posted
An Obama v. Romney general election is a live prospect. I feel that Romney is a known quantity, not only is he conservative, he looks and feels like every other president we've ever had, the guy could be cast in a movie about the Founding Fathers and wouldn't even have to change his politics to play a Framer.
With Obama, who knows? The US would possibly be an even greater, and smaller, nation if he had been a Founding Father. (If you assume that treatment of the Women, Natives and Blacks would have been less murderous.) He is a wild card.He is smarter than I am which means he could easily surprise me in delightful ways, and he has enough cultural distance from mainstream America to be creative and change his mind midstream.
Do you vote for Romney for the same reason CEOs hire and promote those employees who fit their comfort zones. ''You're always going to select the guy for your team because you know how he plays.''
Even though choosing the leader of the U.S. has been considered picking the lesser of two evils.
Or do you play your hunch, with the whole world at stake, and go with someone who may be good or disasterous.
They both are going to be led by their moral insight.
posted
Fair enough. In a good election, the candidates are supposed to be so compelling that you can't decide until election day, then allow yourself to be struck by the inspiration, courage, wisdom, or the grace of God and the Good Night's Sleep.
posted
Although I like the prospect of both of those as running for President, my guess is that currently the more likely runners will be Hillary and McCain. Frankly, I don't like either of them and it might be a hard year to vote at all if that is the case.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm... Obama is only a "wild card" because it's two freakin' years before the election. If he gets the Democratic nomination, I guarantee that you will know everything there is to know about him by November 2008. That's why we have campaigns.
And there's certainly more to consider in that particular matchup than how well the two candidates are known, much more. Given the choice at this instant, I'd vote for Obama because I agree with his positions on core issues, whereas I agree with Romney on almost none, especially after his about-face on gay marriage during his tenure as Massachusetts governor.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know anything about Romney and gay marriage. What about-face?
From the little I know about both candidates, I'd be hard-pressed to pick one. That really sounds like the kind of election where I'd feel like I was picking the better of two goods, rather than the lesser of two evils.
However, if only one of them ends up on the ticket, and the other is replaced by one of their likely primary competitors, then I think I'll probably end up picking one of these two guys in the end. Assuming I don't uncover anything awful about either of them in the intervening time.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can see now, I'm w/ katharina--I think an Obama v. Romney race would make me feel good about America. In all honesty, I'd probably vote for Romney, but I have a lot more to learn before then. I do think Obama makes a really exciting candidate, and I look forward to learning more about him.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be tempted to vote for Obama. And yeah, it would be cool if that's who we have to choose from.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: And there's certainly more to consider in that particular matchup than how well the two candidates are known, much more. Given the choice at this instant, I'd vote for Obama because I agree with his positions on core issues, whereas I agree with Romney on almost none, especially after his about-face on gay marriage during his tenure as Massachusetts governor.
Yeah, please expound on the about face. I've not heard about it.
I like both Mitt and Obama. I think I gotta go with Mitt on this one though. Still, it's a good feeling when you aren't devastated even if the person you vote for loses. It would be a good election. Hillary is scary.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you pick a guy like Romney, it's not like the world will end. You know what you are going to get. More standardized tests in schools. A foreign policy based on strength, "Army Strong!" and lots of talk about efficiency and accountability. Not so much talk on what we are going to be efficient and accountable about, besides "results."
If Obama is elected, who knows, he could be the one who inspires and allows for the best of our generation to go into public service.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm worried about the damage Obama will do to the American people given the protectionist policies he seems to have bought into (and has supported with his votes).
Its all very well to be doubtful about efficiency, but when we're talking about as many people as possible being able to eat, and live the quality of lives they want to live, its hard to ignore it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and lots of talk about efficiency and accountability."
That is one thing about Romney. He doesn't just talk about it, but has shown results. Other things? Who knows.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:OR he could be the one who sells us out to the alien overlords.
I was thinking more along the lines of Mrs. Clinton's Healthcare plan in the early 1990s. (The details of which I am not familiar with, for all I know, it was an ingenius model ahead of its time, or I can believe that hype and say that it was laughable.)
quote: "and lots of talk about efficiency and accountability."
