United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump threatens to 'break' trade pact with Mexico, Canada
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box ... -trade-pact-with-mexico-canada
Published: Sep 26, 2015
Author: Meghashyam Mali
Post Date: 2015-09-26 10:59:20 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 3446
Comments: 43
Donald Trump is calling the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) a "disaster" and vowing to renegotiate or break the deal if elected president. "It's a disaster," Trump told CBS's Scott Pelley in an interview airing Sunday on "60 Minutes." "We will either renegotiate it or we will break it because you know every agreement has an end. "Every agreement has to be fair. Every agreement has a defraud claim. We're being defrauded by all these countries," Trump continued. Pressed on whether he supports free trade, Trump responded, "We need fair trade, not free trade. We need fair trade it's got to be fair." Trump has blasted trade policies, accusing leaders of allowing China and Mexico to steal U.S. jobs and hurt American workers. The GOP front-runner also opposed granting President Obama fast-track trade powers. Poster Comment: People who support NAFTA are sell outs to America. They just want cheap goods at the expense of the American workers. Screw them. I hope Trump has all the people who voted for NAFTA put on trial for treason. Traitorous assholes.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
A friend of mine told me something similar as your last sentence about three weeks ago. I'm sure security is tight for him.
My GOD! I can't believe a poster would suggest the above at this tyme. Did you vote for GHBush? Did you vote for GWBush? Did you vote for McCain? Did you vote for Romney? What about YOU?
Sounds reckless. Oh, wait. That's not what he said. He vowed to renegotiate the trade pact or he would break it on the basis of fraud.
If he tries to disrupt the plans/objectives of the NWO/CFR crowd, I don't know if his security can be tight enough. If he plans to continue, he should think about preemptively cutting the head off the CFR masters. Otherwise, he will end up like John Kennedy. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Trump once again proved he's an illiterate when it comes to trade policy . US exports have risen for 5 consecutive years, reaching a record $2.35 Trillion in 2014. Most of our exports go to Canada and Mexico (the third larges consumer of US exports is China) . https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2015/02/us-exports-hit-new-annual- record-reaching-235-trillion-2014 http://trade.gov/press/publications/newsletters/ita_0706/nafta_0706.asp Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
There is always this provision on NAFTA. A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
So all that matters to you is that expoirts supposedly have risen. You don't give a shit about the tens of thousands of employers who no longer employ Americans. You support NAFTA like Hillary, Bush, Bill Clinton. All the assholes are with you. That must make you one of the assholes too. One of the problems we have to overcome in this country. You are part of the problem. Not part of the solution. You don't give a shit about the millions of Americans who lost their job. You don't give a shit that NAFTA has driven down US wages. You just parrot establishemnt propaganda. Because like Grand Island said you're a libtard.
Or Ronald Reagan after he got shot, eager to sign amnesty. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2015/02/us-exports-hit-new-annual- record-reaching-235-trillion-2014 I suspect that Donald Trump, and Ross Perot before him, have a point about the massive debt and deficits. The second link goes to a report from 2006, as the link itself indicates. http://trade.gov/press/publications/newsletters/ita_0706/nafta_0706.asp Here is the press release the first link went to: Office of Public Affairs U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker today announced that U.S. exports in 2014 set a record for the fifth consecutive year, reaching $2.35 trillion. International Trade in U.S. Goods and Services data released today by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that U.S. exports are up more than $760 billion since 2009. “Exports have played a critical role in America’s economic comeback, and they continued to do so in 2014,” said Secretary Pritzker. “President Obama has set an ambitious trade agenda that will open up more markets to ‘Made in America’ goods and services, allowing our businesses to sell their products all over the world so they can expand and hire here at home. “Central to that task is the passage of trade promotion legislation and the enactment of strong trade agreements that uphold our values. These agreements are essential to the continued growth of our economy, the creation of good American jobs, the economic security of our families, as well as our nation’s competitiveness and national security.” U.S. Goods Exports U.S. goods exports increased 2.7 percent to a record $1.64 trillion in 2014. Key industry sectors setting records included capital goods; consumer goods; petroleum products; foods, feeds, and beverages; and automotive vehicles and parts. In 2014, the largest export markets for U.S. goods were Canada, Mexico, and China, with exports to each country registering annual records. U.S. Services Exports Annual services exports hit an all-time high of $710.3 billion, led by increases in the travel, transport, charges for the use of intellectual property, and financial services sectors. Exports from these sectors were all record highs in 2014. The trade surplus in services exports reached a record $231.8 billion, an increase of 2.9 percent from 2013. U.S. Free Trade Agreement Partners Goods exports to the 20 economies that have trade agreements with the United States reached a record $765.1 billion – an increase of 4.3 percent from 2013. Increased U.S. exports to Colombia (up 10.5 percent), South Korea (up 6.8 percent), and the CAFTA-DR partners (up 5.7 percent) highlight