construction, technology, farming, tourism and recreation. A win-win Food for thought.

We put men on the moon, nearly a half century ago, since that time we have spent billions (trillions?) on wars and building the tools of war. It seems this vision is not nearly as improbable as men walking on the moon!

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

I believe we still throw American Dollars into foreign countries with the intent of propping up their economies. The idea being we can win them over with love better than with our military after they have a communist or worse revolution.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

There is a limit to this and I would like to be looked in the face as an adult and told when we were doing it though.

That was part of the argument for Free Trade.


But the Cold War is over, and Working Class Americans have been making that sacrifice for far too long.


Time to shit can that policy.

The Cold War might be over....Wait, "over" is too strong of a term. We won an economic victory in the Cold War and Russia has not recovered. I dunno if they are neutral towards us yet.....man, I'd rather have Putin own Afghanistan than the Taliban again.... Its an uneasy relationship at best with us and Russia.

Lets just say our enemies have shifted.

There is truth we are fighting Islamic fanatics. There is truth we want capitalism to reign supreme in India where 1.3 billion, (BILLION!) potential Muslims live. It will be easier to keep them Hindi with our dollars than our soldiers even if it means outsourcing IT jobs.

We are in a cold hard competition with our new Chinese authoritarian Capitalist like trading partners. Intentional, good, bad, or whatever our dollars flowing into China and helping them build stealth aircraft have also softened that country from the one we "lost" to communism when the dominoes started to fall on Industrial Unregulated Capitalism (IUC, my term).

Then don't forget we gotta keep Mexico from going "Cuba" on us. We have to make capitalism look good there. Otherwise they'll be throwing the exploiters out and having their own 60 year Communist or worse rule. I say "have to" because we don't really want to be guarding a border with Mexico when we could have our troops stationed elsewhere. Mexico is a nice under-developed country to exploit a bit when we need to and I'd rather have a happy capitalistic Mexico to visit than one ran by drug cartels....Chinese capitalism might do them some good, but we don't want a good looking big government country right to our south....

The rambling shows why I think we let these mini-Marshall Plans go on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So the far left has proven that they hate when people have jobs, they hate the border being secure and they hate anyone trying to enforce the law.

I guess that about covers it..

Nope, your straw man is built with wet straw, and it is covered in Asbestos.

It does cover the concept of an idiot-gram, which seems to be your forte.

Jobs and border security will increase if the OP were put into action. More people, more eyes will be one form of protection. Widening the waterways, another, and a burm built for the rails will allow solar energy to operate, not only run the trains, but protect the rails and make egress more difficult when trespassers break light beams putting security teams into action.

Instead of Trumpian Brinkmanship, a nation to nation, public and private sector cooperative will benefits the US and Mexico.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm surprised that no one has come up with an idea to improved the OP with creative ideas, or have come up with a new idea to make the border more secure, create jobs and make peace with our neighbor to the south.

Of course the project if implemented would be enormously expensive, as was the Transcontinental R.R. built during the Civil War, the building of the Erie Canal and landing men on the moon during the Vietnam War.

What has happened to the American can do attitude? Why are there no dreamers, and why don't more men "dream things that never were and say why not."?

 

[Correll]

It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leaves our shores to exploit labor. Think of it as a sanction, and if the need exists here, it will benefit those businesses and their stock holders who remain.

Those businesses who remain, will be competing against foreign businesses that are paying a fraction of their labor and with less environmental and safety regulations.


We've seen the outcome of that.


Hell, we see what happens when we try to compete against other First World nations, with "Free Trade".



This model is not working for US.

 

[Correll]

Our trade, as it has been managed, has not been mutually beneficial. .


Indeed, it has been quite harmful to large segments of the US.


So, increasing trade, is not a win for US.

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

I believe we still throw American Dollars into foreign countries with the intent of propping up their economies. The idea being we can win them over with love better than with our military after they have a communist or worse revolution.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

There is a limit to this and I would like to be looked in the face as an adult and told when we were doing it though.

That was part of the argument for Free Trade.


But the Cold War is over, and Working Class Americans have been making that sacrifice for far too long.


Time to shit can that policy.

