GOP Rhymes with...

[aurelius]

...Hypocrisy.

I just read in "La Vanguardia" this morning that Bush has issued a highly restrictive import quota on foreign steel to protect American made steel.

I thought that Republicans were champions of the free market? I thougth Democrats bent over for unions?



p.s. pointing out hypocrisy in politics doesn´t require much intelligence. Look how easy I did it.

 

[the nature boy]

lol. I respect the fact that he's trying to help american steel workers but the cost of steel is going to rise dramatically. This means companies that purchase steel are going to have to pay more meaning they'll have to lay off people.... american workers. A study estimated that for every one steel worker job saved 8 jobs will be lost. Also steel industry states are "swing" states, meaning they go back and forth during presidental elections. This is more of a political move IMO.

 

[aurelius]

Also steel industry states are "swing" states, meaning they go back and forth during presidental elections. This is more of a political move IMO.

We have a winner! Show him what he´s won Bob...

 

[p0ink]

this was a lose/lose situation though. if he didnt us steel workers would be bitching and now that he did other people are bitching. im not sure which way i would have went either. it's one of those lesser of the two evils scenario

 

[WODIN]

Yeah GW could give a rats ass about "The worker". Please! He is paying his contributor debt off.

 

[p0ink]

why is it wrong if republicans do something to help them in the polls and elections? but is dems do it, it is perfectly fine.

 

[the nature boy]

why is it wrong if republicans do something to help them in the polls and elections? but is dems do it, it is perfectly fine.

who ever said it was fine? what examples do you have?

 

[aurelius]

Beat me to the punch!

 

[p0ink]

did you forget about hillary clinton's election to the senate...?

 

[aurelius]

p0ink did you forget about hillary clinton's election to the senate...?

Don´t follow

 

[the nature boy]

did you forget about hillary clinton's election to the senate...?

sure I do. But can you go into more detail than that? I'm sure she did a lot of stuff but what exactly. And then when you tell me what exactly she did, ask youself if anyone bitched about it. I'm sure someone somewhere did. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[spongebob]

things that make you go "uhm".

 

[aurelius]

Still waiting, pOink...

 

[The Dude]

why is it wrong if republicans do something to help them in the polls and elections? but is dems do it, it is perfectly fine.

Preach brotha!!!

 

[p0ink]

sorry for the delayed response everyone, but no, i did not forget

NEW YORK (July 26, 2000 10:26 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Hillary Rodham Clinton said U.S. aid to the Palestinians should be cut off if they unilaterally declare statehood before a peace agreement is reached with Israel.

"It must be clear that any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would be entirely unacceptable and should be met with a cutoff of United States assistance," she said in a statement released after the Camp David peace talks collapsed Tuesday.

The New York Senate candidate's position appeared to go beyond what President Clinton has said in urging the Israelis and the Palestinians to keep trying to reach an agreement.

Asked at a Wednesday news conference if she thought she was going beyond the position of her husband's administration, she said: "I may be. It's what I believe. ... Aid should be conditional on people acting in a way that leads to a permanent and lasting peace."

A trilateral statement from the United States, Israel and the Palestinians on the Camp David summit said that both sides "understand the importance of avoiding unilateral actions," but Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has threatened to declare statehood if no agreement is reached by Sept. 13.

The first lady praised Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak while saying little about Arafat.

"I believe Prime Minister Barak showed enormous courage, vision and extraordinary commitment to these peace talks," she said.

The first lady is seeking to shore up her pro-Israel credentials in New York, where Jews make up 12 percent of the electorate. Polls show about 15 percent of them are undecided about whether to support her or her Republican opponent, Long Island Congressman Rick Lazio.

Lazio also favors cutting off Palestinian aid if statehood is unilaterally declared. He previously cosponsored legislation recommending the same.

The Clinton Senate campaign has been involved in a number of flaps involving Jewish issues, including the meeting last year between the first lady and Yasser Arafat's wife that resulted in their much-publicized kiss.

 

[p0ink]

so here is the lady married to the than leader of the free world, talking shit about arafat when her husband and his administration were to be working on peace in the middle east. So here she goes jeopardizing things even more all to get the jewish votes in New York.

 

[p0ink]

Still waiting, pOink...

did you think i was gonna pull a RyanH? please, i dont run away from my arguments when i cant back it up with facts.

 

[Kryp2o]

GOP Rhymes with...

I have to GO Pee.

 

[the nature boy]

so here is the lady married to the than leader of the free world, talking shit about arafat when her husband and his administration were to be working on peace in the middle east. So here she goes jeopardizing things even more all to get the jewish votes in New York.

and there you go. I'm sure some people bitched about this. your point was that everyone complains when a republican tries to get votes but nobody says shit when a dem does it. I still see no evidence to back up your statement.

 

[p0ink]

and there you go. I'm sure some people bitched about this. your point was that everyone complains when a republican tries to get votes but nobody says shit when a dem does it. I still see no evidence to back up your statement.

i do not remember any news organizations covering this aspect of her election except for confirmed conservatives like rush and sean hannity. However, there has been democrats from congress and the senate going on tv bitching and moaning about bush trying to politicize everything and do what is right for his party and not the country. yet no major news organizations covered the hillary election that closesly until she was accused of calling someone back in 1974 or something a 'jew bastard', but her political suck-up to the jewish people of NY was left out.

 

[the nature boy]

so because you never heard about anyone bitching about it means it never happened?

 

[p0ink]

no...it means the liberal media (and you have to atleast give me that) is less likely to call out one of it's own for haing their own political agenda than a republican, let alone invite republican members of congress and the senate to do so.

 

[aurelius]

I think you can find both a left and right slant in the media, depending on where you´re looking.

 

[the nature boy]

no...it means the liberal media (and you have to atleast give me that) is less likely to call out one of it's own for haing their own political agenda than a republican, let alone invite republican members of congress and the senate to do so.

I'll give you that. surely you can agree that there are plenty of conservative newspapers and magazines that picked up what hillary clinton did. if they didn't then shame on them.

 

[gymnpoppa]

poink seems to be leaving out a few details about that particular subject. Clinton rebuffed the tariff request by these very same unions twice. Seeing as how these unions are usually democratic, it's obvious what W's is up to here. Let me explain;

Bush has been championing barrier lowering initiatives on free trade throughout his time thus far. He is buying votes in the next election, from Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which he lost last time around. There are 23 electoral votes up for grabs there. Tony Blair has called this move unacceptable, unjustified, and wrong. Conservative think tanks have labeled that move as a horrible one also. The taxes on the imports will begin at 30 percent then decline to 24 percent and 18 percent in the second and third years. They phase out entirely three years from now.

Hmmm...three years from now will be 2005 the year after the next election.

Rewinding back to last bullshit promises he and Cheney made to Nevada (a Republican governorship), about not shipping the radioactive waste to Las Vegas (90 miles outside of), until all of the scientific and safety issues had been resolved, which they haven't. He signed off on a recommendation that the Yucca Mountain be the repository.

In that election, Nevada had four electoral votes, and very narrowly went to Bush. Mainly because of the now dismissed promise. Politicians say if that waste dump project happens, he will lose those votes, regardless of who's running against him.

So he is targeting bigger states (more electoral votes) in hopes of assuring himself a repeat.

So prices for steel will rise and the American consumer will suffer for that self-serving, and other self-serving moves he has done or attempted to do.

 

[spongebob]

So prices for steel will rise and the American consumer will suffer for that self-serving, and other self-serving moves he has done or attempted to do.

good post gym, just a few questions though,

where should the waste be dumped?

and are there any projections as to how much of an increase the consumer will actually pay?

 

[bigguns7]

GOP and hypocrisy don't really rhyme that well.

 

[spongebob]

i forgot to add a comment,

every politician tries to strengthen thier chances of a future victory. if he decided to dumped that waste elsewhere, then some other state would be pissed. if he decided not to impose higher taxes on imports, then someone would get pissed. lets be honest, someone always gets pissed, no matter what they do. whether you agree with it or not, doesnt make it right or wrong.

me, fuck a world economy, we need to assure that america has the highest paying jobs in the world, at all cost. if that means paying a little bit more for steel, then thats what we need to do. we all benefit when more people make more money, instead of the other way around(the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer). see how cheap you can import it for, so that american companies have to impose strict cost cutting measures, which includes lower wages.

americans want everything dirt fucking cheap, yet complain about low wage jobs.

