posted
Why are the tariffs on manufactured goods lower than the tariffs on raw goods?
It makes no sense to me that we prefer to give jobs to people outside of the US, while protecting those few in the US who produce raw goods. Can you say, "favoritism to the oil and steel industries"?
quote:In a decision largely driven by his political advisers. President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users.
I'd give you a dollar for the answer, but it's only worth about 65% of what it was worth to my European suppliers less that 3 years ago. So here's a $1.35.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much every economist out there agrees that tariffs and duties are never good for the economy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean the concept of using the economy as advancing individual standings rather than those of your nation.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luthe: Unless you believe in the abolition of welfare, I'm betting that the government would save money by giving birth control pills and condoms away. Although, many organizations already make them available for free. The Student Health Center keeps a container full of condoms in the waiting room for people to take, for example. Also, anything that cuts down on abortion as a birth control method is a positive thing in my book.
Chris, what about the social security problem? How are you going to fix that gigantic pyramid scheme, and will I ever see any of that money I'm putting into it now?
posted
Fugu, every state can create its own system for imposing capital punishment. However, if the system sets up a standard for when execution is appropriate, and does not call for the jury to consider whether that standard is met, then the U.S. Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional. (Ring v. Arizona, I believe.)
Chris, your proposal for having everyone receive a lawyer at random for a pre-set fee would succeed in creating equality of legal representation - everyone would get incompetent legal counsel.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The justice system was built around the preservation of individual rights, one of which is the right to counsel, which you get to individually choose. But can it be said to be truly just when a case can be decided on the skill of the lawyers rather than actual guilt or culpability?
Also, the lawyer is just one factor in a series of many. The choice eventually still rests with the jury. Granted, which is why I favor removing the jury from the live presentation of facts. When a lawyer says "Not like you haven't been accused before" and the judge moves to stroike it from the record, do you think the jury really erases it from memory? Present the jury with the edited version and stop letting the lawyers play them like banjos.
What do we do about polygamy? In what regard? If children were not involved I would allow it as part of the civil unions, and let churches choose whether or not to recognize them. However, because of the certain and wildly confusing divorce/child custody battles that would be sure to arise, I would limit marriage to just two people. Who else might share their bank account and/or bed is up to them.
Or hate crime legislation? Remove hate crime legislation, but add "with malice" modifiers to existing crimes, the same way murder is broken into manslaughter and Murder One. Split "assault" into "assault" and "assault with malice," for example. This sounds similar to hate crimes but there is a subtle difference. It's not meant to protect politically-correct groups but any group named or implied as a target during a crime. Example: a man beats me up. I charge him with battery. A man beats me up, screaming about writers the whole time. I charge him with battery with malice, as he is clearly a threat to anyone in the class of writers. It's not a matter of punishing someone for their opinions, but punishing them for their actions based on those opinions which pose a continuing threat.
Chris, what would you propose regarding those pushing for the legalization of marijuana, or at least the decriminalization of it? Legalize it and tax the heck out of it. Or else illegalize cigarettes and alcohol. I can see no reason to be inconsistent here and hemp has too many other uses. However, I would also make DUI charges tougher. I have no sympathy for anyone who drives under the influence of anything that affects their reflexes, no matter what it is. Take a cab or go to jail.
Why are the tariffs on manufactured goods lower than the tariffs on raw goods? Sorry, I only provide solutions. I don't try to defend other people's wacky ideas.
Chris, what about the social security problem? How are you going to fix that gigantic pyramid scheme, and will I ever see any of that money I'm putting into it now? Social security should be locked, as it is money placed aside in good faith and should not be touched. The govt. can make all the money it can from interest on that money, but it hasn't the right to touch it. People should be given the choice to participate in SS or not. Those who do not will avoid payroll deductions, but they're on their own when they retire. Those who continue should get what they put in. With luck, enough people will choose the larger paycheck so the rest will have enough left.
Chris, your proposal for having everyone receive a lawyer at random for a pre-set fee would succeed in creating equality of legal representation - everyone would get incompetent legal counsel. True. So I suggest an addendum to my suggestion. Lawyers will be tested and assigned levels of skill. Lawyers of minimum ability will be in the list for traffic infractions and minor cases. The better the lawyer, the tougher the case they can try. Payment for the lawyers will be set by the court. If they want more money than that, let them do endorsements.
[ December 11, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I am all for the abolition of welfare, but I not going to get into that at the moment.
The fact is it no ones business but my own (and the other party invovled) if I choose to use birth control.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luthe, I'm afraid it's moved out of context. My original point was aimed more at abortion opponents. If abortion is to be banned, birth control should be cheap, plentiful, and taught.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree, but abortion really isn't birth control, it is more like, killing the cow that escapes the field because you do not want to deal with the complications of returning the cow to the inside of the fence.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether it's actually a cow or a potential cow is the major question there, I think. And there's also dealing with the results of the cow being stolen, or a well-made fence failing.
I, personally, have real problems with those who decry abortion but refuse to allow anyone - including themselves - to teach their children how not to get pregnant, or even what pregnancy is. "Don't have sex," while a valid instruction, does not constitute adequate sex education in my eyes, so I suggested a "put up or shut up" scenario.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
