• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The GOP’s Bill Clinton: Wrong for conservatives, wrong for America

Kandahar said:
Germany became highly competitive in manufacturing because it is on the euro, and so its currency did not appreciate as much as would normally be expected given its export volume. Without its currency being kept artificially low it never would have been able to keep its manufacturing sector. And now with the euro crisis, the ECB's insane monetary policies are going to bite Germany (and everyone else) in the ass in a big way.
Click to expand...

You mean Germany wasn't competitve in manufacturing before the EU treaty?
 
AdamT said:
You mean Germany wasn't competitve in manufacturing before the EU treaty?
Click to expand...

It was, but it wouldn't have stayed that way over the last decade without the euro. Its manufacturing sector would have declined just like it did in most other developed countries, as it became more cost-effective to manufacture things in low-cost countries like China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. I don't think it's very accurate to say that Germany demonstrates that developed countries can be competitive in manufacturing...I think it's more accurate to say that if they monkey around with a monetary union which gives them an artificially low exchange rate, they can TEMPORARILY remain competitive in manufacturing until the entire system blows up in their face, as appears to be happening now.
 
jamesrage said:
You are aware that Gingrich has done a lot of things that have had long lasting effects on the country? Fairness doctrine, Amnesty for illegals,the erosion of our national sovereignty and NFTA just to name a few. You are sadly mistaken if you think he will be harmless.
Click to expand...
First off, I am no liberal and support free trade.

Secondly, are you aware these points are irrelevant to what I wrote. You can not expect a perfect Republican candidate who will support you on all decisions. That Gingrich is not perfect, does not make Romney any less dangerous for the GOP.


I hate to break it to you but the establishment wants Gingrich just as much as they want Romney. That little short list of things I listed are reasons why they want him just as much as they want Romney. They would prefer that Obama get a second term but liberal or sell out republican is a consolation prize.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. You are deluded.

Why do you think establishment republicans like Karl Rove is trying to discredit Gingrich, and promote Romney. Because they want Gingrich?

Also, this is also irrelevant to what I was writing. We don't need to pick a candidate the establishment hate. Please read my arguments about how Mitt Romney nominee can hurt the GOP chances in 2016, and don't just repeat old arguments about how you don't think Gingrich is perfect.

Every single time you go after Gingrich, you are helping Romney. Who is much worse, and should not get the nomination, because he will cause conflicts withing the Republican party while Gingrich won't. I have explained why he won't.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I've seen a couple polls in the last year that indicate that Democrats are actually more pro-free trade than Republicans now. Which I guess makes sense, given the xenophobia and hyper-nationalism of many in the GOP.
Click to expand...

Maybe conservatives are starting to realize that patriotism is more than just waving a flag and saying I support the troops.Therefore the outsourcing of American jobs especially to communist countries in not in any shape or form patriotic.
 
Camlon said:
First off, I am no liberal and support free trade.

Secondly, are you aware these points are irrelevant to what I wrote. You can not expect a perfect Republican candidate who will support you on all decisions. That Gingrich is not perfect, does not make Romney any less dangerous for the GOP.
Click to expand...

I do not expect a candidate to support all the issues I support.However when it comes to major issues like national sovereignty,illegal immigration and few others I do expect that candidate to support what I support. I expect politicians I vote for to be patriotic.Out sourcing American jobs, supporting amnesty for illegals and globalism, co-sponsoring the fairness and trying to force Americans to buy health insurance are totally unpatriotic.


No, they don't. You are deluded.

Why do you think establishment republicans like Karl Rove is trying to discredit Gingrich, and promote Romney. Because they want Gingrich?

Also, this is also irrelevant to what I was writing. We don't need to pick a candidate the establishment hate. Please read my arguments about how Mitt Romney nominee can hurt the GOP chances in 2016, and don't just repeat old arguments about how you don't think Gingrich is perfect.
Click to expand...

