Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Trump’s Waiver

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Trump’s Waiver

    Anybody who objects to Trump’s proposed waiver should start by reading this article:


    President Trump is considering granting waivers to bypass the Jones Act, a century-old law law regulating domestic maritime commerce, to ease the transport of natural gas to the Northeast and Puerto Rico.

    Enacted in 1920, the Jones Act prohibits tankers from hauling goods and commodities, such as oil or natural gas, between U.S. ports unless the ships are American made, owned, and crewed. The Jones Act was designed to protect American maritime interests and shipbuilders, and the industry has repeatedly fended off attempts in Congress to repeal it, with coastal lawmakers stepping in to save it. Jones Act boosters warn waivers would harm American jobs.

    But some oil and gas industry officials argue the law is hampering Trump’s “energy dominance agenda” by effectively prohibiting areas of the country that lack energy resources, and suffer from high prices, from receiving U.S.-produced natural gas.
    Editorial Director Hugo Gurdon on the expanded Washington Examiner magazine
    Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

    “Jones Act waivers are a commonsense solution to meet the energy needs of Americans in Northeast and Puerto Rico,” said Dan Eberhart, CEO of the oil services firm Canary and a Trump donor. “There’s no good argument for not granting waivers, except for the protests of special interest, which often win out in swampy D.C.”

    For Trump, who has not decided what to do, the debate over the Jones Act presents a conflict between his instinct to loosen restrictions on infrastructure and energy development and his promise to support American jobs and traditional U.S. industries.

    The problem with the current situation is twofold, according to supporters of waivers for natural gas.

    There is a shortage of pipelines from gas-rich Pennsylvania to the Northeast, partly because of opposition to fossil fuel infrastructure in New York. Puerto Rico cannot be reached by pipeline.

    A workaround to this problem could be using ships along U.S. coasts to transport liquefied natural gas, or LNG — the chilled, liquid form to which gas must be converted for shipment across seas — to the Northeast and Puerto Rico.

    But there are no Jones Act-compliant tankers that can transport liquefied natural gas, so U.S. companies must turn to importing higher-priced LNG from overseas.

    In an extreme situation often cited by industry and the Trump administration, the New England area during a cold snap in January 2018 was forced to import natural gas from Russia at the Everett LNG terminal near Boston.

    “The Jones Act is economic protectionism, pure and simple,” said Tom Pyle, president of the free-market American Energy Alliance and Trump's former Energy Department transition team leader. “A waiver for LNG vessels would enable the citizens of New England to work around New York Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo’s pipeline embargo with domestic natural gas instead of shipments of Russian LNG.”

    The Puerto Rican government has requested the Trump administration grant a 10-year waiver to allow foreign-flagged ships to deliver natural gas to the U.S. territory, in order to help combat high energy prices after Hurricane Maria destroyed the country’s electric grid.

    Bipartisan leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have called on the Department of Homeland Security to deny Puerto Rico’s request, because waivers are intended to be given for national security reasons, not economic ones.

    Billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm, the chairman of Continental Resources Inc. and a former Trump energy adviser, is among those pushing the White House to grant Jones Act waivers for the Northeast, according to industry sources.

    Charlie Riedl, the executive director of the Center for Liquified Natural Gas, is also calling for a waiver.

    "Both Puerto Rico and the Northeast need our LNG to help relieve demand for power and heat while they wait for pipelines and infrastructure to be built," Riedl told the Washington Examiner. "It’s absurd to let this situation continue and punishes the Americans who need it the most.”

    A waiver, supporters say, would enable the shipment of natural gas from Gulf Coast export facilities to Northeast receiving terminals, such as the Everett LNG terminal near Boston.

    Carol Churchill, a spokeswoman for Exelon, the company that runs the Everett terminal, told the Washington Examiner that Exelon currently sources its LNG from Trinidad because of the Jones Act limitations. She did not say whether Exelon supports a Jones Act waiver, but, she added, “we are exploring all options for ensuring our facilities continue to provide New England energy consumers with reliable electric and natural gas service.”

    Other oil and gas industry trade groups, meanwhile, are not explicitly endorsing the need for a Jones Act waiver.

    Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, said the Trump administration should focus first on streamlining approvals of new pipelines, which the president sought to do with a recent executive order intended to limit states’ power to block projects.

