Here is some more good news for America. It took real guts for her to stick by her actions and not find an excuse to deny her mistakes. She'll prove to be a great leader, a leader that other nations can respect, one that America hasn't had in nearly a decade.
Code:
(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray as a 2008 presidential candidate with the words "I'm in" posted on her Web site.
"And I'm in to win," she added in a statement, announcing she has set up an exploratory committee that can gauge opinions and raise money for a presidential campaign.
The former first lady and Democratic senator from New York is considered her party's front-runner in what has become a diverse political field.
Should she win, she would be the first woman to serve as president of the United States -- and the first presidential spouse to do so as well. President Bill Clinton served two terms -- from 1993-2001.
On Tuesday, Democrat Sen. Barack Obama announced that he was filing papers to form a presidential exploratory committee, a bid to become the first African-American president. (Full story Video)
And on Sunday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, also a Democrat, is expected to announce his bid, one that could make him the first Latino president.
Bringing "the right end" to the war in Iraq, reducing the deficit, making the country energy independent and affordable health care were issues Clinton touted in her announcement, speaking on a video posted on her site.
"After six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the promise of America," she said.
"I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America, and we believed in that promise," the 59-year-old said. "I still do. I've spent my entire life trying to make good on it."
In the video, she invited Americans to join her in a three-night series of live video Web chats beginning Monday.
Where more than one side benefits the most. You know REAL free trade, what was original agreed upon by everyone else. This also means actually trading with other countries instead of through proxies of American companies overseas.
Where more than one side benefits the most. You know REAL free trade, what was original agreed upon by everyone else. This also means actually trading with other countries instead of through proxies of American companies overseas.
What? As usual, you do nothing but make nonsensical naked assertions. Everyone involved in a trade benefits, otherwise it wouldn't occur. This is an axiom of economics. As far as American companies owning capital overseas, you know foreign companies own capital in America, right? You know imports and exports must equal each other in the long run, right? Well you do now, so call me a callous, greedy prick and run away.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:43 am
offsprng46 wrote:
What? As usual, you do nothing but make nonsensical naked assertions. Everyone involved in a trade benefits, otherwise it wouldn't occur.
Its a matter of who benefits the most as compared to the others. One example is softwood lumber. Each time the American government was ruled against, by a court that they agreed upon, they ignored it and continued to charge Canada unfair tariffs. Benefits should be as mutual as possible. Things like what was happening with the lumber are forcing us to look elsewhere for trade. We can do it, it is just that it was more convenient to do it with America instead.
Quote:
This is an axiom of economics. As far as American companies owning capital overseas, you know foreign companies own capital in America, right?
I wasn't talking about that. I was referring to outsourcing like with India. Its not exactly like doing trade directly with them.
Quote:
You know imports and exports must equal each other in the long run, right?
You would think. I know that imports/exports for Canada are practically even.
Quote:
Well you do now, so call me a callous, greedy prick and run away.
What? As usual, you do nothing but make nonsensical naked assertions. Everyone involved in a trade benefits, otherwise it wouldn't occur.
Its a matter of who benefits the most as compared to the others. One example is softwood lumber. Each time the American government was ruled against they ignored it and continued to charge Canada unfair tariffs. Benefits should be as mutual as possible.
Just one example of the Bush administration's protectionist (read: not capitalist) stance. But isn't true that the US unfairly benefits from the tariffs. Just as both countries gain from trade, both countries lose from protectionism. The only people that benefit from the softwood lumber tariffs are inefficient American producers of lumber, but certainly not the American public at large.
sjc wrote:
Quote:
This is an axiom of economics. As far as American companies owning capital overseas, you know foreign companies own capital in America, right?
I wasn't talking about that. I was referring to outsourcing like with India. Its not exactly like doing trade directly with them.
Actually, it is. Trade in services is no different than trade in physical goods.
sjc wrote:
Quote:
You know imports and exports must equal each other in the long run, right?
You would think. I know that imports/exports for Canada are practically even.
In the
long run
they have to be. If a country runs a trade surplus, they must at some point run a trade deficit if they ever expect to be paid. Conversely, if a country runs a trade deficit, they must at some point have a trade surplus in order to pay back what they owe to the creditor nations. However, I should point out that not all trade is measured by the balance of payments. Foreign tourists spending money in the US and the US dollar's reserve currency status (profit from seignorage) are good examples of this.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:47 am
offsprng46 wrote:
Just one example of the Bush administration's protectionist (read: not capitalist) stance.
It is an example of modern capitalism.
Quote:
But isn't true that the US unfairly benefits from the tariffs. Just as both countries gain from trade, both countries lose from protectionism. The only people that benefit from the softwood lumber tariffs are inefficient American producers of lumber, but certainly not the American public at large.
That was never actually a concern of the Bush Whitehouse.
Quote:
Actually, it is. Trade in services is no different than trade in physical goods.
I had meant to add that this is sort of like importing your own products. It is not only services that are being outsourced, but manufacturing as well.
Quote:
In the
long run
they have to be. If a country runs a trade surplus, they must at some point run a trade deficit if they ever expect to be paid. Conversely, if a country runs a trade deficit, they must at some point have a trade surplus in order to pay back what they owe to the creditor nations. However, I should point out that not all trade is measured by the balance of payments. Foreign tourists spending money in the US and the US dollar's reserve currency status (profit from seignorage) are good examples of this.
America has to stop outsourcing, out of country, its manufacturing on this scale to help balance their trade where it will benefit all instead of those at the top.
At the moment Canada's imports/exports nearly balance with a slightly higher export rate. Canada also benefits greatly from tourism. You know, Americans should visit us more than they do. Sure gas costs more and the dollar is up here, but there is the fact that you don't have to learn another language since we, more or less, speak the same one. You can drink the water, you probably get a good amount of your bottled water from us. And another important fact. We won't shoot at you. We're probably one of the few countries that will actually welcome you.... Well, most of you.
Just one example of the Bush administration's protectionist (read: not capitalist) stance.
It is an example of modern capitalism.
No, it's corporatistic mercantilism. I'm not going to let you arbitrarily redefine words just because you have no argument and must use a strawman.
sjc wrote:
Quote:
But isn't true that the US unfairly benefits from the tariffs. Just as both countries gain from trade, both countries lose from protectionism. The only people that benefit from the softwood lumber tariffs are inefficient American producers of lumber, but certainly not the American public at large.
That was never actually a concern of the Bush Whitehouse.
My point exactly. But that is not capitalism.
sjc wrote:
Quote:
Actually, it is. Trade in services is no different than trade in physical goods.
I had meant to add that this is sort of like importing your own products. It is not only services that are being outsourced, but manufacturing as well.
And? What is fundamentally different about trade in goods vs. trade in services? Oh and the whole "outsourcing" thing is just another word for trade. So unless you can prove that trade is bad (which, carried to it's logical conclusion, would mean that individuals can only consume what they produce by themselves, which would mean the end of modern civlization), you have no argument at all.
sjc wrote:
Quote:
In the
long run
they have to be. If a country runs a trade surplus, they must at some point run a trade deficit if they ever expect to be paid. Conversely, if a country runs a trade deficit, they must at some point have a trade surplus in order to pay back what they owe to the creditor nations. However, I should point out that not all trade is measured by the balance of payments. Foreign tourists spending money in the US and the US dollar's reserve currency status (profit from seignorage) are good examples of this.
America has to stop outsourcing, out of country, its manufacturing on this scale to help balance their trade where it will benefit all instead of those at the top.
You don't know what you're talking about. Trade will balance eventually (not necessarily on the books though, as accounting practices and economic indicators don't accurately report exports). There is no need to erect arbitrary barriers to foreign investment or imports, nor would it be desirable to do so.
sjc wrote:
At the moment Canada's imports/exports nearly balance with a slightly higher export rate. Canada also benefits greatly from tourism. You know, Americans should visit us more than they do. Sure gas costs more and the dollar is up here, but there is the fact that you don't have to learn another language since we, more or less, speak the same one. You can drink the water, you probably get a good amount of your bottled water from us. And another important fact. We won't shoot at you. We're probably one of the few countries that will actually welcome you.... Well, most of you.
Tell you what, you read "Economics in One Lesson," and I'll take a trip to Vancouver.
(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray as a 2008 presidential candidate with the words "I'm in" posted on her Web site.
In other news, Republicans nationwide started rejoicing.
As far as first good leader in nearly a decade, your sense of time is way off. It's been many decades. It's been a couple of decades since the last reasonably not too bad leader even.
In other news, Republicans nationwide started rejoicing.
We can't just yet. We don't have a lot of confidence in the people who are seeking the Republican nomination. Republicans are still desperately need in conservative leadership!
Some of us think the best hope is Newt but at the same time we wonder if he is electable. He has a large negative image with many like Hillary does.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:19 am
Saitou, if you want the Republican Party to go in the direction you want, you have to pick the one candidate in the bunch who is neither a neocon nor a socialist (but I repeat myself). I started a thread about that one candidate.
It would take a truly abysmal candidate to lose to Hillary, and that truly abysmal candidate isn't the one I support.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
We're probably one of the few countries that will actually welcome you.... Well, most of you. 
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file