• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Trade War With Canada Begins

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker said:
Mrs.Greg said:
I'm calling you a liar,I Don't call people liar never have before but I am NOW. You attack my country YOU got personal.....

You Sandy wouldn't know decency if it splattered you in the face!!!




OT....watch it :roll: :wink:

I attacked your country?

Where did I attack your country?


Mrs. G if Sandy attacks Canada...I think the local nursing home folks could take him out pretty quickly!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I'm going to fill up at the local's station. That's probably where she's buying her gas since the other guy is sponsoring her kid's little league teams. His business will grow and as it does, he will need experienced help. My sister will the most qualified for the job.

Or, since the whole community is like the other guy and does their business locally and keep that dollar bouncing from the gas station to the grocery store to the hardware store to the restaurant to the gas station.... those businesses are doing well and maybe she'll go work at the restaurant or the hardware store or the grocery store....

So the other station ends up going out of business and your Sister is now living on food stamps and unemployment waiting for another job to come along. The local's station now has no competition in town so service goes down hill and prices on everything have gone up.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Richard Doolittle said:
Sandhusker said:
I'm going to fill up at the local's station. That's probably where she's buying her gas since the other guy is sponsoring her kid's little league teams. His business will grow and as it does, he will need experienced help. My sister will the most qualified for the job.

Or, since the whole community is like the other guy and does their business locally and keep that dollar bouncing from the gas station to the grocery store to the hardware store to the restaurant to the gas station.... those businesses are doing well and maybe she'll go work at the restaurant or the hardware store or the grocery store....

So the other station ends up going out of business and your Sister is now living on food stamps and unemployment waiting for another job to come along. The local's station now has no competition in town so service goes down hill and prices on everything have gone up.

You missed the part where my sister could work for many other businesses that are thriving? What about the new owner for the gas station? The current owner isn't going to just let it sit there vacant, he'll sell it to cut his losses and move on. Maybe my sister buys it thrives as an owner, rather than a worker.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker said:
I attacked your country?

Where did I attack your country?


Mrs. G if Sandy attacks Canada...I think the local nursing home folks could take him out pretty quickly!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

I didn't attack Canada. I've asked MG twice now to show where I did. I just got called a liar and the supposed attacking post remains to be found....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
So what you're all telling me is that the concept of international trade is more important than a government's fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I think that a goverment has the responsibility to spend taxpayers dollars as wisely as possible.

Problem is rather it is really being fiscal responsible or not?

Example: Democrats think they are being responsible when they raise taxes, but us Conservatives realize that even though they feel they are generating more tax revenue that in reality they will hurt that very thing with higher taxes.

To Mandate such spending restrictions could very well cost America Fiscally. If other countries limit their trade or regulate us with more scrutiny what may appear to be stimulated on the front end may be lost on the back end.

I am not talking in exacts, I am no economic guru, but I do see the other side of the slippery slope. And a strong action such as this may result in a strong reaction.

I am more interested in fixing the problems that keep Americans from competing in the market place than I am in restricting their foreign trade.

Dang I hope this does not cause the site to crash again! :lol:

How is it not fiscally responsible when you can spend $1 of tax payers money at place "A" and get 50 cents back rather than spending the $1 at place "B" and get nothing back?

If there is some sort of agreement that says a government can't do that and has to waste money, that agreement needs to be revisited.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
So what you're all telling me is that the concept of international trade is more important than a government's fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I think that a goverment has the responsibility to spend taxpayers dollars as wisely as possible.

Problem is rather it is really being fiscal responsible or not?

Example: Democrats think they are being responsible when they raise taxes, but us Conservatives realize that even though they feel they are generating more tax revenue that in reality they will hurt that very thing with higher taxes.

To Mandate such spending restrictions could very well cost America Fiscally. If other countries limit their trade or regulate us with more scrutiny what may appear to be stimulated on the front end may be lost on the back end.

I am not talking in exacts, I am no economic guru, but I do see the other side of the slippery slope. And a strong action such as this may result in a strong reaction.

I am more interested in fixing the problems that keep Americans from competing in the market place than I am in restricting their foreign trade.

Dang I hope this does not cause the site to crash again! :lol:
I "think' ranchers will be OK...you didn't use Mrs. greg & agree with,all in the same sentence :wink:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
So what you're all telling me is that the concept of international trade is more important than a government's fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I think that a goverment has the responsibility to spend taxpayers dollars as wisely as possible.

Problem is rather it is really being fiscal responsible or not?

Example: Democrats think they are being responsible when they raise taxes, but us Conservatives realize that even though they feel they are generating more tax revenue that in reality they will hurt that very thing with higher taxes.

To Mandate such spending restrictions could very well cost America Fiscally. If other countries limit their trade or regulate us with more scrutiny what may appear to be stimulated on the front end may be lost on the back end.

