-7 votes

To Strengthen and Protect American Companies: All Foreign Imported Goods Should Be Subject To Tariffs

To Strengthen and Protect American Companies: All Foreign Imported Goods Should Be Subject To Tariffs

Its about time we control the Mega Corporations around the world that pedal their good into the United States Tariff free.

President Nixon called for it and was attacked and forced to be removed from office because he threatened to weaken the Globalist attempt to take over and merge and destroy our U.S. Industrial base..

The 1973 Rockefeller created Trilateral Commission was to be used to end the Americans tradition of superior craftsmanship, manufacturing,supply and affordability.

As time when on other globalist schemes were brought into being such as CAFTA and NAFTA..

It is time to return to what made america great...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My Definition Of What A Tariff Really Is:

A Tax on an imported or exported good{s}.

Therefore, importers/exporters would add a tax at the point of entry or departure from the country, only.

Those that are not in the import/export business would/should have their personal income taxes lowered, and eventually, because the federal government would make the tariff monies collected "Replace" the enormous amount of taxes now stolen every day from everybody, especially the rank and file public.

Also,forcing American products to be produced again in the USA, and jobs to replace unemployment lines.

You see, multi-national companies, who want a new world order, and including the federal reserve banking system, are draining the USA of wealth right now by excessive taxation {Some hidden} on everything.

beesting

It would be better

It would be better to try and persuade people to "buy American" than to have the government enact tariffs. Anything that gives them more power will be bad for us in the long run.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder ~Bastiat

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.

Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious.

To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850].

There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property.

As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues — and only two — that have always endangered the public peace.

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty.

The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime — a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World — should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union.

It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice.

And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States — where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs — what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

Excerpt from: The Law by Frederic Bastiat - (1850)

Cyril's picture

^^^ BUMP. And look.

^^^ BUMP. And look. Everything was said in the first paragraph.

ALREADY.

Just LOOK at what is written and then the DAILY FACTS that YOUR SAME EYES can see.

Happening everywhere.

He was right. Was he not?

Too bad almost nobody paid attention at the time, unlike today.

Isn't it?

...

All of it:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi

...

Section 4, first sentence:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

...

Foreseeable. Predicted. Happened. Ongoing.

Q.E.D.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

That is retarded! Bad

That is retarded! Bad economics. ALL TARIFFS DO IS PROTECT BUSINESSES AT THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUALS! Think about it....last year congress passed a tarrif on cheap chineese made solar panels. Now Americans interested in buying solar panels have to pay more for American made products. The argument that it keeps American money in America is patently FALSE! When you buy a solar panel from Samsung, you pay AMERICAN DOLLARS for it...not Japaneese Yen. That means the ONLY three things Samsung can do with with that money is. 1. Exchange it through a third party for Yen. 2. Buy oil from an oil producing country. 3.Buy AMERICAN products(this is by far the most common use). So you see...that money comes back one way or another in ALL cases except when buying oil. Just how much oil does a company like Samsung need? Even if they exchange dollars for yen(and have that percentage money changers charge lost). Those money changers sell those dollars back to other foreign people entering the country to spend here...or to foreign companies to buy American products. Do you understand yet? Tarrifs against foreign products serve the same interest as bank bailouts! Protect the business at the cost of the indivodual. Tarrifs are for fascists!

Tariffs benefit certain

Tariffs benefit certain producers at the expense of all consumers.

If you like higher prices and

If you like higher prices and fewer choices, then you should support tariffs.

Bad Economics - Tariffs Violate My Rights

Not only are tariffs bad economics (causing distortions in prices and supply, and reeking of isolationism and xenophobia), but the tariff on sugar cane enacted in the 70's helped push subsidized corn syrup into the American diet.

Consumers and suppliers have an absolute right to trade with each other in any responsible way they desire.

Certainly Congress is not to be trusted to decide the issue.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I'm with you on tariffs

unfortunately, we don't have free trade, we have managed trade and by the time we get free trade our entire manufacturing system will be gone, then who cares.

I'm not libertarian, I don't believe in globalism and open borders, thats messed up and Anti-American.

America First

Open borders is anti

Open borders is anti American? Uh, OK. You must be native american.

History of The United States Tax System

History of The United States Tax System

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Ever on guard against the power of the central government to eclipse that of the states, the collection of the taxes was left as the responsibility of the State governments.

To pay the debts of the Revolutionary War, Congress levied excise taxes on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auctions, and various legal documents. Even in the early days of the Republic, however, social purposes influenced what was taxed. For example, Pennsylvania imposed an excise tax on liquor sales partly "to restrain persons in low circumstances from an immoderate use thereof." Additional support for such a targeted tax came from property owners, who hoped thereby to keep their property tax rates low, providing an early example of the political tensions often underlying tax policy decisions.

Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Read more: http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml

If they would eliminate

If they would eliminate income tax and get all their income from tarrifs I would be in favor.

Here, here!

Spoken like a Founding Father.

FAIR Trade. Not Free Trade.

FAIR Trade.
Not Free Trade.
Apply tariffs against factories that are less then up to American standards of pollution, labor, etc.
If Japan or Turkey had a product produced in a "clean" factory with similar worker standards, No Tariff would be Fair Trade.
Make sense?
Under such circumstances I have no doubt American production would be competitive and preferred against foreign products.
Free Trade expects an American shoe factory to compete against the Vietnamese one that uses Child labor paid less then a daily rice bowl.
In the short run we get cheaper shoes and the super rich profit.
In the long run, America no longer produces shoes.
BTW Toyotas built is America have a lower defect record then ones built in Japan and a higher percent of "American" then a Ford.

Free ride trade is a dead end road

Fair trade is a lot more fair than the so-called "Fair Tax". My Toyota made in the Fremont plant has enough miles on it to have driven to the moon, while my made in Vietnam shoes wear out in a year, and they're overpriced.

Still

your Toyota profits went to benefit Japan, and their country, not ours. German people are the smartest, they refuse to purchase imported items, especially when it's a foreign company making them.

We no longer make very many clothes in the US, so for the past few years China has been stockpiling cotton from the US, now they have a couple year supply and don't need to purchase from us anymore effectively shutting down the US cotton industry, leaving only China with the ability to grow cotton, leading to higher prices for everyone, that's screwed up free trade.

FWIW, Germany HAS to import a

FWIW, Germany HAS to import a large amount of resources to make up for mother nature screwing that particular geographic location....

... Which is why Germany, in particular, has always gone to war very quickly whenever the citizens have caught a case of "patriot fever", and embarked on "economic independence".

They even have a special word with direct english translation for the idea of conquering enough land to keep everyone from staving, "lebensraum". English speaking countries have never faced starvation due to "patriotism", so there is no english word with the same meaning.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

America's Toyota

On the contrary.
Many Toyotas are built in America employing Americans.
When car labels featured the % of the car that was American,
Toyota sometimes ranked higher then Ford.
Besides the whole car and where it is built, there are also components and where they are manufactured.

Cyril's picture

Here is Frederic Bastiat, yet again

Here is Frederic Bastiat, yet again, on regulations, policy making, law making and how they can DISAPPOINT re: imports, exports, producers, and consumers:

http://www.dailypaul.com/274359/frederic-bastiats-petition-f...

I think he made a good point.

In an amusing way.

Enjoy.

'Hope this helps.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Bastiat's long-winded style costs too much to read

Sound bites are a much cheaper way to convey information. Why didn't Bastiat just move to Portugal if he likes oranges?

Cyril's picture

Let me give a try at being more terse than Bastiat, then

I can try to be more terse than Bastiat, then, if that helps, and that'd be two-fold:

1) re: Bastiat's taste for oranges from Portugal, I took it he was concerned in defending the idea that he could still enjoy their oranges without requiring the need for, EITHER:

1.a) RELOCATING HIMSELF

OR

1.b) having self-proclaimed supermen to impose their preying and plunder on everybody IN HIS COUNTRY, France, instead of letting CHEAPER oranges reach the FRENCH people's markets, thanks to a more friendly weather to produce them, and PROVIDED BY NATURE in the first place, OVER THERE, IN PORTUGAL.

2) if one central authority, bunch of regulators, always gets to impose THEIR VIEWS on how to redistribute NATURAL WEALTH AND THAT WEALTH CREATED out of labor - DOMESTIC OR ABROAD, will the people EVER get a chance to look at the books for EVERY PENNY thus redirected AND TO WHOM IT ACTUALLY DID BENEFIT?

Although it is only a matter of opinion whether I understood Bastiat correctly on (1) or not, I think we can all agree on the assessment that WE ALL, AND ALREADY, KNOW ALL TOO WELL the answer to (2).

Can't we?

And finally:

if Frederic Bastiat is TL;DR ("Too Long; Didn't Read")...

... what can one say about the THOUSANDS of such new legalese texts (or updates thereof) created EACH AND EVERY YEAR for the sake of these so wonderful regulatory schemes?

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

But seriously

If Americans want an orange, they invade a country like Portugal and steal their oranges.

Bastiat seems to be focusing on natural resources in his satyrical letter. He's correct in the sense that it's ridiculous to try to grow pineapples in Canada, but that is rather simplistic. He does not explain why a pineapple costs less than a French candle, even though that pineapple must be shipped a long way, and it rots, unlike a candle, so it should cost a lot of French candles to buy a pineapple.

Cyril's picture

Taxation most often if not always tries to solve a same problem

Taxation most often, if not always, tries to solve the same problem over and over again, poorly:

how to fund public projects (that elected officials, or non-elected lobbyists friends thereof, for that matter) have deemed "important to the general public interest" albeit those projects don't really have, by large, a lot of market value.

Okay, we can nitpick forever to which extent roads and bridges and post offices ought to remain entirely public (owned and managed by the state), or private, or any mix thereof.

What I mean is: usually, the markets, producers, consumers, haven't even been given the chance to consider which part or whole of the project they would handle as nicely as for making the iPhone 5 after years of successful selling of the iPhones 1, 2, 3, 4 (just a silly over-simplified parallel).

Our elected officials (supposedly already paid by taxes, themselves, btw) tend to go hastily, or much zealously for what THEY consider the "obvious" solution : let's just invent a tax for it, that's how we'll get the money.

This is rather rude against the free markets which provide so much : supply demand laws, competition, incentives for innovation, better productivity, lower prices, or just... price discovery, to begin with (via the first: supply demand laws). All of this, and more, is not even given a chance to be put at work when it's been decided to go after a tax, instead.

In the case of tariffs over imports or exports, and beyond the already existing moral hazards of having "managers", "regulators", "controllers" who are themselves, paid by taxes, also, this goes even further... Supposedly, the problem to solve is at an even higher level, more abstract and speculative : how to "protect" jobs, domestically speaking.

Rarely, if ever, any hard evidence is presented that such tariffs will actually have the intended consequences AND ONLY those.

I do not say they cannot. I am simply pointing out: it all seems, always, like politicians and already tax payer-paid officials go for, granted, THE QUICKEST, EASIEST solution to implement (crudely: theft) which also, very often, turns out to be, in the long run, the most open for corruption, inefficiencies and non transparency. When not... downright non-verifiability (which rather defeats the purpose in the case of domestic job protection policies!)

While almost none of this happens on free markets (when fair competition is enabled via just laws), because precisely the market forces are so overwhelming against individual, arbitrary, forceful and deceitful schemes (frauds exist of course, but the incentive to go for them is very low when the law and punishments are harsh enough after a few examples). Can we say the same when it's about thousands anonymous people working in the same bureaucratic chain? That you'll probably never get to remotely know, ever, why they're so numerously employed for? Or just: if they are actually busy working on what you've been told they would? What happens when from top to bottom, everybody has the same incentive to not find ways to reduce the costs, btw (for whatever reason)? Etc.

Besides that, in the absolute, I am not absolutely opposed to tariffs of some form, or fees ("pay as you use"), or very limited taxation in time, space, AND scope; I'm just saying: politicians do not spend 1% of the time they ought to spend, if they were honest and genuine, to consider all the other options supported by the markets, first.

And this assessment alone now makes "taxation by default" indefensible today. We've been screwed way too many times by the lip service speeches and statements of good intentions to buy into that any longer, eyes closed. Any plan for taxation ought to be given much, much more serious scrutiny, and ONLY after ALL the other market-driven possibilities, which come to mind as relevant enough, have been considered and found insufficient, IMO.

Which just isn't, at all, the case, today, as I see it.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Down with the Constitution ... here?

You are correct in what you say, and I used to believe as you do. Then I saw that the reason politicians do what they do is because they are bought and paid for by the globalists who tout "free trade". Then I realized the Founding Fathers were against all of this. But they knew tariffs were the best solution. Not the income tax. Not the sales tax. Not the property tax. It is disappointing to see so many comments here on the Ron Paul website of all places criticizing the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Don't waste your time on the

Don't waste your time on the troll.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Tariffs only make goods more

Tariffs only make goods more expensive for the consumer. That's all. With tariffs, there is no incentive to make products more affordable compared to other contries. I shouldn't be forced, at gunpoint, to pay extra for something just because it wasn't made in America. At the same time, American goods will just be priced at or near the same tariff-induced price of foreign goods.

Tariffs only punish the consumer.

You know things are effed up when people on the DP are arguing against free trade...

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Tariffs are a tax on traitors

Yes, you should be made to pay more to aid the enemy combatants of the United States. You live next to Joe, the Butcher, but instead of buying from his local shop to support his family, you buy General Tso's Chick'n™ at Walmart that's imported from Red China. Then you complain when Joe is on welfare.

While we're making assumptions...

You're clearly a fascist or a troll.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Today's college grads will be living under a bridge in 20 years

I cannot be a fascist because, as I explain elsewhere in this thread, corporations ARE governments and are inherently creatures of government. So, fascism exists wherever corporations exist, and I do not like corporations.

As to being a troll, we trolls dislike Leprechauns. We donated to the Leprechaun's campaign, only to discover the Leprechaun struck a deal behind the scenes to let Romney win the nomination, and then found out he works for the central bankers to convince the youth to give up their Social Security and Medicare in exchange for nothing.

We should only have

We should have only Bi-Lateral trade agreements Dr Ron Paul spoke of and adjust tariffs according to wage disparities to make it fair trade.

I'm still trying to find that RP video where Dr Paul spoke of only Bi-lateral trade agreements.