Do you support the trade embargo on Cuba?

[Barnes]

I, as you might have guessed, am opposed to it.

[justW353]

Democrat, strongly opposed.

[dead0man]

Ind-no

[Ban my account ffs!]

No.  Lift it now.

[Franzl]

No.  Lift it now.

[Earth]

Strongly opposed.

[fezzyfestoon]

Strongly opposed.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Pointless and self-defeating.

[Lunar]

What's the argument FOR it, again, which doesn't apply more so to countries we freely trade with?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

It could ruin fancy tourism to see old-school stuffs in a Latino context, maybe.

Seems to be more a kind of 'who will watch the ground the 1st' kind of thing, if it makes sense in English.

[Derek]

I'm on the fence.

[Lunar]

I'm on the fence.

Would be funnier if this debate were about immigration policy.

[Torie]

Yes. Castro needs to assume room temperature, and his brother needs to introduce some basic human rights first, and let the political prisoners out of jail. We don't need Cuba; it needs the USA more. So this moral statement is practicable.

I do oppose the travel restrictions against going to Cuba though for US citizens, which strike me as both bad policy, and if not unconstitutional (the right to travel and all), should be so ruled. At least that is my initial inclination without knowing more about the legal intricacies.

[Lunar]

Yes. Castro needs to assume room temperature, and his brother needs to introduce some basic human rights first, and let the political prisoners out of jail. We don't need Cuba; it needs the USA more. So this moral statement is practicable.

Should the United States institute trade embargoes against all countries with human rights problems that we think we can affect through said trade embargoes in 6-7 decades?  

Obviously your standard would preclude China, as both countries would be devastated by such a policy, but you have no problem with such rampant hypocrisy for such esoteric goals?

[Torie]

Yes. Castro needs to assume room temperature, and his brother needs to introduce some basic human rights first, and let the political prisoners out of jail. We don't need Cuba; it needs the USA more. So this moral statement is practicable.

Should the United States institute trade embargoes against all countries with human rights problems that we think we can affect through said trade embargoes in 6-7 decades?  

Obviously your standard would preclude China, as both countries would be devastated by such a policy, but you have no problem with such rampant hypocrisy for such esoteric goals?

No. Life is a balancing test. Sometimes, one can afford to make a statement, and sometimes one cannot. It is not hypocrisy, it is just doing what is right and practicable, and both must obtain. And obviously a trade embargo against some tyranny in Africa, might make zero difference economically to the country in question. But Cuba is hurt by our embargo, which is why Castro rails against it. It bites. I feel no real need to reduce the economic problems of the Castro regime. In fact, keeping him underfunded is just what the doctor ordered, since with excess cash, Castro in the past has used it to cause mischief elsewhere.

[Lunar]

So the United States should issue trade embargoes to defund all countries with human rights problems in which there would not be a corresponding economic backlash on our GDP?  Even if it takes 60 years?  The US should just pick and choose these countries, not based on their abuses or anything, but rather based how much they depend on us in some sort of ratio compared to how much we depend on them?  And if this "depending on us" doesn't result in a change of policy after 60-70-100 years...?

What happened to the free-trader in you Torie?    Open trade increases benefits for both countries!  And, actually, there are plenty of political scientists that believe the opening up of countries economically on the international scene has done a lot towards liberalizing their regimes (China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, etcetc).  I know that open-market believer is in you, even if he's hiding on this particular issue.

Castro and his brother are geezers, they aren't going to cause some sort of significant international mischief the moment that trade relations are normalized to the same extent we've normalized them with Vietnam.  

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.  Lift it now.

[Torie]

So the United States should issue trade embargoes to defund all countries with human rights problems in which there would not be a corresponding economic backlash on our GDP?  Even if it takes 60 years?  The US should just pick and choose these countries, not based on their abuses or anything, but rather based how much they depend on us in some sort of ratio compared to how much we depend on them?  And if this "depending on us" doesn't result in a change of policy after 60-70-100 years...?

What happened to the free-trader in you Torie?    Open trade increases benefits for both countries!  And, actually, there are plenty of political scientists that believe the opening up of countries economically on the international scene has done a lot towards liberalizing their regimes (China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, etcetc).  I know that open-market believer is in you, even if he's hiding on this particular issue.

Castro and his brother are geezers, they aren't going to cause some sort of significant international mischief the moment that trade relations are normalized to the same extent we've normalized them with Vietnam.  

Yes, the free market and free trade increases economic wealth on both sides Lunar, over time, typically. Yes indeed. Did you notice however, that I used the word "underfund" in my post?  Did that word have any meaning to you?  You know, life is not all about money.

And since they are geezers, and Castro is a sickie, what is the rush here?  With luck, Castro will be dead by Xmas. Heck if he dies, I might just celebrate the holiday this time, which would be a first in about 30 years.

Then, we can negotiate with Raul, and see what we can come up with. Just why the US should give the embargo up for nothing escapes me. The regime is tyrannical. There is no way the Left can put lipstick on that particular pig, and make it pretty.

[Torie]

No.  Lift it now.

Et tu Grumps? 

[Lunar]

So the United States should issue trade embargoes to defund all countries with human rights problems in which there would not be a corresponding economic backlash on our GDP?  Even if it takes 60 years?  The US should just pick and choose these countries, not based on their abuses or anything, but rather based how much they depend on us in some sort of ratio compared to how much we depend on them?  And if this "depending on us" doesn't result in a change of policy after 60-70-100 years...?

What happened to the free-trader in you Torie?    Open trade increases benefits for both countries!  And, actually, there are plenty of political scientists that believe the opening up of countries economically on the international scene has done a lot towards liberalizing their regimes (China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, etcetc).  I know that open-market believer is in you, even if he's hiding on this particular issue.

Castro and his brother are geezers, they aren't going to cause some sort of significant international mischief the moment that trade relations are normalized to the same extent we've normalized them with Vietnam.  

Yes, the free market and free trade increases economic wealth on both sides Lunar, over time, typically. Yes indeed. Did you notice however, that I used the word "defund" in my post?  Did that word have any meaning to you?  You know, life is not all about money.

I got that, and I think my points can still operate in your framework of your sick desire to cause a negative economic impact on the united states

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But Lunar, turn it around. Opening up China to Free trade has not had the effects many had hoped at reforming that country. So how can you argue that such a policy versus Cuba would make things any different except give Castro a nice stash of US dollars with which he can fund Communist rebels in South and Central America.

The answer is yes for the reasons Torie has stated.

We will open up Cuba to trade when Castro and his commie friends no longer rule the island.

[Torie]

The negative impact of the embargo on the US economy is about the equivalent of one day of the effect of Obama's deficit spending these days. I mean, what does Cuba have to sell that US consumers want, other than cigars?  (Sugar is out because the sugar industry keeps imports out period from everywhere.)  I am willing to cut my consumption of pot down by a bowl a day to help pay for it, to boot. Deal?  

[Lunar]

But Lunar, turn it around. Opening up China to Free trade has not had the effects many had hoped at reforming that country. So how can you argue that such a policy versus Cuba would make things any different except give Castro a nice stash of US dollars with which he can fund Communist rebels in South and Central America.

China hasn't become less oppressive since opening itself up globally [think early 90's]?

And neither has Vietnam?

I can ramble off poli-sci arguments as to why economic modernization & free markets help democratic institutions, but I'm keeping things simple.

[Lunar]

The negative impact of the embargo on the US economy is about the equivalent of one day of the effect of Obama's deficit spending these days. I mean, what does Cuba have to sell that US consumers want, other than cigars?  (Sugar is out because the sugar industry keeps imports out period from everywhere.)  I am willing to cut my consumption of pot down by a bowl a day to help pay for it, to boot. Deal?  

My point was joking.  Although having open trade with Cuba over the last 60 years would translate to more of a benefit than you depict, I think my arguments and critiques in the posts above can sustain themselves in even a world where there is an insignificant economic impact on the United States

p.s. I like deficit spending during recessions  But they require long-term plans to reduce the deficit afterwards, which, as indicated by Bush's tax cuts, invasion of Iraq, and Medicare spending, all of which was deficit spending that dwarfs Obama's deficit spending, no such political will exists even among alleged fiscal conservatives.  So there's a dilemma.

[The Mikado]

To Torie...people have been saying that Castro will die any day now for literally my entire lifetime.  The old bastard might outlive all of us due to sheer cussedness and his apparent deal with the devil.