Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all]Zalatix
(8,994 posts)108. You should get tired of that inaccurate poll getting smacked down, over and over again:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/made-in-america-policies-hugely-popular-survey-shows/
On the federal level if we can expose where we can see tax dollars leaking overseas we can reverse it because there is the political will to do that, said Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing.
Overwhelming majorities of people from all political parties said they supported Buy America policies that would mandate that taxpayer money can only be used on goods that were made in America.
Nearly 9 out of 10 Republicans and Independents and 91 percent of Democrats said they support Buy America preferences, according to the survey,which was conducted by the Democratic-leaning Mellman Group.
On the federal level if we can expose where we can see tax dollars leaking overseas we can reverse it because there is the political will to do that, said Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing.
Overwhelming majorities of people from all political parties said they supported Buy America policies that would mandate that taxpayer money can only be used on goods that were made in America.
Nearly 9 out of 10 Republicans and Independents and 91 percent of Democrats said they support Buy America preferences, according to the survey,which was conducted by the Democratic-leaning Mellman Group.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
159 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all]
Zalatix
Sep 2012
OP
That is absolutely wrong. No amount of regulation of the Federal Reserve will stop that.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#21
Show us the regulations that will stop the dollar from devaluing. Can you answer that?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#36
Similarly, the high dollar policy that the United States has pursued since the Clinton years
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#53
Why not bring up the Von Mises Institute? They're correct about the dollar/trade relationship.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#68
You've got to be kidding me, that is not just inaccurate, it's CRAZY inaccurate.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#93
It is clear to me you have no understanding of the automobile industry
former-republican
Sep 2012
#125
Except if the US has a strong (overvalued) dollar, that means it's able to buy up other countries'
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#64
Smoot-Hawley was just the last of 3 republican tariff increases from 1921-1930. FDR opposed it.
pampango
Sep 2012
#18
FDR thought that Smoot-Hawley was bad for the US. If you disagree with him that is your right.
pampango
Sep 2012
#39
FDR disagreed with your version of history that Smoot-Hawley was not bad for America.
pampango
Sep 2012
#102
I disagree with your interpretation of history and will continue to side with FDR, not the repubs.
pampango
Sep 2012
#117
You'll continue to side with the US Chamber of Commerce, not the working class or history.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#123
As I said in #115: "I will not ask you to say hi to your 'friends' in certain conservative groups
pampango
Sep 2012
#140
You are STILL trying to argue that S/H hampered the recovery. It is STILL wrong.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#145
"So you admit there was no correlation between S/H and the lack of a recovery." - No.
pampango
Sep 2012
#150
You said that trade and the economy went up together and down together. That's correlation by
pampango
Sep 2012
#156
You didn't actually list a fact that Smoot-Hawley didn't harm trade. You stated an opinion
mythology
Sep 2012
#129
Pampango refuses to recognize the fact that Smoot Hawley didn't even occur under the same situation.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#34
FDR also viewed Smoot-Hawley as "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" AND he opposed it.
pampango
Sep 2012
#100
FDR opposed it. Almost exclusively republican congressmen passed it. It was signed by a republican
pampango
Sep 2012
#118
Actions speak louder than words. FDR expressed his opposition to S/H and followed it up with action.
pampango
Sep 2012
#121
BTW China used trade barriers bigger than Smoot-Hawley and they were successful for them.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#143
Indeed he was. I have never read that he "worshiped Free Trade as if it were a god" but he did
pampango
Sep 2012
#105
I take it you do not include the USA as one of the world's progressive countries.
Lasher
Sep 2012
#116
All countries should agree that pollution should be punished. Of course, the US creates 3 1/2 times
pampango
Sep 2012
#146
That's what Bush's attitude was. To hell with treaties or what any other country wants.
pampango
Sep 2012
#157
So we instead choose to hit them with droughts, acidic oceans and wars over oil?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#20
Now included in the 2012 Democratic platform: The Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement
woo me with science
Sep 2012
#15
You mean TARIFFS saved America after the Civil War? What ever will the tariff-hating crowd say?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#32
us has a strong dollar policy, which is the ultimate source of our deficit in trade and budgets.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#47
My point was that Japan's strong yen hurt their exports and made offshoring explode.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#50
ok, i get it. i thought you were being sarcastic. yeah, japan's boom years were weak-yen.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#52
i understand the meaning, i just don't see your point. china intentionally keeps the yuan WEAK.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#69
as is typically the case with developing economies and makes perfect economic sense.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#75
True, but why should China be bothered by being a platform for foreign capital?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#79
the point being there are homeless in china -- & everywhere. what i'd rather is to end the beggar
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#96
huh? it could lead to war versus china, and it would have a major effect on americans.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#67
no time soon. the signs point in the other direction: an increasingly centralized global society
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#72
So you are essentially saying we should bail on the WTO and all free-trade agreements
davidpdx
Sep 2012
#99
Don't know about the poster you are responding to but that is certainly what the teabaggers and
pampango
Sep 2012
#103
You should get tired of that inaccurate poll getting smacked down, over and over again:
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#108
I've decided to keep posting Pew polls even though you judge them to be 'inaccurate'.
pampango
Sep 2012
#109
I have not asked you to stop posting the polls. Nor will I disparage them unless they come from a RW
pampango
Sep 2012
#115
The WTO & GATT have undermined the United States on the environment. Case in point:
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#135