 

[the nature boy]

you can't say fuck a global economy.... because it is global. events in europe and asia affect our economy. That's just how it is.

 

[spongebob]

you can't say fuck a global economy.... because it is global. events in europe and asia affect our economy. That's just how it is.

fuck global economy!

NB, my point is this, this country has quit making goods. we are more of a service country.

who has benefited the most from this shift, not the worker, big businesses. the rich have gotton richer and the poor have stayed poor. the gap is widening. do you know for a fact that it would not work the other way? no. its a scam, they want you to believe we have to have a global economy in order to survive.

look at nike, they say they cant make shoes cheap enough in the states in order to turn a profit, so all thier factories are elsewhere. i'd like to see thier qurterly reports, im sure thier not hurting.

all im saying is make sure people in this country are very well paid for manufacturing jobs and if that means high tariffs and the consumer paying more, then so be it. we all benefit from it in the long run. people complain about the rich getting richer but want dirt ass cheap products.

global economy, sounds like a nice way for companies to bail out of the US and make thier products for pennies on the dollar in sweatshops under conditions that would be illegal under our labor laws in order to reap huge profits.

im calling scam.

 

[the nature boy]

well all you said is completely 100% true. but how do we fix that? The jobs are cheaper in other countries. Plus the environmental laws are MUCH more lax. So if we're to believe the Nikes and other good producing companies of the world, they say they can't turn a profit building products in the States.

I'm in total agreement though..... the question is.... what's the solution?

 

[spongebob]

well all you said is completely 100% true. but how do we fix that? The jobs are cheaper in other countries. Plus the environmental laws are MUCH more lax. So if we're to believe the Nikes and other good producing companies of the world, they say they can't turn a profit building products in the States.

I'm in total agreement though..... the question is.... what's the solution?

if the jobs are cheaper and the laws are more laxed, then we have to even the playing field with higher tariffs, but big business has politicians on thier side.

 

[Frackal]

??????

Why is it on this board (and in life) that when someone points out something bad about a republican, republicans come around and do not defend the issue, instead pointing out a democratic fault? Am I picking on republicans? No, democrats do the EXACT same thing in the vice/versa situation.....stop squabbling and realize these parties only pay tribute to corporations and do all they can get away with while poorly attempting to spin doctor it to look like it was done for the people.

 

[the nature boy]

if the jobs are cheaper and the laws are more laxed, then we have to even the playing field with higher tariffs, but big business has politicians on thier side.

but then other countries will raise tariffs too. The US has gotten into economic trouble when doing ths earlier in it's history.

 

[spongebob]

but then other countries will raise tariffs too. The US has gotten into economic trouble when doing ths earlier in it's history.

well if you dont then you have the situation we discussed earlier, well guess what, nonthings gonna be perfect, someone will always bitch. im just saying put american workers first regardless of higher tariffs imposed by other countries. i bet you that over the last ten to fifteen years the gap between the rich and poor has widened, why??? i thought the world economy was supossed to help americans, guess what, they'll say or do anything to turn a profit and that includes pulling the "global economy" scam.

or we can just keep widening the gap.

 

[the nature boy]

somehow I don't think creating manufacturing jobs in the states is going to keep the gap between rich and poor from widening. if anything we'll lose out on the world market because everyone will have tariffs on our goods, making it easier for other countries to move in on foreign markets we once had a stake in. tariffs backfire.

 

[gymnpoppa]

You're both right. However, a problem exists spongebob with the American public. A good part of the working generation's kids don't have work ethics to do grunt work. Nor do the people at the top of the pie want to sacrifice anything off their salaries to insure that the lower man on the totem pole will have an attractive salary. You're not going to get nothing but the worst kind of workers @ the minimum wage. Or slightly above. Invest (federal aid in more training programs, not cut them as Bush is doing), stop wasting money on stupid commercials (4.3 mil during the Super Bowl) attempting to put a national security/terrorist spin on drugs, use that money for rehab......and more job training programs. Coordinate actual information between the inept FBI/CIA/DEA and the local law enforcement personnel. Tell the truth, stand by your word. Can we get any president to just do that? Nope, I don't think so.

