It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wouldn't A More Isolationist Stance Benefit The People of the US & Why Aren't We Adopting One?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Each year I find myself leaning towards this political stance more and more. Except for some key military locales pull back most all of our troops and plant them on our borders. Tariff incoming goods a little more. Definitely stop giving out hundreds of billions of dollars in aide when we ourselves are 17 trillion past broke. A strong case could be made for this.




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
To me this is a no brainer.

Tariff wars are always no brainers...until they start.

This will make a bad situation worse.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 



I agree with your assessment of the current situation. However isn't it a weakness and shouldn't we be trying to remedy it? I don't think it's impossible to re-build our manufacturing capacity, its a matter of giving businesses a reason to do so. I think some sort of limited protection introduced incrementally could do that.


I agree entirely with you and I'm sorry if my note sounded depressed. I guess I'm losing hope here that America will turn around and regain some of what has been lost over the last 15-20 years. At least, that it'll happen in my lifetime, which means to me? It never happens at all, right?

It IS a problem, how we've "outsourced" our polluting industry, hard work, ugly work and just generally unpleasant tasks to every nation in the world willing to do it for us. It's a HUGE problem ..and we SHOULD be capable of becoming isolationist with a large degree of self sufficiency.

I'm still not of the mind that doing that is a good idea, but it should be a choice made by merit and real world factors ...not a lack of choice because we've fallen so far..we can't even make our own widgets anymore.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


"more isolationist"?...probably

"isolationist"? ...no IMO

I think back to WW2, the last time the USA had an isolationist policy. Would the USA be in better shape if we had permitted Hitler to dominate Europe and never intervened? what would the global landscape look like today? It took us a while to jump in because of our isolationist disposition following WW1. would it have cost us less in lives and expense if we had intervened earlier?

So, to me the question is when and where we intervene. Today's economy and general security is a global affair, so pure isolationism seems not a valid choice. I do think that our criteria for intervention is warped and loose though. Sadam Hussien was not a risk for dominating the world and ditto with many of the Middle Eastern dictators. The hints of "Arab Spring" we have seen in recent years tell us that the region is capable of sorting itself out, even if it is a painful and disorganized process. We would be much better reserving our intervention for genuine "threats to our way of life", vs. the painful phrase "U.S. Interests" IMO. Give the rest of the world a little responsibility to police themselves and sort out their own government.
edit on 3-2-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I hjave thought exactlyg the same about my couintry the UK. I wish we had anb isolationist policy and kept our noses out of other country's business.

I also wish that the business of the City that has caused us so much hardship would either be regulated far more carefully or it would be transferred elsewhere.

Being one who remembers the UK in the 50's and 60's, life then was far better. There was then and always will be poverty but, for the majority we could afford food, heat our homes and enjoy our lives. there was no fear or distrust of the police, the banks seemed to run smoothly and one looked forward to the end of the week to enjoy the weekend.

Life then was uncomplicated but we never had the poverty, danger or stress in our lives and I would like that world for my Grand-
daughter to enjoy. True we weren't high earners but one could aspire to things if one wanted to work for them, which most did.

I know my wish is a step backwards for many, but when we were told in the 1960's/70's of the technology being developed we all thought that the 1990's would be fantastic with factories run by robots and the wealth shared around. Nothing has prepared us for what we actually live in today in the UK or the stresses that have now become part of everyday life. Its also unpleasant to see how the UK's politics pan out not only here but concerning people in other country's also.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
It would never work because too many members of congress are owned by foreign nations. Just look at members like McCain and Graham they should list their residence is in Israel seeing how many times they put Israel before America. Jefferson gave the best advice Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
One thing is clear , World is safer with US and NATO on top instead Russia or China on top.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

amazing
So hypothetically what would happen if we required USA companies to pay USA/identical wages to their workers in foreign call centers and manufacturing? I don't think there would be a way to do it but...imagine a world where Microsoft call centers in India paid as much as they would here. You'd have an instant middle class there with money to burn, jumpstarting the economy there, then imagine Apple factories in China paying as much as they would have to here and on and on and on. What would be the fall out? Just a thought.


This was and is the argument they use when advocating "free" trade. As it turns out the only thing that gets freely traded are our jobs. Largely because the trade deals that passed were designed and petitioned for to undercut the workforce here. We are now economically back to where we were in the heyday of Robber-Barons, we now call them the 1%. And just like then once they have accumulated so much wealth that the bottom will no longer be able to support their massive greed the whole thing will once again completely collapse.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 





For some reason, every time someone brings up isolationism, people start complaining about us leaving a power gap.


You should heed those warnings.

Russia-Russian Mafia.

China-Communism

Middle East- Religious fanaticism.

Take your pick.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


The US ended its isolation policy at the end of WW2 with the Truman Doctrine. Truman did not trust Stalin and left our troops in Europe, unlike WW1 where we brought them home. Then with rebuilding Europe, Korea, Viet Nam, and corporatism we are too entangled to go back now, IMO. Corporations would never go back to making millions instead of trillions.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
It would benefit the America people but globalist and multinational corporation interests are more important to the people in government than the interests of the American people. Simple as that really but don't worry they will destroy themselves in time and your grand children will probably live in a real nation that cares about its citizens as was the case a few generations ago. Just try to learn from the mistakes and keep that knowledge for more than a few generations this time.
edit on 20-2-2014 by john452 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Yes, Yes, Yes. I think that there should be a tariff on any goods entering the country that can be made hear instead. The tariff being equal to the difference in price. Every other country should do the same. If you can't make it here (very little for the US) then allow free trade.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 



Why would restricting imports and forcing the manufacture of more goods internally be a net deficit for the average person in the US? What would be wrong with incrementally restricting imports until our unemployment rate and wages stabilized at a level that preserves the standard of living of the average American? Sure the cost of certain goods would increase, but so would wages and employment. Right?


Because Americans get paid more than workers in most other countries, goods would become more expensive. As the price of living increases, workers would demand higher wages, forcing the cost of living higher, and so forth. The cost of living in the US has remained very stable for nearly two decades because labor has been exported to increasingly lower wage countries. In addition, placing legal barriers to imports would result in other nations placing American goods in embargo. The US would lose foreign markets, which would force a decrease in production and thus a loss of employment.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

buster2010
It would never work because too many members of congress are owned by foreign nations. Just look at members like McCain and Graham they should list their residence is in Israel seeing how many times they put Israel before America. Jefferson gave the best advice Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.


I agree, just like Senator Robert Menendez. It appears that corruption is alive and well in both parties.

www.crewsmostcorrupt.org...
www.judicialwatch.org...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

neo96


China-Communism





China communist?

You got to be kidding me.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join