Reply #37: And nowhere did I claim that you didn't oppose lessened restrictions on trade. However, you're

[Occam Bandage]

clearly not reading past the first line of the post providing the answers for which you asked. The "tax breaks for corporate HQs" you talk about are only one small part of the most comprehensive protectionist package that has yet been proposed. You asked if he would cut the tax benefits for outsourcing companies. He would, and he would instead give them to companies that not only maintain their corporate headquarters in America, but which also do not ship jobs overseas (which was indeed in the original excerpt I posted; your failure to address that suggests either illiteracy or dishonesty), which do not restrict unionization, and which provide health care for their workers.

You're saying "Obama supports 'free trade.'" And I repeat: that is a meaningless statement, because "free trade" is a very, very broad term. Obama supports increasing restrictions on trade and outsourcing. He is not, however, in favor of scrapping all of our trade agreements entirely. However, that would be an absolutely terrible idea, which may partially explain why absolutely no candidate is in favor of such drastic an action, despite the large number of American protectionists.

You say, "cut the crap," but the phrase "Senator Obama supports 'free trade'" is pure political crap: it is meaningless drivel designed to appeal to those who do not remotely understand the issues they profess to care most about.