 

[spongebob]

You're both right. However, a problem exists spongebob with the American public. A good part of the working generation's kids don't have work ethics to do grunt work. Nor do the people at the top of the pie want to sacrifice anything off their salaries to insure that the lower man on the totem pole will have an attractive salary.

your right gym, ive seen it first hand when i worked as an electrician. most of em looked at the shovel and thought it might bite them if they actually used it. it was funny.

 

[aurelius]

me, fuck a world economy, we need to assure that america has the highest paying jobs in the world, at all cost. if that means paying a little bit more for steel, then thats what we need to do. we all benefit when more people make more money, instead of the other way around(the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer). see how cheap you can import it for, so that american companies have to impose strict cost cutting measures, which includes lower wages.

Oversimplified. More expensive steel, American business buys less. This stunts growth that might have otherwise occurred. Tarriffs only help the group protected and hurt everyone else. Don´t start with this AMERICAN worker crap. They´re out to protect themselves. Period.

America lost its competitive advantage in steel (and most other manufacturing industries) long ago. This is econ 101.

Check out this book for more info on globalization: "Fighting the Wrong Enemy." Forgot the author.

 

[spongebob]

Oversimplified. More expensive steel, American business buys less. This stunts growth that might have otherwise occurred. Tarriffs only help the group protected and hurt everyone else. Don´t start with this AMERICAN worker crap. They´re out to protect themselves. Period.

if demand is greater than supply, i guarentee american business will not buy less. in the past ten years, cost of new home construction has sky-rocketed(due to wage increase among crafts and also MATERIAL cost. has new home sales have also sky-rocketed and continues to increase. is that little bit of tid-bit information in econ.101.

America lost its competitive advantage in steel (and most other manufacturing industries) long ago. This is econ 101.

americans lost thier competitive edge, due to the fact that american and non-american companies can make products dirt cheap. labor cost are dirt cheap, environmental laws are sub-par, labor practices would be considered illegal in this country. sure , if you wanna call that being competitive, move to those countries and you or your family members work in those conditions.

as far as american workers, where do you work and how long have you been in the workforce?

Check out this book for more info on globalization: "Fighting the Wrong Enemy." Forgot the author.

for every economist you show me, i can show you a different philosophy. i dont need another OPINION. thanks anyway.

 

[spongebob]

Don´t start with this AMERICAN worker crap. They´re out to protect themselves. Period.

one minute people complain about big business and how they reap too much profit, and the next minute, people complain about the american worker trying to keep his or her salaries at least up with inflation and a little protection bad labor practices.

anything that has happened in this country regarding american workers, solely rest on the companies shoulders.

and then people turn around and say american workers have lost thier competitive edge, its been stripped from them by big businesses.

 

[aurelius]

if demand is greater than supply, i guarentee american business will not buy less. in the past ten years, cost of new home construction has sky-rocketed(due to wage increase among crafts and also MATERIAL cost. has new home sales have also sky-rocketed and continues to increase. is that little bit of tid-bit information in econ.101.

Thought we were talking steel. How much steel is in your house? Try again.

americans lost thier competitive edge, due to the fact that american and non-american companies can make products dirt cheap. labor cost are dirt cheap, environmental laws are sub-par, labor practices would be considered illegal in this country. sure , if you wanna call that being competitive, move to those countries and you or your family members work in those conditions.

You´re wrong on the environmental laws thing. A classic myopic American viewpoint. The standard of living varies tremendously from one country to another. Jobs that would be considerd crap in the US are a decent living in other places. Your final two comments are complete non sequiteurs.

Dismissing my reading advice so soon? A real inquiring mind you have. By the way, this book isn´t philosophy but a cool analysis of the facts. Not a bunch of isolationist platitudes.

 

[spongebob]

Thought we were talking steel. How much steel is in your house? Try again.

yes, steel specifically, but Natureboy and i were also discussing world economy. and i offered an example to squash your arguement of rising materials cost resulting in lowere demand. and yes, steel is used in home construction as with alot of other new applications. if there is demand there will be supply. but never the less, good way to back peddle.

You´re wrong on the environmental laws thing. A classic myopic American viewpoint. The standard of living varies tremendously from one country to another. Jobs that would be considerd crap in the US are a decent living in other places. Your final two comments are complete non sequiteurs.

wait a minute, you start out talking about environmental laws and then proceed to discuss the standard of living. apples and oranges. my arguement is not that we should compare thier standard of living to ours, i would be willing to bet that the difference between two individuals, one that works at a nike factory and one that works at a local resturaunt is not that different.

have you ever been to mexico and seen thier petro-chemical facilities. lovely sight, open atmosphere storage tanks with the ground itself providing the bottom.

Dismissing my reading advice so soon? A real inquiring mind you have. By the way, this book isn´t philosophy but a cool analysis of the facts. Not a bunch of isolationist platitudes. [/QUOTE

 

[aurelius]

You talk apples and oranges. Comparing steel with the housing market is just that. First of all, steel not key in the housing market. Doesn´t matter though. Any increase in production cost will show up at the other end, whether the producer buys less or passes the cost on to the consumer who then buys less.

Housing is a poor example for several reasons, not the least of which is the home mortgage tax write off, the biggest middle class subsidy in the United States. Subsidies distort the supply demand curve in any market. econ 101.

wait a minute, you start out talking about environmental laws and then proceed to discuss the standard of living. apples and oranges. my arguement is not that we should compare thier standard of living to ours, i would be willing to bet that the difference between two individuals, one that works at a nike factory and one that works at a local resturaunt is not that different.

Dead wrong on the comparison between the Nike factory and the local restaurant. As the book I mentioned demonstrates, average wages typically increase in a country that has such foreign investment. Wages given by these foreign investors are also typically above the country´s average. More involved than my simple explanation, of course. Would strongly encourage you to check out the book. You sound genuinely interested.

p.s. Your Mexico story sounds terrible, but what´s your point?

 

[spongebob]

You talk apples and oranges. Comparing steel with the housing market is just that. First of all, steel not key in the housing market. jeez, i think i know that steel is not a key ingredient, i wired houses for five years.

Doesn´t matter though. Any increase in production cost will show up at the other end, whether the producer buys less or passes the cost on to the consumer who then buys less.

thats my point, you say an increase in raw materials eventually causes lower demand. i gave you an example where that is not the case. the cost to the consumer sky-rocketed due to wage increase and MATERIAL cost, and demand did not drop off as you say it should. it sky-rocketed also. see. my point is that demand can drive supply.

Housing is a poor example for several reasons, not the least of which is the home mortgage tax write off, the biggest middle class subsidy in the United States. Subsidies distort the supply demand curve in any market. econ 101.

good point, but i would say that the tax break is not the reason that people are buying new homes at the rate that they are buying. my point is, that people would buy even if there was no tax break.

Dead wrong on the comparison between the Nike factory and the local restaurant. As the book I mentioned demonstrates, average wages typically increase in a country that has such foreign investment. Wages given by these foreign investors are also typically above the country´s average. More involved than my simple explanation, of course. Would strongly encourage you to check out the book. You sound genuinely interested.

ok, well i am going to buy black beauty for my daughter, so i will look for it.

p.s. Your Mexico story sounds terrible, but what´s your point?

my point is, that environmental laws are laxed, which help encourage refineries to locate businesses in such places.

ok, i have exhausted my limited knowledge on this one. good conversation.

 

[aurelius]

Ah, Black Beauty...the timeless classic.

Still think the subsidy completely distorts this market. (especially with a locked in fixed rate, sheltering the investor from inflation) The demand for housing must have also been key for driving up the price, although your point is taken.

That book also addresses your ecological concerns. A bit dry in the beginning. OK, enough with the book.

 

[Longhorn85]

...Hypocrisy.

I just read in "La Vanguardia" this morning that Bush has issued a highly restrictive import quota on foreign steel to protect American made steel.

I thought that Republicans were champions of the free market? I thougth Democrats bent over for unions?



p.s. pointing out hypocrisy in politics doesn´t require much intelligence. Look how easy I did it.

Sounds like he wants to win Pennsylvania's electoral votes next time around.

 

[aurelius]

Simplicity itself.