That is one thing about Romney. He doesn't just talk about it, but has shown results. Other things?
Tell me someone else appreciates the humor in this.
quote:lots of talk about efficiency and accountability. Not so much talk on what we are going to be efficient and accountable about, besides "results."
You said this:
quote:That is one thing about Romney. He doesn't just talk about it, but has shown results. Other things?
See, the punchline is that you used the word "results." I put scare quotes around my "results" because I was thinking about that the morass of MBAs shilling their services, trying to produce results without concerning themselves with the morality or appropriateness of the mechanism they are trying to make more efficient. For example, the standardized test craze where schools are pushed by business minded officials to raise their scores without having the debate on what the schools are trying to teach and why.
In this way, your answer was caricature, something out of SNL. That's the joke.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering Romney, over his tenure as Gov. of MA, cut deeply into a public education system (particularly post-secondary) turning a once flagship system into a mediocre one.
Yes, he's toed-the-line on budgets, particularly the rainy-day fund here in MA (the state actually has ~$800million in emergency funds), but what good is a rainy day-fund if you don't use it to buy an umbrella now and again? He also completely snubbed MA, making it a butt of his non-campaign campaign jokes while still acting governor in the past year. He even sold his Lt. Gov. down the river this year when she was running for his vacated office (not that he seemed to like her much to begin with), going so far as essentially stating that MA was going to go for a democrat for governors just a few weeks before the election.
Of course, he's also increasingly become outspoken on a number of social issues when he campaigned on financial matters, and prior to office stated that he'd let the law of the Commonwealth stand (since he was the executive, not legislative, part of government).
Essentially he's used MA as a way to take certain actions that look good to the arch-conservative crowd, knowing they'd never get passed ('cause we're just la-la-liberals up here), while still saving the "Republican working with Democrats" angle for the general election to court moderates.
posted
Well, from what I have seen he as gotten "results" several times. He helped save a large corportation, and started another successful one. He saved the Winter Olympics from the disaster it was becoming. He went in as a Governor of a deficit state, and then ended up surplus (or at least not deficit). There are other small instances, but these are not simply statements as much as successes. Of course, there is always the "matter of opinion" on how you view these.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm worried about the damage Obama will do to the American people given the protectionist policies he seems to have bought into (and has supported with his votes).
Its all very well to be doubtful about efficiency, but when we're talking about as many people as possible being able to eat, and live the quality of lives they want to live, its hard to ignore it.
I'd like to see the next president fall somewhere in between "Let everyone walk all over us" and "build an iron shield around the US."
I haven't heard anything specific about Obama's record on trade, or McCain's, Clinton's, and Romney's.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad you don't hear more buzz about Chris Dodd. I saw him give a fantastic speech on CSPAN a while back. He'd be a great candidate, a great alternative to Hilary.
One thing she isn't, for instance, is a great orator. Dodd, on the other hand, comes across as smart as a whip without being at all condescending.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you care to give an example of 'let everyone walk all over us'? I've certainly never seen a politician do it. We're protectionist over things that don't need protecting, and not spending the little money we gain (at far greater cost to American consumers) on things that are actually important to preventing negative impacts from trade, like retraining programs and between-job safety nets.
The language I use is loaded, but it has the advantage of being accurate. Those in favor of protective measures like to couch the benefits in vague or noble terms, but are almost entirely unwilling to talk about the costs -- and that the benefits are often ephemeral, small, and concentrated in the hands of a small number of already wealthy people.
There is an incredibly strong correlation between lowering trade barriers and increasing standard of living. Free trade has done more good in the developing world than any aid we've ever given, and it has the handy benefit of making US citizens better off at the same time.
If we're serious about reducing priority, free trade should be a top priority.
If we're serious about making the American people better off, free trade should be a top priority.
Btw, I happened across this old Time article entirely by chance while doing some searches about Obama: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902976,00.html Its almost amusing to read in light of what happened in the 70s and what's happening now. See anything familiar?