the benefits of trade agreements. U.S. exports in 2013 supported 11.3 million jobs, an increase of 1.6 million export-supported jobs since 2009. Recognizing that 95 percent of consumers live outside our borders, the Obama Administration is taking concrete steps to make it easier for U.S. companies to begin exporting or expand international sales. In May 2014, Secretary Pritzker launched the second phase of President Obama’s National Export Initiative –NEI/NEXT. Through NEI/NEXT, 20 federal agencies are advancing program and policy improvements to provide exporters more tailored assistance and information; streamline export reporting requirements; expand access to export financing; ensure market access and a level playing field; and partner at the state and local level to support export and foreign direct investment attraction strategies. These efforts will enable more U.S. businesses to capitalize on existing and potential opportunities created by free trade agreements and the U.S. trade agenda. That is almost like a press release of the 1930s bragging exports are up since Wall Street people stopped jumping off buildings. It sort of neglects the increased debt and the huge trade deficits. 12/31/2009 - 12,311,349,677,512.03 12/31/2014 - 18,141,444,135,563.30 From the end of 2009 to the end of 2014, the federal debt went up by almost 6 TRILLION dollars. That number is very measurable to the penny and not readily fudged or misrepresented like administration statistics. For imports and exports in 2013 we had a goods trade deficit of almost $700 BILLION. https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/2013-the-year-trade John G. Murphy The Department of Commerce today released the official U.S. trade statistics for 2013. Seizing the benefits of international trade and investment is a top priority for the U.S. Chamber, so it's worth taking a moment to see what the numbers tell us: [...]
Tom has his talking points and he isn't going to budge. His posts made it sound like he makes money off exports and cutting American workers.
Reagan campaigned on a North American common market as early as 1979 . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcTPwHY-LpY In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. The purpose of the act was to give Reagan and later Bush "fast-track" authority to negotiate the terms. So I guess Reagan was a libtard too. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
There are two things this government has excelled at doing the last 30 years, those are exporting jobs and importing poverty. Notice how they both affect American workers.
So I guess Reagan was a libtard too. NAFTA was 1994. Reagan left in 1989. Reagan had nothing to do with a single proivision of NAFTA. Reagan was great but he wasn't always right. No one is. For example he picked Bush and supported Amnesty.
Notice how they both affect American workers. Good point. Tell that to Tomtard.
and you think a trade agreement is negotiated over night ? Reagan laid the foundations for Nafta as policy during his 1st campaign . Trump may be right in that provisions of the deal should be renegotiated . But that isn't what he is saying .He is being Donald the Demagogue ,catering to his 'Know Nothing' global retreating base .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The good or damage done depends on the deal agreed to, not the authority to make a deal. Fast track authority does not require the president to give away the farm. In 1974, Congress passed H.R.10710, Trade Act of 1974, signed into law by President Gerald Ford, extending fast track authority. The 1984 Act acted to give Congress more and earlier involvement in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_and_Tariff_Act_of_1984 The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-573) clarified the conditions under which unfair trade cases under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618) can be pursued. It also provided bilateral trade negotiating authority for the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and set out procedures to be followed for congressional approval of future bilateral trade agreements. The bill was sponsored by Democrat Sam Gibbons (FL-7) and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 30, 1984. Congressional Gatekeeping A key feature of the legislation was its modification of the 1974 Trade Act's Fast track authority, incorporating a "committee gatekeeping" device. Congress opted to adapt the fast-track procedure to possible bilateral free-trade agreements with nations other than Israel Going forward, the procedure provided that if a country other than Israel requested free-trade negotiations with the United States, the President would be required to notify two "gatekeeper" committees - the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees - and to consult with those committees for a period of 60 legislative days before giving the statutorily required 90 day notice of his intent to sign an agreement. If neither committee disapproved of the negotiations during this 60-day committee consultation period, any subsequently negotiated agreement would receive fast-track legislative consideration. The 1984 Act thus greatly increased the influence of Congress in negotiating trade agreements. For example, the 60-day pre-negotiation consultation period with the two committees secured their involvement in the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement negotiations months before formal talks began, allowing Congress to extract concessions from the President as a condition of letting negotiations proceed. H.R. 3398 (98th): Omnibus Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/hr3398 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/hr3398/text [Bill text] H.R.10710 (93rd) Trade Act of 1974 https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/10710/text http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg1978-2.pdf [text PDF - Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1978]
There you go again. Adding relevant information and making us more informed. Thanks.
