• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Tex?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
How did the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 affect job numbers in the US?

Was it immediate, or over a longer period? If over a longer period.....how many years?

How many jobs did the "bush tax cuts" save or create?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
How did the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 affect job numbers in the US?

Was it immediate, or over a longer period? If over a longer period.....how many years?

How many jobs did the "bush tax cuts" save or create?

Bush tax credits did save and create jobs but it was all fake and not real. If you are taking your credit card to go out and spend money, it looks as if your standard of living is going up but it is nothing more than you putting debt on your credit card to keep up the party.

This isn't real growth, it is debt created growth. The real reason Bush got away with it was because he relied heavily on money coming in from China to finance this debt and it wasn't taken out of the money pool here in the U.S. It was, however, a huge bill and a structural change that we are now having to deal with.

As you know, the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 was signed by Clinton which opened the door to Chinese trade. At first it looked good, and I like trade. The problem was that China wasn't trading back. Instead, they were retaining earnings via their currency manipulation peg to the dollar and buying U.S. debt. This gave politicians more cheap money to debt spend and with the work going overseas instead of staying here at home, was deflationary with respect to the CPI AND wage pressures. In other words, we were trading jobs and the ability to create demand for U.S. debt.

Sure, you could calculate how good it looked as far as making things cheaper in the U.S. and making Walmart a powerhouse (which is one of the reasons we don't shop there) but they were selling the U.S. demand that is produced via jobs to China for short term gain. It was the reverse of teaching a man how to fish, it was China giving us fish and us forgetting how to fish here in the U.S.

Many textile jobs were lost here in the U.S. as well as other industries. We had huge transfers of technology to China and in return for their goods, Walmart could put price pressures on domestic producers and run them out of business. The traders traded our domestic industries for China's fish.

These were the long term consequences.

Now I would have been happy with this situation with China if we had a balance of trade with China that was more even. Small companies can not compete with a country as big as China when they manipulate their currency and undercut jobs here. Politicians like Bush were all too glad to take their savings through the manipulated currency and use it to deficit spend. It has put us in the fix we are in today. We have been in a deflationary and debt cycle because of it. Our wage pressure has been deflated and our govt. debt has increased----IN GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES!!! This is the U.S. being a grasshopper while China plays the role of the ant in the famous analogy.

You can point to short term gains here or there, but this is the big picture.

Long term trade deficits while China pegs their currency and buys U.S. debt has been a disaster for regular Americans.

I would have been fine if we had a trading partner with occasional deficits but over all balance because when China buys our stuff, we get jobs out of that just as they get jobs when we buy their stuff.

Clinton's deal with China (which was switched to the republicans after they held hearings on it) with Senator Fred Thompson, Harry Mattice, and others investigating the Clinton China connection but that wasn't the only deal republicans traded with Clinton. They also traded the meat mafia deal Clinton had with Tyson.

What is the difference between republicans and democrats? Not a lot. The leadership in both are opportunistic and have sold the nation out to the highest bidder---and yes, even to communist China.

Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Steve said:
I would have been fine if we had a trading partner with occasional deficits but

Do we have any trading partners that we do not run a trade deficit with?

Yes, we do from time to time. They are minor and over all we have huge trade deficits.

I think we have been running about 50 billion in the red for quite some time. And yes, it would be fine if we had a trade deficit with China, and a surplus with other countries that would make up the difference. That hasn't been the case. 50 billion a month in the red.

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

This means 50 billion dollars worth of stimulus a month going out of the country to other countries without taxes and the politics of taxes being counted in the equation.

That 50 billion a month has been coming back in the form of other countries buying our debt, for the most part, as the world's reserve currency. It has given politicians the incentives to spend out their noses while they sell out our economic health.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Canada's trade deficit/balance of trade with china is awful, yet we still are doing okay with employment levels etc.....what's the difference?


Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006

millions of dollars $7,661.3


Leading Canadian imports from China, 2006

millions of dollars $34,486.3
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Canada's trade deficit/balance of trade with china is awful, yet we still are doing okay with employment levels etc.....what's the difference?


Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006

millions of dollars $7,661.3


Leading Canadian imports from China, 2006

millions of dollars $34,486.3

Look into their total trade balance, grasshopper. And by the way, these items do not matter except over time. Surpluses this year with deficits the next don't make much difference unless they are structural and continue over time.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Canada's trade deficit/balance of trade with china is awful, yet we still are doing okay with employment levels etc.....what's the difference?


Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006

millions of dollars $7,661.3


Leading Canadian imports from China, 2006

millions of dollars $34,486.3

Look into their total trade balance, grasshopper. And by the way, these items do not matter except over time. Surpluses this year with deficits the next don't make much difference unless they are structural and continue over time.

Tex


:lol:

always an excuse, but never the answers.


We got what you liberals want in Canada, but you don't want to learn from us, when it comes to how to obtain it.......



I wonder if Canada will make up the difference in the next couple of years..... :wink: :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Canada's trade deficit/balance of trade with china is awful, yet we still are doing okay with employment levels etc.....what's the difference?


Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006

millions of dollars $7,661.3


Leading Canadian imports from China, 2006

millions of dollars $34,486.3

Look into their total trade balance, grasshopper. And by the way, these items do not matter except over time. Surpluses this year with deficits the next don't make much difference unless they are structural and continue over time.

Tex


:lol:

always an excuse, but never the answers.


We got what you liberals want in Canada, but you don't want to learn from us, when it comes to how to obtain it.......



I wonder if Canada will make up the difference in the next couple of years..... :wink: :roll:

Hypo, you have to actually do the work assigned. In one of former posts I spoke about balance of trade over all. You totally ignored it and went straight to balance of trade with a select few countries to try to make some kind of point. My point is that it can not be made that way and I think you know it.

I don't know much about the parties in Canada and I am far from the border so it really isn't something I innately know about. You are a more liberal country with your national health care and all but these are big generalities.

Trade is good for nations except when there are perpetual trade deficits in total. That is a way to reduce the amount of money and economic activity in a country. Trade needs to be balanced in the long term. The short term doesn't matter much unless it turns into the long term and individual country numbers about as much as where you spend your dollars. Your own budget needs to have a balance of trade or you will be in the poor house.

When you ask simplistic questions that you know the answer to and avoid the over all facts to make a point, it is time for me to stop playing your game. Call me a liberal if you want, but your country is still more liberal than the U.S. by far in almost every measure with the exception of maybe trade deficits and federal deficits. Perhaps it is because the Canadian dollar is not the reserve currency.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Canada's trade deficit/balance of trade with china is awful, yet we still are doing okay with employment levels etc.....what's the difference?


Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006

millions of dollars $7,661.3


Leading Canadian imports from China, 2006

millions of dollars $34,486.3

Could be Canada,s health-care plan.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Canada's trade deficit/balance of trade with china is awful, yet we still are doing okay with employment levels etc.....what's the difference?


Leading Canadian exports to China, 2006

millions of dollars $7,661.3


Leading Canadian imports from China, 2006

millions of dollars $34,486.3

Look into their total trade balance, grasshopper. And by the way, these items do not matter except over time. Surpluses this year with deficits the next don't make much difference unless they are structural and continue over time.

Tex


:lol:

always an excuse, but never the answers.


We got what you liberals want in Canada, but you don't want to learn from us, when it comes to how to obtain it.......



I wonder if Canada will make up the difference in the next couple of years..... :wink: :roll:


Too lazy to look it up so you start calling names, huh, hypocrite exposer? Perhaps you have been exposed:

Exports climbed 1.2%, to C$36.9 billion, as higher volumes compensated for a 0.3% cut in prices, mostly in the energy sector. The 1.5% increase in volumes was led by sales in the automotive sector and machinery and equipment.

Imports, meanwhile, rose 1.1%, to C$37.8 billion, as all sectors excluding energy recorded gains in May.

"May's trade data offers some good news that Canada is gliding past the global soft patch hit at the onset of the second quarter, setting the stage for a rebound in Canadian exports in the third quarter," said Diana Petramala, an economist at TD Bank.

Still, trade is still expected to weigh heavily on Canada's second-quarter economic performance, said Benjamin Reitzes, an economist at BMO Capital Markets. The firm expects annualized second-quarter growth of 1.3%, with trade shaving 2.5 percentage points from economic activity.

On a year-over-year basis, exports climbed 7.8% while imports rose 7.9%. The Bank of Canada has said exports, along with business investment, will have to drive Canadian economic growth in the near term as consumers deal with record levels of household debt.

Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Let us just do a little more exposing of Canada vs. the U.S. since hypocrite exposer started it:

From Wiki:

Taxation
Main articles: Taxation in Canada and Taxation in the United States
The Canadian 50 Dollar Bill
The American 50 Dollar Bill

In Canada total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP,[2] compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%.[1]

A significant portion of this tax differential is due to spending differences between the two countries. While the US is running deficits of about 4% of GDP,[3] Canada has consistently posted a budget surplus of around 1% of GDP.[4] Considered in a revenue-neutral context, the differential is much smaller - Canada's total governmental spending was about 36% of GDP[5] vs. 31% in the US.[3] In addition, caution must be used when comparing taxes across countries, due to the different services each offers. Whereas the Canadian healthcare system is 70% government-funded, the US system is just under 50% government-funded (mostly via Medicare and Medicaid); adding the additional healthcare-spending burden to the above figures to obtain comparable numbers (+3% for Canada, +7% for the US) gives adjusted expenditures of 38–39% of GDP for each of the two nations.

The taxes are applied the same as well. Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners, thus while Canada's income tax rate is higher on average, the bottom fifty percent of the population is roughly taxed the same on income as in the United States. However, Canada has a national goods and services tax of 5% on most purchases, while the U.S. federal government does not, increasing the tax burden on Canadian low-income earners due to the proportional nature of a sales tax. Canadian GST does not tax food and other essentials and a GST rebate for low-income earners mitigates regressiveness.[6]

In addition to the 5% GST levied on most purchases, some Canadians also pay a provincial sales tax at a rate that varies by province and can be as high as 10%. In Ontario, for example, where the provincial sales tax (PST) is 8%, consumers must pay a total of 13% sales tax on top of the purchase price. (It should be noted that Ontario has eliminated both the PST and GST, replacing them with harmonized sales tax, or HST, of 13%, which changes the sales tax on some items.) There are some purchases which are PST exempt, such as children's clothing. In the U.S., most states impose a sales tax, and cities and counties are often permitted to levy taxes as well, which can exceed 10% on purchases but realistically average at about 6-8%. Five U.S. states do not have any sales tax imposed.[7]
Government Spending

Government spending at all levels (federal, state/provincial and local) has traditionally been higher in Canada than the United States. In Canada, government spending as a percentage of GDP peaked at 53% in 1992. Since 1992 spending has steadily declined in Canada to just below 40 percent in 2008.[8]

Spending in the United States fluctuated narrowly around 34-38 percent of GDP over the same period.[9] However, starting in 2008 US spending has turned sharply upwards to reach an estimated 42.7% of GDP in 2009[10] from 39% in 2008. Spending is expected to reach 45% of GDP in 2011,[11] and stabilize at that level.
Social programs
See also: Canadian and American health care systems compared.

For its higher taxes Canada has a larger system of social programs than the United States. This includes having a national broadcaster in the CBC, a largely government-funded health care system, and having all major universities receive partial government funding. The United States, however, does have most of its major universities subsidized by state government. The US also has two national public broadcasters which receive partial government funding, PBS (television) and NPR (radio).

The greatest difference in social programs is in health care. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Government spends as much on health care, 7% of GDP, as the Canadian government does,[12] and total healthcare spending is much higher - 14.6% of GDP in the US vs. 10% in Canada.[13] Canadians, however, receive comparable care to those Americans who receive treatment, and result measures, such as life expectancy and infant mortality are better in Canada. The Canadian health care system is said by some also to be attractive to employers, as in Canada health care is mostly paid through employee income taxes, while in the United States most companies choose to extend health benefits to full-time employees. Many employers in Canada do offer employees some additional medical coverage, for non-necessary treatments, and for pharmaceuticals which are not universally-covered the government-paid health insurance system. The most common complaint regarding the Canadian system are the long lines and waiting periods that have appeared for minor and non-life threatening procedures over the last 15 years, since the introduction of widespread cuts to public funding. Separately, a number of medical tests and screenings are not covered (or due to increasing costs, are no longer covered) by the Canadian health system, forcing patients to pay for these services out of their own pockets. For these reasons, some relatively wealthy Canadians undergo treatment at private healthcare facilities at their own expense, either in Canada, in India, or in other nations[14] to avoid waiting for medical treatment, joining "medical tourists" from many nations, including the US.[14] Despite these sporadic problems, Canada's healthcare performance is generally on par with, or better than, the US.[citation needed] Furthermore, healthcare coverage is universal for Canadians.
Anti-trust
Main articles: Canadian competition law and United States antitrust law

The United States has since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act been strongly opposed to monopolies. In Canada this has been far less of an issue, and Canada has never had rigorously enforced rules against monopolization, and in certain situations the government has even encouraged monopolies. However, the Canadian government is more willing to interfere in the operations of large, integrated firms where they appear to be acting against the public interest, offsetting in part one reason that American law prevents large-scale monopolizatio

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Look into their total trade balance, grasshopper. And by the way, these items do not matter except over time. Surpluses this year with deficits the next don't make much difference unless they are structural and continue over time.

Tex


:lol:

always an excuse, but never the answers.


We got what you liberals want in Canada, but you don't want to learn from us, when it comes to how to obtain it.......



I wonder if Canada will make up the difference in the next couple of years..... :wink: :roll:


Too lazy to look it up so you start calling names, huh, hypocrite exposer? Perhaps you have been exposed:

Exports climbed 1.2%, to C$36.9 billion, as higher volumes compensated for a 0.3% cut in prices, mostly in the energy sector. The 1.5% increase in volumes was led by sales in the automotive sector and machinery and equipment.

Imports, meanwhile, rose 1.1%, to C$37.8 billion, as all sectors excluding energy recorded gains in May.

"May's trade data offers some good news that Canada is gliding past the global soft patch hit at the onset of the second quarter, setting the stage for a rebound in Canadian exports in the third quarter," said Diana Petramala, an economist at TD Bank.

Still, trade is still expected to weigh heavily on Canada's second-quarter economic performance, said Benjamin Reitzes, an economist at BMO Capital Markets. The firm expects annualized second-quarter growth of 1.3%, with trade shaving 2.5 percentage points from economic activity.

On a year-over-year basis, exports climbed 7.8% while imports rose 7.9%. The Bank of Canada has said exports, along with business investment, will have to drive Canadian economic growth in the near term as consumers deal with record levels of household debt.

Tex


name-calling? :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
:lol:

always an excuse, but never the answers.


We got what you liberals want in Canada, but you don't want to learn from us, when it comes to how to obtain it.......



I wonder if Canada will make up the difference in the next couple of years..... :wink: :roll:


Too lazy to look it up so you start calling names, huh, hypocrite exposer? Perhaps you have been exposed:

Exports climbed 1.2%, to C$36.9 billion, as higher volumes compensated for a 0.3% cut in prices, mostly in the energy sector. The 1.5% increase in volumes was led by sales in the automotive sector and machinery and equipment.

Imports, meanwhile, rose 1.1%, to C$37.8 billion, as all sectors excluding energy recorded gains in May.

"May's trade data offers some good news that Canada is gliding past the global soft patch hit at the onset of the second quarter, setting the stage for a rebound in Canadian exports in the third quarter," said Diana Petramala, an economist at TD Bank.

Still, trade is still expected to weigh heavily on Canada's second-quarter economic performance, said Benjamin Reitzes, an economist at BMO Capital Markets. The firm expects annualized second-quarter growth of 1.3%, with trade shaving 2.5 percentage points from economic activity.

On a year-over-year basis, exports climbed 7.8% while imports rose 7.9%. The Bank of Canada has said exports, along with business investment, will have to drive Canadian economic growth in the near term as consumers deal with record levels of household debt.

Tex


name-calling? :roll:


So what you are saying is that what you want is what Canada has? Isn't that what I said?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
The taxes are applied the same as well. Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners, thus while Canada's income tax rate is higher on average, the bottom fifty percent of the population is roughly taxed the same on income as in the United States.


Canada
Federal tax rates for 2011 are:

15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, + (25% in US on upper income)
22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), + (25% in the US on upper income)
26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), + (28 % in US on upper income)
29% of taxable income over $128,800. (28 %- 35% in US on upper income and above)

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html


US




http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
In the U.S. income above $380,500.00 for married or single the rate is 39.6%.

In other words if you had an income of $380,500.00, $150,678.00 would go to Uncle Sam and you would keep just $229,822.

How can anyone in the bottom 50% of taxpayers (that pay nothing) think this is fair?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Mike said:
In the U.S. income above $380,500.00 for married or single the rate is 39.6%.

In other words if you had an income of $380,500.00, $150,678.00 would go to Uncle Sam and you would keep just $229,822.

How can anyone in the bottom 50% of taxpayers (that pay nothing) think this is fair?


Geez, that's 10% higher than in Canada, on the same income. doesn't look like you have a revenue problem at all..... :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
hypocritexposer said:
Mike said:
In the U.S. income above $380,500.00 for married or single the rate is 39.6%.

In other words if you had an income of $380,500.00, $150,678.00 would go to Uncle Sam and you would keep just $229,822.

How can anyone in the bottom 50% of taxpayers (that pay nothing) think this is fair?


Geez, that's 10% higher than in Canada, on the same income. doesn't look like you have a revenue problem at all..... :D

Tax revenue in the U.S. is not the problem. It's the spending that's killing us.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Mike said:
hypocritexposer said:
Mike said:
In the U.S. income above $380,500.00 for married or single the rate is 39.6%.

In other words if you had an income of $380,500.00, $150,678.00 would go to Uncle Sam and you would keep just $229,822.

How can anyone in the bottom 50% of taxpayers (that pay nothing) think this is fair?


Geez, that's 10% higher than in Canada, on the same income. doesn't look like you have a revenue problem at all..... :D

Tax revenue in the U.S. is not the problem. It's the spending that's killing us.

Mike, I totally and unequivocally agree that overspending is a problem.

I will also say that an 18 percent tax rate for those who helped leverage up the economy and put us in the financial mess is not anywhere near the top rate you quote---it barely covers what most would pay in the SS tax alone for independent businessmen.

Those Wall Streeters are taking a free ride off of republican "no new tax" slogan thanks to the politicians in D.C. To me that is unconscionable. Don't worry though, they are helping fund the next presidential campaign----for both parties!!!!

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top