    “While API supports the administration’s goal of providing clean, affordable and reliable natural gas to New England, the real issue is the lack of pipeline infrastructure to bring this abundant source of energy to all Americans,” Porter told the Washington Examiner.

    Don Santa, the president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, expressed a similar sentiment, saying that LNG delivered by tanker is only a "short-term solution."

    Darrell Conner, a registered lobbyist with the American Maritime Partnership, said U.S. shipping companies have not been incentivized to build and operate a Jones Act-compliant ship for LNG because the market has not demanded it.

    "The market has not required the need for such a ship,” Conner said. “Shipping companies haven’t found interest in those tankers, whether for Puerto Rico, the Northeast, or anywhere."

    "The administration should put the commercial players in the room, have a conversation and if there is a real market to develop, the market will develop,” Conner added. “You don't need government intervention to create that marketplace."

    Trump debates waiving Jones Act to ship natural gas to New England and Puerto Rico
    by Josh Siegel
    April 27, 2019 12:00 AM

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...nd-puerto-rico



    As far as I know not one LNG flies the American flag today.

    When Trump said he wanted to bring jobs back to the steel industry he never mentioned merchant ships made of steel.

    On Wednesday, DHS officials said that the administration was considering lifting the law, which bans foreign-flagged ships from carrying freight between U.S. ports.

    As a reminder, The 1920 Jones Act requires shipments of goods between two U.S. ports to be made with American-flagged vessels, limiting the amount of shipping and driving up its cost, and had been holding up shipments of much needed support equipment and supplies for Puerto Rico.

    President Trump Waives Jones Act, Enables Rescue Shipments For Puerto Rico
    by Tyler Durden
    Sep 28, 2017 8:25 AM

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ts-puerto-rico

    The Jones Act stipulates that cargo traveling from one American port to another had to go on American bottoms. Big deal! Aside from the Hawaii and Alaska trade — they were not even states at the time 50/50 became law —— how much interstate cargo actually travels on ocean-going vessels?

    After Trump put steel tariffs in place he should have began pushing Congress to repeal The Cargo Preference Act (50/50). Outsourcing the U.S. Merchant Marine —— and shipbuilding —— was the beginning of outsourcing industries.

    NOTE: There used to be private sector shipyards up and down the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, as well as yards in Gulf of Mexico ports. What 50/50 contributed to the decease in American steel production is obvious as any displaced steelworker will tell you. As far as I know, there are no shipyards operating in the United States that build or repair oceangoing merchant ships. The few remaining yards build military vessels. There are still one or two American yards that build smaller commercial vessels like fishing boats, tow boats, barges, etc.

    Here is a brief history of U.S. yards that built LNGs:


    Before WWII there were dozens of American steamship companies. The last time I looked there were only two American companies plying international waters that could actually be called respectable steamship companies; American President Lines and Lykes Lines. (Oil company tanker fleets do not count because tankers are not ships. The two are defined as ships and tankers.)

    NOTE: There is not one passenger ship flying the American flag.

    Aside from the obvious differences in design and purpose, merchant ships are not simply “ships.” Ocean-going vessels are political animals with significant political distinctions. For instance: The petroleum tanker lobby will always have more clout in Congress than does the bulk carrier lobby, coal, grain, etc. Now that President Trump claims “America First” let us hope that somebody in Washington takes a look at bringing two vital industries back to the United States irrespective of the type of vessel involved, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of American workers those two industries will employ.

    The demise of the American merchant fleet can be attributed to the Cargo Preference Act.

    That one law legitimated the greed of steamship owners: cheap labor, inferior food, unsafe working conditions for the crews on monkey flag ships, no medical or pension plans, etc.

    During the years the American Merchant Marine was shrinking, the argument that was always used to justify the reduction said that American companies could not compete with cheap foreign labor. The truth is that crew salaries never bankrupted any American steamship company; whereas, mismanagement and political corruption destroyed quite a few. During my career at sea, Japan, Denmark, Canada, and one or two other maritime nations paid their unionized crews higher salaries than American seaman were earning, with more fringe benefits. Those merchant fleets did extremely well.

    The United States is practically surrounded by water, yet it has no merchant marine worth speaking about. So it is time lawmakers consider repealing the Cargo Preference Act —— and leave the Jones Act alone.

