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.
The Republican answer is to approve the TPP, so employees will be grateful they make minimum and not the $.25 in the Pacific rim nations.
We saw NAFTA, do we want to go through that again.
and where did 'freetrade' (ie nafta, caftan, or Obama's ofta) come from...the globalist liberals
NAFTA dreamed up by carter... negotiated by globalist liberal bush1, passed by the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS, full court press by Clinton to get it passed....signed by Clinton and EXPANDED by Clinton
freetrade was started by the GLOBALIST LIBERALS.... started under carter
pushed and negotiated by globalist bush1
pushed and signed by globalist Clinton
expanded by globalist Clinton, globalist bush2, and globalist omama
THE FREE-TRADE ACCORD; PRESIDENT BEGINS A LOBBYING BLITZ FOR TRADE ACCORD
By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: November 9, 1993
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8— President Clinton began an intensive face-to-face effort today to persuade lawmakers to throw their support behind the North American Free Trade Agreement as the White House added to his criticisms of labor unions who are the chief opponents of the accord.
Struggling to find the 218 votes he needs for the agreement's approval in the House of Representatives, Mr. Clinton met from morning until well into the night with pairs and small groups of Democratic members of Congress, nearly all of whom had not declared their position.
NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team - Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic' - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON— Sharpening an already intensive lobbying campaign on the North American Free Trade Agreement, top aides to President Bill Clinton issued dire warnings on Sunday to reach for last-minute congressional votes.
A failure by Congress to ratify the trade accord would be "catastrophic" for U.S. foreign policy, Vice President Al Gore said in a broadcast interview.
Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said rejection of NAFTA would be "shameful." He also defended the White House against assertions that votes were being secured by promises of federal largesse to individual lawmakers.
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen warned of "a real tragedy" in U.S.-Mexican relations if NAFTA fails, saying that Mexican politics would return to a era in which the United States was reviled.
Faced with considerable reluctance on the part of some Republicans, Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, promised to support them on the issue of NAFTA if a Democrat criticizes their votes in the 1994 election campaigns.
Mr. Gore reiterated the White House view that a defeat on NAFTA would be a blow to Mr. Clinton personally and to U.S. efforts to attain freer trade globally and in Asia.
========================
hmmm reluctance to pass NAFTA by the republicans, Clinton promised to SUPPORT them against the democrats......hmmm
---------
Such are the realities that Bill Clinton and his economic strategists have begun to acknowledge in a new vision of American relations with Asia -- a vision that Mr. Clinton spelled out forcefully at the meeting of Pacific leaders that concluded here this weekend. It is a vision that implies tradeoffs and job displacements far more wrenching than any posed by the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the House approved last week after a Herculean display of Presidential persuasion.
Previous presidents have steered clear of the politically uncomfortable fact that Mr. Clinton addressed head-on on Friday: Creating a job for a factory worker in Seattle may first require creating six jobs in Jakarta. The new world order, Mr. Clinton suggested, seamlessly integrates security and economics. Indeed, he touted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum -- the little-known economic consulting group under whose auspices the Pacific leaders gathered -- as something of a latter-day NATO. He said "our place in the world will be determined as much by the skills of our workers as by the strength of our weapons, as much by our ability to pull down foreign trade barriers as our ability to breach distant ramparts."
In political terms, of course, much of this oratory is about building on Nafta, Mr. Clinton's first big foreign policy win. Secretary of State Warren Christopher said Nafta should be the first out in a "triple play," one that now turns to economic integration of the Pacific and then to tearing down still more trade barriers under a new, much delayed global trade accord, which faces a deadline in mid-December.
------------
and he continued to EXPAND nafta...
Chile Is Admitted as North American Free Trade Partner - NYTimes.com
MIAMI, Dec. 11— President Clinton and the leaders of Canada and Mexico said today that they had agreed to admit Chile to the North American Free Trade Agreement, a move that clearly puts pressure on the other nations of South and Central America to speed the opening of their markets if they want expanded trade with the United States.
I guess its 'revisionist' to show links from liberal NYT of the actual time frame....why do liberals always lie.....
50 million jobs have been outsourced to outside of the USA since 1993
Labor costs are a fraction of the overall cost of business.
Every cost is a "fraction of the overall cost of business."