If the GOP keeps nominating RINO's and sell outs then they deserve to loose future elections. The establishment doesn't care if you vote for Romney or Gingrich.As I said before they want Obama to have a 2nd term but these guys are just consolation prizes. In other words if Obama lost one of these ass clowns won they would not be upset because they got Obama slightly light. Those arguments that you say are not important are actually very important to any patriotic conservative because if you are patriotic then you do not support outsourcing, Amnesty for illegals, globalism or anything else that ****s on the constitution or erodes our national sovereignty.



Every single time you go after Gingrich, you are helping Romney. Who is much worse, and should not get the nomination, because he will cause conflicts withing the Republican party while Gingrich won't. I have explained why he won't.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Every time I go after Gingrich I help others see what a sham Gingrich is and how just like Romney he should not get the vote of any American calling themselves a patriotic conservative.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Free markets a bitch ain't it ;)
Click to expand...
I do not support totally unrestricted free markets and I am sure many conservatives do not support totally unrestricted free markets.
 
jamesrage said:
Maybe conservatives are starting to realize that patriotism is more than just waving a flag and saying I support the troops.Therefore the outsourcing of American jobs especially to communist countries in not in any shape or form patriotic.
Click to expand...
That is a liberal view.

The conservative view is that outsourcing will happen if we want it or not, because there is no way you can prevent companies from leaving without heavy governmental interference, which is not going to work.

The conservative solution to the trade deficit is to keep demand down, because the trade deficits in the US was caused by budget deficits and inflationary monetary policies. If Bush had let the economy crash in 2001, like he should have. Then the trade deficit would have been much smaller, and the crisis in 2008 would be an European phenomena.
 
Camlon said:
That is a liberal view.
Click to expand...

Selling out of American jobs is not a patriotic conservative view.

The conservative view is that outsourcing will happen if we want it or not, because there is no way you can prevent companies from leaving without heavy governmental interference, which is not going to work.
Click to expand...

Companies did not leave left and right before WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other acronyms that allowed jobs to outsource. Because before those things were enacted tariffs were high enough that it is was not profitable enough for a company to outsource to a foreign one that paid workers 33 cents an hour for 80 hours a week. You can't get an American to work for 80 hours a week for 33 cents an hour.


The conservative solution to the trade deficit is to keep demand down, because the trade deficits in the US was caused by budget deficits and inflationary monetary policies. If Bush had let the economy crash in 2001, like he should have. Then the trade deficit would have been much smaller, and the crisis in 2008 would be an European phenomena.
Click to expand...

The trade deficit happened because anti-American Republicans tossing the salad of businesses allowed it by enacting various trade agreements that allowed companies to outsource jobs left and right. WTO was enacted in the mid 90s and that is when our trade balance went drastically down.

Untitled.jpg
 
jamesrage said:
Selling out of American jobs is not a patriotic conservative view.
Click to expand...
You can not stop companies from outsourcing. Companies are allowed to decide where they have their business.

The only way to stop them is through heavy governmental interference, like Venezuela did. That is not conservative.


Companies did not leave left and right before WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other acronyms that allowed jobs to outsource. Because before those things were enacted tariffs were high enough that it is was not profitable enough for a company to outsource to a foreign one that paid workers 33 cents an hour for 80 hours a week. You can't get an American to work for 80 hours a week for 33 cents an hour.
Click to expand...
To curb free trade with tariffs has already been attempted, by Herbert Hoover. It was a total disaster. Also tariffs will increase outsourcing, because many companies sell goods outside the US. If US adopts tariffs on other countries exports, they are going to adopt tariffs on US exports. Companies do not like tariffs and will move their production to a country who doesn't not try to curb free trade.

Much of US prosperity is due to free trade, because US can not produce everything they want, and not at the correct seasons, or the most efficient. US will be much poorer if US have to produce all goods themselves, such as coffee, toys, oil, etc.

The trade deficit happened because anti-American Republicans tossing the salad of businesses allowed it by enacting various trade agreements that allowed companies to outsource jobs left and right. WTO was enacted in the mid 90s and that is when our trade balance went drastically down.
Click to expand...
Tariff levels have been the same since the 80s http://blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/images3/tariffhistory.png Also Mexico have high tariffs, but large trade deficits.