    That Cargo Preference Act came about after the end of WWII. I mistakenly thought Truman signed it, but it was Eisenhower in 1954. No matter. The U.S. was the only country that had anything at the time; so giving away the American Merchant Marine, and the American shipbuilding industry, was considered good touchy-feely policy in addition to a major step toward a global government.

    The 50/50 law says that NOT MORE THAN fifty percent of American cargo leaving American ports can go on American bottoms. In other words, the U.S. said that it would give foreign countries fifty percent of America’s oceangoing exports. (50/50 was increased to 75/25 in 1985 with the U.S. on the short end.)

    This is what actually happened under 50/50. Financial wizards immediately saw that if they put only one percent of American cargo going foreign on American ships they would not violate the law. Ergo, the race for the lowest percentage of export cargo put on American bottoms began, and down went the American Merchant Marine along with the American shipbuilding industry. That is called treason in every universe except on Wall Street and in the Washington swamp.

    The U.S. could have helped war-torn countries in 1954 and still guaranteed a substantial American maritime industry, including shipbuilding, had the law said NOT LESS THAN fifty percent of all cargo going foreign MUST go on American bottoms. Unfortunately for the country, the global villagers were sneaks from day one and would not hear of it.

    NOTE: President Wilson’s disciples began lobbying for federal legislation similar to 50/50 thirty years before Eisenhower signed that destructive policy into law.

    Then there is the threat to national security made possible by a seaman’s politically incorrect joke —— monkey flags.


    “The search has been hampered by the controversial 'flags of convenience' system, under which many ships are registered as Panamanian, Liberian or Cypriot to avoid stringent checks on their crews and cargoes.

    News of the hunt broke as British anti-terrorist officers continue to search the London-bound MV Nisha, seized off the south coast of England on Friday in a dramatic raid by Royal Navy units, including the Special Boat Service (SBS). The ship, which lay off Sandown Bay in the Isle of Wight last night, was flying the flag of St Vincent and the Grenadines, in the West Indies. The tiny Caribbean nation has a population of just 111,000, but 1,336 vessels fly its flag.”

    Hunt for 20 terror ships
    Martin Bright, Paul Harrisand and Nick Paton Walsh
    Saturday 22 December 2001 22.14 EST

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...r11.terrorism1

    WWII ended 74 years ago. The war-torn countries have been rebuilt. So the time has come to rebuild the American merchant fleet with American steel. Then crew those ships with American born seamen. If President Trump and the members of Congress are serious about an economy that works for the American people a revitalized maritime industry is staring them right in the face.

    Parenthetically, if the American maritime industry is not going to be rebuilt, the government should take a long look at shutting down the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. It makes no sense to continue training people to work on merchant ships this country does not have.

    Finally, I am all for trade agreements on a level playing field because they are good for everyone. I am not for giving away American jobs for any reason. Outsourcing jobs should NOT automatically accompany a trade agreement if the people in Washington negotiating trade deals would abandon their global village tendencies once and for all. Naturally, that means grabbing crooks by the scruff of their necks and jerking them out of the public feed tub. Then nobody can steal as much as a tax dollar parasite and get away with it.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 27 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    So what is the reason that American ships can't deliver it again?

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    So what is the reason that American ships can't deliver it again?
    To Spookycolt: Please clarify your response.

    You are new; so I should tell you that I decide which questions I answer. If you plan on reading and responding to my threads you will have to do a lot better than your first attempt.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 27 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Not rocket science here.


    The Jones act says American ships with American crews must deliver the natural gas, so why don't they?

    Are you implying that America has no ability to transport natural gas but a nations like Ethiopia does?

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Not rocket science here.
    To Spookycolt: Obviously you are not Robert Goddard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    The Jones act says American ships with American crews must deliver the natural gas,

    To Spookycolt: You are either deliberately combining the laws, or you do not understand the difference between the Jones Act and the Cargo Preference Law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The Jones Act stipulates that cargo traveling from one American port to another had to go on American bottoms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    so why don't they?

    To Spookycolt: The Cargo Preference Law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Are you implying that America has no ability to transport natural gas but a nations like Ethiopia does?

    To Spookycolt:
    I did not imply anything. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is your problem.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    UPDATE

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The Jones Act stipulates that cargo traveling from one American port to another had to go on American bottoms. Big deal! Aside from the Hawaii and Alaska trade — they were not even states at the time 50/50 became law —— how much interstate cargo actually travels on ocean-going vessels?