You might read it and think about the problems we had in the 70s. The oil shocks didn't help, but they weren't the cause of our troubles. A large part of the blame goes to the protectionist stances we adopted -- consumer goods were more expensive for everyone; American companies didn't adjust to worldwide demand because their profit incentives were distorted by protectionist measures; people became much worse off.
Obama tried talking the talk of free trade for a bit, but he's swallowed Lou Dobbs' pill (the man who -- and he's stated this precisely -- doesn't think free trade benefits anyone. I wonder what products he uses?) and has emerged protectionist. He has shown himself unwilling to sieze on the largest tool we have to unilaterally improve standards of living around the world, or even to support those endeavors he says he does (ethanol), in favor of throwing money at political interests.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.
A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores.
That was when a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga's initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
Last March, Congress passed a law reshaping the Western milk market and essentially ending Hettinga's experiment -- all without a single congressional hearing.
I found this political spin particularly grating:
quote:In an interview later, Nunes called the milk legislation a victory for "every dairy farmer in America except those who were gaming the system." He added, "People out there were making millions of dollars a year off the backs of America's dairy farmers . . . that was a wrong that was finally righted."
So now this guy has to pay the other guys $400,000 a month.
When private businesses get together and agree to a common price that is 5-10% higher than what it would be without the agreement, we call it price fixing.
Unless they happen to own a few congressmen. Then it becomes a legal duty.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll number my responses to your links in the order they appear.
1. An interesting idea, what is the response from the automobile companies? Considering we have some of the (if not the actual) lowest fuel economy standards in the first world, and even parts of the second world, I can't argue against the idea of higher fuel economy standards. It isn't that they can't afford it, Japanese, Chinese, Europeans, and others all have higher fuel economy standards and yet sell their cars at an as good or better price than Americans, so where's the complaint? I don't feel bad that they dropped anchor decades ago and now they're behind in the race, they shouldn't have waited so long.
I'm up in the air on tying it to retiree bailouts. I don't think they ever should have underfunded their pension funds, which leaves me hard pressed to support paying them off for it. I'd have to see the entire plan, in specifics, before I can slap it down or support it. I don't, by the way, call that protectionist. Isn't the term protectionist supposed to be used for policies that SEEM good in the here and now but really hurt America down the road?
2. How much money does Illinois get from ethanol every year? If ending the tariff means loss of income for his constituents, I don't blame him. I'm curious to see what his pledge as a presidential contender would be. Balancing the needs of the nation and the needs of your home state are two different things. He can afford to sacrifice southern sugar for Illinois corn (if that is the case) because it is his duty to do so as their representative.
Still, I'd be troubled by his supports for these tariffs as a presidential contender, as I've agreed with you in the past on an end to farm subsidies. Don't most Democrats agree on cutting farm subsidies? I thought keeping them was a Republican thing.
3. What is the cost of a gallon of E85? If it's still cheaper than gas, or the same price as gas, and considering we pay less than the rest of the western world for gas, I don't think it's being hypocritical. He's trying to come up with a solution that frees us from oil, doesn't piss off environmentalists, doesn't raise the price of fuel, and doesn't harm farmers. Good luck tangling with all those groups and coming out alive on the other end.
4. Same answer I gave before, I don't blame him for supporting his constituents. But at the same time, I'd want PRESIDENT Obama to cut the subsidies.
As for my first statement, one of the very, very, VERY few things I've supported Bush on lately is his talking tougher with China. China has come a long way from where they were a decade ago, or even five years ago, but they have a long, long way to go, and don't seem in a particular hurry to get there. US trade policy needs to get tough on them. Bringing more actions against them in the WTO is a good start, but I don't want things to linger for a half decade while they drag their feet at the expense of American exporters. They decided they wanted to join the WTO, and we told them how. If they don't comply, and continue to ignore IPR abuses, and put up unfair trade barriers, I think it's smart to retaliate in an effort to force them to open their markets and play fairly. What incentive do they have to do so if they KNOW we aren't going to do anything to them, or that our WTO actions will take forever to go into effect?
I'm all for Free Trade too, on BOTH ends. If America is going to be punished in developing export markets, why are we going to let ourselves be the world's most profitable export market without our well earned piece of the pie?
In summary, I'm fine with, and support cutting tariffs and subsidies here and there to increase the supply of cheap goods for Americans to purchase, so long as the economy can handle the shock, and the lost jobs are recovered elsewhere, but I'm not for it if it's one sided, and our exporters get nothing in return. It's a two way street, and America isn't the only bad guy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would vote for Obama. Romney was my governor, and I really don't think that he did a good job. I don't agree with almost any of his views, and he let the Big Dig (we can never forget the Big Dig) budget get completely out of control. If he can't work inside the limits of the MA budget, how can we expect him to do better with the country? I just don't trust him.
Obama, at least unless a better choice comes up.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we should clearly tell China "You're making your citizens and our citizens worse off by imposing trade restrictions, so we're going to do it too and make everybody even worse off unless you stop!"
I almost want to see measures like that pass, just for how fast the electorate would make known its displeasure when they saw what happened to prices and to jobs (lots of what we get from China are intermediate goods we then use to make other goods).
China would suffer too, but they've already made it clear how willing they are to go toe to toe with us. Plus, they aren't in any danger of being voted out of office, and would have a handy group of people to blame for being the direct cause -- Americans. How could they pass up the juicy chance to solidify political power?
Our being kicked out of the WTO would certainly help the situation even more, I can tell you.
Your answers to most of my links are very weak even from a constituency point of view. His constituency is paying more for things because of measures he supports; a lot more, in some cases. That a few businesses are made even wealthier is called buckling to special interests, not protecting your constituency.
Your answer to three is particularly weak -- its a good thing, but its not necessary to make it any cheaper because its already cheap enough? Heaven forfend products that could make us better off and reduce our reliance on oil be freely traded when we can have a tax that makes them more expensive instead.
Protectionist refers to policies with the intent of 'protecting' some aspect of American business at the expense of people from other countries, American consumers, and other American businesses. People who support such policies typically point at the first and conveniently forget about the last three, particularly the last two. They frequently end up harming the same industries they're designed to protect, too (want to know why American auto makers have been so far behind the game from foreign ones? A good part of the explanation lies in that they didn't have to adapt as much to compete in much of the 80s because of various 'protectionist' measures that kept import prices high).
No worries about lost jobs being recovered elsewhere, we have and have had one of the highest employment rates in the world . As for our exporters getting nothing in return, they certainly seem to be doing well. We're a huge exporter, feel free to check the numbers.
Furthermore, other countries are confident we're going to keep doing well, as we're one of the most-invested-in countries in the world (that's the other side of a trade deficit, remember?), so perhaps we should wait until there are any indicators its even a possibility before we start imposing protectionist measures that make both sides worse off out of some bizarre sense of fairness (at least we're all worse off together!) or retaliation (you're hurting us, so we'll hurt us too if it lets us hurt you back!).
The only area I might vaguely be worried about negative 'shocks' damaging the economy with lowered trade barriers is in agriculture, and there are several solid plans for that area. The best and biggest is to replace the current system with fixed cash payments, then gradually (and in forewarned schedules) reduce the payments to nothing. Should take about a decade. The rest of the measures we should just scrap.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, other countries are confident we're going to keep doing well, as we're one of the most-invested-in countries in the world (that's the other side of a trade deficit, remember?), so perhaps we should wait until there are any indicators its even a possibility before we start imposing protectionist measures that make both sides worse off out of some bizarre sense of fairness (at least we're all worse off together!) or retaliation (you're hurting us, so we'll hurt us too if it lets us hurt you back!).
We KNOW they aren't being fair, it's not "bizarre," it's what US businesses, and the US Trade Rep are saying.
What's your suggestion to fix the problem? How do we get them to enforce IPR protection laws? How do we get them to reduce tarffis, and duties, and barriers to our exporters? I should add, how do we get them to do all that without waiting years and years for WTO enforcements to take effect, or years and years and years of negotiations with a Chinese government that doesn't want, or really feel the need to cooperate?
I'm not saying we aren't doing great, I'm saying we could be doing a hell of a lot better. The trade imbalance isn't what bothers me, there's too many other factors involved to blame it on entirely on China.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did I say they were being fair? I'm saying that your suggestions will make things worse, much worse, not better, however much fairer they might be. I'm sure you've read Harrison Bergeron; its a far from perfect analogy, but it should help you with the gist of the argument.
I'm not particularly interested in a fairness that makes people worse off than they would be in the previously unfair world.
China's been gradually lowering trade barriers for years, and they're going to continue to. We're applying significant political pressure on them to do so and its working. Them doing it faster would certainly be better for us, and likely for them, but that's not a reason to impose measures that make things worse for us and for them. Ever heard of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
You seem to think they're not doing anything, but the several decades of increasingly open trade with China say otherwise. You also seem to think that if we take such measures they'll miraculously comply, and then all the measures will go away so it won't have mattered that they were in place. See my previous note about such measures being a political gift on a silver platter to them, plus that they only have to stick it out until Americans vote the idiot politicians who put such measures in place out of office.
Things like our expulsion from the WTO, general international dislike, and the incredible reluctance it would create in every country we might ever like to broaden trade relations with would only be icing on the cake.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your paypal account should have the money soon, rivka. Minus 10% for that Eye of Argon comment
(I can't help it, the writing's just too darn painfully funny! When I'm in the mood to laugh it doesn't take much to set me off, and the Eye of Argon qualifies as a lot of much).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: this was in response to a post that has since disappeared
You've repeatedly talked about matching trade barriers in this and other threads:
quote:If they don't comply, and continue to ignore IPR abuses, and put up unfair trade barriers, I think it's smart to retaliate in an effort to force them to open their markets and play fairly.
You're the one who introduced the language of retaliation (literally). How did you intend that to be interpreted if not putting up trade barriers to match, at least in part, their own?
You also imply China won't do anything unless its forced to, and state that China doesn't want or feel the need to cooperate. Those large free trade zones appeared because Deng pushed them, not because the rest of the world did. Of course, in a sense they aren't a matter of cooperation because China created them to better itself, but that's the best kind of cooperation in capitalism. China is lowering trade barriers nowadays, too. Again, I think it would be wiser if they did it faster, but they are definitely lowering them, for whatever reason.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the last response I'll make, so say whatever you want afterwards knowing you won't get a response. I made another response and deleted it immediately because it was inappropriate. Check your email btw.
I didn't say they wouldn't do anything unless they were forced to. I SPECIFICALLY SAID that they've come a long way since first petitioning to join the WTO, and even in the last five years have come even further. I don't know why you've chosen to ignore my words, but I wish you wouldn't. Clearly you think you have enough legitimate stuff to harp on without being dishonest about others.
I've never supported, and doubt I've said we should(though it's possible I've suggested something similar to), MATCH trade barriers with China. It'd be devastating. You're the one going to the extreme of sanctions, it's not something I said, so again, please stop attributing it to me.
I haven't offered specifics, because in all honesty I don't have any. What I do know, is that the current situation is less than ideal, and Chinese progress is slow, and their practices unfair to US business. The WTO is a venue for forcing changes they are unwilling to make upon them, and by the way, if they are so willing to make these changes without our insistance, why are we bringing dozens of WTO actions against them?
Sure we'll get there eventually, after China has used their advantage, and our lack of ability to force faster changes to finance their becoming a first world power. But how many billions of dollars will be lost to the US economy? And what diplomatic or military price might we pay in the future? Who knows? I don't, and neither do you. So I elect to push them as hard as possible to effect change faster. You want to take it slow and let them stall us. I think that's wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Minus 10% for that Eye of Argon comment
(I can't help it, the writing's just too darn painfully funny! When I'm in the mood to laugh it doesn't take much to set me off, and the Eye of Argon qualifies as a lot of much).
Your mistake was in trying to read. I knew better -- I didn't try, I just giggled and howled and heckled. And tossed the occasional d20 (or were they d12s?) at dkw.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find Obama interesting, but I would almost certainly go with Romney. Maybe it's stupid, but I was impressed with how he helmed the Salt Lake Olympics (I mean, isn't that how he sold himself to Massachussetts?).
