[...] Read More here: redstate.com/pat_toomey/2012/06/20/america-vs-the-sugar-lobby/ [...]…

[...] There you will find 32166 more Infos: redstate.com/pat_toomey/2012/06/20/america-vs-the-sugar-lobby/ [...]…

[...] Read More: redstate.com/pat_toomey/2012/06/20/america-vs-the-sugar-lobby/ [...]…

[...] Read More here: redstate.com/pat_toomey/2012/06/20/america-vs-the-sugar-lobby/ [...]…

[...] Read More: redstate.com/pat_toomey/2012/06/20/america-vs-the-sugar-lobby/ [...]…

http://dev.moms4mom.com/questions/12134/whats-the-easiest-way-to-make-a-nice-photo-slideshow-with-a-song-on-a-dvd…

Thanks for your reply.

That doesn’t make sense.

I live in Palm Beach County and frequently drive through the sugar-cane farms. They employ a lot of people from Bell Glade, Clewiston, South Bay and Pakokee. Those people don’t get paid high wages. In fact, they get paid very low wages, and those towns are some of the poorest in the country. The poverty in which those people live is jaw-dropping: some of the worst I’ve ever seen (and I’ve been around).

So, something’s not adding up.

Check this our from American Sugar Alliance:

http://sugaralliance.org/images/stories/Sugar_Fact_Sheets_2012/cheaper-sugar-prices-dont-reach-consumers.pdf

Do you really think that if the cost of sugar was reduced, food prices would come down?

More to the point:

If companies that use sugar in manufacturing are taking their businesses elsewhere, it’s probably not to get cheaper sugar. Sugar costs simply do not constitute a high enough percentage of overall production costs to warrant relocation to a foreign county.

Labor costs, however, are another story. As cheaply as American sugar-harvest laborers are paid, laborers doing the same work in foreign countries are likely paid a lot less, constituting high enough overall cost reductions to support relocating.

Foreign countries probably offer other cost reductions, too: taxes, fees, regulatory compliance, transportation.

Foreign counties pay their workers a fraction of what even the lowest-paid US workers get. So, foreign countries can produce goods far more cheaply than the US, even with shipping costs included in the equation.

But if we import foreign-produced goods so we can have cheaper prices, we also decimate the US job market. If, using the sugar example, we allow foreign competition to wipe out the US sugar industry, we’ll put a few hundred thousand people out of work, and–now, here’s the kicker–prices won’t come down that much, if at all.

So, I do think we should stop subsidizine the US sugar industry, but I also think we should slap a 100-percent import tax on imported sugar, too.

I think we should do this because we enjoy a higher standard of living in this country. Our workers make more money. The US cannot compete with the cheaper labor costs in foreign countries without driving down wages here.

Now, that’s a huge problem. The “recession” we’ve been in for several years is consumer-lead. People aren’t spending because–and this is borne out in business reports–wages aren’t going up.

If we want to see our standard of living decreased to that of foreign countries, then we’ll allow them to compete here, and we’ll be forced to decrease our wages to compete. But if we want to maintain our standard of living, then we’ll make it very expensive for companies to use cheaper labor in foreign countries, for goods to sell in the US.

Personally, I’ll pay more for US made goods, knowing that my money is going into an American worker’s pocket and not to some third-world poop-hole where the workers get a dollar a day.

Competition’s benefits have their limits. You can’t just blithely endorse competition with dramatically cheaper labor in foreign countries without creating some huge problems here, and you can’t blithely turn your back on the people whose jobs are eliminated by unfair competition without sounding like real horse’s behind.

So, yeah, let’s stop subsidizing American sugar: immediately if not sooner. But let’s also give American sugar a level playing field on which to compete by artificially increasing the cost of sugar production in foreign counties–with massive import taxes–to offset their unfairly low labor costs.

Either that, or we can refuse to import their sugar unless they pay their workers what American workers get. That might solve two problems because immigrants would stop flooding into this country–and burdening our already over-burdened infrastructure–if they could make a decent living in their countries of origin. Let’s force the countries where they live to support their own populations.

I should go down to my nearest farmer and give them two thousand bucks out of my pocket. That is what these Senators voting YEA just did.

It is a shame that Saxby is no longer the candidate he was when he defeated Craig Mathis in 1994. I even remember him showing Mathis in Clinton’s pocket. Guess the same commercial can now be made about Saxby. Washington Beltway thinking does that to you.