    After Trump put steel tariffs in place he should have began pushing Congress to repeal The Cargo Preference Act (50/50). Outsourcing the U.S. Merchant Marine —— and shipbuilding —— was the beginning of outsourcing industries.

    NOTE: There used to be private sector shipyards up and down the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, as well as yards in Gulf of Mexico ports. What 50/50 contributed to the decease in American steel production is obvious as any displaced steelworker will tell you. As far as I know, there are no shipyards operating in the United States that build or repair oceangoing merchant ships. The few remaining yards build military vessels. There are still one or two American yards that build smaller commercial vessels like fishing boats, tow boats, barges, etc.

    XXXXX

    The United States is practically surrounded by water, yet it has no merchant marine worth speaking about. So it is time lawmakers consider repealing the Cargo Preference Act —— and leave the Jones Act alone.
    “Some Americans” means Democrats:

    2020 is the 100th anniversary of an important U.S. law that becomes more vital each year: the Jones Act. As the United States fends off China's effort to become the world's dominant economic and military power, this law has become especially important. Yet despite the law’s significance, some Americans want to repeal it, effectively allowing China to expand their ocean dominance by moving into America's domestic waters.

    Will America's Ships Survive the Year of the Rat?
    Congressman Ernest Istook
    Posted: Jan 25, 2020 12:01 AM

    https://townhall.com/columnists/cong...e-rat-n2560075

    Let me close with a:

    MINI BIO

    Congressman Ernest Istook

    Ernest Istook is a former U.S. Congressman who served 14 years representing Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District. He was one of four co-founders who re-established the House Republican Study Committee and was named one of the Top 20 Conservatives in the House of Representatives. Before Congress, Istook served in local and state government in Oklahoma; he was the state’s Republican nominee for Governor in 2006. Since leaving Congress, Istook was a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and also a Fellow at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. He currently is a fellow with Frontiers of Freedom and also teaches political science at Utah Valley University.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/cong...nernestistook/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    4,147
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 1,432 Times in 1,124 Posts
    Groans
    117
    Groaned 158 Times in 148 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Spookycolt: Please clarify your response.

    You are new; so I should tell you that I decide which questions I answer. If you plan on reading and responding to my threads you will have to do a lot better than your first attempt.

    What a DICK !

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    UPDATE


    Earlier this month, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 or “Jones Act” as it is commonly referred to, turned 100 years old. For the last century, this important piece of legislation has ensured that at least one vital industry has not been exported in the name of nominal economic gains and wouldn’t contribute to the continuing marginalization of “America First” policy in the name of globalism -- shipbuilding.

    June 27, 2020
    Missing the point on the Jones Act
    By Julio Rivera

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...jones_act.html

    They missed the boat on the entire merchant marine:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The Jones Act stipulates that cargo traveling from one American port to another had to go on American bottoms. Big deal! Aside from the Hawaii and Alaska trade — they were not even states at the time 50/50 became law —— how much interstate cargo actually travels on ocean-going vessels?

    After Trump put steel tariffs in place he should have began pushing Congress to repeal The Cargo Preference Act (50/50). Outsourcing the U.S. Merchant Marine —— and shipbuilding —— was the beginning of outsourcing industries.
    WWII kept the merchant marine on life support. After the war ended Americans got the United Nations and monkey flags.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The 50/50 law says that NOT MORE THAN fifty percent of American cargo leaving American ports can go on American bottoms. In other words, the U.S. said that it would give foreign countries fifty percent of America’s oceangoing exports. (50/50 was increased to 75/25 in 1985 with the U.S. on the short end.)

    This is what actually happened under 50/50. Financial wizards immediately saw that if they put only one percent of American cargo going foreign on American ships they would not violate the law. Ergo, the race for the lowest percentage of export cargo put on American bottoms began, and down went the American Merchant Marine along with the American shipbuilding industry. That is called treason in every universe except on Wall Street and in the Washington swamp.

    The U.S. could have helped war-torn countries in 1954 and still guaranteed a substantial American maritime industry, including shipbuilding, had the law said NOT LESS THAN fifty percent of all cargo going foreign MUST go on American bottoms. Unfortunately for the country, the global villagers were sneaks from day one and would not hear of it.


    NOTE:
    President Wilson’s disciples began lobbying for federal legislation similar to 50/50 thirty years before Eisenhower signed that destructive policy into law.

