|
Bush to Announce Repeal of Steel Tariffs
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Fox
WASHINGTON - President Bush (search) has decided to lift virtually all tariffs
on foreign-made steel, Fox News has learned.
The steel tariffs (search) have been a source of political headaches for the
president, as he seeks to court steel-making states such as Pennsylvania and
Ohio while averting a global trade war with European and Asian allies. The
president will make the announcement on Thursday.
The tariffs, imposed by Bush in March of 2002, were ruled illegal by the World
Trade Organization in November. The European Union (search) threatened the
United States with $2.2 billion in retaliatory sanctions if the tariffs were not
lifted by Dec. 15. Japan and China also issued similar threats.
The tariffs were also something of a political handicap. United Steelworkers
Union (search) already endorsed Democrat Richard Gephardt for president in 2004,
and the higher cost of steel was drawing complaints from the manufacturing
sector, which Bush has been anxious to see make its own recovery. Bush will also
promise on Thursday to monitor steel imports to make sure they do not surge
again.
Senior Bush advisers said earlier this week that several key aides and agencies,
including the office of the U.S. trade representative, had been recommending
that Bush roll back the tariffs on foreign steel. Though domestic steel
producers complain foreign steel has hurt them by flooding the U.S. market,
there are indications the administration disagrees.
A study by the U.S. International Trade Commission last September concluded the
tariffs had successfully enabled the domestic steel industry to consolidate and
restructure. In other words, the administration may defend Bush's decision by
arguing the tariffs have helped the steel industry get back on its feet and are
therefore no longer needed.
As recently as Monday, the White House was keeping mum on Bush's decision.
"The president - you've heard him talk about why he imposed these safeguards in
the first place, and that was to help give the industry an opportunity to
restructure, consolidate," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on
Monday. "And he'll make a decision based on what he believes is the right
decision for the American people."
Bush was expected to make a decision before the WTO's dispute settlement body
meets Dec. 10. The WTO had reaffirmed its ruling last month that the United
States was in violation of global trade rules by imposing tariffs - set to
expire in March 2005 - on foreign-made steel. Domestic steel producers said
foreign-made steel made it more difficult for the declining steel industry to
update its production methods and technology.
The 15-nation European Union renewed its threat Monday, saying that it would
slap $2.2 billion in sanctions on U.S. exports if U.S. steel tariffs were not
completely abolished by Dec. 15.
"The U.S. knows this," said EU spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez, speaking in
Brussels.
The president's decision will likely be met with some resistance in key states
he's courting to re-elect him next year. Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia
all contain traditionally Democratic steelworkers who were pleased by Bush's
decision to impose tariffs.
The president attended a $1 million fund-raiser on Tuesday in Pittsburgh,
America's "Steel City," co-hosted by U.S. Steel (search) Chairman and CEO Thomas
J. Usher.
U.S. Steel senior vice president Terrence Straub predicted that repealing the
tariffs could cost Bush a winning margin in Pennsylvania - a state he narrowly
lost in 2000. Tuesday's visit marked the 23rd time Bush has visited the state
since taking office.
"They don't need but a handful of votes," Straub said. "If he lifts the relief,
he forsakes that; he's walked away, he's squandered that opportunity. This would
be, in our view, a broken promise by the White House."
Meanwhile, steel-consuming states such as Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin who
have said they were hurt by the tariffs were expected to welcome the president's
decision.
Bush attended a fund-raiser on Monday in Dearborn, Mich., a suburb of Detroit,
where auto-parts manufacturers said the tariffs have hiked steel prices.
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Bush to Announce Repeal of Steel Tariffs
Is there anything that Bush could do that you wouldn't complain about?
Had he not put the tariffs on, you'd be saying that he was killing the
domestic steel industry and putting all those union wage earners out of
work.
|
| |
| |
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Is there anything that Bush could do that you wouldn't complain about?
Had he not put the tariffs on, you'd be saying that he was killing the
domestic steel industry and putting all those union wage earners out of
work.
All Vox has is his hatred. That's why I kill filed him long ago.
|
| |
| |
Light Templar wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
All Vox has is his hatred. That's why I kill filed him long ago.
Yet you can't resist, in your abject pathos, from reading my posts anyway,
and lack the willpower to not type a reply every once in a while ... that same
denial/delusion drives the rest of your miserable life, sucker.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Bush to Announce Repeal of Steel Tariffs
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Fox
WASHINGTON - President Bush (search) has decided to lift virtually all
tariffs
on foreign-made steel, Fox News has learned.
This article is so weighted that it's pathetic, that the steel
producing/using states are happy to have cheaper steel from overseas.......
It's punishment to the steelworkers for supporting Gephart instead of him.
Another Dixie Chicks punishment, who got yanked off the air within 24/48
hours, (most stations are owned by one company)?
In the olden days, a president administered for all the country, not just
his pals.
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
This article is so weighted that it's pathetic,
From Faux News ...?
Oh my!, how could that be, they're so "fair and balanced" ....
that the steel
producing/using states are happy to have cheaper steel from
overseas....... It's punishment to the steelworkers for supporting
Gephart instead of him. Another Dixie Chicks punishment, who got
yanked off the air within 24/48 hours, (most stations are owned by
one company)?
As if they care ...? Notice those same stations did NOT pull Bruce
Springstein's songs after he called for the impeachment of Bu$h ...
In the olden days, a president administered for all the country, not
just his pals.
And how old was those days ...? Which century?
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
tariffs on foreign-made steel, Fox News has learned.
This article is so weighted that it's pathetic, that the steel
producing/using states are happy to have cheaper steel from overseas.......
It's punishment to the steelworkers for supporting Gephart instead of him.
Another Dixie Chicks punishment, who got yanked off the air within 24/48
hours, (most stations are owned by one company)?
In the olden days, a president administered for all the country, not just
his pals.
That is a bit naive. In most of the olden days the president did as the
current one -- get all the available goodies for his pals. Of course
then they would occasionally be embarrassed by the behavior of those
pals instead of reveling in it. Some revelers then as well though.
Ripping off the country is an old tradition. These are just more
effective at it.
FFM
|
| |
| |
Bill Bonde wrote:
"=> Vox Populi " wrote:
Bush to Announce Repeal of Steel Tariffs
Is there anything that Bush could do that you wouldn't complain about?
Had he not put the tariffs on, you'd be saying that he was killing the
domestic steel industry and putting all those union wage earners out of
work.
It's not the lifting of the tariffs; it's the imposition of them
in the first place when he knew they were illegal, just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
"Mommy mommy, I know it was bad to hit my little sister, but
since I've apologized can I have some ice cream now?"
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
|
| |
| |
"chris.holt" wrote:
Bill Bonde wrote:
Bush to Announce Repeal of Steel Tariffs
It's not the lifting of the tariffs; it's the imposition of them
in the first place when he knew they were illegal,
Actually, he has an argument for why they are valid and why should the
US, which is running a balance of trade deficit, have to put up with
other countries dumping on it?
just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
The US needs to assert itself on the world economic stage. Too many
countries are taking advantage.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
| |
Bill Bonde wrote:
"chris.holt" wrote:
Actually, he has an argument for why they are valid and why should the
US, which is running a balance of trade deficit, have to put up with
other countries dumping on it?
The WTO disagrees with you.
just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
The US needs to assert itself on the world economic stage. Too many
countries are taking advantage.
Since the US is taking advantage of other countries, why shouldn't
they? If you hit someone, are they not allowed to hit back?
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
|
| |
| |
hris.holt wrote:
Bill Bonde wrote:
The WTO disagrees with you.
just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
Since the US is taking advantage of other countries, why shouldn't
they? If you hit someone, are they not allowed to hit back?
As they did on 9/11 ...
--
Lie #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas
centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
-President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
Fact: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by The New
York Times' usually astute Middle East correspondent Judith Miller,
has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials
who monitor nuclear plants say the tubes could not be used for
enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst who was part of the tubes
investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American
officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum
really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's
just a lie."
Lie #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
-President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address
Fact: This whopper was based on a document that the White House
already knew to be a forgery, thanks to honest analysis by the CIA.
Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the
signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and
referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador
who the CIA sent to check out the story is angry: "They knew the Niger
story was a flat-out lie," he told The New Republic, anonymously. "They
[the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this
to make their case more strongly."
Lie #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
weapons."
-Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003, on "Meet the Press"
Fact: There was and is absolutely no basis for this statement. CIA
reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons
program.
Lie #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
-CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002
and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush
Fact: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and
al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing
relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun
the intelligence 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it
suggested.
Lie #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in
bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with
terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without
leaving any fingerprints."
-President Bush, Oct. 7
Fact: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin
Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in
northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was
later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied
war planes.
--
Lie #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has
a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs
[unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."
-President Bush, Oct. 7
Fact: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000
miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building
program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane
enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to
say "plane"?
Lie #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have
chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and
that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and
control arrangements have been established."
-President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003
Fact: Despite a massive search by U.S. and British forces in Iraq,
there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being
deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
Lie #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile
of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough
to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003, in remarks to the U.N.
Security Council
Fact: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive
stockpile has been found, U.S. intelligence reports show that these
stocks-if they existed-were well past their use-by date and therefore
useless as weapon fodder.
Lie #9: "We know where [Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction] are. They're
in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north
somewhat."
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003
Fact: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west,
south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
Lie #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the U.N.
prohibited."
-President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1,
2003
Fact: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers
that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But
British and American experts (including a recent report by the State
Department's intelligence wing) have since declared this to be untrue.
According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's
embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they
wer
|
| |
| |
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
z wrote:
That is a bit naive.
An American speciallty, wholesale ignorance.
In most of the olden days the president did as
the current one -- get all the available goodies for his pals. Of
course
then they would occasionally be embarrassed by the behavior of those
pals instead of reveling in it. Some revelers then as well though.
Ripping off the country is an old tradition. These are just more
effective at it.
Adjusted for inflation of course ...
FFM
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
"chris.holt" wrote:
Bill Bonde wrote:
The WTO disagrees with you.
Really? The US is prevented from exporting apples to Japan because of
protectionism in Japan and yet has to allow all the steel into the US as
is possible.
just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
Since the US is taking advantage of other countries, why shouldn't
they? If you hit someone, are they not allowed to hit back?
We have a balance of trade deficit!
|
| |
| |
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
"chris.holt" wrote:
Really? The US is prevented from exporting apples to Japan because of
protectionism in Japan and yet has to allow all the steel into the US as
is possible.
There is a huge number of U.S. exports that Japan doesn't allow in. Apples
and other fruits and
vegetables are just a few of them.
just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
We have a balance of trade deficit!
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
That is a bit naive. In most of the olden days the president did as the
current one -- get all the available goodies for his pals. Of course
then they would occasionally be embarrassed by the behavior of those
pals instead of reveling in it. Some revelers then as well though.
Ripping off the country is an old tradition. These are just more
effective at it.
FFM
No, I don't think so---it's never been so partisan, and typically the new
President made it a point to appear non-partisan, and shed his partisan
attitude the day he took office. Often this was the occasion of the new
President giving the other side something they wanted as a peace offering.
Think back, and remember the focused re-uniting of the country after an
election--it didn't happen this time, Bush immediately slapped the country
in the face right off by backing out of the Kyoto treaty, (that the US got
started in the first place)....and not since Nixon's "Enemy List" have I
seen such use of presidential power to get even.....
I was just reading today of some notable Republicans' irrate articles on the
Bush admins. on the handing out of Pork.......so this isn't just a partisan
issue--at least not until the "ins" find a way to not pay taxes.
|
| |
| |
"z" <zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bqs004$v1f$0@pita.alt.net...
No, I don't think so---it's never been so partisan, and typically the new
President made it a point to appear non-partisan, and shed his partisan
attitude the day he took office. Often this was the occasion of the new
President giving the other side something they wanted as a peace offering.
Think back, and remember the focused re-uniting of the country after an
election--it didn't happen this time, Bush immediately slapped the country
in the face right off by backing out of the Kyoto treaty, (that the US got
started in the first place)....
Bush gave very sound and good reasons for not signing the Kyoto Protocol.
Pretty
much the exact same reasons Russia and a few others are not giving for
refusing
to go along with it. Russia backed out of it the other day.
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
No, I don't think so---it's never been so partisan, and typically the new
President made it a point to appear non-partisan, and shed his partisan
attitude the day he took office. Often this was the occasion of the new
President giving the other side something they wanted as a peace offering.
Think back, and remember the focused re-uniting of the country after an
election--it didn't happen this time, Bush immediately slapped the country
in the face right off by backing out of the Kyoto treaty, (that the US got
started in the first place)....
You have a bizzare remembering of history. Kyoto was dead long before
Bush ran for president. The Senate had expressed its views with a vote
that was something like everyone against it to zero support for the
Clinton treaty. How would Bush 'give' that treaty to the other side when
they didn't even support it?
|
| |
| |
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
z wrote:
You have a bizzare remembering of history. Kyoto was dead long before
Bush ran for president. The Senate had expressed its views with a vote
that was something like everyone against it to zero support for the
Clinton treaty. How would Bush 'give' that treaty to the other side when
they didn't even support it?
Let's face it, Clinton didn't even support the treaty. What was it? Three
years, four that he
delayed sending it for ratification?
|
| |
| |
Light Templar wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
Let's face it, Clinton didn't even support the treaty. What was it? Three
years, four that he
delayed sending it for ratification?
Because the Senate had test voted it down and he didn't want to formally
have it killed.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
| |
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
Light Templar wrote:
Because the Senate had test voted it down and he didn't want to formally
have it killed.
Ah... Okay, that makes sense then. I didn't know that they test voted on
it. Do you happen to know by
what margin it was voted down?
|
| |
| |
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
Ah... Okay, that makes sense then. I didn't know that they test voted
on
it. Do you happen to know by
what margin it was voted down?
To combat global warning, 100 nations needed to combine efforts. It was
vital that the U.S. be a participant as the U.S.is the biggest, creating
25% of the emissions, and it was a leader, and only a month prior to Bush's
bombshell, our emmissary was assuring everyone we were behind the treaty and
would be a signatory as previously announced.
As this was to reduce the harmful emissions coming from oil and coal, and
was predicted to be successful means of combating this menace, It was Bush
doing another payback to the heavy energy campaign donors. It was not that
it had no support in Congress, (unless you mean the WH and Oil lobbists were
suddenly all over the Republicans.)
Without the major polluter in the agreement, it makes little difference for
other countries, Russia or any other country, to try and go it alone.
Meanwhile, Alaskans are now not even going outside without highly rated
sunscreen applied danger of skin cancer , and the ice cap was vanishing.
He was only in office 2 mos. when the world was given a clue that this was
not a President to be trusted.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/2001/kyot0402.htm
|
| |
| |
"z" <zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bqu99g$adr$0@pita.alt.net...
on
To combat global warning, 100 nations needed to combine efforts. It was
vital that the U.S. be a participant as the U.S.is the biggest, creating
25% of the emissions, and it was a leader, and only a month prior to
Bush's
bombshell, our emmissary was assuring everyone we were behind the treaty
and
would be a signatory as previously announced.
He should have checked the situation out. The Kyoto Treaty would have been
a bombshell
alright, bombing out jobs and economic growth by a factor of five. Think
about the last
recession we just had, now multiply that by five times as bad. Get it?
Russia has also
backed out of the protocol in the last week, same reasons. Sure, we
produce 25% of the
emmissions, but a greater percentage of goods produced with those emmissions
is for
sale in foriegn nations, Europe is just starting to catch up with that
figure. In other words
if the U.S. stopped producing goods for other nations, our emmissions would
drop to the
same levels as other nations, per/capita.
[snip rest of unsupported bull#@($.]
|
| |
| |
Bill Bonde wrote:
"chris.holt" wrote:
Really? The US is prevented from exporting apples to Japan because of
protectionism in Japan and yet has to allow all the steel into the US as
is possible.
So take it to the WTO and see if they agree with you. While
you're at it, have a look at US government supports for
agribusiness and dumping in the 3rd world.
just for
domestic political reasons, and then giving way under pressure
when he found that he might suffer political damage. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind; but doing it purely for
political reasons leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Especially
when you knew that you were doing something wrong in the first
place.
The US needs to assert itself on the world economic stage. Too many
countries are taking advantage.
Since the US is taking advantage of other countries, why shouldn't
they? If you hit someone, are they not allowed to hit back?
We have a balance of trade deficit!
I can't help it if the US can't compete in free markets.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
|
| |
| |
|
