2wolves

The current administration in an effort to deflect domestic concerns over a shrinking employment market will attempt to blame the P.R.C. for the preceived jobs flight from the United States.

This will happen within the next 15 days.

How China will react is open to speculation though it may behoove Walmart to start looking for another country of origin for the majority of their wares.

2Wolves

HarmlessRabbit

Interesting. Personally, I have always wondered why China gets such a free ride in the USA, especially under Clinton. The reaction of the USA to the Tianimen Square incident was shameful. It would be like us saying to the Iraqis "In response to the actions of your despotic leader, we're opening up free trade!"

I'm personally in favor of free trade being based on the civil rights, human rights, and freedom of the citizens of the country we are trading with. Meddling in the affairs of countries without thinking about the consequences has given us Vietnam, Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, and East Timor, among others.

Food Eater Lad

Well when China was a major campaign donater to Clinton, you cant bite the hand that feeds can you?

JamesS

Food Eater Lad - be serious.

Actually, right now employment seems to have leveled off - regardless of how misguided Bush's policies are, when you run a 600 billion dollar deficit, you must be spending somewhere!

But seriously, the Bush admin's MO from day one has been (both on issues which warranted it and not) pointing to someone else as the root for each and every problem. It never seems to take responsibility for much of anything that goes on anywhere - and I say this speaking as an independent.

The reason why China gets such a free ride is (because of their oppressive labor practices) they can provide many goods at a much lower cost to American consumers.

Howard Dean has addressed this issue recently stating that we should trade with only those who share the same standards as we do. That specific policy is a little silly of course - only a very few countries could make such a claim. But at least there is someone willing to address the issue.

__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer

Astrocloud

I read something about this the other day. I personally believe that there is something to "blaming China". However, we do this while ignoring our nations own shortcomings. For example; there could have been a US bail-out for many fine industries... but then -we would have an even bigger deficit problem. (Even though we still have money for an expensive Iraqi war).

Here's the article reflecting China's currency manipulation and Bush's relative unwillingness to cite them on it. This is an editorial from something I read for some reason.

http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPa...067775689.html

Food Eater Lad

China was a major contributer to Clinton's campaign. Sorry you dont believe me.

China Sought Technology With Campaign Funds - New York Times
Tuesday December 15, 1998 3:51 AM ET
China Sought Technology With Campaign Funds - New York Times

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Investigators now believe China was attempting to gain access to American technology with its campaign contributions during the 1996 elections, a revision from the earlier position that Beijing was trying to influence races, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The newspaper, citing lawyers and investigators, said federal authorities have new evidence suggesting that China was trying to enhance the political standing of those passing along the contributions to Democratic causes in order to give them clout in arguing for favorable trade and technology policies.

China appears to have been following the example of American corporations, which use donations to raise the profile of Washington lobbyists, a senior Justice Department official told the Times under the condition of anonymity.

American law prohibits foreign governments from making campaign contributions.

Investigators originally believed China was trying to influence the outcome of elections, including President Clinton's re-election campaign.

















A new phase in Washington's political warfare
By Martin McLaughlin
19 May 1998
A new front has been opened up in the political warfare in Washington, with claims by congressional Republicans that the Clinton administration agreed to reverse US policy on the export of satellite technology to China after large campaign contributions from aerospace companies and the Chinese government itself.

The Republican charges are based on press accounts, mainly from the New York Times, and on leaks from the US Justice Department, which is conducting a criminal investigation of possible Chinese government efforts to influence the 1996 presidential and congressional elections, including funneling contributions into the campaigns of particular candidates, among them Clinton.

Two aspects of the most recent revelations bear examination: the influence on Clinton administration policy of Loral Corporation and Hughes Aerospace, and the reported testimony of Johnny Chung, a Taiwanese-American businessman who gave a total of $366,000 to Democratic Party campaigns in 1996.

In the case of Loral and Hughes, the issue was a US government policy, enacted after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, which limited exports of satellite technology to China and required a specific presidential decision to permit American satellite manufacturers to use Chinese rockets as launching vehicles to place their satellites in orbit.

After the Clinton administration initially denied permission for such satellite launches, Loral Corporation Chairman Bernard Schwartz became the largest personal contributor to the Democratic Party, giving more than $600,000 for the 1996 campaign and another $421,000 for the current 1998 campaign.

His contributions were not in vain. In February 1996 Clinton gave approval to four launches of US-built satellites using Chinese Long March missiles. A month later the authority over such deals was transferred from the State Department, which had opposed the launch approval, to the Commerce Department, which was committed to promoting US corporate access to the lucrative Chinese market.

Notwithstanding the expressions of shock and indignation from various politicians and media sources, the role of Loral and Hughes Aerospace is typical of the everyday modus operandi of American capitalist politics. Big corporations give money to their political servants in Washington, and they expect their interests to be looked after in return. Nothing as crude as bribery for a specific decision need take place, since the normal workings of a system well-lubricated with corporate cash insures that the "right" outcome will occur.

Astrocloud

First of all, this belongs on a thread all of it's own. Secondly, you will have to show some quid pro quo... which you implied by your earlier statement:

Start up another thread and I'll gladly discuss this with you. Don't you have anything to say about the issue at hand?

HarmlessRabbit

You made me think of an interesting parallel between the wal-mart thread and this one. Some people seem to hate wal-mart and wish they would go away, even though the general public is quite happy to shop there. A lot of people also seem to hate china and wish that we would do less business with them, but I see no effort on a local or national level to actually do anything substantial.

I think a lot of people don't realize just how dependent we have become on china. I bet you couldn't do your average weekly shopping and avoid buying something made or partially made in China or Taiwan. There are whole industries that just don't exist in the USA anymore.

And has the policy of appeasing the Chinese in hopes that free trade will free the people, started with Clinton and continued with Bush, actually worked? Not as far as I can tell.

Personally, I think what the USA should have done is to develop Mexico as a better partner. NAFTA helped, but our on-again, off-again alliance with mexico has never really delivered anything other than a few factories at the border.

Mexico isn't perfect, but it's far better from a human/civil rights perspective than china.

seretogis

Isn't this what some people are suggesting will magically happen with Castro in Cuba?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

HarmlessRabbit

Yes. I'm not one of "those" people. And it's just as silly of an idea for Cuba as it is for China.

Although I will say that I think the Cuba all-out embargo is an idea that I don't agree with. There are plenty of worse places in the world than Cuba that we don't embargo. I can certainly understand why cuban immigrants have long, bad memories about Castro, though. So, I don't really mind if the embargo keeps going, I just think a bit softer approach would work better. Castro isn't going to live much longer, so a bit of an olive branch extended to Cuba might help us in the long run.

Or we could just invade them and bring them freedom.

2wolves

Some facts the radical right media apparently didn't bother to spread far & wide: http://www.hardboiled.org/1-2/money.html

Unless you believe that Senator Thompson and other Republicans are "in on it" also.

The Senate hearing transcripts and their conclusions are on the internet if you're interested.

"What are the facts? Again and again and again—what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history,'—what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"—Lazarus Long

2Wolves

Food Eater Lad

]

If we did invade cuba, you would be posting threads about how we just did it for cigars.

Food Eater Lad

And what illegal polices did the republicans insitute in the name of communist china? O wait, they didnt. Only Clinton did. And he sold out the safty of YOU and me. Nice huh.

2wolves

Still spinning...... you said and I quote exactly: "Well when China was a major campaign donater to Clinton, you cant bite the hand that feeds can you?"

I responded with the Republican led investigation concerning if the P.R.C. did what you claimed. You are found to be factulally in error and now you're attempting to twist it again. This isn't the Rush or O'Reilly show where you control the studio microphones.

Now like a generous progressive the script says I'm supposed to ask which illegal policies Clinton instituted so that your inane rant can continue. Sorry, if Ken Starr and $70,000,00.00 tax payer dollars couldn't find any why should anyone believe you. (or was Starr cut in on the China money also?)

2Wolves

Food Eater Lad

Rerouting the State department and using the department of commerce to sell CHina technology and launch satellies so they can spy on us. That is what Clinton did for Chinese campaign funds. Sorry you dont know anything about that.

2wolves

Which part of "I really don't care" and "I'm not playing your game" didn't you get?

and please be specific.

2Wolves

eple

Clinton paid the Chinese and produced and launched free surveillance satelites for them to spy on the US? That sounds interesting (or like a really far-fetched theory).

Sources?

Astrocloud

Like I said, this nonsense deserves it's own thread. I suppose it's a typical (supposed) right wing tactic to attack Bill Clinton whenever George 'Dumya' Bush is criticized. It's a fallacy of distraction at best.

Why is everyone else playing this game? It's irrelevant on this thread. George Dumya is the one that is helping the Chinese. Perhaps it's good policy or perhaps it's not.

Personally I think it's bad policy.

XenuHubbard

Clinton actually went back on a lot of things that Bush Sr. pulled through. Clinton practically set Tibet's status back to nothing. Any leader would have done similar things, though. China's market had just opened up, and that was more important.

As for China becoming more free; there has been progress. And hey, it worked in Taiwan.

As for pushing for a Chinese democracy right now would make me feel a whole lot more unsafe. The Communist party doesn't have enough power right now for China to make the transition. While the party makes the rules, and controls Beijing, it has no power to wield over the outer provinces, where the self-proclaimed mayors etc. resemble robber barons.

For China to become a working democracy, the communist party would first have to clean up in a nasty way. China is nowhere close to being ready for democracy right now - no decisions could be enforced, apart from strategic decisions involving the military.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

Zeld2.0

The worst thing that can happen in China right now is a radical change as Xenu said.

China is acutally very diverse - yes its true most are all labeled 'Chinese' but within chinese there are thousands of separate groups with differences. China is filled with these things - hell, until 1930, there were still various warlords and groups going aorund, which is very modern in terms of history and timeframe.

China has made enormous strides in the last ten years - if you don't believe me, compare Shanghai 1993 to today. Nevertheless, many parts of China are still very far behind, and the country still has a very large large peasant population.

onetime2

Sure seems to be a tactic of the left to point to clinton investigations and call for the same against Bush even in the most ridiculous of situations. Banner Gate anyone?

reconmike

The reason jobs are bolting to China is the American publics fault.
The people in this country are more concerned with the bottom line of a product, not where it was made.

Until their own job is lost "off shore", then it is a major problem and something needs to be done with it.

If someone did not lose their job to a Chinese factory they would not be bitching because it is the "not my problem" syndrome.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

2wolves

So a more socialist viewpoint is to be favored over a strickly capitalistic outlook?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

2Wolves

Astrocloud

When exactly did I "point to clinton investigations" (sic)? Another common tactic of the right is to make assumptions about an opponents position and then argue against it.

This is called a "straw man" fallacy. Please look it up.

HarmlessRabbit

I agree completely. Heck, even a new "Made in America" type marketing campaign would be great. I think if more people were AWARE of what comes from china and what the alternatives are, at least some people would make an effort to buy american.

But I don't see a pro-business republican administration doing that. Multinational USA corporations, many of whom are big Bush campaign donors, wouldn't like that.

I live in a community that is 40% asian, and I NEVER see asians driving american cars here. There is a lot to be said for national pride. (Not racism, not hatred, but pride and support for your country.)

Astrocloud

Many Asian cars in America are manufactured and assembled in America. I wouldn't fault someone for driving a foreign car unless you are really digging.

onetime2

You claim that it's a typical Right wing tactic to point to Clinton when Bush is criticized and yet when the left points to Clinton as an example of why something should be done to Bush you feign ignorance. It's called a double standard and you use it whenever it's convenient. I am simply pointing out the double standard. That is not a straw man that is a fact.

Astrocloud

You are telling me what I say and then arguing against it. IT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS TO DISCUSS SOME PROPAGANDA AGAINST CLINTON WHEN THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION IS BUSH.

You specifically cited that I "point to clinton investigations"(sic), and now you claim that I "feign ignorance".

Give it up -you aren't making any sense. If you want to talk about the topic at hand then please do. If, however, you would rather argue about some imaginary discussion then at least do me the courtesy of quoting me out of context.

Thanks,

Astrocloud

PS. I am not "the Left"

onetime2

Obviously you can't see the concept I'm trying to explain (or more likely you're ignoring it because you don't want to discuss it) and you are of the belief I meant you personally asked for investigations. I simply pointed out the fact that the same tactic you decry about the "right" is being used by the left but you FAIL to acknowledge that.

Whatever you consider yourself, you are attacking the "right" and pretending that they are the only ones that use that strategy.

Astrocloud

Whatever it is you are trying to say. You are not being very clear.

If there is an investigation on Bush for anything -It should be on the merits of the case... Not simply because Clinton was investigated for whitewater -and now it's Bush's 'turn'.

(P.S. That would make no sense for someone to argue that point. That is another fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque).

onetime2

I'm not commenting on the practice of investigations or the merits of them, I'm simply saying that your singling out of the "right"ist strategy of pointing to Clinton when people criticize Bush applies to the "left" (or whoever) when they point out that there should be investigations of Bush (ties with Haliburton, the banner, etc) because there were investigations of Clinton.

Astrocloud

I haven't heard arguments like this coming from the Left, recently. I was referring to posts made here, on this thread.

The topic of discussion is Bush's China Policy. I don't think anyone here has asked for a federal investigation on this. Welcome to the discussion.

onetime2

I commented about your insinuation that this is only a right wing strategy which you made in this thread. If you haven't heard these arguments from the left then you haven't been listening very well. I'll leave this discussion now to you since you seem to want to play relevance police, I'll let you go back to shining your tin badge.

Phaenx

China is our bitch, we've screwed them constantly since we went off the gold standard and they still do massive business with us last I checked.

The job market will boom here in about 3-6 months after the economy recovers. You wanna bet on it?

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Astrocloud

I'm not the "relevance police" -You quoted me and then wanted to argue about something that I never said and -in fact nobody ever said.

It's a complete waste of time for you to expect me to argue a side of something that you've 'heard somewhere'. It's not up for discussion because nobody here is asserting it. By all means start another thread instead of threadjacking this one.

You argue by simply putting words into other people's mouths and then knocking them down. Get over it... You are leaving because you have nothing of MERIT to say.

I like that you are sticking to topic but could you tell me exactly how the 'US screwed China' recently? It seems that we've been very nice to them since Bush Sr. gave them "most favored nation" status.

phredgreen

thread closed. the whole discussion has gone completely off topic and turned into a pissing contest. you guys need to lighten up and have a lively discussion without making snide snippy remarks. that's very junior high/jerry springer. c'mon people. we're adults.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine