Sen. Arlen Specter to Switch to Democratic Party (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html?hpid=topnews)
He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Welcome to the team, Spec!

I liked Obama's speech/press conference today.

Education is the best investment that he, or the government, can spend money on.

But I wonder if he has the clout to change the law to do what he wants, and what should be done.



Specter is going to live up to his name, he will be stripped of his seniority by Democrats, and will become a ghost. This is his last term. No Republican will ever vote for him again, and no Democrat will ever trust him. He is gone in 2 years. Reid and Pelosi will toss him some piddly junior sub chairmanship bone position until his term is up.

He is a ****ing retard.

Fancy him to trot out Reagan as some Moderate now. Gimme a break. Reagan was more tied to the Religious Right and Right Wing Conservatives than any politician since, or rather heretofore. That Big Tent Reagan has was a Big Marjo Gortner Pat Robinson Jerry Fallwell Holy Roller Evangelical Tent.

Reagan did three things right. He got us out of the Carter Recession by reducing taxes on everybody and increasing productivity. He appointed Alan Greenspan to the Fed. And brought down the Soviet Union. We have to give him those three things. Everything else he did was ****ing zealot nutjob ****.

And saving a bunch of flunky med students in Grenada. But that don't really count.

Obama + education = scares the living daylights out of me.

He's an idealogue when it comes to education, friend.

hmmm, I wonder if they will begin to nurture children's natural creativity through a heavier emphasis on the arts. Arts are always one of the first programs cut, because of the preconception that they have little to no job skills for the future. Or are we just going to get stuck with a bunch of kids off in college only there to get a degree because someone told them it will help them get a job, and thus lack the creativity and inventiveness for those jobs.

The no child left behind law, should have never been passed. Essentially, it just throws kids out of school for not making "production". It does little for the kids that are just bored, problems at home, need extra attention, a whole host of issues. While the no child left behind law will bring up illiteracy rates, but, does very little towards actually nurturing children for their talents, interests, and creativity. Which is what they will really need towards the future.

Obama + education = scares the living daylights out of me.
Why?

Why?

His views on the subject are a 'tad' misguided.

Specter is going to live up to his name, he will be stripped of his seniority by Democrats, and will become a ghost. This is his last term.He had NO chance of being reelected as a Republican. He has a very good chance (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/democrat-specte.html) of being reelected as a Democrat.Fancy him to trot out Reagan as some Moderate now. Gimme a break.By today's standards, Reagan was a Democrat.

How many of today's "Republicans" do you know that support amnesty for illegal aliens, the biggest expansion of welfare in ages, and universal health care?

For that matter, Nixon was also a Democrat, by today's standards. Eisenhower would probably run as an independent today. I don't think any of the real Republicans would touch today's Republican party with a ten foot pole.

By yesterday's standards, most of today's democrats would be far right wingers. Your point? The world -and this country- were far more socialist in the 1940s-1970s than they were at any other time in history. And relative the rest of the world, we were actually more right wing in that time period than we are now.

And PS, Reagan only support 1 of 3 of those things.

By yesterday's standards, most of today's democrats would be far right wingers. Your point?My point is that Reagan was centrist by today's U.S. standards, and would not run as a Republican today. The 1980s weren't that long ago, and I remember the Reagan years quite well. It's only in the mid 1990s that the party starting going way off course.And PS, Reagan only support 1 of 3 of those things.He supported all three. I was there.

Reagan signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 into law, which gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Reagan signed EMTALA into law, which offered universal health care to anyone.

Reagan hugely expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit in 1986, into a major federal welfare program. He even referred to it as the best anti-poverty tool. (The program was actually initiated by Ford, another Republican, but it was insignificant before Reagan.)

I realize that neo-conservatives are trying to reinvent Reagan as one of their clan, because he was a popular president, and they are desperately trying to make their candidates popular too.

But the truth is, Reagan was nothing like they are, and on the issues he was more in line with Obama.

If Reagan were running today, he'd be running as a Democrat, and the "Republicans" would be bashing him as a socialist illegal alien lover who wants to redistribute the wealth and destroy the "real America."