So it is not WTOs fault. But why did it start decreasing massively 1997? Because the dot com bouble started in 1995. Then when the dot com bobble popped, and the US was heading towards reccession. Bush implemented massive spending increases combined with tax cuts. It did stop US to go towards recession, but it also caused an unsustainable boom. Such booms cause trade deficits, because US production didn't increase and inflation is capped. So it will result in more imports. More imports, means higher trade deficits.

Had US accepted the necessary crisis in 2001, US would have been in a much better condition today.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
You can not stop companies from outsourcing. Companies are allowed to decide where they have their business.

The only way to stop them is through heavy governmental interference, like Venezuela did. That is not conservative. .
Click to expand...

You can stop companies from outsourcing left and right.WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other acronym that exports American jobs can be repealed.


To curb free trade with tariffs has already been attempted, by Herbert Hoover. It was a total disaster. Also tariffs will increase outsourcing, because many companies sell goods outside the US. If US adopts tariffs on other countries exports, they are going to adopt tariffs on US exports. Companies do not like tariffs and will move their production to a country who doesn't not try to curb free trade.
Click to expand...


We seemed to do fine in the 80s and early 90s before WTO was enacted.

Much of US prosperity is due to free trade, because US can not produce everything they want, and not at the correct seasons, or the most efficient. US will be much poorer if US have to produce all goods themselves, such as coffee, toys, oil, etc.


Tariff levels have been the same since the 80s http://blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/images3/tariffhistory.png Also Mexico have high tariffs, but large trade deficits.

So it is not WTOs fault. But why did it start decreasing massively 1997? Because the dot com bouble started in 1995. Then when the dot com bobble popped, and the US was heading towards reccession. Bush implemented massive spending increases combined with tax cuts. It did stop US to go towards recession, but it also caused an unsustainable boom. Such booms cause trade deficits, because US production didn't increase and inflation is capped. So it will result in more imports. More imports, means higher trade deficits.

Had US accepted the necessary crisis in 2001, US would have been in a much better condition today
Click to expand...

Out trade deficient plummeted because of WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other acronym that caused American jobs to ship over seas. This we can't use tariffs to giv American companies the ability to compete fairly is nothing more than globalist piece of **** scar mongering.
 
It's nice to hear from "conservatives" that actually want to save American jobs. I always thought conservatives ought to actually want to "conserve" some things. I don't believe there is any country where true free trade actually works. Most countries have at least some trade laws built to protect their own. That's only logical. If you follow world news, right now India is fighting to keep Walmart and Ikea out, because they want to protect small businesses that are such a part of their culture. Predictions are that it is a downhill battle and their government will eventually cave, then 20 years down the road, their economy will follow trends which are fatal to small businsesses. India is outsourcing some call centers to the Phillipines. Supposedly, it's because English is spoken better there, but they can actually get away with paying less wages there.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
You can stop companies from outsourcing left and right.WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other acronym that exports American jobs can be repealed.
Click to expand...
No, you can't.

WTO do not export american jobs, it's job is to reduce tariffs. The only way to stop companies from going abroad is to forbid it. Lots and lots of companies will leave the US before such a law get implemented.

The second way is to massively increase tariffs, so everyone that want to invest in the US have to create a subsidiaries in the US. But other countries will respond by putting tariffs on American exports.

I have already told you this. You are not responding, are you even reading my posts?


We seemed to do fine in the 80s and early 90s before WTO was enacted.
Click to expand...
Is mexico doing fine with all their tariffs? Maybe there are other reasons US did fine in the 60-70s. In the 80s and 90s US had low tariffs, and US did fine in that period as well.

Out trade deficient plummeted because of WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other acronym that caused American jobs to ship over seas. This we can't use tariffs to giv American companies the ability to compete fairly is nothing more than globalist piece of **** scar mongering.
Click to expand...
You can use tariffs, but it will make most international firms leave the US, because they don't want tariffs on their exports, so they will outsource. It will make imports expensive, kill export industries because other countries will put tariffs on the US. This means, more expensive gas, more expensive materials and many industries will die. US can not make everything themselves, and not everything US produces, do they need themselves. Trade is good, not bad. There are other solutions to the outsourcing problem.

