China Tariffs

[deasmatt90]

Jobs, gates, and Buffet progressive thinkers? Buffets an investor buying up devalued stock. Jobs and gates where two geeks that got lucky and stumbled onto discovery tinkering around in a garage. How is that progressive, Or even relate to anything about what I shared about WW2?
I'm still waiting on my enlightenment, however I'm afraid it will be like waiting on being saved by liberal ideology.

[booked]

sw

I believe there was also something in there about gun control. Oh and any treaty that is ratified by congress is more powerful than us laws. And i believe that obama very quietly got the rules changed on the ratification of a treaty. It used to be that 66% of congress would have to vote in favor, not anymore now i believe it only needs 50% and you know there is for sure 50% that would vote YEA. Much like health care you got to vote for it to find out what is in it..........

[lsc76cat]

The 2/3 requirement is written into the Constitution:

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,

       to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Would take a constitutional amendment to change that.

Supreme Court has made a legal distinction between treaties and

  international agreements.  IF you're interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Text

[booked]

ISC

Yup that is the law but i would swear i read that some how it got changed but i cannot find support for my comment to the change to 50%..

But if some unscrupulous politicians want change they seem to find ways around the law.

Here is a link to some commentary on the TPP

https://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/obamas-secret-treaty-which-will-merge-america-more-deep...

[sw363535]

Thanks for clarification guys.  I just sat and read the documents when the press started promoting the misinformation(articles written of the same outline showing the environmental damage in china that TPP would fix)  I just wanted to understand why China was signing it??.

And why the white house at the time was changing its labeling rhetoric.(international agreement claims)..

. What I read was an attempt to create international law through treaty (as defined by Isc76cat)  The effect was to force the US to live by law created by international treaty that was in effect different that US law.  The then Presidents "environmental" legacy.  And there was nothing in the treaty to force China to comply.  Or penalize them if they chose not to.

Very little of the document dealt with trade of any kind specifically. 

I have gown up with and around the left since I was a college representative to the political hocus locus.   About the only accomplishment our age group has made is the redefining of terms.  And when we are hard at it you better pay attention.

[booked]

By the way to who it may concern on the powers of a treaty

Hunting laws were brought to this country by treaty.

In the link below in the timeline you might note that laws were written on hunting waterfowl and were struck down by the supreme court but when they were reintroduced by treaty they STUCK.

https://www.audubon.org/news/the-history-and-evolution-migratory-bird-treaty-act

and yes i believe this is an important conversation and it does belong in marketing

[backmansasktel]

The migratory game bird treaty is a farce the way it is enforced in the US. Spring hunting seasons, shooting of geese year around in the Rio Grande Valley and then the discarding of the carcasses.

I have no love of waterfowl on my farm, but I find it disgusting that American interests can pressure our govt into bag limits, shortened hunting seasons and other restrictions that the US has no intention of enforcing as required to do by treaty.

American disregard of obligations started with Teddy Rossevelt and has just got worse over the years.

How can you tell when an American is lying?

His lips are moving.

[lsc76cat]

The TPP in several ways is a rewrite and repackage of the Kyoto accords that GW Bush refused to sign.

The Kyoto accord was promoted as a way to fight "global warming" and placed compliance burdens

   on developed countries and left developing economies like China exempt for many years into the future.

Since the US would not get on board with Kyoto the One World Order types brought it back

   as a trade agreement when a more agreeable administration was in place.

The legal distinction the Supreme Court made between treaties and international agreements is where the

   difference comes from in the 2/3 requirement vs a simple majority.

Congress can approve, disapprove or even ignore international agreements entered into by the executive. 

   Without Congressional action the effect of international agreements on US law is rather murky.

[sw363535]

backmansasktel,

In spite of your clear "american" dislike.  Which is wonderful compared to figuring out your leaders position.(and why we should like the US present leadership).  It is understandable.

anyway thanks for making a great point as to how much crony politics has invaded the american government in a cash for power trade for votes.  Those special interest groups that demand control of hunting laws now have a strong voice in usda laws and regulations, EPA regulations, and expanding debt.  And how an american president can force his country to subsidize another countries social programs.

Trade as we have been pointing out has also been corrupted by political demands that are not necessarily supported by the voting public  or the taxpayer who gets stuck with the check endlessly.  

Not every community gets a constant reminder of this but many do if you borrow enough on the taxpayer.  $200+million and yet to produce ethanol from anything.

Or wind turbines that produce electricity no one can afford ----- except the taxpayer and his endless checkbook.  To support a world vision that is not supported by his own people.  

That is what you get when you keep telling someone how important they are to the world.  And politics becomes financed by multi national corporations and the worlds elite rich who can live wherever they want to and dodge tax liability playing one country against another.

[hardnox]

Not that facts should get in the way of a good screed but new wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and nuclear.

That's why the Trump Admin. is going full swampy in trying to force more expensive coal and nuke back into the mix because milking those assets further is hugely profitable for the private corporations that now own most of the generation capacity.

In its inception and buildout phase, ethanol did place a tax on consumers via food costs. That may have been worth it as far as meeting other objectives but don't pretend it was free.

It would have cost less to have a better crafted ethanol policy and also would have made farmers a little less financially vulnerable if they hadn't overshot and turbocharged.

But I guess the first commandment in agriculture today is that thou shall not speak ill of ethanol.