I wouldn't consider the earned income tax credit 'welfare' or the EMTALA universal health care.

The entire tax system was essentially overhauled in 1986, and there were many things that raised the tax rate on the poor (ie payroll taxes increases.) If anything, the tax credit was likely a political compromise. The effective total tax rate for the bottom 20% was ~11% in the early Reagan years and ~9% after the 86 reforms. (source http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/tax2006_6.gif )

If Reagan were running today, he'd be running as a Democrat, and the "Republicans" would be bashing him as a socialist illegal alien lover who wants to redistribute the wealth and destroy the "real America."
Incorrect. Reagan would fit right in.

Who passed the 2nd biggest medical entitlement increase in our country's history? Mr. Bush and his republican congress (Medicare part D.)

Bush also increased the values of refundable tax credits which made our tax system ultra-progressive. The effective income tax rate for the bottom 20% under Bush was negative 7%, which the total effective tax rate for the bottom 20% being ~2%.

I wouldn't consider the earned income tax credit 'welfare'It's a cash handout to poor breeders, and generally the biggest handout to poor people.

That's called welfare.or the EMTALA universal health care.I'll let Fyyr educate you on this one. Suffice it to say that you're wrong.Who passed the 2nd biggest medical entitlement increase in our country's history? Mr. Bush and his republican congress (Medicare part D.)Well, that was just a gift to the drug companies, not a real social program designed to help real people. A thank you for all those years of kickbacks and payoffs, if you will.

The only issue Bush and Reagan really had in common, immigration reform, is the one that the Republicans fought him on.

There is no way Reagan would ever be nominated as the Republican candidate today, and I doubt he'd even want to be. If he were alive and sane today he'd probably be ashamed of his former party.

[EIC is a] cash handout to poor breeders, and generally the biggest handout to poor people.
You didn't read my full post. He raised their taxes, and raised their tax credits. It didn't yield a huge net gain. Both Clinton and Bush2 did more to cut taxes for the bottom 20%.

Reagan also put in the lowest tax rates on rich people they've seen since the 1920s in 1986. He needed something to appease the populists to get his tax cuts for the rich passed.

And the EIC requires people to erm, earn income to realize it's full effect. Free marketeers such as Milton Friedman promoted things like the EIC as an alternative to welfare for decades (in the case of Friedman, he lobbied for a negative income tax in the 1960s.)

I'll let Fyyr educate you on [EMTALA]. Suffice it to say that you're wrong. Uhh, no. EMTALA is an emergency room regulation, not universal health care.

Well, [Medicare part D] was just a gift to the drug companies, not a real social program designed to help real people. A thank you for all those years of kickbacks and payoffs, if you will. So an entitlement that overpays isn't a real entitlement?

You understand that all of Medicare is designed to keep prices high to avoid rationing, shortages, waiting lines, etc right? Pimping for seniors is a bipartisan thing.

The only issue Bush and Reagan really had in common, immigration reform, is the one that the Republicans fought him on.
I agree Reagan wouldn't see eye to eye with Bush. He'd find Bush's 35% tax rate for the rich too socialist.

There is no way Reagan would ever be nominated as the Republican candidate today, and I doubt he'd even want to be. If he were alive and sane today he'd probably be ashamed of his former party.

Reagan preached what he preached for decades. His rhetoric in 1984 matched up to his rhetoric in 1964 pretty well. He really believed the stuff.

Margret Thatcher, who was a student of Frederich Von Hayek and can be described as Reagan on steroids, passed some very large increases in the funding of the National Health Service (ie Britain's universal health care not comparable to EMTALA, lol.) In democratic republics, there are political realities that stuff presidents/prime ministers to tailoring every law to their liking.

Can you find me a single president in the history of this nation who only passed policies that fit right in line with their ideology?

You seem to be on the defense, as if I were attacking Reagan. I wasn't.

I was saying he wouldn't run as a Republican today, and even if he tried, he wouldn't have a chance at the nomination. And his policies would be ridiculed by today's current breed of "Republicans," which include the likes of Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.Uhh, no. EMTALA is an emergency room regulation, not universal health care.It is government mandated free health care for everyone.

It is also our current universal health care system, bad as it is.

If you think it's just for emergencies, think again.

Ah, I understand now.

And his policies would be ridiculed by today's current breed of "Republicans," which include the likes of Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.
You're not saying Reagan wouldn't fit in with actual republicans like John McCain, George Bush, etc, but rather with republican side shows that MSNBC tells you is the core of the republican party.

Following your logic, I could say that any democrat who doesn't fit in with the "real democrats" like Keith Olbermann, Dennis Kucinich, Rachel Maddow, and Bernie Sanders can't get elected.

EDIT: And I could care less about Reagan. I'm not a republican, and I was 2 when he left office. I merely disagreed with parts of your analysis. I would do the same thing if you tried to argue that Bill Clinton wasn't a real democrat because he passed many right wing policies (welfare reform, investor class tax cuts, EVIL DEREGULATION!, etc.) Anyone who holds high political office is forced to make many compromises. This is one reason why governors usually become president, because they don't have to make many compromises since they only deal with a (comparatively) narrow range of issues. Senators etc constantly get bashed in primaries for 'compromise' votes they have made in the past during primaries when they have to appease the base, for example.

EDIT2: FYI, every partisan head on TV has always claimed the opposite party to be moving out further to the fringe. This is nothing new. MSNBC says the republicans are moving to the right, Fox is saying the democrats are moving to the left. Guess what? They said the same thing 2 years ago... 2 years before that... etc. Every single political movement in this country thinks that they are the ones who speak on behalf of most American people. Libertarians will tell you most of the country is libertarian, republicans will tell you most of the country is conservative, socialists will tell you most of the country is socialist but just brainwashed by corporate media, and so on. And every political movement says the other political movements are getting further away to what the majority of the country wants. This is nothing new.

I wouldn't consider the earned income tax credit 'welfare' or the EMTALA universal health care.

Of course they are.

I don't care if you consider it or not. It is true.

EMTALA is definitely universal healthcare. You can go into any hospital with an ED, and get all the free healthcare you need or want. More actually.

Not only do I know this from working in the field. But I have several friends who use this system(and Law) for their healthcare.

If you were to criticize one of his three points, it would be the Amnesty. For it was tied to an increased enforcement of immigration laws, and at the time unprecedented crackdown on employers and individuals who hired illegals. Increased crackdown on not tracking SSNs and immigration status occurred. In addition it had clauses which were intended to be used to increase deportations, but those have all but become worthless.

Again, EMTALA makes it free for any poor person to receive healthcare in the US. I assure you that the poor DO use it as their primary healthcare. Not only am I in the business, and can speak first hand regarding, to which I have already, ad nauseum. I also have several very poor friends, unemployed, on welfare, or minimum wage who use it from everything from back and neck pain, nausea and vomiting, to sprained ankles, to hangovers. I have one friend who owns a stack of her XRays which is thicker than your thumb is wide; and she has had 3 children all paid for with your paycheck payroll taxes.

It is not just for the ED. Once a patient presents to an ED, he or she, MUST be treated for his or her condition, and WILL be admitted to the hospital if the condition warrants it. And will stay in the hospital on your dime, until the condition is resolved(or the patient dies). And no matter how many times the patient returns, even after never having paid any previous bill, will still receive the same healthcare and services that you, or Tuda, or the CEO of the hospital will receive.

Any hospital in the US with an ED. You can even present to any Kaiser hospital ED, never having been a member, and they will have to treat you, until your condition is resolved.

To say that is NOT universal healthcare is either ill informed, ignorant, or naive.

When some political or media so-and-so says that, "there are X million Americans without healthcare", they are lying through their teeth. What they are really meaning, is, "there are X million Americans who are not paying any health insurance."

When they seem to be trying to get them 'covered', what they really mean is that they want to force them to pay for their coverage, or force somebody besides the US taxpayers to pay for them.

If you think it's just for emergencies, think again.
Exactly!

The days of using Emergency Rooms, or Emergency Departments, just for emergencies is long gone. Long gone.

25 years gone.

It was one of the biggest objections to EMTALA in the first place. That people would use ERs for splinters and blisters, and everything else. Tying up huge expensive healthcare on non emergencies. That objection and prediction has proven true.

And is one of the biggest reasons why healthcare costs have lapped the CPI and inflation during these last 25 years.

Don't take my word for it. Take a day out of your week, and go down to any local hospital with an ED. Just sit in the waiting room and watch.

You don't need any studies, any media, any politician. You don't need me telling you. Go see with your own eyes. Won't cost you a thing, but time. But you will get an education, that the media or politicians will give you. More than I can write here for you.

Go see for yourself.

His views on the subject are a 'tad' misguided.
Well, then you missed what he said.

He wants fired or laid off workers to be able to collect unemployment benefits while going to community college or vocational school for retraining. Using Pell Grants.

That is going to be expensive. But it is an investment. One which will pay off.

The problem with it is this, it is employers who pay for the unemployment insurance. And unemployment insurance companies are private, they are not part of the government.

HOW,,,he can pull that off, is left to be seen.

Second hitch is that unemployment benefits are maxed for 6 months. He had up at the podium some chick who became an RN(after being laid off), as his ideal example. That takes 3 years at a community college minimum. So you still have 2.5 years minimum which will not be covered.

quote"Second hitch is that unemployment benefits are maxed for 6 months. He had up at the podium some chick who became an RN(after being laid off), as his ideal example. That takes 3 years at a community college minimum. So you still have 2.5 years minimum which will not be covered."

With the way Trade Relocation Assistence works, is they will extend your benefits for the duration of your education. But, they also have limits to what they will fund and usually only goes towards Associates degrees. Examples of what they will fund, anything to do with computers and health care. Examples of what they won't fund, Joe Blow needs another year to finish up his bach in Biology, maybe,even work towards med school afterwords. They will happily fund him to be a nurse though. Unemplyment benefits has been a recipient of extensions through new legislation with the following crisis they will support another 3 months.

With the way Trade Relocation Assistence works, is they will extend your benefits for the duration of your education. But, they also have limits to what they will fund and usually only goes towards Associates degrees. Examples of what they will fund, anything to do with computers and health care. Examples of what they won't fund, Joe Blow needs another year to finish up his bach in Biology, maybe,even work towards med school afterwords. They will happily fund him to be a nurse though. Unemplyment benefits has been a recipient of extensions through new legislation with the following crisis they will support another 3 months.
I don't know how the government is going to mandate private unemployment insurance companies to pay for an additional 2.5 years of benefits. Unless the Feds are going to cough it up. California max monthly benefit is just 600+(an extra 18K or so). CalWorks is just 2 years. Notwithstanding the Pell Grant, which are high 9K(27+K for 3 years), and CalGrant is 1.5K(4.5K for 3 years) annual, and BOG waiver means free tuition. Even still, you are talking very poverty levels, even for a single person. But a HUGE increase above what we spent 1 year ago, in the billions.

Besides almost all California hospitals are currently enforcing or experiencing a hiring freeze for RNs right now. Even with California being the hardest affected by the nursing shortage, because of legislated patient to RN ratios. KP has a freeze, even though they are short staffed. They are relying on overtime right now, because the new hire process is so expensive for them(5Kish).

An ADN RN can make 2 to 3 times what a BS Biologist can make out of the starting gate, fyi. An ADN RN makes the same as a BSN RN at the bedside, at most hospitals, more even if the ADN is bedside and the BSN is low level admin(such as a discharge planner, or case manager)(a BSN hosp supe will make more than an ADN). And a BSN RN can track to Med School(or any of myriad other higher levels of care).

Ostensibly, your ADN Joe Blow can, after getting his RN, work his own way through Med School.

The intention, I assume, is to quickly get people to become taxable franchises. RN is the best model, but there are many flaws with using it as the only model.

Ya, i don't know how they do the way they are doing it, but, when we got laid off and that plant that closed, building the car seats for Spring Hill, but, former coworkers are doing just that. That was a couple years ago. I think the Fed. is coughing it up, but, I am unsure.

That is the thing though about the educational model though, anything medical related(biomedical techs, radiology techs, nurses, etc) and computer related. There is very little they will fund beyond those models, which is what I have a problem with. They go with the model of what is hot now. Some guys and girls have alot of manufacturing exprience, which includes alot of welding exprience, but, not certifications. They have machinist exprience, but, they need the degree or certification to go with it, but, those are off limits.

I do see where they are coming with for Joe Blow example, besides Joe's education in biology already, he would have most of the critical education requirements done already so you are probably looking 1 year tops to finish up Anatomy and Physio, some other things and so on. But, I would like people to get an education in a course of study that they will enjoy working in.

Ya, i don't know how they do the way they are doing it, but, when we got laid off and that plant that closed, building the car seats for Spring Hill, but, former coworkers are doing just that. That was a couple years ago. I think the Fed. is coughing it up, but, I am unsure See that is the thing. Almost all manufacturing jobs can be outsourced to anywhere in the world for cheaper than what American labor prices itself at.

That is the thing though about the educational model though, anything medical related(biomedical techs, radiology techs, nurses, etc) and computer related. I don't know about this computer related ****. My computer job was outsourced in 2001. Just name some computer program thing, I personally, can get some Indian do make it for cheaper than you can make a car seat. That is actually one of the new 'scandals'. Computer Science Majors are buying auctioned software programs from Indian and Paki Computer Science majors on the cheap, online.

Unless the work just has to be done here, it can be shipped out, unless you do it cheaper than Chinese slaves. Get over it, that has always been the way of the world.

There is very little they will fund beyond those models, which is what I have a problem with. They go with the model of what is hot now. Well, it works, because you can not have your nurse take care of you from India or China. They have to be here, next to you. Now Docs, they can be subbed out. They don't actually do a whole lot of work with patients for the most part. Most of what they do, for the majority of them(hospital docs), is order tests or procedures that nurses tell them to order.


Some guys and girls have alot of manufacturing exprience, which includes alot of welding exprience, but, not certifications. They have machinist exprience, but, they need the degree or certification to go with it, but, those are off limits. A Chinese or Philipino or Indian machinist can do it cheaper. If they can do it for less wage plus shipping cost, then corps will use them instead of American.

I do see where they are coming with for Joe Blow example, besides Joe's education in biology already, he would have most of the critical education requirements done already so you are probably looking 1 year tops to finish up Anatomy and Physio, AandP is prerequisite for ADN RN program. If your BS Biology Joe Blow is waiting that long to get to it, it is too late. He is going to be a lab tech making a fraction of what an RN makes. Many lab techs are MASTERS in Biology, btw; and still make less than an RN.

some other things and so on. But, I would like people to get an education in a course of study that they will enjoy working in. You have to enjoy doing what you excel in. If Joe Blow enjoys counting bacteria or yeast on a plate under a mic, so be it. I would not do that, even though I know it is important.

Most biologists would never think someone gets enjoyment writing in HTML and marking up webpages. But I did. Those jobs are all gone now. That is why I am an RN now. And most biologists would NOT or never do the ****, grunt, menial, or manual labor than an RN does either. But rarely would they get the chance to save a life with their hands and or minds as well.

I am quite sure that that BS or MS Biologist thinks to his or herself, that when they do a manual differential, that it is very very important. I would never do that.

You're not saying Reagan wouldn't fit in with actual republicans like John McCain, George Bush, etc, but rather with republican side shows that MSNBC tells you is the core of the republican party.As I remember, Sarah Palin was an actual vice presidential candidate, not a media pundit.

In fact, McCain was despised by his own party until he picked her.

And the Republican party itself has selected Rush Limbaugh as its de facto avatar.

This is not what the liberals say the Republican party is, it is what the Republican party says the Republican party is.Following your logic, I could say that any democrat who doesn't fit in with the "real democrats" like Keith Olbermann, Dennis Kucinich, Rachel Maddow, and Bernie Sanders can't get elected.I am pretty sure that Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy would still run as Democrats today.

However, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan would not run as Republicans, and could not, even if they wanted to.

That is my point.

The problem with it is this, it is employers who pay for the unemployment insurance. And unemployment insurance companies are private, they are not part of the government.In what state are they private?

In California you pay the UI tax to the EDD, a government agency, along with the disability (SDI) and EDD tax. They can very easily increase the tax or tweak the formula to conform to this plan. The UI tax also scales based on how many of your former employees filed claims, so there is an element of fairness in it.

The bigger issue I see is that it's a state function, and national implementation would be a logistical nightmare.

FYI, every partisan head on TV has always claimed the opposite party to be moving out further to the fringe.
It's a little different when you get members of that party saying so though... as they certainly did in droves during the last 5 years and especially the last couple.

In what state are they private?

In California you pay the UI tax to the EDD,....

Dumbass mistake on my part. Thinking of something else.
Nevermind that part.

quote"See that is the thing. Almost all manufacturing jobs can be outsourced to anywhere in the world for cheaper than what American labor prices itself at."

That is the thing though isn't it? But, eventually all the outsourcing for importatations eventually becomes unsustainable. What happens in the United States, is a loss of a manufacturing base via erosion, while we are still number one in manufacturing, for now, the Indian, Chinese, and insert other popular place to outsource, their economies are not equalizing with the United States quick enough. So, you end up with alot of product you can not sell for a profit in those countries, and the economy(both American and abroad hint 50- 60 million Chinese workers have been laid off during this crisis) comes to a grinding halt as your basic American gets bled out financially. Some Austrian economists are arguing removing pension plans and cashing them out in America, removing minimum wages and stuff, I disagree, I feel it would be better to deflate the amount of money America has to equalize other countries to be for a more sustainable world economy.

Then, going into health care, I am more worried about the long term financial impacts(alot of hospitals have put on hiring freezes and have been laying off nurses during this crisis, even the understaffed hospitals) of getting the "proper" amount of patients to nurses particularly as it pertains to the baby boomers and their health care costs. By getting the proper amount of nurses to handle the boomers(and doctors I might add is another one I read about that is going to be high in demand). Which means health care cost will in fact raise even more dramatically by getting those quotas, I mean we gotta pay the nurses and other staff members right? Before eventually petering out as the boomers die off and we end up with a glut of unemployed nurses.

The whole outsourcing debates misses the point.

We used to buy (so-called) American products with "Made in Korea" or "Made in Taiwan" etched on them, but now Korea and Taiwan are home to many multinational conglomerates that are competitive worldwide, and we now buy Korean and Taiwanese products.

Today there are so many (so-called) American products with a "Made in China" label on them because China's economy is freshly liberalized; their companies haven't yet learned to out compete us in the intellectual aspects of doing business. But that's only a matter of time. A few decades from now, suburban America will have Chinese car dealerships, stores stuffed with goods baring Chinese brand names, etc.

In other words, "the point" is that basketcase economies are the norm, and rational economies are the exception. We're at a very rare point of time where most of the world's population is living in semi-rational economies. It's great for the world, but not so great for us because we now have to compete. It's no longer the 1960s where most of the world was communist or socialist or the 1880s where most of the world was under feudialism or tyranny. Outsourcing is merely a symptom of the changing world, not the cause.

Outsourcing is merely a symptom of the changing world, not the cause.
Only because it is allowed to be that way.

If people want to be American companies and outsource to get cheap labor, then I think they should have a tariff added to their product.

Only because it is allowed to be that way.

Companies outsource to not be beaten in the marketplace. If they didn't take steps to lower costs (outsourcing being one of the methods), they would likely be beaten in the market place. Either case will result in jobs lost.

That's why I say the whole outsourcing debate misses the point. "The problem" isn't that American companies outsource, "the problem" is that the world is becoming more business friendly as opposed to being dominated by socialism or tyranny as it was in the past.

If people want to be American companies and outsource to get cheap labor, then I think they should have a tariff added to their product.

But we do have have tariffs against all but 17 countries (China not included), and of the 17 countries with have free trade agreements with there is still protectionist aspects on many industries.

And I reckon most smart people would support a China-America free trade agreement, because China is a very protectionist country. We have a lot more to gain from it than they do, since they're still ultra-competitive with the tariffs.