I am not talking in exacts, I am no economic guru, but I do see the other side of the slippery slope. And a strong action such as this may result in a strong reaction.

I am more interested in fixing the problems that keep Americans from competing in the market place than I am in restricting their foreign trade.

Dang I hope this does not cause the site to crash again! :lol:

How is it not fiscally responsible when you can spend $1 of tax payers money at place "A" and get 50 cents back rather than spending the $1 at place "B" and get nothing back?

If there is some sort of agreement that says a government can't do that and has to waste money, that agreement needs to be revisited.

What if by mandating that you can not spend it at place B results in all of the sister companies of B (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,) stopping their purchasing from A as a protest.

The problem is not necessarily in you equation, it is in the collateral damage that may result by the Government sticking their nose into the market.

When you tell companies they can not buy goods from Canada, Canadians have the right to reciprocate by not buying goods from the U.S. So you better be very sure that Store A's extra $.50 sent back will cover all them other stores that will lose money due to Canada returning the favor.

It is a slippery slope that may or may not work to our advantage! In theory I have no problem with any country buying local, I believe we all should buy local rather than spend away. I believe we should support the local feed store rather than drive 30 miles to save money at another. But passing laws and regulating it can and will have collateral damage!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What if by mandating that you can not spend it at place B results in all of the sister companies of B (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,) stopping their purchasing from A as a protest.

I'd say that those companies are out of line. They are demanding government waste for their own benefit.

The problem is not necessarily in you equation, it is in the collateral damage that may result by the Government sticking their nose into the market.

The government is another customer buying goods and services in an open market. Why are they not allowed to buy whereever they get the most benefit just like anybody else?

When you tell companies they can not buy goods from Canada, Canadians have the right to reciprocate by not buying goods from the U.S. So you better be very sure that Store A's extra $.50 sent back will cover all them other stores that will lose money due to Canada returning the favor.

Canadians, or anybody else, need to realize that a government doing business with the people that pay it taxes makes sense for that government financially due to the additional taxes those businesses generate. It has the net effect of reducing the total financial outlay. It's not anti-trade, is pro-financial efficiencey and responsibility. The same applies to the Canadian government. That is where any reciprocation should be. It makes sense for everybody.

It is a slippery slope that may or may not work to our advantage! In theory I have no problem with any country buying local, I believe we all should buy local rather than spend away. I believe we should support the local feed store rather than drive 30 miles to save money at another. But passing laws and regulating it can and will have collateral damage!

People need to mellow out and get priorities in order. The government can't spend wisely because of "trade". We can't enact foot safety laws because of "trade" We can't enforce traffic laws because of "trade", states can't have the gambling lawsthe people want because of "trade", etc....., it's rediculous. I'm not anti-trade and I do realize the benefits of trade, but our everyday lives can't revolve on "trade" and "trade" can't be the trump card in every decison that we make.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Isolationsim won't solve anything. People need other people, countries need other countries. Even bankers can't depend 100% on their own little community to keep the money of their depositors invested "locally". Wha if the bank board restricted you to loans only to folks living "inside the city limits"?? Got any T-Bills on the books Sandy?? Fed Funds sold?? REO? We can fool ourselves into thinking "I do business only at home", but it cannot be the truth and never will be the truth.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
What if by mandating that you can not spend it at place B results in all of the sister companies of B (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,) stopping their purchasing from A as a protest.

I'd say that those companies are out of line. They are demanding government waste for their own benefit.

The problem is not necessarily in you equation, it is in the collateral damage that may result by the Government sticking their nose into the market.

The government is another customer buying goods and services in an open market. Why are they not allowed to buy whereever they get the most benefit just like anybody else?

When you tell companies they can not buy goods from Canada, Canadians have the right to reciprocate by not buying goods from the U.S. So you better be very sure that Store A's extra $.50 sent back will cover all them other stores that will lose money due to Canada returning the favor.

Canadians, or anybody else, need to realize that a government doing business with the people that pay it taxes makes sense for that government financially due to the additional taxes those businesses generate. It has the net effect of reducing the total financial outlay. It's not anti-trade, is pro-financial efficiencey and responsibility. The same applies to the Canadian government. That is where any reciprocation should be. It makes sense for everybody.

It is a slippery slope that may or may not work to our advantage! In theory I have no problem with any country buying local, I believe we all should buy local rather than spend away. I believe we should support the local feed store rather than drive 30 miles to save money at another. But passing laws and regulating it can and will have collateral damage!

People need to mellow out and get priorities in order. The government can't spend wisely because of "trade". We can't enact foot safety laws because of "trade" We can't enforce traffic laws because of "trade", states can't have the gambling lawsthe people want because of "trade", etc....., it's rediculous. I'm not anti-trade and I do realize the benefits of trade, but our everyday lives can't revolve on "trade" and "trade" can't be the trump card in every decison that we make.

