Petitions Of Brothers, Sisters and Adult Children to be Eliminated

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Why the big hate on Republicans since it was a Democrat (Clinton) who signed the current China trade agreement which allowed a huge chunk of our manufacturing jobs to go to China? Thanks Bill.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. 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 it. The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

Each President must honor the agreements of those before him I believe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

[spn1025 38]

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. 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 it. The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

Each President must honor the agreements of those before him I believe...

http://en.wikipedia....Trade_Agreement

That's great, except for the fact that China has nothing to do with NAFTA.. that's between USA, Canada, and Mexico.

[madtownguy 164]

Republican, democrat... lets just all agree that the current president is an Obamanation to all. It's a shame we still have to wait 3.5 more years of our country going down the toilet even faster. If you are a fan of Obama you really shouldn't be on this board because to be a part of the visa process you must be above poverty level which is his main base. Obamacare is still probably going to go down in history as one of the worse things ever done by a president, everyday there is a new problem with it in the news. This dream act might be up there, but I don't think much could compete with Obamacare.

[Tahoma 2,292]

That's great, except for the fact that China has nothing to do with NAFTA.. that's between USA, Canada, and Mexico.

Looks like you already forgot that jhonster brought up NAFTA and you commented on it!

NAFTA is yet another example of majority Republican support for a trade bill, just like the majority Republican support for the China bill.

Persistent little trollop aren't you?

I think I said it at least 3 times already. A president can sign a bill or he can veto a bill. How hard is that to understand? Are you that brain-dead from reading Huffington Post? Wouldn't surprise me. You keep bringing up congress, while I'm simply stating that a president has the final call on what bills pass. Reading comprehension is a valuable tool, they teach it in elementary school.

No $hit, I know bills are formed in the house and senate before they appear on the president's desk, that wasn't my argument.

It's a mystery to me how you can read your own words and pretend that you didn't say them, even when they were quoted back to you like they were again in my previous post. And it's rather amusing to watch you dig yourself in deeper by asking why I keep bringing up Congress when, in fact, you were the one who brought up Congress with your "why the big hate on Republicans" question. And you continue to avoid my answer to your question simply because you don't want to admit you we're wrong about it.

Your capacity to ignore your wrongheaded statements is amazing. You won't even acknowledge that you were wrong about all the House members being attorneys! You remember that one, don't you? My favorite spn1025 anti-logic is where you come to the defense of Republicans, and then

you later call them all corrupt! I love that one!

Carry on...

[madtownguy 164]

Looks like you already forgot that jhonster brought up NAFTA and you commented on it!

NAFTA is yet another example of majority Republican support for a trade bill, just like the majority Republican support for the China bill.

It's a mystery to me how you can read your own words and pretend that you didn't say them, even when they were quoted back to you like they were again in my previous post. And it's rather amusing to watch you dig yourself in deeper by asking why I keep bringing up Congress when, in fact, you were the one who brought up Congress with your "why the big hate on Republicans" question. And you continue to avoid my answer to your question simply because you don't want to admit you we're wrong about it.

Your capacity to ignore your wrongheaded statements is amazing. You won't even acknowledge that you were wrong about all the House members being attorneys! You remember that one, don't you? My favorite spn1025 anti-logic is where you come to the defense of Republicans, and then

you later call them all corrupt! I love that one!

Carry on...

I will say rarely do I hear a democrat winning an argument, but it seems you might have this one. Now I don't fact check, I could care less who voted for what since the whole system is corrupt. But more often than not I find the republican argument better, but both main parties are so far from the mark. Ron Paul would be president right now if we stopped linking everyone to parties. Picking from a billionaire and a lawyer isn't exactly what everyone would like.

[sunandmoon 450]

... You keep bringing up congress, while I'm simply stating that a president has the final call on what bills pass...

technically, no.

Edited April 3, 2013 by sunandmoon

[PhiLandShiR 18]

That's great, except for the fact that China has nothing to do with NAFTA.. that's between USA, Canada, and Mexico.

ok, fine. How about this:

That same year, Clinton signed a landmark trade agreement with the People's Republic of China. The agreement–the result of more than a decade of negotiations–would lower many trade barriers between the two countries, making it easier to export U.S. products such as automobiles, banking services, and motion pictures. However, the agreement could only take effect if China was accepted into the WTO and was granted permanent "normal trade relations" status by the U.S. Congress. Under the pact, the United States would support China's membership in the WTO. Many Democrats as well as Republicans were reluctant to grant permanent status to China because they were concerned about human rights in the country and the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. industries and jobs. Congress, however, voted in 2000 to grant permanent normal trade relations with China. Several economic studies have since been released that indicate the increase in trade resulting lowered American prices and increased the U.S. GDP by 0.7% throughout the following decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

[Krikit 1,164]

If you can't make your point without resorting to name calling you will be removed from the thread and/or face further further administrative action. Your choice.

[Krikit 1,164]

Posts containing personal attacks, and those quoting them, have been removed.

[justashooter 430]

This is definatly good.

YOu only need your spouse and your younger under 18 kid to immigrate anymore than that is ubsured

man, oh man, think of the burden this would take off of marrying a filipina...

[jhonster 23]

Politics on the forum, Talaga? We were a rich strong country when the Republicans were in charge!!

I don't know how old you are, but....the strongest economic times for us were when Democrats were in charge actually. And if they were Republicans, they were moderate Progressive Republicans and not the ultra super conservative right winged ones you see today. Eisenhower was a liberal Republican in today's sense. Actually he and Reagan would have had little in common with today's Republican party. So was Nixon. At least those Republicans cared about our people and their well being. Which is why Eisenhower expanded Social Security to include disability insurance for all Americans and created the Depts of Heath, Education and Welfare. Guys like Eisenhower believed in the whole "Am I my brothers keeper" theory that Jesus himself espoused.

This data shown in this story clearly shows who was doing well over the past 60 years. And you can see that the times during mostly Democrat Presidents showed us the largest economic growth, highest pay for workers and the best all around prosperity vs. Republican Presidents.

www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/02/1127055/-Which-party-is-best-for-the-economy-It-s-not-even-close#

[jhonster 23]

Why the big hate on Republicans since it was a Democrat (Clinton) who signed the current China trade agreement which allowed a huge chunk of our manufacturing jobs to go to China? Thanks Bill.

I guess you missed the part where I said I voted for Ross Perot when Clinton and George H.W. Bush were running in 1994.

I'm not a big fan of today's Republicans. They're mostly comprised of ultra right wing groups that are totally pro corporation & could give a rats ####### about the working blue collar stiffs. I'd support a moderate Republican ala Eisenhower over any of these so called "Republicans" in office today. But I agree with you, Clinton, who I'll call Republican lite did some disastrous things like continuing giving China MFN (most favored nation trade status), and now thanks to him and George Bush continuing these disastrous policies, China is scheduled to become the largest economy by 2020. They are kicking our butts in manufacturing AND building their infrastructure.

Another stupid thing that allowed the subprime market mess to take place was Clinton's signing of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act from the 1930's. The "Financial Modernization Act" as it was called (written by 3 Republicans Bliley, Leech and good ol' John McCains financial guru Phil Grahamm) removed the wall of separation that existed between the banks and Wall St. The Securities Modernization Act was the last bit of legislation that needed to be created (and written by Wall St and their cronies) to put the stake in the heart of our economy. This allowed the credit default swaps to become the norm along with the nearly complete deregulation of good sound lending practices which climaxed from 2004-2007.

I'll tell you. Republican or Democrat. Nowadays I don't see too much difference as it takes nearly a BILLION $$ to run for President. Think of that? A billion $$. If that doesn't tell you money is at the root of our "Democratic Republic", and that it's for sale to the highest bidder....then I don't know what is.

[jhonster 23]

^^^ You're confusing "facts" with "hate."

The "facts" about the China vote:

The House:

Yea: 164 Republicans / 73 Democrats

Nay: 57 Republicans / 138 Democrats

The Senate:

Yea: 46 Republicans / 37 Democrats

Nay: 8 Republicans / 7 Democrats

The "facts" about the NAFTA vote:

The House:

Aye: 132 Republicans / 102 Democrats

Nay: 43 Republicans / 156 Democrats

The Senate:

Aye: 34 Republicans / 27 Democrats

Nay: 10 Republicans / 28 Democrats

Don't you just hate those pesky facts...

Well. The facts are, Liberals/Liberal leaning/Moderates or Progressives, whether they were Republicans or Democrats, were solidly against giving China MFN trade status and were against the idea of NAFTA. And for good reasons.

[jhonster 23]

Have you left the house or read the paper lately????

I have. And since 2009, we've recovered our economy from loosing the 700,000 jobs a month that were happening at the end of 2008 under George W. Bushs watch. We're reducing our national debt AND now all budgets are above board instead of kicking the fiscal can down the road the way the spend drunken Republicans did from 2000-2006. But better yet, we haven't embarked onto any new wars over B.S. WMD's that never existed, we killed Bin Laden and we haven't been attacked on American soil by a bunch of radical nutjobs the way we were attacked on 9-11.

But here is a story that's much forgotten about ol' George W. Bush. Probably & arguably, the worst President that the U.S. has ever had. And that's coming from a guy that actually had respect for Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. =))

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

By Eliot Spitzer,February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-14/opinions/36828502_1_national-banks-occ-consumer-protection

[jhonster 23]

ok, fine. How about this:

That same year, Clinton signed a landmark trade agreement with the People's Republic of China. The agreement–the result of more than a decade of negotiations–would lower many trade barriers between the two countries, making it easier to export U.S. products such as automobiles, banking services, and motion pictures. However, the agreement could only take effect if China was accepted into the WTO and was granted permanent "normal trade relations" status by the U.S. Congress. Under the pact, the United States would support China's membership in the WTO. Many Democrats as well as Republicans were reluctant to grant permanent status to China because they were concerned about human rights in the country and the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. industries and jobs. Congress, however, voted in 2000 to grant permanent normal trade relations with China. Several economic studies have since been released that indicate the increase in trade resulting lowered American prices and increased the U.S. GDP by 0.7% throughout the following decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

But what the study doesn't tell you is....it was all at the cost of shipping American jobs to China that used to be done here. And had those jobs not been shipped, our GDP would have risen to what it's been on average during the years where we weren't allowing so much unfettered (and un-tariffed) trade between us and China. The bottom line is, Thomas Jefferson is the one who invented trade tariffs and for a good reason. In Jefferson's day if you made a widget here in the U.S. for a dollar. And if you could make that same widget in China for say, 10 cents. Our govt would put a 90 cent tariff on that widget to come into the country to come and compete with American made goods that created American jobs, and thus those workers within those jobs could support their families and buy other products produced by Americans.

Today Walmart is Americas #1 employer. Know who used to be the largest employer in the U.S.? General Motors. Want to compare the income of someone working a UAW union job and the benefits he had (pension, health care, living wage ,etc) to someone today working at Walmart? Who also happens to be one of the largest companies that benefits from having cheap tariffs with Chinese products. Not only that, Walmart (and their family) are the some of the top wealthiest people on U.S. soil. Think they're making a good profit on the backs of the American worker? You betcha! But yet Walmart workers are the largest group of American workers that uses the welfare system (food stamps, medicare, housing, etc) to get by. Now please. Can someone tell me how allowing this practice of giving China MFN trade status to continue is a good thing for our economy and jobs here in the U.S.?