So, how do you explain the decline in US manufacturing, decline in US employment, and the increase in the US national debt? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
40 years of Reaganomics, preceded by 35 years of military imperialism. Between the two, we gave our nation cancer. Now the only question is whether not we'll "stop smoking", Judging by the reactions here, no.
Old Ross Perot supporters just woke up out of a sleepy hibernation with Trump invoking the demise of NAFTA. People who have probably not voted GOP since Perot, maybe people who have not voted at all in a long time. Have to give him or who is advising him some credit on this one. "They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters,Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood."---Psalm 106:37-38
Between the two, we gave our nation cancer. " And also, because our "trade negotiators" ( all NWO/CFR types ) gave away all of our industry / jobs to foreign countries. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
So, how do you explain the decline in US manufacturing, decline in US employment, and the increase in the US national debt? you'll have to define your word 'decline' . The U.S. manufacturing sector produces more stuff almost every year than it did the year before (with allowances for the 2008 recession) . We manufactured more stuff in 2014 than ever before in the country's history . So why have manufacturing jobs 'declined' ? For a couple reasons. First manufacturing is far more efficient than it's ever was . Second ,American workers have moved on for the most part away from manufacturing to other jobs they are needed in or prefer to be employed in . The truth is that American manufacturing is not declining ...and it is part of a robust export industry . I can tell you that my company almost always has openings in our manufacturing plants; from entry level to skilled laborers .... and rarely does an 'American' apply. It's not a matter of pay either . Our workers start at higher salaries than most of the service level jobs Americans prefer to do . I can explain the US debt easily . The US GOVERNMENT spends too much money ...way too much money . When was the last time there was an actual reduction in spending ? Even when budgets get modestly cut ,all they really do is temporarily reduce the rate of growth of spending . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That is fine and dandy but has nothing to do with NAFTA. Before NAFTA how much did we trade with Mexico. How much do we trade now with Mexico? Is our trade deficit with Mexico larger or smaller? How many jobs have we lost to Mexico? How many companies have left the U.S. for Mexico? How is it good for America when companies leave the United States and fire U.S. workers and move to a foreign country and hire foreigners at a fraction of the cost? Why is it good for the WTO to tell us what to do? Why is building a world government instead of engagin countries unilaterally beneficial to our country?
Could you tell tomder to give him some credit? :)
And realized that Trump probably voted for Bill Clinton, not Ross Perot. That giant sucking sound was The Donald kissing Bill Clinton's a$$. And also, because our "trade negotiators" ( all NWO/CFR types ) gave away all of our industry / jobs to foreign countries. The "free trade" fetish is part of Reaganomics.
May be. But all of those trade deals were passed by D's & R's. Traitors all. They all should be hung! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Attempting to blame Reagan for everything is a fetish of leftist assholes.
Perhaps it is. But Reagan did usher in Reaganomics, with its bad assumptions. And his administration negotiated NAFTA, and pulled down the nation's pants to Japanese dumping.
Under their primitive mode of thinking, you aren't required to explain it. You can ignore evidence that is inconvenient to your mission.