-------------------

I don't argue that protectionism doesn't have good intentions. I argue that it doesn't work. (ie) Our agricultural sector has some of the most protectionist policies surrounding it as possible, yet domestic agricultural jobs have dwindled massively since the 1930s.

I don't understand the reasoning or logic behind your tariffs.

Other than social engineering.

American Company uses Philipino labor to make a Widget for 10 bucks.
A Philipino Company uses Philipino labor to make a comparable Widget for 10 bucks.

And you want to add a tax to the American Company so that they will use American labor instead.

If you are walking down an aisle at WalMart to buy that Widget, you are going to buy that un tariffed Philipino Widget because it is less expensive.

That is the problem with social engineering, the engineers are just as retarded as any other retard.

American labor has priced itself out of competition. I don't know anyone who really wants to sew a tee shirt, when they could sell one or distribute one instead. No American wants to sew a shoe, when they can sell one in a store, or drive a truck delivering them instead. And they certainly don't want to do it for what a Philipino or Chinese worker will sew for. That is beneath them.

The Philipino or Chinese worker is just glad they are no longer standing in a rice paddy barefoot. They are glad to be making 4 bucks a day, because the alternative is that they are making 50 cents a day, hunched over picking rice, barefoot in muck all day.

Not only that, but most likely that American and Philipino company probably sell their Widgets in other countries. And you just make it more profitable for the Philipino(non tariffed) Company to sell their Widget there, over the American Company.

Eventually your tariffed American Company is going to fail, putting people out of work, increasing the unemployment rate, increasing social expenditures to get those laid off American workers another job here.

If you are walking down an aisle at WalMart to buy that Widget, you are going to buy that un tariffed Philipino Widget because it is less expensive.A tariff is a tax on goods from another country.

So if you slap a $5 tariff on Filipino widgets, they are now going to cost $15, which allows Americans to raise their prices to $14.99 (without having to pay the tariff) and still beat the Filipinos.

It is a protectionist measure, designed to artificially prop up local goods via an indirect taxpayer subsidy.

And I agree, such measures are generally stupid, in the long run.

A tariff is a tax on goods from another country.

So if you slap a $5 tariff on Filipino widgets, they are now going to cost $15, which allows Americans to raise their prices to $14.99 (without having to pay the tariff) and still beat the Filipinos.

It is a protectionist measure, designed to artificially prop up local goods via an indirect taxpayer subsidy.

And I agree, such measures are generally stupid, in the long run.

Well I know that, and I know you know that.

I was countering her notion of tariffs on American companies which use overseas or Mexican labor.

Tariffs on foreign made cars invented the SUV. In the 80s there was a 2K tariff on foreign made cars, but not on pickups. But not everyone wanted a small pickup. So foreign makers made hybrid car/pickups. The Pathfinder, the 4Runner, the Amigo to essentially sell for 2K less than they otherwise would be. Of course the Cherokee was always there, but even as a Jeep lover myself, I never wanted one of those.

And I am talking about the real SUV, not the evolved HAVs(that people call SUVs now) that we have now. We have always had the Suburban/Large Blazer class vehicles.

Tariffs on foreign made cars invented the SUV. In the 80s there was a 2K tariff on foreign made cars, but not on pickups.

Tariffs on foreign cars played a big role in making the Japanese companies good and the American car companies suck. It forced the Japanese companies to over-compete and forced us to under compete since American company's profits could be propped up by our large domestic market.

Sure, us using tariff laws to protect domestic car companies was good at propping at corporate profits for a few decades, but it merely delayed the inevitable.

Protectionism, socialism, Keynesian, etc are always the best solution for the short run, but some people (myself included) think using the government to patch over today's problems isn't healthy in the long run.

I don't see what's so awful about protectionism.

I don't see what's so awful about protectionism.You probably don't see what's so awful about Communism either.

I don't see what's so awful about protectionism.

What's good about it?

I already conceded that in the short run, protectionism is the smarter route to go, btw. Maybe making the policy for the short run is the ideal way to do it, but I believe otherwise.