The Cold War might be over....Wait, "over" is too strong of a term. We won an economic victory in the Cold War and Russia has not recovered. I dunno if they are neutral towards us yet.....man, I'd rather have Putin own Afghanistan than the Taliban again.... Its an uneasy relationship at best with us and Russia.

Lets just say our enemies have shifted.

There is truth we are fighting Islamic fanatics. There is truth we want capitalism to reign supreme in India where 1.3 billion, (BILLION!) potential Muslims live. It will be easier to keep them Hindi with our dollars than our soldiers even if it means outsourcing IT jobs.

We are in a cold hard competition with our new Chinese authoritarian Capitalist like trading partners. Intentional, good, bad, or whatever our dollars flowing into China and helping them build stealth aircraft have also softened that country from the one we "lost" to communism when the dominoes started to fall on Industrial Unregulated Capitalism (IUC, my term).

Then don't forget we gotta keep Mexico from going "Cuba" on us. We have to make capitalism look good there. Otherwise they'll be throwing the exploiters out and having their own 60 year Communist or worse rule. I say "have to" because we don't really want to be guarding a border with Mexico when we could have our troops stationed elsewhere. Mexico is a nice under-developed country to exploit a bit when we need to and I'd rather have a happy capitalistic Mexico to visit than one ran by drug cartels....Chinese capitalism might do them some good, but we don't want a good looking big government country right to our south....

The rambling shows why I think we let these mini-Marshall Plans go on.

I'd rather have India go marxist than have another China sized hole in our trade balance.

I rather have a strong enemy in Mexico, than a weak "friend" that is migrating it's population north.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's true, Mexican workers work hard, they will likely earn more.

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leaves our shores to exploit labor. Think of it as a sanction, and if the need exists here, it will benefit those businesses and their stock holders who remain.

Those businesses who remain, will be competing against foreign businesses that are paying a fraction of their labor and with less environmental and safety regulations.


We've seen the outcome of that.


Hell, we see what happens when we try to compete against other First World nations, with "Free Trade".



This model is not working for US.

You seem unable to grasp a simple concept. Either your biases bet in the way or you are too stubborn to ever admit when you are wrong.

Point in fact:

"I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leave our shores to exploit labor."

What Trump is doing is insane. It is pure Brinkmanship and China will not blink. Trump already has on steel and aluminum.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You've totally missed the point of this thread,

Which large segments are harmed by NAFTA?

Working class Americans.

I believe we still throw American Dollars into foreign countries with the intent of propping up their economies. The idea being we can win them over with love better than with our military after they have a communist or worse revolution.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

There is a limit to this and I would like to be looked in the face as an adult and told when we were doing it though.

That was part of the argument for Free Trade.


But the Cold War is over, and Working Class Americans have been making that sacrifice for far too long.


Time to shit can that policy.

The Cold War might be over....Wait, "over" is too strong of a term. We won an economic victory in the Cold War and Russia has not recovered. I dunno if they are neutral towards us yet.....man, I'd rather have Putin own Afghanistan than the Taliban again.... Its an uneasy relationship at best with us and Russia.

Lets just say our enemies have shifted.

There is truth we are fighting Islamic fanatics. There is truth we want capitalism to reign supreme in India where 1.3 billion, (BILLION!) potential Muslims live. It will be easier to keep them Hindi with our dollars than our soldiers even if it means outsourcing IT jobs.

We are in a cold hard competition with our new Chinese authoritarian Capitalist like trading partners. Intentional, good, bad, or whatever our dollars flowing into China and helping them build stealth aircraft have also softened that country from the one we "lost" to communism when the dominoes started to fall on Industrial Unregulated Capitalism (IUC, my term).

Then don't forget we gotta keep Mexico from going "Cuba" on us. We have to make capitalism look good there. Otherwise they'll be throwing the exploiters out and having their own 60 year Communist or worse rule. I say "have to" because we don't really want to be guarding a border with Mexico when we could have our troops stationed elsewhere. Mexico is a nice under-developed country to exploit a bit when we need to and I'd rather have a happy capitalistic Mexico to visit than one ran by drug cartels....Chinese capitalism might do them some good, but we don't want a good looking big government country right to our south....

The rambling shows why I think we let these mini-Marshall Plans go on.

I'd rather have India go marxist than have another China sized hole in our trade balance.

