Thread: the horribleness 'o China, aye. grrr.

Originally Posted by soot

You know, the really crazy thing about ideologues is that they'll point the finger at the other party when they, themselves, are as much to blame, if not deserving of more blame, than that other party.

Case in point, China's PNTR status and they way they achieved it.

That status was pushed by a Democray president (Bill Clinton). And we're not talking about a half-assed, take-it-or-leave it commitment to getting this thing passed. This was a BIG FUCKING DEAL for President Clinton. This required full-on lobbying, arm twisting, and giving the Senate first wack at this thing because of opposition in the House.

In the end fully two thirds of the Democrats in the House voted Yea on H.R. 4444 and when it reached the Senate more Republicans (8) voted against it than Democrats (7).

When you get right down to the root of the matter it wasn't "our cons" who allowed this.

At best it was bipartisan but closer to the truth is that "our libs" drove this thing home like a stolen Farrari.

Take the blinders off dude. The libs are no better than the cons.

The libs might have the courtsey to give you a reach-around (in the form of yet more entitlements for the unemployed American), but they fucked the American workling man no less hard than the cons did in terms of offshoring American jobs.

I will not dispute what you have said about Clinton, because he also signed NAFTA, after it was pushed through congress by the repubs. The vote on NAFTA in congress tells the story here on who supported the very thing that opened the door for the china agreement. The ball was already rolling, instigated by repubs.

I will not give a pass to the dems who went along with the chinese agreement, but were the repubs totally against this? I think not! They would have embraced it heartily, because this is what big business special interests wanted. Any reticence by the pubs would have been only playing politics, and this is obvious.

I do not give the dems a pass here, but pandora's box was clearly opened up by the repubs who along with their special interests concocted free trade which led to the destruction of our middle class. So we could be more free with greater liberty. LOL. It was nothing more than a move to max profits by off shoring to cheap labor while retaining free access to the very consumer market that same industry created here in america, back when we made what we consumed. This is clear, surely.

BTW a texan republican got the ball rolling for clinton in congress if I recall correctly. Clinton was one of the better repubs we have had from the democratic party.

I understand how we got to where we are is complicated, but the big picture is rather simple. We allowed a few to max out profits by free trade, and are devastating this nation of average people. Because this lies at the very root of why free trade was concocted in the first place. That is clear.

Do you really think that when free trade was considered, that the idea of off shoring american jobs to cheap labor while retaining access to our market NEVER entered into the equation at all? By the special interests who drove this? I think not.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Do you really think that when free trade was considered, that the idea of off shoring american jobs to cheap labor while retaining access to our market NEVER entered into the equation at all? By the special interests who drove this? I think not.

I think it depends on which special interests you're talking about.

The pressure came from a lot of different angles.

Some were interested in factors of production, some in raw materials, some in access to markets.

For those that were primarially interested in factors of production, with the scale to offshore, sure I agree with you. It was the first thing on their minds.

I don't dispute the fact, and would never dispute the fact, that offshoring was bad for the American economy and for the American worker. I don't think it had to be as bad as it's actually been. I think more American (ostensibly a self-sufficent, stand-on-your-own-two-feet type of people) should have seen it coming and adjusted accordingly. But I can't think of a scenario in which it would have been wholey good for America.

What I dispute, and I dispute it because it's something that REALLY ruffles my feathers, is the idea that this is the Republicans' fault. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's the same argument that Democrats use all the time with so many different issues and it's a steaming pile of horse shit.

Yes, the Republicans kicked off the NAFTA negotiations. But the Democrats could have (by vote and by veto) stopped it dead in its tracks. They didn't.

Yes, a Republican introduced the the China PNTR bill to the House. The Democrats could have (by vote and by veto) stopped it cold. They didn't.

Yes, George W. Bush pushed for war in Iraq. The Democrats could have (by vote) shut it down in the Senate. They didn't.

You could give example after example of this same thing happening again, and again, and again.

The Democrats oppose these things from the soap box in the run-up to a vote, then agree to them at the ballot box, then get back on the soap box and criticize them once the law or resolution has been passed.

Talking shit about something doesn't absolve the Democrats of taking responsibility for nonsense they could have stopped but didn't have the balls to take a real stand on.

Originally Posted by soot

I think it depends on which special interests you're talking about.

The pressure came from a lot of different angles.

Some were interested in factors of production, some in raw materials, some in access to markets.

For those that were primarially interested in factors of production, with the scale to offshore, sure I agree with you. It was the first thing on their minds.

I don't dispute the fact, and would never dispute the fact, that offshoring was bad for the American economy and for the American worker. I don't think it had to be as bad as it's actually been. I think more American (ostensibly a self-sufficent, stand-on-your-own-two-feet type of people) should have seen it coming and adjusted accordingly. But I can't think of a scenario in which it would have been wholey good for America.

What I dispute, and I dispute it because it's something that REALLY ruffles my feathers, is the idea that this is the Republicans' fault. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's the same argument that Democrats use all the time with so many different issues and it's a steaming pile of horse shit.

Yes, the Republicans kicked off the NAFTA negotiations. But the Democrats could have (by vote and by veto) stopped it dead in its tracks. They didn't.

Yes, a Republican introduced the the China PNTR bill to the House. The Democrats could have (by vote and by veto) stopped it cold. They didn't.

Yes, George W. Bush pushed for war in Iraq. The Democrats could have (by vote) shut it down in the Senate. They didn't.

You could give example after example of this same thing happening again, and again, and again.

The Democrats oppose these things from the soap box in the run-up to a vote, then agree to them at the ballot box, then get back on the soap box and criticize them once the law or resolution has been passed.

Talking shit about something doesn't absolve the Democrats of taking responsibility for nonsense they could have stopped but didn't have the balls to take a real stand on.

Can I use your message in that other thread where democrats are accused of obstructionism, gridlock and stuff?
Sorry, no opinion about China being bad, just a spontaneous reaction.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Do you blame the whore, or the pimp for selling themselves?

My second try ... at this ... does it matter? They are both getting rich at the expense of others interests..

I like to think of China as a modern day version of the up and coming European Empires in the late 19th century. There are so many similarities, even though it is not all the same. But you have massive urbanization, industrialization, creation of powerful infrastructure, a large leap forward in education, increasingly overwheming pollution which already lays the seeds for some environmental conscience to form and counter initiatives, also from official level. At the same time the state is not democratic but depends largely on a new formed middle class and their well being.

China is a country where you'd better not mess around with the authorities, but its a country where the authorities can't afford messing around with the middle class and where working for the growing wealth of the masses is in their very own interest as it is this that keeps the majority in line in support for the current regime.

But China is not a perfect place to live of course. After all they have WalMart...
(I wonder if WalMart advertizes in China with "100% domestically produced goods" slogans )

Originally Posted by soot

I think it depends on which special interests you're talking about.

The pressure came from a lot of different angles.

Some were interested in factors of production, some in raw materials, some in access to markets.

For those that were primarially interested in factors of production, with the scale to offshore, sure I agree with you. It was the first thing on their minds.

I don't dispute the fact, and would never dispute the fact, that offshoring was bad for the American economy and for the American worker. I don't think it had to be as bad as it's actually been. I think more American (ostensibly a self-sufficent, stand-on-your-own-two-feet type of people) should have seen it coming and adjusted accordingly. But I can't think of a scenario in which it would have been wholey good for America.

What I dispute, and I dispute it because it's something that REALLY ruffles my feathers, is the idea that this is the Republicans' fault. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's the same argument that Democrats use all the time with so many different issues and it's a steaming pile of horse shit.

Yes, the Republicans kicked off the NAFTA negotiations. But the Democrats could have (by vote and by veto) stopped it dead in its tracks. They didn't.

Yes, a Republican introduced the the China PNTR bill to the House. The Democrats could have (by vote and by veto) stopped it cold. They didn't.

Yes, George W. Bush pushed for war in Iraq. The Democrats could have (by vote) shut it down in the Senate. They didn't.

You could give example after example of this same thing happening again, and again, and again.

The Democrats oppose these things from the soap box in the run-up to a vote, then agree to them at the ballot box, then get back on the soap box and criticize them once the law or resolution has been passed.

Talking shit about something doesn't absolve the Democrats of taking responsibility for nonsense they could have stopped but didn't have the balls to take a real stand on.

But sir, the vote on NAFTA in congress had few dems voting for it. The repubs got it through, and of course Clinton signed it into law. This opened pandora's box sir, and the dems in congress at that time did not support it. Someone posted that vote here on this board last year or earlier this year. Sir this is clear as it is record.

My contention is, repubs have always, in my lifetime been the pro business party, and at times to the extreme over that of the people. I have stated here in the past that the traditional dem party of the average person has changed in the past few years and no longer look out for these people, which they did for decades after ww2. So, we can agree that the dems, some of them threw in with the repubs on these issues. Yet I look back to the catalyst sir, the monumental change in attitude of our gov't on WHO and WHAT has the greatest value in a represenative republic? Is it the best interests of a few business interests and their personal wealth or is it the majority who make up america? It is clear where the emphasis has been shifted, and it is also clear using history from whence this great change came . Republicans sir. I do not think that can be disputed factually. I saw it happen in real time way back then.

Take bank deregs, that gave us an unsound banking system after decades of soundness. Soundness means less profits for banks and bankers, that is clear. We exchanged that soundness for higher banker profits, which led to banks being the most powerful force in politics today. They pushed the large corporations into second place in power and influence. These deregs that allowed the meteoric rise of banking also allowed the crash to happen. That is a fact sir. None of the things that caused the crash were allowed under the old regulated banking. That is a fact sir. We could not get too big to fail banks under the regulated system. And banking was regulated to avoid financial crashes, from lessons learned in the late 19th century and early 20th.

No sir, I think that if not for the changes that came from the republicans once they were no longer relegated to the minority, starting in 1980, we would not be in this grand mess we are in today. I believe these men to be dangerous to america in their zeal to turn banking and big business loose to enjoy this idea of freedom and liberty. Just look to where this has led. I really do not think this can be disputed by honest men sir. I am no giving the modern dems a leave on this, they have become affected with the power of big money as well and have turned their back on average americans. We don't want welfare sir, average americans, we want the chance to prosper by the work of our hands, by making what our neighbors and this nation consumes. Afterall our economy is consumption based. Average people can not prosper to any great degree when they are not allowed to work to make what we consume in a consumption based economy. There are no rabbit to pull out of a hat that will replace making what we consume. Any idea to the contrary, even the info age is pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Take bank deregs...

Sure. Okay.

If we're going to do that then we need to take the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as the marquee example of bank deregulation.

G-L-B was enacted in 1999 by the 106th Congress.

As a quick aside, the 106th Congress was composed as follows:

Senate: 55(R) 45(D)

House: 227(R) 207(D) 1(I)

Okay, back to our discussion of this bill.

When it came to a vote in the House it recieved 207 Republican yea votes. So not even a simple majority of the entire House.

There was room there for defeating it, if that's something the Democrats had really wanted to fight for. They may not have been successful, but if Democrats were as diametrically opposed to big bank greed as present-day Democrats like to pretend the Democrat Party is they could have given it an honest shot. If they'd gone party-line, picked up a few Republicans, and convinced a few folks who were on the fence to be out of town the day the vote was cast they could have beaten it.

But they didn't. They didn't even try.

What actually happened was that 155 Democrats, 75% of the Democrats in the House, also voted yea.

So you can't even argue that G-L-B snuck through the House as the result of a strict party-line Republican vote.

You can't argue that the Democrats made any effort at all to defeat this bill.

Alright, let's go to the Senate.

52 of the 55 Republicans in the Senate voted yea, so there wan't an awful lot the Democrats could have done to stop them. The had their simple majority.

At best they could have put up a token effort and if they were really opposed to this thing, if it really didn't square with their values and ethics, that's what they would have done.

Did they?

Of the 45 Democrats in the Senate 38 of them, or 85%, voted yea.

So...well...yeah, that kinda speaks for itself.

But then the bill had to go to the president to be signed into law.

On raw numbers, on a party-line vote, the Republicans didn't have a 3/5ths veto-proof majority in either chamber.

If the president squashed this thing it was dead in the water.

Fortunately the president as a Democrat! Bill Clinton. Democrats are opposed to this kind of thing on principal so clearly the president was going to veto it and send it back to Congress where it would die from lack of votes.

Unfortunately, President Clinton was about as wishy-washy on protecting America from the greed of big Wall Street banks as were 75% of the Democrats in Congress.

As you know, President Clinton signed that bitch and the bankers were off to the races.

So sure, you can argue all day that the Republicans introduced a bill.

But when 75% of the Democrats in the House, 85% of the Democrats in the Senate, and the Democrat POTUS all get on board you can no longer blame the Republicans for the passage of that bill or for the consequent mess that such legislation leads to.

I believe these men to be dangerous to america...

So do I brother.

The difference between me and you is that I don't think that half of them are cool and half of them are a problem.

I think that they're ALL dangerous.

It is refreshing that this is the least ideological three I have ever read.

My fear of China is the buildup of their military and conquest of neighboring nations.
China is buying up every last shred of steel, not only to build their infrastructure but also their military.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

It is refreshing that this is the least ideological three I have ever read.

My fear of China is the buildup of their military and conquest of neighboring nations.
China is buying up every last shred of steel, not only to build their infrastructure but also their military.

At some point China will face an economic crises, every country eventually does. The interesting thing will not only be when this is going to happen but how the country will cope with it. It will depend on that how powerful China is really going to be in future. It certainly has the potential for being number one, but in the worst case it could fall back dramatically again as well.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

It is refreshing that this is the least ideological three I have ever read.

My fear of China is the buildup of their military and conquest of neighboring nations.
China is buying up every last shred of steel, not only to build their infrastructure but also their military.

Yeah. We'll have to fight them eventually.

Originally Posted by soot

Yeah. We'll have to fight them eventually.

They with technology we provided ... will be formidable. Hopefully it doesn't happen . China is an industrial powerhouse. The US is becoming a industrial weakling that could oppose China with its service industry ... we could serve them tea and doughnuts. China would also be reliant on us for chopsticks, this could be a drawback for them if we corner the market on chopstick production. Maybe during the war they can sell us electronic components we need. Them on their modern communications ... while we use dixie cups on a string to contact our military forces.

If you randomly pick a year from the last 2000 years, chances are that in that year China was number one in economy, military power, technology, culture, whatever.
The last few hundred years have been an aberration, they will be number one again.
And fighting them would be a losing proposition, for a military that had huge problems with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Especially since the US military is looking at a major reduction in funding no matter which party dominates the political scene, (the Ryan budget projects a something like a 70% cut in military spending).
I doubt the US can ever recover from the Reagan-Bush tax cuts.

Originally Posted by soot

Sure. Okay.

If we're going to do that then we need to take the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as the marquee example of bank deregulation.

G-L-B was enacted in 1999 by the 106th Congress.

As a quick aside, the 106th Congress was composed as follows:

Senate: 55(R) 45(D)

House: 227(R) 207(D) 1(I)

Okay, back to our discussion of this bill.

When it came to a vote in the House it recieved 207 Republican yea votes. So not even a simple majority of the entire House.

There was room there for defeating it, if that's something the Democrats had really wanted to fight for. They may not have been successful, but if Democrats were as diametrically opposed to big bank greed as present-day Democrats like to pretend the Democrat Party is they could have given it an honest shot. If they'd gone party-line, picked up a few Republicans, and convinced a few folks who were on the fence to be out of town the day the vote was cast they could have beaten it.

But they didn't. They didn't even try.

What actually happened was that 155 Democrats, 75% of the Democrats in the House, also voted yea.

So you can't even argue that G-L-B snuck through the House as the result of a strict party-line Republican vote.

You can't argue that the Democrats made any effort at all to defeat this bill.

Alright, let's go to the Senate.

52 of the 55 Republicans in the Senate voted yea, so there wan't an awful lot the Democrats could have done to stop them. The had their simple majority.

At best they could have put up a token effort and if they were really opposed to this thing, if it really didn't square with their values and ethics, that's what they would have done.

Did they?

Of the 45 Democrats in the Senate 38 of them, or 85%, voted yea.

So...well...yeah, that kinda speaks for itself.

But then the bill had to go to the president to be signed into law.

On raw numbers, on a party-line vote, the Republicans didn't have a 3/5ths veto-proof majority in either chamber.

If the president squashed this thing it was dead in the water.

Fortunately the president as a Democrat! Bill Clinton. Democrats are opposed to this kind of thing on principal so clearly the president was going to veto it and send it back to Congress where it would die from lack of votes.

Unfortunately, President Clinton was about as wishy-washy on protecting America from the greed of big Wall Street banks as were 75% of the Democrats in Congress.

As you know, President Clinton signed that bitch and the bankers were off to the races.

So sure, you can argue all day that the Republicans introduced a bill.

But when 75% of the Democrats in the House, 85% of the Democrats in the Senate, and the Democrat POTUS all get on board you can no longer blame the Republicans for the passage of that bill or for the consequent mess that such legislation leads to.



So do I brother.

The difference between me and you is that I don't think that half of them are cool and half of them are a problem.

I think that they're ALL dangerous.

Yes sir you are right as I just looked it up. Yet the fact remains, and this is very important to me, the 3 men who introduced this bill, were.....REPUBLICANS. Dems argued it would allow "too big to fail" banks to come into existence. I will therefore maintain that these deregs were a republican wish, and then the politics fired up, and the rest is history. But of course deregs started arising in 1980, and the 80s saw the accelleration of deregs, once the repubs had finally gained some voice back. I do not think this is coincidental, but will agree that enough of the dems jumped on board, which is completely against their ideology from a decade prior. Such a change! And this led up to the crash, helped along by the bill in 1980 I think when lending requirements were lowered so riskier loans could be given to those that were marginal in affording such loans for homes. Banks loved it, and pushed for it as it meant they could charge higher rates, and hence increase their profits, which would later crash our economy. There wasn't just one dereg that led up to where we are today, but several.

The big question for me is, IF the repubs had not returned to power, would we have gotten the deregs that the banks pushed for so they could make more profits, in exchange for a less sound system? I think not. I think the pro business, anti regulation repubs played a key role in where we are today. Afterall, I never saw such changes until that occurred. Am I wrong?

Regardless I am fed up with the power of greed given free rein in DC that ends up destroying our middle class, which by the way many cons here think should have never existed from the factory work that supplied our consumption based economy with goods that drove our middle class creation.

I look at it rather simply, which is not invalid. The change in whom was in power and influence in DC, changed this nation, and it has been a change that has enriched the top as the demise of the middle and bottom. That is clear, and there are no coincidences here, as coincidences are very rare entities.