Whether U.S. manufacturing is at its highest depends on what one is measuring. I only find the claim to be true as a measurement made in current dollar sales, as opposed to constant or real dollar sales. That does not measure more widgets, but more sales dollars, valued in inflated currency. Putting U.S. Manufacturing Growth In Perspective By Thomas Hemphill & Mark Perry Over the last few years, the U.S. manufacturing sector has been lauded by the media as a primary driver of the nation's recovery from the Great Recession. And since 2010, the manufacturing sector has been a positive contributor to both new job creation and the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). But its economic and employment impacts have been, in the context of recent economic history, less than the national media coverage justifies. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) there were 17,619,000 Americans employed in the manufacturing sector in January 1998; by January 2010, this figure had declined to 11,462,000, or 6,157,000 factory jobs lost in 12 years - an average annual decline of 513,000 jobs and a 35 percent overall decline in manufacturing employment over a 12-year period. Focusing on the last decade, the BLS employment data offer a sobering perspective on the manufacturing sector's growth in employment in recent years. Between 2010-2014, 762,000 new U.S. manufacturing jobs were created over that five-year period, at an annual average rate of 152,400 new jobs. In contrast, during the preceding five-year period (2005 to 2009), 2.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the U.S. economy, or an average decline of 562,200 jobs per year. Placed in perspective, this means that only 762,000 and about 27 percent of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost during the five years between 2005 and 2009 were actually recovered in the last five years (2010-2014) of economic recovery. And compared to the start of the Great Recession, American manufacturers employ 1.4 million fewer factory workers today than in December 2007. So while the manufacturing sector has rebounded in recent years, its contribution to economic and employment growth in recent years has been rather muted, lagging behind many other more vibrant sectors. [...] http://www.ibtimes.com/analysis-renaissance-us-manufacturing-real-maybe-not-what-you-think-1552997 By Meagan Clark America’s heavy manufacturing was once a source of national pride. Think of Rosie the Riveter posters during World War II or the huge post-war factories that shaped skylines of cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh. In the 20th century, America’s factories produced more than those of any other country. But as the 20th century ended, the once-mighty sector started contracting. Manufacturers discovered cheaper labor overseas. Many factories in the U.S. began closing. And then in late 2007 came the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. To many it seemed like the final nail in the coffin of American manufacturing. In fact, between 2000 and 2009, 5.8 million factory jobs disappeared. By 2010, the manufacturing dominance America had relied on since the late 1800s was officially over; that year China supplanted the U.S. as the world’s largest manufacturing nation in terms of output, producing goods worth $1.92 trillion compared to America’s $1.86 trillion, according to United Nations data. Yet in the years since the financial crisis, U.S. manufacturing has begun reinventing itself and rising again. There is indeed a renaissance in American manufacturing, economists say, and one that can still be a source of pride. But the sector looks far different from the past, offering fewer jobs and demanding higher skills than ever before. Since 2010, the U.S. has regained a net 568,000 factory jobs. The Reshoring Initiative, an organization aiming to “return manufacturing home,” estimates that about 150 companies have “reshored,” or moved positions from overseas to the U.S. since 2010, contributing about 80,000 jobs or 15 percent of the total manufacturing jobs added. [...] Manufacturing’s dollar-share of gross domestic product increased in 2012 for the third consecutive year to 12.5 percent, its highest share of GDP since 2007, though still less than half its contribution during the 1950s. [...] 47 pp. THE SURPRISINGLY SWIFT DECLINE OF U.S. MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT Justin R. Pierce NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH Schott thanks the National Science Foundation (SES-0241474 and SES-0550190) for research support. [...] ABSTRACT This paper finds a link between the sharp drop in U.S. manufacturing employment after 2001 and the elimination of trade policy uncertainty resulting from the U.S. granting of permanent normal trade relations to China in late 2000. We find that industries where the threat of tariff hikes declines the most experience greater employment loss due to suppressed job creation, exaggerated job destruction and a substitution away from low-skill workers. We show that these policy-related employment losses coincide with a relative acceleration of U.S. imports from China, the number of U.S. firms importing from China, the number of Chinese firms exporting to the U.S., and the number of U.S.-China importer-exporter pairs. [...] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf Marc Levinson Congressional Research Service Summary The health of the U.S. manufacturing sector has long been of great concern to Congress. The decline in manufacturing employment since the start of the 21st century has stimulated particular congressional interest. The Obama Administration has undertaken a variety of related initiatives, and Members have introduced hundreds of bills intended to support domestic manufacturing activity in various ways. The proponents of such measures frequently contend that the United States is by various measures falling behind other countries in manufacturing, and they argue that this relative decline can be mitigated or reversed by government policy. This report is designed to inform the debate over the health of U.S. manufacturing through a series of charts and tables that depict the position of the United States relative to other countries according to various metrics. Understanding which trends in manufacturing reflect factors that may be unique to the United States and which are related to broader changes in technology or consumer preferences may be helpful in formulating policies intended to aid firms or workers engaged in manufacturing activity. This report does not describe or discuss specific policy options. The main findings are the following: • Manufacturing output has grown more rapidly in the United States over the past decade than in most European countries and Japan, although it has lagged China, Korea, and other countries in Asia. • Employment in manufacturing has fallen in most major manufacturing countries over the past two decades. The United States saw a disproportionately large drop between 2000 and 2010, but its decline in manufacturing employment since 1990 is in line with the changes in several European countries and Japan. • U.S. manufacturers spend far more on research and development (R&D) than those in any other country, but manufacturers’ R&D spending is rising more rapidly in China, Korea, and Taiwan. • Manufacturers in all major manufacturing countries appear to be spending increasing amounts on R&D, relative to their value added. U.S. manufacturers spend approximately 11% of value added on R&D, an increase of approximately three percentage points since the 2000-2002 period. A very large proportion of U.S. manufacturers’ R&D takes place in high-technology sectors, particularly pharmaceutical, electronics, and aircraft manufacturing, whereas in most other countries a far greater proportion of manufacturers’ R&D outlays occur in medium-technology sectors such as motor vehicle and machinery manufacturing. [...] How the U.S. Manufacturing Sector Ranks The standard measure of the size of a nation’s manufacturing sector is not manufacturers’ sales, but rather their value added. Value added attempts to capture the economic contribution of manufacturers in designing, processing, and marketing the products they sell. At the level of an individual firm, value added can be calculated as total sales less the total cost of purchased inputs, such as raw materials and electricity. The intuition behind this calculation is that a firm that purchases raw materials and processes them only slightly may have substantial sales, but its manufacturing efforts will not have transformed the materials in ways that significantly increase their value. Alternatively, a firm’s value added can be measured as the sum of its employee compensation, business taxes (less subsidies), and profits. The size of a country’s manufacturing sector cannot be determined simply by adding up the value added of its manufacturers. If a domestic manufacturer uses inputs from its plants abroad, those inputs contain value added by the firm, but not domestically. Calculating total value added in manufacturing thus requires adjustments for imported parts and components incorporated into the output of domestic factories, and also for domestic products that were exported and used in a foreign plant to make products that were subsequently imported.1 According to United Nations estimates, China displaced the United States as the largest manufacturing nation in 2010. In 2013, according to the U.N. figures, China’s value added in manufacturing reached $2.7 trillion, compared to $2.0 trillion for the United States. These estimates are calculated in U.S. dollars, and China’s rise relative to the United States is partially due to the fact that its currency, the yuan, strengthened 25% against the dollar between 2003 and 2013.2 Japan ranked third in manufacturing value added at $917 billion in 2013 (see Figure 1). Germany is the only other country whose manufacturing sector is more than one-sixth the size of that in the United States.3 Data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate that U.S. manufacturing value added rose 1.1% in 2013 after adjustment for inflation. The U.S. share of global manufacturing value added has declined over time, from 30% in the early 1980s to 17%-18% today (see Figure 2). Similarly, Japan’s share of global manufacturing value added has contracted from 21% in 1993 to around 8% now, and Germany’s has fallen from 10% (in 1990, just after reunification) to 6%. It is important to note that global shares are measured in U.S. dollars, so each country’s share in a given year is greatly affected by the strength of its currency against the dollar. The declining shares of the wealthy economies are a consequence of the very rapid increase in manufacturing activity in emerging economies, notably China, and do not necessarily indicate absolute declines in manufacturing value added. Manufacturing value added in the United States, as measured by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, rose 40% from 1997 to 2014, although not until the second quarter of 2014 did manufacturing activity exceed the level at the onset of the most recent recession in 2007.4 Manufacturing value added amounted to 12.1% of total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, according to United Nations calculations. Manufacturing is more significant in the United States, relative to the size of the economy, than in the United Kingdom, France, and Canada, but much less important than in Japan, Germany, Indonesia, Korea, and China (see Figure 3). Chinese manufacturing value added accounted for 29.9% of its economy’s total output in 2013, according to the U.N. The manufacturing share in China has declined in recent years, while the share in the United States has remained relatively stable. In this respect, it is important to note that a high ratio of manufacturing value added to GDP is not necessarily a sign of economic vibrancy. To the contrary, a high ratio may indicate that various policies or practices, such as labor regulations, credit subsidies, or protection from imports, are standing in the way of a reallocation of capital and labor from manufacturing to other sectors in which they might contribute more to economic growth. It does appear U.S. manufacturing is at its highest point in current U.S. dollars. That would be current as opposed to constant or real dollars. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/dollars.html Income Current versus Constant (or Real) Dollars In order to accurately compare income over time, users should adjust the summary measures (medians, means, etc.) for changes in cost of living. The Census Bureau uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) to adjust for changes in the cost of living.1 Current dollars is a term describing income in the year in which a person, household, or family receives it. For example, the income someone received in 1989 unadjusted for inflation is in current dollars. Constant or real dollars are terms describing income after adjustment for inflation. The Dictionary of Business and Economics defines constant dollar values and real income as shown below. Constant-dollar value (also called real-dollar value) is a value expressed in dollars adjusted for purchasing power. Constant-dollar values represent an effort to remove the effects of price changes from statistical series reported in dollar terms. The result is a series as it would presumably exist if prices were the same throughout as they were in the base year-in other words, as if the dollar had constant purchasing power. Real Income. The purchasing power of the income of an individual, group, or nation, computed by adjusting money income to price changes. A comparison between incomes earned during 1970 and 1980, for example, would be pointless unless 1970 and 1980 price levels were identical. Using a price index showing, for example, that average consumer prices increased by 50 percent between those years, it becomes clear that $1,000 in 1980 bought what $667 bought in 1970. Thus, even if total income actually doubled, real income would double only if prices remained constant. EXAMPLE: The median household income in 1989 in current dollars is $28,906. If you compared that with the 1990 median household income of $29,943, there appears to be an increase. If you adjusted that 1989 income for changes in the cost of living (converted it to 1990 constant or real dollars), the resulting 1989 median household income is $30,468 (now a 1989-to-1990 comparison of income shows a decline of 1.7 percent). Footnote: 1. The Census Bureau uses BLS' experimental Consumer Price Index (CPI-U-X1) for 1967 through 1982 and the CPI-U for 1983 through 1998. The Census Bureau derived the CPI-U indexes for years before 1967 by applying the 1967 CPI-U-X1-to-CPI-U ratio to the 1947 to 1966 CPI-U indexes.
You know what is primitive mode of thinking ? 18th century Mercantilism is an outmoded primitive mode of thinking. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You know what's not working. What we are doing now, whatever it is called. Whatever we were doing through the presidency of Jimmy Carter did not rack up $1T in debt over the course of 200 years.
You also think the constitution is primitive. All you libtards do.
People who have probably not voted GOP since Perot, maybe people who have not voted at all in a long time. Have to give him or who is advising him some credit on this one. Trump has flirted with the Reform party people for a long time. He looked at running as the Reform nominee in 2000 and 2004. So Trump already has all those We The People types (who are still breathing).
Or imports (including H1B's). Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Eisenhower was David, Reagan was Solomon, and the Dubya was Rehoboam. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
It could be re-phrased as: Trump once again proved he's an illiterate when it comes to fiscal policy . US revenues have risen for 5 consecutive years, reaching a record $3.02 Trillion in 2014. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, "Outlays." Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
It is a theology to them, they are free trade fundies. Don't worry about shipping out industrial base to Communist China, and going from greatest creditor to greatest debtor in a generation. They're probably counting on a 12th Imam to comt of a well. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
While Reagan is known to have mentioned a potential agreement regarding free trade in North America, I find no evidence that his administration negotiated NAFTA. That occurred in the George H.W. Bush administration, and the implementing law was signed by Bill Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been very controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were easily able to pass the 1987 Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, he was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA; however, Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president. In the US, Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement." Copies of all legal documents posted in the document archive have been prepared in a language of operation of the Tribunal or Court in question. The Government of Canada has not modified or changed them in any way. As such they have not been translated from the original. They are provided in Acrobat (pdf) files. To view or download pdf files you need Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™ a free software that you can download from the web. These documents are the draft negotiating texts produced between 1991 and 1993 by the NAFTA investment negotiating group, made up of representatives from each NAFTA Party. With the exception of the initial draft text, dated December 1991 which contains initial proposals, these drafts represented the status of the investment negotiations at the conclusion of each of the negotiating group's meetings and, upon circulation to all three Parties, provided the starting point for discussion at the next meeting. These documents have been de-classified and are no longer confidential. The NAFTA Free Trade Commission announced the public release of these documents on July 16, 2004. Note: All negotiating draft texts were prepared in English only for trilateral approval by the Parties during the NAFTA negotiations. Given the need to maintain the integrity of the content of these historical documents, the Government of Canada has not modified or changed them in any way. As such they have not been translated from the original. All draft documents available at the link.
Case in point: One might think that spending must have gone down. But wait, this is government accounting. If we spent $1B on widgets last year, and someone proposes spending $10B on widgets this year, and the legislature compromises to spend only $5B this year, in government-speak, raising spending from $1B to $5B is a $5B cut (from a proposed $10B). https://americanbridgepac.org/right-to-exaggerate/ CATO: Bush “Let Spending Rise Quickly Toward The End Of His Tenure” And “Jeb Was Good On Taxes, But Apparently Not So Good On Spending.” According to the CATO Institute, “The basic story from the Cato reports is that Jeb Bush was a prolific tax cutter, but he let spending rise quickly toward the end of his tenure. Like George W. Bush, Jeb was good on taxes, but apparently not so good on spending. Jeb Bush was in office from 1999 to 2007. Florida general fund spending increased from $18.0 billion to $28.2 billion during those eight years, or 57 percent. Total state spending increased from $45.6 billion to $66.1 billion, or 45 percent. (This is NASBO data from here and here). Over those eight years, Florida’s population grew 16 percent and the CPI, which measures inflation, grew 24 percent.” [CATO Institute, 4/9/14] 1999-2007: Florida General Fund Spending Rose From $18 Billion To $28 Billion. [National Association Of State Budget Officers, 1999-2007] 1999-2007: Total Florida Spending Rose From $45 billion to $66 billion [National Association Of State Budget Officers, 1999-2007]
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
I hope Trump has all the people who voted for NAFTA put on trial for treason. Traitorous assholes.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)
"Trump threatens to 'break' trade pact with Mexico, Canada"
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
" I'm sure security is tight for him. "
#7. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#8. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#5)
Sounds reckless. Oh, wait. That's not what he said. He vowed to renegotiate the trade pact or he would break it on the basis of fraud.
Article 2205: Withdrawal
#9. To: tomder55 (#7)
#10. To: Stoner, gutshot reconquista, *Border Invasion* (#6)
Otherwise, he will end up like John Kennedy.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#11. To: tomder55, A K A Stone (#7)
Trump once again proved he's an illiterate when it comes to trade policy . US exports have risen for 5 consecutive years, reaching a record $2.35 Trillion in 2014. Most of our exports go to Canada and Mexico (the third larges consumer of US exports is China) .
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 5, 2015
202-482-4883
publicaffairs@doc.gov 2013: The Year in Trade
Senior Vice President for International Policy
#12. To: nolu chan (#11)
That is almost like a press release of the 1930s bragging exports are up since Wall Street people stopped jumping off buildings. It sort of neglects the increased debt and the huge trade deficits.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#9)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#12)
#15. To: tomder55 (#13)
In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. The purpose of the act was to give Reagan and later Bush "fast-track" authority to negotiate the terms.
#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#14)
There are two things this government has excelled at doing the last 30 years, those are exporting jobs and importing poverty.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#18. To: tomder55, A K A Stone (#13)
In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. The purpose of the act was to give Reagan and later Bush "fast-track" authority to negotiate the terms.
Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
#19. To: nolu chan (#18)
#20. To: tomder55 (#7)
" US exports have risen for 5 consecutive years, reaching a record $2.35 Trillion in 2014. Most of our exports go to Canada and Mexico (the third larges consumer of US exports is China). "
#21. To: Stoner (#20)
(Edited)
So, how do you explain the decline in US manufacturing, decline in US employment, and the increase in the US national debt?
#22. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
" 40 years of Reaganomics, preceded by 35 years of military imperialism.
#24. To: Stoner (#20)
So, how do you explain the decline in US manufacturing, decline in US employment, and the increase in the US national debt?
#25. To: tomder55, nolu chan (#24)
you'll have to define your word 'decline' . The U.S. manufacturing sector produces more stuff almost every year than it did the year before (with allowances for the 2008 recession) . We manufactured more stuff in 2014 than ever before in the country's history .
#26. To: redleghunter, tomder55 (#22)
Have to give him or who is advising him some credit on this one.
#27. To: redleghunter, giant sucking sound, Trump Clinton (#22)
Old Ross Perot supporters just woke up
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#28. To: Stoner (#23)
40 years of Reaganomics, preceded by 35 years of military imperialism. Between the two, we gave our nation cancer. "
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
" The "free trade" fetish is part of Reaganomics. "
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
The "free trade" fetish is part of Reaganomics.
#31. To: rlk (#30)
#32. To: Stoner (#20)
So, how do you explain the decline in US manufacturing, decline in US employment, and the increase in the US national debt?
#33. To: tomder55, Stoner (#24)
you'll have to define your word 'decline' . The U.S. manufacturing sector produces more stuff almost every year than it did the year before (with allowances for the 2008 recession) . We manufactured more stuff in 2014 than ever before in the country's history .
February 9, 2015
ANALYSIS: The Renaissance Of US Manufacturing Is Real But Maybe Not What You Think
ibtimes.com
February 04 2014 6:53 AM EST NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES
Peter K. Schott
Working Paper 18655
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18655
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
December 2012 U.S. Manufacturing in International Perspective
Section Research Manager
March 17, 2015
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42135 • China displaced the United States as the largest manufacturing country in 2010, as the United States’ share of global manufacturing activity declined from 30% in 2002 to 17.4% in 2012.
United States Census Bureau
#34. To: rlk, A K Stone, Redleghunter (#32)
Under their primitive mode of thinking
#35. To: tomder55, rlk, A K Stone, Redleghunter (#34)
You know what is primitive mode of thinking ? 18th century Mercantilism is an outmoded primitive mode of thinking.
#36. To: tomder55 (#34)
#37. To: redleghunter (#22)
Old Ross Perot supporters just woke up out of a sleepy hibernation with Trump invoking the demise of NAFTA.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#12)
Tom has his talking points and he isn't going to budge. His posts made it sound like he makes money off exports and cutting American workers.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Reagan was great but he wasn't always right. No one is. For example he picked Bush and supported Amnesty.
#40. To: nolu chan (#11)
Trump once again proved he's an illiterate when it comes to trade policy . US exports have risen for 5 consecutive years, reaching a record $2.35 Trillion in 2014.
#41. To: rlk (#32)
Under their primitive mode of thinking, you aren't required to explain it. You can ignore evidence that is inconvenient to your mission.
#42. To: Vicomte13, rlk (#31)
But Reagan did usher in Reaganomics, with its bad assumptions. And his administration negotiated NAFTA....
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992. The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
Legal Documents (all documents are in pdf)
#43. To: nativist nationalist (#40)
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, "Outlays."
"In Florida, for eight years we cut taxes every year, totaling $19 billion, creating a much better business climate"
—Jeb Bush, June 2, 2015. Spending Went Up Under Bush’s Leadership
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]