I rather have a strong enemy in Mexico, than a weak "friend" that is migrating it's population north.

Good grief, do you believe everything Trump says & tweets, even when they are contradicted by facts and in many cases himself?

 

[Correll]

American worker productivity is ranked 5th in the OECD, Mexico is last (or 38th).


So your point is false, and regardless does not challenge my point.


Which stands.



It is not a win win for First World Workers to compete on a "level" playing field against Third World Workers.



The average US hourly wage is 25 dollars a hour. The average Mexican hourly wage is just under 2 and a half dollars a hour.


The opportunity for employers to make large profits by firing US workers and hiring Mexican workers is pretty evident.


THe opportunity for Mexican workers to get more jobs, is pretty evident.


I don't see the win for America or Americans.


It is a win for them, and a lose for US.

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leaves our shores to exploit labor. Think of it as a sanction, and if the need exists here, it will benefit those businesses and their stock holders who remain.

Those businesses who remain, will be competing against foreign businesses that are paying a fraction of their labor and with less environmental and safety regulations.


We've seen the outcome of that.


Hell, we see what happens when we try to compete against other First World nations, with "Free Trade".



This model is not working for US.

You seem unable to grasp a simple concept. Either your biases bet in the way or you are too stubborn to ever admit when you are wrong.

Point in fact:

"I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leave our shores to exploit labor."

What Trump is doing is insane. It is pure Brinkmanship and China will not blink. Trump already has on steel and aluminum.

YOu want to punish American businessmen who move manufacturing offshore, and thus, sort of "Reward" those that stay.


Presumably this is an tacit admission that loss of manufacturing jobs is a harm to our society and people.

You support using tariffs for that, against US businesses.


BUT, you are against using tariffs against foreign manufacturers who use cheap labor and/or protectionists trade policy to do cause loss of manufacturing jobs to our economy though unfair competition.


We are already in a Trade War. We just have not been fighting back, for generations.

 

[Correll]

Working class Americans.

I believe we still throw American Dollars into foreign countries with the intent of propping up their economies. The idea being we can win them over with love better than with our military after they have a communist or worse revolution.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

There is a limit to this and I would like to be looked in the face as an adult and told when we were doing it though.

That was part of the argument for Free Trade.


But the Cold War is over, and Working Class Americans have been making that sacrifice for far too long.


Time to shit can that policy.

The Cold War might be over....Wait, "over" is too strong of a term. We won an economic victory in the Cold War and Russia has not recovered. I dunno if they are neutral towards us yet.....man, I'd rather have Putin own Afghanistan than the Taliban again.... Its an uneasy relationship at best with us and Russia.

Lets just say our enemies have shifted.

There is truth we are fighting Islamic fanatics. There is truth we want capitalism to reign supreme in India where 1.3 billion, (BILLION!) potential Muslims live. It will be easier to keep them Hindi with our dollars than our soldiers even if it means outsourcing IT jobs.

We are in a cold hard competition with our new Chinese authoritarian Capitalist like trading partners. Intentional, good, bad, or whatever our dollars flowing into China and helping them build stealth aircraft have also softened that country from the one we "lost" to communism when the dominoes started to fall on Industrial Unregulated Capitalism (IUC, my term).

Then don't forget we gotta keep Mexico from going "Cuba" on us. We have to make capitalism look good there. Otherwise they'll be throwing the exploiters out and having their own 60 year Communist or worse rule. I say "have to" because we don't really want to be guarding a border with Mexico when we could have our troops stationed elsewhere. Mexico is a nice under-developed country to exploit a bit when we need to and I'd rather have a happy capitalistic Mexico to visit than one ran by drug cartels....Chinese capitalism might do them some good, but we don't want a good looking big government country right to our south....

The rambling shows why I think we let these mini-Marshall Plans go on.

I'd rather have India go marxist than have another China sized hole in our trade balance.

I rather have a strong enemy in Mexico, than a weak "friend" that is migrating it's population north.

Good grief, do you believe everything Trump says & tweets, even when they are contradicted by facts and in many cases himself?

Nothing in that post was based on anything that I have heard Trump say or tweet.


So, save your spin for someone who cares.