    Then there is the threat to national security made possible by a seaman’s politically incorrect joke —— monkey flags.

    “The search has been hampered by the controversial 'flags of convenience' system, under which many ships are registered as Panamanian, Liberian or Cypriot to avoid stringent checks on their crews and cargoes.

    XXXXX

    . . . more than 41,000 transcontinental ships that move 90% of the world’s trade on container ships and tankers. Typically, they are rarely built, owned, or worked by American crews. Communist China as well as other Asian nations already dominate the construction of this fleet.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    UPDATE

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The demise of the American merchant fleet can be attributed to the Cargo Preference Act (50/50).

    That one law legitimated the greed of steamship owners: cheap labor, inferior food, unsafe working conditions for the crews on monkey flag ships, no medical or pension plans, etc.

    During the years the American Merchant Marine was shrinking, the argument that was always used to justify the reduction said that American companies could not compete with cheap foreign labor. The truth is that crew salaries never bankrupted any American steamship company; whereas, mismanagement and political corruption destroyed quite a few. During my career at sea, Japan, Denmark, Canada, and one or two other maritime nations paid their unionized crews higher salaries than American seaman were earning, with more fringe benefits. Those merchant fleets did extremely well.
    In a forthcoming memoir of his time in the White House, You’re Hired!: Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President, Mulligan writes that Trump "hates" the Jones Act, describing it as the "type of harmful regulation that he has succeeded in ending in health insurance, telecommunications, farming, and many other industries." Mulligan also claims Trump dislikes the law on grounds of national interest as well as on free market principles. He says the president is dismayed that the American shipping industry lags far behind that of China and other countries and is irked that the U.S. doesn't have ships to transport liquefied natural gas.

    XXXXX

    Trump favored granting a narrow waiver for shipments of liquefied natural gas to Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, where energy costs are high and rely on foreign shippers, such as Russian companies, instead of U.S. ones because of the high costs imposed by the Jones Act.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post




    As far as I know not one LNG flies the American flag today.
    If flag vessels is their only problem American businessmen can purchase LNGs and crew them with American merchant seamen.

    The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, has concluded that both New England and Puerto Rico have significantly higher energy costs because of the law.

    I can make the case that Puerto Rico is not a state; hence, not covered by the Jones Act which brings me back to oceangoing vessels and 50/50:


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The Jones Act stipulates that cargo traveling from one American port to another had to go on American bottoms. Big deal! Aside from the Hawaii and Alaska trade — they were not even states at the time 50/50 became law —— how much interstate cargo actually travels on ocean-going vessels?

    After Trump put steel tariffs in place he should have began pushing Congress to repeal The Cargo Preference Act (50/50). Outsourcing the U.S. Merchant Marine —— and shipbuilding —— was the beginning of outsourcing industries.
    NOTHING WENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA. EVERYTHING WENT TO COMMUNIST CHINA (People's Republic of China) AFTER THE CHICOMS WERE SEATED IN THE UNITED NATION (1971).


    This is not ethical journalism, simply a hit piece that advances the cause of free market ideologues and corporate interests that want to offshore our shipbuilding industry to the sweat shops of China."

    Trump backed off shipping reform under political pressure, former advisers claim
    by Nihal Krishan
    July 12, 2020 12:00 AM

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...advisers-claim
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,029
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,918 Times in 13,188 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    The problem isn't building the ships, the problem is government regulations on inspecting, and operating them under a US flag. Construction of the ship is a sunk, one-time cost. Operating it is an ongoing one that is much higher when you are flagging it in the US. That's the bottleneck to this proposal.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The problem isn't building the ships, the problem is government regulations on inspecting, and operating them under a US flag. Construction of the ship is a sunk, one-time cost. Operating it is an ongoing one that is much higher when you are flagging it in the US. That's the bottleneck to this proposal.

    To T. A. Gardner:
    I cannot see your point. The cost of doing business applies when you build a factory or corporate headquarters.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. "Draining the Swamp": Trump Hands Out ANOTHER Ethics Waiver
    By ZappasGuitar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-14-2018, 10:42 AM
  2. Mattis gets his waiver!
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-12-2017, 06:18 PM
  3. US tightens visa waiver program; will you hail Obama?
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2015, 04:58 PM
  4. The state of Maine get waiver from health bill
    By tinfoil in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 08:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •