Liberal Dominated MEdia... justify the idea

[Admiral Piett]

Normally when the industry of a nation is threatened by the subsidized industry of an other nation the politicians raise hell about those unfair subsides but this did not appear to happen in the steel tariffs case.
This added to the poor Azeron record "Airbus fall apart because one of them crashed" lead me to believe that simply those subsides Azeron is speaking about either do not exist or are not greater than american ones.
I might be wrong but I want a source confirming that those EU subsides he is speaking about exist/are more substantial than american ones.
I do not pretend anything too much sophistcated,an article from a serious newspaper that says for example "EU steel subsides are 2x while american ones are x/do not exist" would be more than enough.

[RayCav of ASVS]

Whitewater was questionable. Shrub's actions were questionable.

Clinton's purgery was illegal, but wouldn't have come about if it wasn't for Starr's equally (if not more so) illegal invasion of privacy.

[Azeron]

when I get around to it I will get to documented sources on EU subsidies to otherwise failing industries.

And Airbus is grossly over subsidized. No matter even though thier new superjet will fail, Euro governements will bail them out. I have heard tha tsubsidies on the newest planes rolling off the line approach somethng like $20-30 million/plane. (thats invludng interest free, and below market interest rate loans)

[Admiral Piett]

I know very well that the EU subsidizes many activities.The agricultural subsides are the 50% of the Union budget(which is quite limited in absolute terms however).This is not a strictly european flaw,however.After all you plan to finance your world conquest campaign with the US federal agricultural subsides,so it must be a substantial sum (I am sarcastic,in case you have not got it).
And some others activities are also subsidized.But I wanted a confirmation of the the fact that EU steel plants are more subsidized than US ones.And as I thought from the very beginning you have not been able to quote any source.
Please do not come out saying "in the 70's steel european steel plants were
subsidized".I already know that and many others example.I wanted to know how the situation about steel plants is NOW.

[Enlightenment]

Why did Shubby impose a steel tarrif? Go to http://www.opensecrets.org and take a good look at the spike in donations from the steel industry to the GOP during the 2000 election cycle. Follow the money and everything will make sense.

[victorhadin]

Azeron, I'm just curious:

Have you ever heard of the Foreign Sales Corporation, or FSC tax breaks in your country?

Hmmm?

[phongn]

Why did Shubby impose a steel tarrif? Go to http://www.opensecrets.org and take a good look at the spike in donations from the steel industry to the GOP during the 2000 election cycle. Follow the money and everything will make sense.

I don't have the time to browse the site now (could you post a direct link the next time please?) but yes, the steel tarriff is tantamount to vote-buying.

[Rathark]

To confuse the semantics issue further, Australia's major conservative party is called the Liberal Party (which has a coalition with the National Party - the simplified difference is that the Liberals focus on urban / suburban interests and the Nationals focus on rural interests). Try to imagine America's Republicans with similar moral values, but officially more secular and slightly more left-leaning regarding government spending. (Although they have a certain sadistic glee in rigging the welfare rules - they're actually more suspicious of you if you get casual work, because you then have to provide evidence. Either get a full time job or don't bother - middle ground is not tolerated.)

And at least the Republicans have charisma. Relatively speaking, of course. Yes, we are starved of political charisma down here ...

[Azeron]

Only a jackass euro would call the FSC an unfair tax break. It only works for income that would normally not be taxed if the corporation were based in say a euro country like gernany.

In the US your income worldwide, no matter what, as long as you are a citizen is taxed, regardles if it is actually made in the US.

In euroland, and the rest of the world, money made in someone else's country is not taxable by the native country.

The FSC remedies this by allowing multinaitonal compaines based in the US to compete on a level playing feild and return just invesmtent profits to the investors by making the income non-taxable like the rest of the world.

This has nothing to do with direct Euro trade, because Multinationals based in the US get tax credits up to the amount of profit for every dollar payed off in taxes to another country. since Euro taxes are higher across the board, this is not applicable in US/Euro affairs.

What I find distatefull about it, is that europe complained it was costing them business becasue the US corps could sheild thier income using the FSC from being subject to the 35% flat corporate tax rate. considering euros don't have to pay income taxes on the same income, this attack is a sham also consdiering the income lost deals with trade relations with 3rd party's like developing 3rd world nations. the biggest victims in this mess are developing nations, who are going to recieve less developement from US compaines. Europe with the aid of the WTO is ripping food right off the plates of the poorest people on the planet.

The WTC's legitimacey was seriously undermined by acceeding to Europe's Assine attack, and is increasing resentment in the white house, congress, and the american people on every deranged anti-US decision they make.

[Enlightenment]

I don't have the time to browse the site now (could you post a direct link the next time please?) but yes, the steel tarriff is tantamount to vote-buying.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=N14

The steel tarriff isn't case of vote buying, it's a case of poltician buying. The steel sector invested 2.7 million (USD) in the political process for the 2000 cycle; the steel tarriff was the return on the sector's investment.

[Azeron]

so the AARP, the Seirra club, All the major enviromental groups give political donations too. Why is it a crime when industry does it as well?

Ohh I forgot hipocrisy.

[Enlightenment]

so the AARP, the Seirra club, All the major enviromental groups give political donations too. Why is it a crime when industry does it as well?

Ohh I forgot hipocrisy.

Silly rightwingnut. Strawmen are for farms.

[Azeron]

pointing out blantant hipocrisy is not a strawman. blathering out idiotic communist stupiditiy is.

Why the hell did you call yourself enlightenment anyways? You are pretty idiotic to call yourself that.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I believe the steel tariffs were an attempt to win the union vote, although it would destroy more jobs in America than it would create. If we want to get more jobs in the steel industry, America should increase her demand for steel. Of course, that's just my messed up opinion. Now, I just have to wait until Azeron calls me a Communist.

[Azeron]

He is a communist, he said so numerous times already.

I think Bush just didn't like all the dumping thats been going on. the unionists have been pushing this for a while, and finnally a president has recognized what the russians and to a lesser extent the euros have been up to.

I think he just doesn't like europe, and wanted to help these people out. It doesn't smell of politics like his education program did. his protectionist moves have been rather limited to critical industries. Might I add the WTO rules say that a nation can protect certain war infrastruture industries on national security grounds, clearly steel is a war production asset.

[RayCav of ASVS]

Azeron.....



(image goes to whoever the hell created it)

[phongn]

I don't have the time to browse the site now (could you post a direct link the next time please?) but yes, the steel tarriff is tantamount to vote-buying.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=N14

The steel tarriff isn't case of vote buying, it's a case of poltician buying. The steel sector invested 2.7 million (USD) in the political process for the 2000 cycle; the steel tarriff was the return on the sector's investment.

I'd still argue that while US Steel did make a contribution, Bush's tariff decision was more on vote-buying: sure, the industry can line his coffers to help his campaign, but if Bush decided to go against the tariff (with the earlier campaign money spent and campaign finance reform passed) the steel workers would castrate him at the polls.

[Skelron]

The following was all taken from the BBC website, the addresses have been added but in case it dosn't help, I did a search under first 'Steel Tariffs' and the added 'Quality' later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1988058.stm

A chief at one of the world's most important international economic groups has added her voice to the protests against the US decision to impose tariffs on steel imports.
Anne Krueger, deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said the US decision was "clearly a regrettable step, for a whole variety of reasons".
while the US introduced the tariffs to protect the country's ailing steel industry, the sector's plight was its own fault, Ms Krueger said.
US steel mills had yet to implement the cost cutting measures needed to compete on the world stage.
"Protection will at best delay a necessary restructuring," she said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1926716.stm

The 20-state strong protest group, including the 15 European Union (EU) nations, China and Japan, urged the US to drop the tariffs "without delay".

Note Azeron that it is not only the EU member states that have problems with the US Steel Tariffs, but other countries as well. Stop therefore claiming that it is because of unfair European Actions, it is in fact annoying many countries.

But while Washington has on six previous occasions been found guilty by the WTO of imposing illegal trade safeguards, the 20 protesting nations expressed disappointment the findings had failed to stop US protectionism.
The US had committed "systematic abuse" of WTO laws, said a statement from the 20 nations.
"They have to be stopped somehow from just pushing on with actions which they know, whatever they say in public, are against the rules," one Asian diplomat said.

Not just an isolated incident, the US pushes for Free Trade until it hurts them…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1856752.stm

Is it true that the US has been too slow in restructuring its steel industry? The industry says no. It claims to be the most efficient and least protected steel in the world. There have been 30 bankruptcies in the sector in the last five years or so.
It blames the problem of excess global capacity in the steel industry on government subsidies abroad.
The critics of the US steel industry say it needs to bite the bullet and slim down. It is in trouble, they say, because its costs are too high.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1857678.stm
Since the launch of the War on Terror, It had seemed the case that Europe and the US were finding some common ground - something that could have paid economic dividends.
For the UK, America's closest ally, those dividends should have been particularly rich, maybe involving investment, favourable market access and the possibility for Britain to influence US policy.

And Azeron wonders why other EU’s countries aren’t as behind Bush as he would hope. When you shaft your closest ally, the others tend to back away and ask, ‘what’s the point?’ To keep ally’s you have to give as well as take.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1855897.stm
Downing Street said that Mr Blair had written to Mr Bush to warn him that tariffs would be bad not only for the world economy, but also for American consumers, who would be forced to pay more for steel products.
We recognise the US steel industry has to restructure, but we do not believe it is in the interests of the world economy that it should impose tariffs," the spokesman said.
"We have gone through the painful process of restructuring in this country, unfortunately the United States has not yet done that."
There is also some feeling against the levies within the US. American steel consumers, such as car makers, say that level of tariff will increase their costs dramatically at a time when they are fighting to be competitive.
David Phelps, president of the American Institute for International Steel, says that the US steel industry cannot make sufficient quality and quantity of steel for US consumers.

"We believe any additional tariff on imports would simply squeeze the US consumers of steel to a point where they are rendered internationally non-competitive," he told the BBC's World Business Report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2092451.stm

In the UK, trade minister Patricia Hewitt said the delay was "disappointing and deeply frustrating" for British manufacturers.
"The exemptions UK companies are seeking are for high-quality niche products for which the US cannot meet demand."
UK steelworkers' union ISTC echoed Ms Hewitt's remarks, describing the US' failure to move more quickly as " outrageous."
"The European Commission should waste no time in introducing its targeted sanctions against the US to bring home to them the true costs of protectionism," said ISTC General Secretary Michael Leahy.
Plugging the gaps

The US has already announced 224 products which will avoid the 8-30% tariffs, and will have any excess tax paid since 20 March refunded.
The principle is to make sure that steel products are available in sufficient quantities, even if the US itself does not make enough to satisfy domestic demand.
The restrictions were intended to shield US steel producers, who complained that low-priced foreign imports were destroying the domestic industry.
More than 30 US steelmakers are in bankruptcy, placing thousands of jobs at risk.

But some steel producers are complaining that the tariffs have already pushed steel prices sky-high by creating a shortage.
The delay in sorting through the exclusion requests is partly due to the difficulty of balancing the shortage with the demands of steelmakers and unions ahead of elections due in November.

"The government is becoming increasingly aware of the disruption in the marketplace," said David Phelps, president of the American Institute for International Steel.

The tariffs have been blamed for forcing the cost of a tonne of hot-rolled steel to up to $380, compared with $200 at the end of last year, Mr Phelps said.

That’s it I swear, the last bit was too show that A.) The whole Policy is in a Shambles, the Vote Grabbing policy is starting to backfire, even before retaliatory actions where taken, and yet had to be kept up because the Votes weren’t in yet….

[Admiral Piett]

He is a communist, he said so numerous times already.

I think Bush just didn't like all the dumping thats been going on. the unionists have been pushing this for a while, and finnally a president has recognized what the russians and to a lesser extent the euros have been up to.

I think he just doesn't like europe, and wanted to help these people out. It doesn't smell of politics like his education program did. his protectionist moves have been rather limited to critical industries. Might I add the WTO rules say that a nation can protect certain war infrastruture industries on national security grounds, clearly steel is a war production asset.

Explain "all the dumping that has been going on".Subsides higher than american ones?
FOR THE SIXTH TIME,GIVE ME A SOURCE.

[victorhadin]

Only a jackass euro would call the FSC an unfair tax break. It only works for income that would normally not be taxed if the corporation were based in say a euro country like gernany.

In the US your income worldwide, no matter what, as long as you are a citizen is taxed, regardles if it is actually made in the US.

In euroland, and the rest of the world, money made in someone else's country is not taxable by the native country.

The FSC remedies this by allowing multinaitonal compaines based in the US to compete on a level playing feild and return just invesmtent profits to the investors by making the income non-taxable like the rest of the world.

This has nothing to do with direct Euro trade, because Multinationals based in the US get tax credits up to the amount of profit for every dollar payed off in taxes to another country. since Euro taxes are higher across the board, this is not applicable in US/Euro affairs.

What I find distatefull about it, is that europe complained it was costing them business becasue the US corps could sheild thier income using the FSC from being subject to the 35% flat corporate tax rate. considering euros don't have to pay income taxes on the same income, this attack is a sham also consdiering the income lost deals with trade relations with 3rd party's like developing 3rd world nations. the biggest victims in this mess are developing nations, who are going to recieve less developement from US compaines. Europe with the aid of the WTO is ripping food right off the plates of the poorest people on the planet.

The WTC's legitimacey was seriously undermined by acceeding to Europe's Assine attack, and is increasing resentment in the white house, congress, and the american people on every deranged anti-US decision they make.

No, Azeron. The FSC is used, and has been used throughout it's various guises, to give a tax break to companies exporting goods from the United States to other nations. It was initiated partially in order to reduce the trade deficit of the United States but in fact had little or no effect. Since it applies to most of the US exporters it effectively amounts to countless billions which is viewed by many European nations, Japan, Canada and other competitors as an unfair and indirect subsidy. The EU has been pressuring the US and campaigning in the WTO to get this recognised for quite some time, Azeron.

It is an indirect export subsidy and if it finally and rightfully gets recognised as such in the WTO it will be down on record as the biggest in history.



Now let's get this straight; Europe is by no means a bastion of free trade either, no matter what we may preach in our respective nations. The prime irritation the US levels against the EU in the WTO is the Common Agricultural Policy (and with good reason) which is the world's largest agricultural subsidy; several times larger than all other agricultural subsidies on the planets added up (at least until Bush does the dirty and gets away with instigating his own promised agricultural subsidies).

Europe's biggest bone that it picks with the US on free trade is the FSC tax break. The United States has several times changed the name and the details of the FSC during its existence during the constant onslaught from other major exporters in past decades, understandably pissed-off at your nation's behaviour here.

[Azeron]

leaves american taxes to americans who have studied american tax law.

Yah, we have a huge agricultural subsidy. Well its not really. Pretty complicated. We pay more to people for NOT growing crops than we do in price gaurentees, as part of or market stabilization regieme.

I wish they would stop it. I don't think the steel industries recieve any subsidies.

[Admiral Piett]

Yah, we have a huge agricultural subsidy. Well its not really. Pretty complicated. We pay more to people for NOT growing crops than we do in price gaurentees, as part of or market stabilization regieme.

That is not really complicated.The EU agricultural policy is exactly the same.