Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK...then that's a fair point. No argument there. I agree with nearly everything you said.
But earlier, you sounded more to me like you were defending the present business practices, which are horrible for this country....except the top few percent of extremely wealthy. If you're defending THAT, then i gotta disagree strongly.
No I was not defending I was against NAFTA and giving China MFN from the get go. Basic common sense would tell you who wins a trade war when there is a huge disparity in wages and benefits.
A tariff also picks winners and losers. The losers would be the American consumer and Amercan exports that would be shut out of foreign markets.
In a global economy the countries that close themselves off from trade with others are the biggest loser.
We were doing great with tariffs in a global economy, until Bill Clinton signed Nafta and then the nail in the coffin, the China Trade Act of 2000, right before he left office.
Do you realize that you are insulting the forums intelligence with your the {R} party is so great gibberish. Or is it that you have selective dementia? The {R} party was leading the charge on both NAFTA and giving China MFN,if I am wrong then you prove it. And lets see, who gave China permanent MFN status? A {R} controlled congress that's who. So give us break and please do not go on the show are you smarter then a 5th grader and embarrass yourself.
Right- These were policies fronted by the Clinton administration and signed into law BY CLINTON. I guess they did not cover that in your fifth grade class. I think I was in the thirty second grade at that time. Anytime you want to match IQ points and degrees, let me know, Slingblade. I do find your insults entertaining, however. Facts are terrible things for liberals.
"In China’s case, Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000.[3] PNTR paved the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000; it provides U.S. exporters of agricultural products the opportunity to benefit from China’s WTO agreements to reduce trade barriers and open its agricultural markets."
"Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[1][2] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: "…NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 04-20-2011 at 04:00 PM..
I think Trump totally has the right idea about the tariffs - that's what we should have been doing all along as opposed to shipping most of our manufacturing overseas.
I don't understand why people think a trade war would be such a bad thing - the idea of Trump's tariffs is so we'll make the things we need and want right here at home. That would bring jobs back by the millions, as well as raising our overall standard of living. Also, if China wants to close their borders to our goods, then we can just devalue our dollar, which would in turn devalue all that debt we owe them - and guess what? Not a darned thing they can do about it...LOL.
Trump might just be the man America needs to turn things around...one can hope, huh?
[quote=hawkeye2009;18815214]
"In China’s case, Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000.[3] PNTR paved the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000; it provides U.S. exporters of agricultural products the opportunity to benefit from China’s WTO agreements to reduce trade barriers and open its agricultural markets."
Thanks for proving my point that congress that was lead by {R}s voted to give China MFN :
Quote:
On June 24 the House of Representatives, on a 259-173 vote, supported President Clinton's decision to renew "most favored nation," or MFN, trade status for the People's Republic of China. The vote came after a gut-wrenching debate that highlighted the fissures in both parties about policy toward the last Communist world power. Rep. Gerald Solomon, the, conservative New York Republican who had been at the forefront of opposition, stood and applauded House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt for the Missouri Democrat's passionate speech attacking the Beijing regime's human-rights record, arguably the worst in world history. The speaker of the House, who by tradition rarely votes, made a point of voting for MFN, as did 146 Republicans and 112 Democrats. Other House Republican leaders, including Majority Leader Dick Armey and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, both of Texas, and Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner of Ohio supported renewing trade benefits to Beijing. John Kasich, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Budget Committee -- and who, like Gephardt, reportedly is considering a White House bid -- voted against the extension, as did International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman of New York. China wins House vote. (House of Representatives, most-favored-nation status)(Cover Story) - Insight on the News | HighBeam Research
I am sure you see Gingrich and 146 {R}s voted in favor, so you are wrong to think that it was all Clinton and his experts. I think it is dishonest to imply that they were innocent bystanders don't you?
"In China’s case, Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status in P.L. 106-286, President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000.[3] PNTR paved the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000; it provides U.S. exporters of agricultural products the opportunity to benefit from China’s WTO agreements to reduce trade barriers and open its agricultural markets."
Thanks for proving my point that congress that was lead by {R}s voted to give China MFN :
I am sure you see Gingrich and 146 {R}s voted in favor, so you are wrong to think that it was all Clinton and his experts. I think it is dishonest to imply that they were innocent bystanders don't you?
Not innocent bystanders at all, my fellow fifth grader. Note that there were 124 Democrats in favor as well.
This was not LAW until Clinton signed the bill into LAW with heartfelt endorsement. Keep in mind that Clinton could have vetoed the law. He did not, as there was widespread support among his democrats in the senate and congress.
This was the same situation for NAFTA. Any way you try to alter history, Clinton signed both NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status into LAW. It is Clinton's law and no amount of revisionist history can change that. I guess they go over that in sixth grade.
I think you need a little learnin' on the subject, as you have failed to grasp who spearheaded the re-evaluation of China most favored nation trade status to Congress- it was Clinton. Do a little readin' and maybe you won't look so ridiculous next time. It is really hilarious when the ill informed assume intellectual superiority and "school" the "ill-informed" about topics of which they are completely ignorant. It is certainly amusing.
[]In previous years, China’s eligibility for Most Favored Nation status had to be renewed
by Congress. Until 1994, the Clinton administration maintained that the United States
should use its economic leverage to promote democracy and respect for human rights in
China, a view Congress had supported. China was one of a handful of countries that had
to obtain an annual presidential waiver or extension of a waiver to continue their Most
Favored Nation status (MFN).
In 1994, President Clinton announced that he was recommending MFN status be granted
to China for another year despite Beijing’s failure to meet the human rights conditions set
forward in his Executive Order of the previous year (Executive Order 12850). He also
announced measures to promote human rights and civil society in China and the
continuance of certain sanctions on military technology and supplies; however,
preserving China’s MFN status essentially separated that issue from human rights
concerns.
In 1998 the term “Most Favored-Nation status” was changed to “Normal Trade Relations
(NTR)” to reflect the fact that nearly all U.S. trading partners have this trade status.
In 2000, China was on the verge of being accepted into the World Trade Organization
(WTO) after 14 years of negotiations. Since the basic principle of the WTO is that
member countries provide each other unconditional Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR), President Clinton asked Congress to amend the law requiring annual renewal of
Normal Trade Relations. In October of that year, bill H.R. 4444 was signed into law,
granting China PNTR (effective after China entered the WTO in November 2001).
The law established a Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of
China to monitor human rights and the development of rule of law in China. It also
provided for programs run by the Commerce, Labor, and State Departments to promote
the rule of law in China. This represents a shift in U.S. efforts to promote
democratization and human rights in China. Rather than punish human rights violations
by withholding normal trade relations, the goal now is to integrate China as much as
possible into international norms to promote liberalization.
Although human rights issues continue as a part of public policy discussion in 2009,
other issues, such as deepening trade and economic ties, the global financial crisis,
engagement on climate change, the war on terrorism, non-proliferation, and regional
security matters, have become more prominent in U.S. relations with China.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 04-20-2011 at 06:33 PM..
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Donald Trump's call for a 25% tariff on Chinese goods is winning him a lot of attention as he weighs a presidential run in 2012.
But Trump seems to be overlooking the consequences that his economic policy would likely trigger: a destructive trade war and higher prices, according to some experts.
I guess not many are familiar enough with American history to know that the Founding Fathers specifically restricted the revenue-generating power of the federal government to tariffs and trade levies. This allowed American manufacturing to develop and keep American dollars circulating in our country, instead of being lost entirely overseas. It protected us from constantly being in foreign wars to protect the "Trade Partners" that enrich themselves at our expense. It also kept the federal government from destroying freedom and economic prosperity, because the ability to tax the citizens' income was specifically prohibited.
Once the federal government managed to grow to the point where the citizenry was its servant, rather than the opposite, things started going downhill at a rapid pace. Our leaders for many decades now have made all decisions to enhance their own power and the wealth of the extremely rich, and those decisions unfortunately sabotage the 99% of Americans who are not extremely rich.
Free Trade has been a disaster to America on all levels (as was predicted, but both political parties supported it because both are owned by the ultra-rich). It allowed American wages to equalize with those of developing nations that don't have our incredibly high cost of living, thereby destroying our former Middle Class. It wiped out American manufacturing because it was cheaper to stock the shelves entirely with poorly-built crap that falls apart or fails soon after you buy it.
It caused China and India and Germany to appropriate the economic prosperity generated by the spending of the American consumer. "Since entering the WTO in 2001, trade with China has resulted in the loss of 2.3 million jobs through 2007, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Those jobs losses have affected each and every sector of the economy in both white and blue-collar workers. Over that time the U.S. has lost 561,000 jobs in computer and electronic products, 153,000 in apparel and accessories, 139,000 in administrative support services and 128,000 in professional, scientific and technical services. In all, those displaced workers lost an average of $8,146 annually - a total of $19.4 billion - as they moved into lower paying jobs." "Free Trade" is Destroying the Middle Class | Economy In Crisis
Aside from destroying the manufacturing engine that fueled our economy, and devaluing labor, Free Trade has made America unable to keep its food supply healthy. Americans have to choose from foods grown in countries without any health or environmental laws. China was found to add unregulated ingredients to make protein counts look higher in exports of chicken, baby food, dog and cat food, resulting in kidney failure and other sicknesses when the combination of additives turned out to be dangerous and in the case of some cats and dogs, lethal. Chinese protein adulteration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, trade barriers would result in higher prices during the period when American manufacturing was rebuilt. But prices would then drop as competition occurs. And unfortunately if we continue on the Free Trade fiasco path, higher prices are going to happen anyway. The Chinese and others will soon begin the inevitable price increases due to the loss of value of the dollar, and to take advantage of the fact that their loss-leader pricing policies allowed them to wipe out all competition.
Personally, I would rather face the higher prices that go to American companies and pay American workers, rather than pay equally high (or higher) prices to China because our elected leaders have put us all at their mercy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like he'll get my vote ;)