As I have said I have no problem with buying local rather it is County, State or Country.

But when the Government mandates it and Canada turns out the loser on the deal, and people that were buying from Canada in past are now forced to buy elsewhere. Then if I was Canada I would return the favor, but not as you suggested, I would say screw the U.S. if we do not have it locally then we will buy from China, Korea or anyone else we can EXCEPT the U.S.

You are wanting to save a dollar but risk losing 10 dollars.

Why is it fiscally responsible to say buy U.S. in one area such as lumber, but cost another area say such as Agriculture money because Canadians decides to buy a Kubota instead of a John Deere?

Canada and U.S. are to interwoven economically to discard them!
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
What if by mandating that you can not spend it at place B results in all of the sister companies of B (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,) stopping their purchasing from A as a protest.

I'd say that those companies are out of line. They are demanding government waste for their own benefit.

The problem is not necessarily in you equation, it is in the collateral damage that may result by the Government sticking their nose into the market.

The government is another customer buying goods and services in an open market. Why are they not allowed to buy whereever they get the most benefit just like anybody else?

When you tell companies they can not buy goods from Canada, Canadians have the right to reciprocate by not buying goods from the U.S. So you better be very sure that Store A's extra $.50 sent back will cover all them other stores that will lose money due to Canada returning the favor.

Canadians, or anybody else, need to realize that a government doing business with the people that pay it taxes makes sense for that government financially due to the additional taxes those businesses generate. It has the net effect of reducing the total financial outlay. It's not anti-trade, is pro-financial efficiencey and responsibility. The same applies to the Canadian government. That is where any reciprocation should be. It makes sense for everybody.

It is a slippery slope that may or may not work to our advantage! In theory I have no problem with any country buying local, I believe we all should buy local rather than spend away. I believe we should support the local feed store rather than drive 30 miles to save money at another. But passing laws and regulating it can and will have collateral damage!

People need to mellow out and get priorities in order. The government can't spend wisely because of "trade". We can't enact foot safety laws because of "trade" We can't enforce traffic laws because of "trade", states can't have the gambling lawsthe people want because of "trade", etc....., it's rediculous. I'm not anti-trade and I do realize the benefits of trade, but our everyday lives can't revolve on "trade" and "trade" can't be the trump card in every decison that we make.

As I have said I have no problem with buying local rather it is County, State or Country.

But when the Government mandates it and Canada turns out the loser on the deal, and people that were buying from Canada in past are now forced to buy elsewhere. Then if I was Canada I would return the favor, but not as you suggested, I would say screw the U.S. if we do not have it locally then we will buy from China, Korea or anyone else we can EXCEPT the U.S.

You are wanting to save a dollar but risk losing 10 dollars.

Why is it fiscally responsible to say buy U.S. in one area such as lumber, but cost another area say such as Agriculture money because Canadians decides to buy a Kubota instead of a John Deere?

Canada and U.S. are to interwoven economically to discard them!

alright.....who are you and what have you done with Aplus??!!!! :lol: :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Isolationsim won't solve anything. People need other people, countries need other countries. Even bankers can't depend 100% on their own little community to keep the money of their depositors invested "locally". Wha if the bank board restricted you to loans only to folks living "inside the city limits"?? Got any T-Bills on the books Sandy?? Fed Funds sold?? REO? We can fool ourselves into thinking "I do business only at home", but it cannot be the truth and never will be the truth.

I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm advocating spending money wisely. This whole discussion illustrates one of my points that "trade" has gotten out of hand and our priorities skewed when tax payer money has to be pissed away so as not to violate the trade gods.

Your bank example is a poor comparison, TB. When a bank puts out money for a loan, they make the profit one time on one event; when interest is collected at payment. That profit is also the same whether the loan was made in my home town, the next town, another state, etc.... it's the same dollar amount. It's not the same with a government because the government can get paid many times off that same initial outlay because they get paid on economic activity, not a set amount. Everytime a dollar exchanges hands between entities, that creates a taxable event and the government takes a cut on each one. Therefore, the government can get paid 3,4,5 even more times from that one outlay.

The bank puts out $100 and makes it's $5 once and that's it. A government puts out $100 and takes in $5 from the company that got it's funds, $5 from the employee of the company, $5 from the supplier of the company, $5 from the employee of the supplier, etc..... Depending on how many times that dollar changes hands, creating taxes with every bounce, theoretically, the government could get half of it's money back. Therefore, unless the domestic people are out of line with their prices, how can there be any question where to buy from?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Sandhusker said:
What if by mandating that you can not spend it at place B results in all of the sister companies of B (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,) stopping their purchasing from A as a protest.

I'd say that those companies are out of line. They are demanding government waste for their own benefit.

The problem is not necessarily in you equation, it is in the collateral damage that may result by the Government sticking their nose into the market.

The government is another customer buying goods and services in an open market. Why are they not allowed to buy whereever they get the most benefit just like anybody else?

When you tell companies they can not buy goods from Canada, Canadians have the right to reciprocate by not buying goods from the U.S. So you better be very sure that Store A's extra $.50 sent back will cover all them other stores that will lose money due to Canada returning the favor.

Canadians, or anybody else, need to realize that a government doing business with the people that pay it taxes makes sense for that government financially due to the additional taxes those businesses generate. It has the net effect of reducing the total financial outlay. It's not anti-trade, is pro-financial efficiencey and responsibility. The same applies to the Canadian government. That is where any reciprocation should be. It makes sense for everybody.

It is a slippery slope that may or may not work to our advantage! In theory I have no problem with any country buying local, I believe we all should buy local rather than spend away. I believe we should support the local feed store rather than drive 30 miles to save money at another. But passing laws and regulating it can and will have collateral damage!

People need to mellow out and get priorities in order. The government can't spend wisely because of "trade". We can't enact foot safety laws because of "trade" We can't enforce traffic laws because of "trade", states can't have the gambling lawsthe people want because of "trade", etc....., it's rediculous. I'm not anti-trade and I do realize the benefits of trade, but our everyday lives can't revolve on "trade" and "trade" can't be the trump card in every decison that we make.

As I have said I have no problem with buying local rather it is County, State or Country.

But when the Government mandates it and Canada turns out the loser on the deal, and people that were buying from Canada in past are now forced to buy elsewhere. Then if I was Canada I would return the favor, but not as you suggested, I would say screw the U.S. if we do not have it locally then we will buy from China, Korea or anyone else we can EXCEPT the U.S.

You are wanting to save a dollar but risk losing 10 dollars.

Why is it fiscally responsible to say buy U.S. in one area such as lumber, but cost another area say such as Agriculture money because Canadians decides to buy a Kubota instead of a John Deere?

Canada and U.S. are to interwoven economically to discard them!

The Canadian government should be buying from Canadians for the exact same reasons. How then can they get torked?

If foreigners have a problem with our government putting fiscal responsibilty ahead of trade, then I say to hell with them. If that's the case, we don't have a trade agreement, we have extortion. What they're saying is "We demand that you piss away the taxpayer funds that you've got a fudiciary responsibility not to so that we can profit from it. If you don't violate your responsibility and give us a piece of your taxpayer's pie, we're going to make you sorry". That's crap.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The Canadian government should be buying from Canadians for the exact same reasons. How then can they get torked?

If foreigners have a problem with our government putting fiscal responsibilty ahead of trade, then I say to hell with them. If that's the case, we don't have a trade agreement, we have extortion. What they're saying is "We demand that you p*** away the taxpayer funds that you've got a fudiciary responsibility not to so that we can profit from it. If you don't violate your responsibility and give us a piece of your taxpayer's pie, we're going to make you sorry". That's crap.

You've got your blinders on again today I see Sandy.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
The Canadian government should be buying from Canadians for the exact same reasons. How then can they get torked?

If foreigners have a problem with our government putting fiscal responsibilty ahead of trade, then I say to hell with them. If that's the case, we don't have a trade agreement, we have extortion. What they're saying is "We demand that you p*** away the taxpayer funds that you've got a fudiciary responsibility not to so that we can profit from it. If you don't violate your responsibility and give us a piece of your taxpayer's pie, we're going to make you sorry". That's crap.

You've got your blinders on again today I see Sandy.

If you belonged to a CO-OP, would that dividend have any bearing on where you bought your supplies?
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
Trade makes economies operate efficiently. Government intervention causes inefficiencies.

We trade with a whole bunch of countries. It seems like we go out of our way to trade with countries that are adversarial and go out of our way to tick off our friends.

Canada and the US share many common interests and need each other. Our economies function by a labor force that has shared values and a comparable standard of living. Countries like China and North Korea just love to sit back and see us work against each other.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
The Canadian government should be buying from Canadians for the exact same reasons. How then can they get torked?

If foreigners have a problem with our government putting fiscal responsibilty ahead of trade, then I say to hell with them. If that's the case, we don't have a trade agreement, we have extortion. What they're saying is "We demand that you p*** away the taxpayer funds that you've got a fudiciary responsibility not to so that we can profit from it. If you don't violate your responsibility and give us a piece of your taxpayer's pie, we're going to make you sorry". That's crap.

You've got your blinders on again today I see Sandy.

If you belonged to a CO-OP, would that dividend have any bearing on where you bought your supplies?

Yup. Do you think that dividend would have any bearing on where that CO-OP bought it's inventory (ie: price / margin / profit)?
 

Latest posts

Top