The matter is who can make their people feel good enough about themselves to show up and vote. I think the number of republicans hadn't changed in the mid-term election, but they felt ashamed from the Foley scandal and uncertain about the progress of the war, so a lot of them stayed home.
It's funny, I actually was able to identify the local candidates I wanted from the negative ads the democratic party put out on them. They lost, but I couldn't tell one guy from another based on their own ads.
The wiki on Obama is pretty informative, and he has an autobiography out. I'll be interested to see what the Clinton campaign does to him in the primaries.
posted
You have said they've come a long way in the last five to ten years; you still implied they don't do anything unless forced to.
Your language:
quote:What's your suggestion to fix the problem? How do we get them to enforce IPR protection laws? How do we get them to reduce tarffis, and duties, and barriers to our exporters? I should add, how do we get them to do all that without waiting years and years for WTO enforcements to take effect, or years and years and years of negotiations with a Chinese government that doesn't want, or really feel the need to cooperate?
Heck, then you go on to say in this very post:
quote:and by the way, if they are so willing to make these changes without our insistance, why are we bringing dozens of WTO actions against them?
I was incorrect about you not seeing any of their progress.
And in the same breath you accuse me of being dishonest about what you've said, you're dishonest about what I've said. I've said they've demonstrated an independent willingness to make some moves towards free trade, not that they're willing to bring down all their trade barriers. I've very specifically said that they haven't been willing to do things as fast as would be good.
Yep, we should be applying WTO pressure to get them to lower trade barriers, and lots of other kinds of pressure. I've said those things above. None of this comes anywhere close to an application of force, and requires a certain amount of complicity on the part of Chinese people. It all involves the shuffling of carrots, to bring in the language of political coercion.
And we're already doing just about every feasible thing against them ('short' of imposing retaliatory trade barriers), and I've maintained that the status quo is fine, so where do you get that I'm against using WTO pressure, as you seem to be insinuating with my soft comments? Furthermore, what additional measures do you want taken that aren't retaliatory trade barriers? I mean, there might be some way to eke out another complaint or two, but in terms of positive pressure on China, we're pretty close to maxed.
Yep, we do lose billions because of their trade restrictions, much as we lose billions because of Europe's trade restrictions, and billions because of Africa's trade restrictions, and billions because of the rest of Asia's trade restrictions, et cetera; everyone does.
China's actually one of the better of the bunch of countries in their class when it comes to trade barriers, they just get singled out because they're so big and a rising power. I'm actually astonished India isn't mentioned more when free trade comes up, they have if anything more trade barriers than China.
However, just as we're in no danger of stalling because of Africa or Europe or India, we're in no danger of stalling because of the current pace we're taking on Chinese policies. Most of our danger of stalling economically comes from some of the anti-trade measures, including two a lot of Democrats are fans of: matching trade barriers with China or imposing a large tariff on all Chinese goods unless they revalue.
Furthermore, its not like they're going to shoot ahead because of these trade barriers. Those don't help China, either. Much as in the US, the trade barriers are political bargaining chips to route money to those the politicians favor (often themselves) at the expense of the rest of the population. They help maintain the current political system, but they don't help the economy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "There's a core decency to the American people that doesn't get enough attention,"
See, I don't remember feeling this from Hillary Clinton. Which is too bad, if she was sincere about having Eleanor Roosevelt as a hero. I don't know if Romney has it. He certainly feels Mormons are decent, and if he could make Massachusetts feel that way, I'll believe he could do it for the country.
P.S. I do worry how his name will play, especially with "Hussein" for a middle name. You can bet any opponent's add is going to use his full name.
The funny thing about the Time article was near the end when the writer is trying to describe Obama's defensiveness on an energy policy. But the discomfort and defensiveness doesn't really come through.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, he may have convinced us enough to elect him in the first place, but I don't think most of us up here in MA feel that Romney thinks we are decent, when he goes to conservative fund raisers and makes the state the butt of his jokes:
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. As for our exporters getting nothing in return, they certainly seem to be doing well. We're a huge exporter, feel free to check the numbers.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
