McCain:Free Trade; Clinton, Obama: Intervention
The charts above (click to enlarge) are from Cato Institute's "Free Trade, Free Markets: Rating the Congress," an interactive web site that allows users to examine how Congress and its individual members have voted on bills and amendments affecting the freedom of Americans to trade and invest in the global economy.
You can search by individual member of Congress, or by a particular bill, or by party breakdown on a particular bill, see below:
Bottom Line: When it comes to the voting records of the main presidential candidates on free trade, John McCain is clearly a "Free Trader," Hillary Clinton is clearly an "Interventionist," and Obama is leaning towards being an "Interventionist." It's also the case that Republicans as a group have a much stronger free trade voting record than Democrats on most bills. With either Clinton or Obama in the White House, we can probably expect more protectionism and less free trade.
5 Comments:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766009
When even the Economist thinks that Obama & Clinton are out to lunch economically, it makes one wonder how far does the populist rhetoric really goes?
Will a President Obama be much different from Jimmy Carter? Heaven keep us from Mr. Obama's vision.
Well Obama is a well known socialist as is Clinton...
I guess most of you should've heard something about this by now...
Obama, Hagel, Cantwell Introduce Bill to Fight Global Poverty...
Any guesses how much this bit of socialist drivel will cost the productive in this country?
Yet the big eared lad doesn't want to be known as the socialist libtard that he is...
From the National Journal: Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
The long and the short of it, Obama will cost us money...
Juandos,
Must concur with your suggestion that this guy will cost us a lot of money without delivering a reduction in global poverty.
How is it that St. Obama can deliver results using the same failed methods that have been used for decades? Good intentions don't get the job done any more than throwing money at a problem (usually with the predictable result, that money is diverted by corrupt officials).
China has raised a greater number of people out of extreme poverty than billions in international aid.
"How is it that St. Obama can deliver results using the same failed methods that have been used for decades?"...
This begs the question anon @ 1:09 pm, are all those swooning at an Obama rally really that abysmally ignorant or so utterly stupid that they will listen to this man's inane babble and believe it?
The funny thing is that the best way to reduce global poverty is free trade.
Post a Comment
<< Home