The consequence of all this will be much lower GDP per capita, lower wages, and lower living standards. It is already attempted by Hoover, and it failed miserably.
 
Last edited:
rosie1 said:
It's nice to hear from "conservatives" that actually want to save American jobs.
Click to expand...
Everyone likes jobs, but I think jamesrage policies will create a recession, hurt export industries and destroy a lot of jobs.
 
Camlon said:
Everyone likes jobs, but I think jamesrage policies will create a recession, hurt export industries and destroy a lot of jobs.
Click to expand...

That, and they would also send inflation through the roof as our trading partners slapped their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Think about it for a minute; the direct effect of imposing a tariff is to raise the price of goods. American companies can't produce a $20 folding chair to compete with one made in China, so you slap a $20 tariff on it? Now you're paying $40 instead of $20 for your crappy folding chair.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
No, you can't.

WTO do not export american jobs, it's job is to reduce tariffs. The only way to stop companies from going abroad is to forbid it. Lots and lots of companies will leave the US before such a law get implemented.

The second way is to massively increase tariffs, so everyone that want to invest in the US have to create a subsidiaries in the US. But other countries will respond by putting tariffs on American exports.

.
Click to expand...

This is why jobs get exported.No Real American company can compete fairly with ones that pay workerss 33 and half cents a hour and require them to work for 80 hours a week. The way to stop jobs from exporting overseas is to increase tariffs to what they were before WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other job outsourcing acronym was enacted.

Is mexico doing fine with all their tariffs? Maybe there are other reasons US did fine in the 60-70s. In the 80s and 90s US had low tariffs, and US did fine in that period as well.
Click to expand...

If this was true then WTO,KAFTA,NAFTA and any other acronyms that cause jobs to ship out would not have needed to be created.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
That, and they would also send inflation through the roof as our trading partners slapped their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Think about it for a minute; the direct effect of imposing a tariff is to raise the price of goods. American companies can't produce a $20 folding chair to compete with one made in China, so you slap a $20 tariff on it? Now you're paying $40 instead of $20 for your crappy folding chair.
Click to expand...

I do not remember goods being all that high in the 80s and early 90s.Sounds like scar mongering by globalists.Similar to what pro-illegals do,If you stop illegal illegal immigration tomatoes will be 9 dollars a pound and no one will be around to fix our roofs,watch our kids or mow our lawns oh the horror.
 
jamesrage said:
This is why jobs get exported.No Real American company can compete fairly with ones that pay workerss 33 and half cents a hour and require them to work for 80 hours a week. The way to stop jobs from exporting overseas is to increase tariffs to what they were before WTO,NAFTA,KAFTA and any other job outsourcing acronym was enacted.
Click to expand...
I have already responded to this argument, and told you that it has many other drawbacks, for instance that other countries will place tariffs on US exports, and many companies will leave because they are international.

If you don't want to read my arguments, then I feel no need to debate to debate this any further.


If this was true then WTO,KAFTA,NAFTA and any other acronyms that cause jobs to ship out would not have needed to be created.
Click to expand...
In the US. No, they were not needed. Reagan was a big defender of free trade and reduced US tariffs. He also liked immigration, so you seem to be against Reagan.

However, these organizations were mostly created to get developing countries to reduce their tariffs, so US could buy cheap goods from developing countries. If that didn't happen, US would have stagnated much earlier, but still would be in a trade deficit because the trade deficit was created by the bouble economy. Actually US economy was stagnating before Reagan. Unemployment started to become a problem, growth rate was lower. It wasn't very visible yet, like in Britain, but the economy was stagnating and Europe was catching up.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not remember goods being all that high in the 80s and early 90s.Sounds like scar mongering by globalists.Similar to what pro-illegals do,If you stop illegal illegal immigration tomatoes will be 9 dollars a pound and no one will be around to fix our roofs,watch our kids or mow our lawns oh the horror.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY what you are proposing! Jack up the price on imported goods high enough that higher wage American companies can compete against them. The direct result is higher prices, i.e. inflation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom