I do not think the Republicans get the issue on Free Trade. They are all talking about the jobs lost and the pros and cons to that part of the issue. Most Americans do not mine the Free Trade if it is really Free Trade. So far many many countries want free trade with us as long as it is their products coming here. They just do not want ours. Some places only accept our products certain times of the year and some do not even allow that to be free. That is an issue I did not hear any of the Republicans talk about yesterday.

he clearly understands how two things have balloned our trade deficit. First, our corporate tax rates, which simply raises the cost of American goods even further into the uncompetitive stratosphere, and two, our dependence of foreign oil, which actually makes up the bulk of our trade deficit.

Not sure which one it was. Anyway, he mentioned the deficit and then brought up the trade deficit and how free trade was not actually free for the US. However, he didn't really offer any kind of solution so it didn't impress me that he actually brought it up.

I did notice one thing though, how they all pandered to the Unions. I thought that was kind of funny.

..although, I do not think we can 'fix' the problem without palying some "hardball" as a society.

That would mean FEWER foriegn made goods for us, and perhaps an economic downturn, as we get into a tarrif war with several other nations.

It would certainly dampen much of the World Economy for the Short Term, but it would put us on firmer ground in the future.

Of course, I bet we have no problem seeling our FOOD....

Tough issue, and like many others, to 'solve' it will cause some 'pain' to Americans in general.....

not always mean there is free trade. That just means our produts are not wanted. I am talking about like how Japan will only buy our fish just certain times of the year. Let it be competive. They do not. What if we only bought their cars only in the winter??? That is the issue. If they were to buy year round then things would be fair.

the only one who gets it. But a real leader has to deal with this part of the issue.

it is as simple as that.

Even Sen. Clinton, who has the gems of a good Healthcare Debate, tends to hide the fact that any such systme WILL cost the American Taxpayer in some form or manner.

By saying we will just "tax the rich," we may deflect that "pain," or at least the IMAGE of it, for most Americans, but if the rich have less $$$, they spend less $$$, and that would have some impact on the economy.

I wish that one of the debate monitors could somehow hold ALL the Debators to some fire and make them at least acknowledge some of the "tougher parts" of these "tough" issues....

That is why I could care less about the "debates" at this time.

These are nothing more than photo-ops for the Candidates to lure the Hard Left and Hard Right cores of their voters.

By saying we will just "tax the rich," we may deflect that "pain," or at least the IMAGE of it, for most Americans, but if the rich have less $$$, they spend less $$$, and that would have some impact on the economy.

I have never seen a time that the real rich stop spending. Money is not a reality to the top 5%.

small percentages of taxes. They are rich. One could remove 80% of the Fortune 500 personal wealth....and they'd STILL be able to buy anything they wanted whenever they wanted...

Back in the day of the booming middle class, back when the highest personal taxes were around 90%...the rich were still vastly richer than most.

Many...indeed most, of the wealthy in the early days of the nation BUILT their wealth from nothing. Enterprise and certain abilities were needed...to raise capital; but Henry Ford etc made their fortunes...

the BIG investments are what I am talking about.

Decrease the "profit" margins, or increase the "risk," and a lot of this $$ goes to personal "toys" rather than real investment.

It may not be enough to matter, as that all depends on the ECONOMY at the time. President Cinton raised taxes, yet, the economy kept going (and growing.)

I think there were a lot of different issues at play during that time (the "Peace Dividend, Coputer Boom, etc.), but a lot of it is due to the fact that Clinton/Gore did actually STREAMLINE Government, even if we are back to "wasteful" again.

In the end, it all depends on the SCALE of any tax increases, and HOW said tax revenue is spent.....

industry and not the rich. And most industry right now wants government to step in and do something about healtcare. My nephew use to work for a German Co. and they could not understand the healthcare cost. So while many COmpanies may stop expantion because of taxes, they are going to stop because of a lack of revenue now due to the added healthcare cost.