Labor happens to most often be one of the largest, if not THE largest, slice of that pie. To say or imply that labor is a small cost to a business demonstrates your ignorance in that area, and proves that you've never owned a business, run a business, managed a business, taken any business courses or even thoughtfully contemplated any of those things.
and where did 'freetrade' (ie nafta, caftan, or Obama's ofta) come from...the globalist liberals
NAFTA dreamed up by carter... negotiated by globalist liberal bush1, passed by the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS, full court press by Clinton to get it passed....signed by Clinton and EXPANDED by Clinton
freetrade was started by the GLOBALIST LIBERALS.... started under carter
pushed and negotiated by globalist bush1
pushed and signed by globalist Clinton
expanded by globalist Clinton, globalist bush2, and globalist omama
THE FREE-TRADE ACCORD; PRESIDENT BEGINS A LOBBYING BLITZ FOR TRADE ACCORD
By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: November 9, 1993
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8— President Clinton began an intensive face-to-face effort today to persuade lawmakers to throw their support behind the North American Free Trade Agreement as the White House added to his criticisms of labor unions who are the chief opponents of the accord.
Struggling to find the 218 votes he needs for the agreement's approval in the House of Representatives, Mr. Clinton met from morning until well into the night with pairs and small groups of Democratic members of Congress, nearly all of whom had not declared their position.
NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team - Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic' - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON— Sharpening an already intensive lobbying campaign on the North American Free Trade Agreement, top aides to President Bill Clinton issued dire warnings on Sunday to reach for last-minute congressional votes.
A failure by Congress to ratify the trade accord would be "catastrophic" for U.S. foreign policy, Vice President Al Gore said in a broadcast interview.
Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said rejection of NAFTA would be "shameful." He also defended the White House against assertions that votes were being secured by promises of federal largesse to individual lawmakers.
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen warned of "a real tragedy" in U.S.-Mexican relations if NAFTA fails, saying that Mexican politics would return to a era in which the United States was reviled.
Faced with considerable reluctance on the part of some Republicans, Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, promised to support them on the issue of NAFTA if a Democrat criticizes their votes in the 1994 election campaigns.
Mr. Gore reiterated the White House view that a defeat on NAFTA would be a blow to Mr. Clinton personally and to U.S. efforts to attain freer trade globally and in Asia.
========================
hmmm reluctance to pass NAFTA by the republicans, Clinton promised to SUPPORT them against the democrats......hmmm
---------
Such are the realities that Bill Clinton and his economic strategists have begun to acknowledge in a new vision of American relations with Asia -- a vision that Mr. Clinton spelled out forcefully at the meeting of Pacific leaders that concluded here this weekend. It is a vision that implies tradeoffs and job displacements far more wrenching than any posed by the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the House approved last week after a Herculean display of Presidential persuasion.
Previous presidents have steered clear of the politically uncomfortable fact that Mr. Clinton addressed head-on on Friday: Creating a job for a factory worker in Seattle may first require creating six jobs in Jakarta. The new world order, Mr. Clinton suggested, seamlessly integrates security and economics. Indeed, he touted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum -- the little-known economic consulting group under whose auspices the Pacific leaders gathered -- as something of a latter-day NATO. He said "our place in the world will be determined as much by the skills of our workers as by the strength of our weapons, as much by our ability to pull down foreign trade barriers as our ability to breach distant ramparts."
In political terms, of course, much of this oratory is about building on Nafta, Mr. Clinton's first big foreign policy win. Secretary of State Warren Christopher said Nafta should be the first out in a "triple play," one that now turns to economic integration of the Pacific and then to tearing down still more trade barriers under a new, much delayed global trade accord, which faces a deadline in mid-December.
------------
and he continued to EXPAND nafta...
Chile Is Admitted as North American Free Trade Partner - NYTimes.com
MIAMI, Dec. 11— President Clinton and the leaders of Canada and Mexico said today that they had agreed to admit Chile to the North American Free Trade Agreement, a move that clearly puts pressure on the other nations of South and Central America to speed the opening of their markets if they want expanded trade with the United States.
I guess its 'revisionist' to show links from liberal NYT of the actual time frame....why do liberals always lie.....
50 million jobs have been outsourced to outside of the USA since 1993
Republican support for NAFTA was larger than the Democratic support.
S1627 Yes 61, No 38
with 34 yes votes from Senate Republicans.
NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team - Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic' - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON— Sharpening an already intensive lobbying campaign on the North American Free Trade Agreement, top aides to President Bill Clinton issued dire warnings on Sunday to reach for last-minute congressional votes.
A failure by Congress to ratify the trade accord would be "catastrophic" for U.S. foreign policy, Vice President Al Gore said in a broadcast interview.
Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said rejection of NAFTA would be "shameful." He also defended the White House against assertions that votes were being secured by promises of federal largesse to individual lawmakers.
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen warned of "a real tragedy" in U.S.-Mexican relations if NAFTA fails, saying that Mexican politics would return to a era in which the United States was reviled.
Faced with considerable reluctance on the part of some Republicans, Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, promised to support them on the issue of NAFTA if a Democrat criticizes their votes in the 1994 election campaigns.
Mr. Gore reiterated the White House view that a defeat on NAFTA would be a blow to Mr. Clinton personally and to U.S. efforts to attain freer trade globally and in Asia.
NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team - Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic' - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON— Sharpening an already intensive lobbying campaign on the North American Free Trade Agreement, top aides to President Bill Clinton issued dire warnings on Sunday to reach for last-minute congressional votes.
A failure by Congress to ratify the trade accord would be "catastrophic" for U.S. foreign policy, Vice President Al Gore said in a broadcast interview.
Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said rejection of NAFTA would be "shameful." He also defended the White House against assertions that votes were being secured by promises of federal largesse to individual lawmakers.
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen warned of "a real tragedy" in U.S.-Mexican relations if NAFTA fails, saying that Mexican politics would return to a era in which the United States was reviled.
Faced with considerable reluctance on the part of some Republicans, Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, promised to support them on the issue of NAFTA if a Democrat criticizes their votes in the 1994 election campaigns.
Mr. Gore reiterated the White House view that a defeat on NAFTA would be a blow to Mr. Clinton personally and to U.S. efforts to attain freer trade globally and in Asia.
You can try and spin it however you want, but the votes were recorded.
The "reluctance on the part of some Republicans" amounted to 43 (out 175) of in the House and 10 (out of 44) in the Senate.
The majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate rejected the measure.
That is what is happening now. The purchasing price of the dollar has gone down tremendously.
Stop government from inflating the money supply. Treat the cause and not the symptom. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.
You don't understand inflation and why it is good.
You can only have inflation or deflation. Between the two, governments will always choose inflation. Get over the dollar losing "purchasing power" and start collective bargaining for why your wages aren't keeping pace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Every cost is a "fraction of the overall cost of business."
Labor happens to most often be one of the largest, if not THE largest, slice of that pie. To say or imply that labor is a small cost to a business demonstrates your ignorance in that area, and proves that you've never owned a business, run a business, managed a business, taken any business courses or even thoughtfully contemplated any of those things.
That's an ad hominem. Irrelevant to this discussion.
Labor is a fraction of the overall cost of business, period. Whether it is the largest or not is irrelevant, because it is not the only costs of running a business.
You don't understand inflation and why it is good.
Yes I do and just as I wont take advice from the Cubs on how to win the World Series I won't listen to your advice on economics. Subtle inflation or deflation is not a big problem. What we have is big inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You can only have inflation or deflation. Between the two, governments will always choose inflation. Get over the dollar losing "purchasing power" and start collective bargaining for why your wages aren't keeping pace.
Only a fool believes that government should control inflation. But then again when one is blind to the fact that government creates booms and busts it doesn't surprise me you'd come up with such nonsense.
Whenever labor costs go up, the cost of goods goes up.
Wages haven't went up in years yet everything else has. While I agree with your statement wages should be raised. Gas prices are insane these days just like everything else these days. Companies are not paying well enough for people to survive let alone pay their bills or stay afloat. Those people who work in retail & restaurants' should be able to should have the right to be able to pay their bills & put some back. It's not just labor that drives good up either fuel is. It cost more to transport things which drives everything up.
Everyone has a right to making & living no matter what kind of work they do. Period.
Yes I do and just as I wont take advice from the Cubs on how to win the World Series I won't listen to your advice on economics. Subtle inflation or deflation is not a big problem. What we have is big inflation.
Subtle inflation is what we have.
Subtle deflation is bad. Big inflation is simply not what we have; but I wouldn't expect you to know what facts look like.
Inflation has averaged 2% the last 5 years, which is right at the Fed's goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Only a fool believes that government should control inflation. But then again when one is blind to the fact that government creates booms and busts it doesn't surprise me you'd come up with such nonsense.
Who could argue with such intellect?
The government controls monetary inflation. It cannot control real inflation. The government adjusts policy to mitigate the effects of real inflation to a manageable degree.
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.