 

[Wry Catcher]

• My point which you call false was sarcasm.
• Labor is labor, and I support equal pay for equal work
• The exploitation of third world workers occurs in non union businesses.
• Thus, your average hourly wage includes those being exploited by the Private sector
• Trump is wrong, but even a trump can offer something of value, any company which moves their business to a foreign nation ought to pay a tariff based on the savings they accrue, from savings in labor costs
• Every dime of that tariff ought to go to train American workers in 21st century careers, and in the pot of money for Unemployment Insurance.
• You don't see anything in my post because you will not consider them.

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leaves our shores to exploit labor. Think of it as a sanction, and if the need exists here, it will benefit those businesses and their stock holders who remain.

Those businesses who remain, will be competing against foreign businesses that are paying a fraction of their labor and with less environmental and safety regulations.


We've seen the outcome of that.


Hell, we see what happens when we try to compete against other First World nations, with "Free Trade".



This model is not working for US.

You seem unable to grasp a simple concept. Either your biases bet in the way or you are too stubborn to ever admit when you are wrong.

Point in fact:

"I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leave our shores to exploit labor."

What Trump is doing is insane. It is pure Brinkmanship and China will not blink. Trump already has on steel and aluminum.

YOu want to punish American businessmen who move manufacturing offshore, and thus, sort of "Reward" those that stay.


Presumably this is an tacit admission that loss of manufacturing jobs is a harm to our society and people.

You support using tariffs for that, against US businesses.


BUT, you are against using tariffs against foreign manufacturers who use cheap labor and/or protectionists trade policy to do cause loss of manufacturing jobs to our economy though unfair competition.


We are already in a Trade War. We just have not been fighting back, for generations.

You believe Trump, that is your biggest mistake. Of course you are always on the wrong side of reason, and that must be an accident of birth.

 

[Correll]

• A poor choice since many sincerely argue that false claim.
• I support higher wages for Americans.
• Hypothetical Mexican union wages would still be a fraction of First World wages.
• See bullet two.
• So you agree with the President and me on tariffs. Good. You should have led with that.
• I want all the jobs, old and new. I will not give up on any of them.
• You are the one that supports tariffs but can't bring yourself to say Trump is right on tariffs.

I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leaves our shores to exploit labor. Think of it as a sanction, and if the need exists here, it will benefit those businesses and their stock holders who remain.

Those businesses who remain, will be competing against foreign businesses that are paying a fraction of their labor and with less environmental and safety regulations.


We've seen the outcome of that.


Hell, we see what happens when we try to compete against other First World nations, with "Free Trade".



This model is not working for US.

You seem unable to grasp a simple concept. Either your biases bet in the way or you are too stubborn to ever admit when you are wrong.

Point in fact:

"I don't agree on tariffs per se. Free trade benefits consumers, and a protective tariff ought to be used to punish the business which leave our shores to exploit labor."

What Trump is doing is insane. It is pure Brinkmanship and China will not blink. Trump already has on steel and aluminum.

YOu want to punish American businessmen who move manufacturing offshore, and thus, sort of "Reward" those that stay.


Presumably this is an tacit admission that loss of manufacturing jobs is a harm to our society and people.

You support using tariffs for that, against US businesses.


BUT, you are against using tariffs against foreign manufacturers who use cheap labor and/or protectionists trade policy to do cause loss of manufacturing jobs to our economy though unfair competition.


We are already in a Trade War. We just have not been fighting back, for generations.

You believe Trump, that is your biggest mistake. Of course you are always on the wrong side of reason, and that must be an accident of birth.

You started this thread in the Clean Debate Zone.


I made a valid point about your position on tariffs.


You completely failed to address it.

INstead your response consisted on nothing but a non sequitur and a personal attack.


This can only be seen as a complete intellectual collapse of your argument.


My post thus stands as the last word.





YOu want to punish American businessmen who move manufacturing offshore, and thus, sort of "Reward" those that stay.


Presumably this is an tacit admission that loss of manufacturing jobs is a harm to our society and people.

You support using tariffs for that, against US businesses.


BUT, you are against using tariffs against foreign manufacturers who use cheap labor and/or protectionists trade policy to do cause loss of manufacturing jobs to our economy though unfair competition.


We are already in a Trade War. We just have not been fighting back, for generations.