Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
About That Free Trade . . .
Published: May 15, 2006
Global talks to liberalize farm and industrial trade are on life support, and there is not a single character in the cast of supposed free-trade advocates around the world willing to step up and be the doctor.
Not President Bush, who has downgraded the stature of his trade office by appointing a technocrat, Susan Schwab, to succeed his political ally, Rob Portman. Not Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who has allowed the trade component of his campaign to end global poverty to fall by the wayside. And certainly not the European Union's trade chief, Peter Mandelson, who has not lifted a finger to prod big concessions out of the bureaucrats, labor leaders and farmers in France who live, eat, sleep and drink a steady diet of government subsidies.
After another in a long-running series of missed deadlines, things are looking grim. And that is a disgrace that highlights the complete hypocrisy of all those speeches about abolishing global poverty that the leaders of rich countries gave last year.
This round of trade talks was supposed to finally address more than a half-century of unfairness in the global trade system. Back in 1947, when 23 nations agreed to start an international organization to promote trade and arbitrate disputes, the needs of poor countries mattered little. Industrialized nations were rebuilding after World War II, and they remained the economic masters of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Over the next 50 years, that club, now known as the World Trade Organization, aggressively dismantled barriers against trade in industrial goods and services — the areas in which its members hold a comparative advantage. That same club dragged its feet on dismantling barriers against trade in agriculture and textiles, where poor countries have an advantage.
All of that was supposed to change after 2001, when, reeling from the Sept. 11 attack and under intense pressure from the developing world, America, Europe and Japan agreed to slash agricultural subsidies while further liberalizing world trade in services and manufactured goods. Since then, negotiators have, unsurprisingly, made big strides toward agreeing how to cut tariffs in the areas important to the rich countries: manufactured goods, and, to a lesser extent, services. But the talks are stuck on agriculture.
The Europeans are the most to blame. But that does not mean the United States does not partake in the shame as well. America has proposed cuts in subsidies to farmers, but it needs to go further. Meanwhile, back in Washington, where lawmakers are preparing for the midterm elections, there is talk now that America should extend, rather than modify, its farm support laws. That is going in the wrong direction.
World trade talks are notorious for coming back to life after being declared dead. But for that to happen, someone has to call in the paramedics. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are the most likely candidates.
There is still time to demonstrate that all that talk last year about making poverty history was not just talk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15mon1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
ROFL!
LOL
I'm so glad my days of taxi mom have finally passed!
LOL!
I used to have quite a bit of respect for McCain.... if he had just toughed it through without caving into Bush/Falwell/et al, I still would.
Those companies insisted yesterday that they were vigilant about their customers' privacy...
yeah right.
LOL!
Did you know she has a website to keep people updated with the progress on her newest book?
planning, testing, backup
[edit]
actually this topic is appropriate for this board. good planning, testing and backup and potentially save you bundles of time of money
OT: at some places I have worked in the past, heads would have rolled.
LOL good idea :)
first of all, Bush didn't "vote". Kerry voted without the benefit of the same information that Bush had.
or maybe they've been bought out by the tax cut extension lol
cause the bun manufacturer wants you to buy more than you need so they can make more $$$ LOL
too many motive questions can be answered by conveting of:
money
power
HUD secretary's blunt warning
Alphonso Jackson says deal was scuttled after contractor admits not liking Bush
<< another one of the Bush administrations shinning examples ... >>
Dallas Business Journal - May 5, 2006
by Christine PerezStaff Writer
Once the color barrier has been broken, minority contractors seeking government work may need to overcome the Bush barrier.
That's the message U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson seemed to send during an April 28 talk in Dallas.
Jackson, a former president and CEO of the Dallas Housing Authority, was among the featured speakers at a forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, a national minority real estate consortium.
After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.
"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'
"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'
"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said canceling a government contract due to political views "is not a door you want to open."
"Whether or not it's legal, it certainly draws your judgment and the judgment of your office into question," Jillson said. "It's just not the tone you want to set."
Told of Jackson's comments, Mary Scott Nabers, a government-contracting consultant in Austin, had a briefer initial reaction. "Oh, my goodness gracious," she said.
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/05/08/story1.html
makes sense to me... and I'll bet the kids agree with your priorities... playground first :)
and even worse in that category is Lieberman... but yes, I agree.
I remember those days when the kids where young!
I don't have that kind of energy any more :)
I'm always lurking and keeping an eye on this one... one of my long term favorites :)
looks like it was just some knee jerk reactions.... long term, I still like TEVA
interesting, thanks.
here's another example of a classy post...
#msg-10722515
I had to take him off ignore to see what all the fuss was about... it was mostly a waste of time.
The Family Stone
a little weird, a bit exagerrated, but I really liked this movie...
another 4 out of 5
There was no emotional connection between the characters
and I think that was the whole point of the movie... the lack of emotional connection and vulnerability between her and the older guy.
I'd give it 4 out of 5
ROFL!
good article and why I think she should be soundly defeated.
stress, multi-tasking, age... yeap, I resemeble that remark.
and, yes, if I let it go, it off comes to me later when I thought I stopped thinking about it LOL
interesting series on memory!
but the longer it takes, the more damage is done....
what's up?
...supressed guilt of the greedy...
As a group I see voters not being able to connect the dots and rely on the spin merchants to tell them how to vote.
a perfect example are those who swallow everything Rush dishes out...
yes, it's sad he still has as much support as he does even as low as it is... IMO it should be lower and he should be removed from office for high crimes.
If they are thinking and rational and have opened their eyes, they probably feel that way. But some people have a hard time admitting their mistakes... and those often lash out in anger at others even when deep down they are really just mad at themselves.
Having been in the IT business for over 25 years, I tend to agree with your take on it.
Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet
About two-thirds said the country was in worse shape than it was when he became president six years ago.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE
Published: May 10, 2006
Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sharp disapproval of President Bush's handling of gasoline prices has combined with intensified unhappiness about Iraq to create a grim political environment for the White House and Congressional Republicans.
More New York Times Polls Mr. Bush's approval ratings for his management of foreign policy, Iraq and the economy have fallen to the lowest levels of his presidency. He drew poor marks on the issues that have been at the top of the national agenda in recent months, in particular immigration and gasoline prices.
Just 13 percent approved of Mr. Bush's handling of rising gasoline prices. About a quarter said they approved of his handling of immigration, as Congressional Republicans try to come up with a compromise for handling the influx of illegal immigrants into the country.
The poll showed a further decline in support for the Iraq war, the issue that has most eaten into Mr. Bush's public support. The percentage of respondents who said going to war in Iraq was the correct decision slipped to a new low of 39 percent, down from 47 percent in January. Two-thirds said they had little or no confidence that Mr. Bush could successfully end the war.
The poll comes six months before Election Day and well before Labor Day, when Congressional campaigns will be fully engaged. Mr. Bush has shaken up his staff in an effort to improve his political fortunes, and White House aides said they were confident that events in Iraq were improving and that the political effects of high gasoline prices could fade by the election.
Nevertheless, the Times/CBS News poll contained few if any bright notes for Mr. Bush or Congress.
Mr. Bush's political strength continues to dissipate. About two-thirds of poll respondents said he did not share their priorities, up from just over half right before his re-election in 2004. About two-thirds said the country was in worse shape than it was when he became president six years ago. Forty-two percent of respondents said they considered Mr. Bush a strong leader, a drop of 11 points since January.
Mr. Bush's overall job approval rating hit another new low, 31 percent, tying the low point of his father in July 1992, four months before the elder Mr. Bush lost his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton. That is the third lowest approval rating of any president in 50 years; only Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter were viewed less favorably.
Mr. Bush is even losing support from what has been his base: 51 percent of conservatives and 69 percent of Republicans approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job. In both cases, those figures are a substantial drop in support from four months ago.
"We should have stayed out of Iraq until we knew more about it," Bernice Davis, a Republican from Lamar, Mo., who said she now disapproved of Mr. Bush's performance, said in a follow-up interview on Tuesday. "The economy is going to pot. Gas prices are escalating. I just voted for Bush because he's a Republican, even though I disapproved of the war. If I could go back, I would not vote for him."
Although the composition of Congressional districts will make it hard for the Democrats to recapture control of Congress in the fall, the poll suggested that the trend was moving in their direction. Just 23 percent said they approved of the job Congress was doing, down from 29 percent in January. That is about the same level of support for Congress as in the fall of 1994, when Republicans seized control of the House.
Americans said Democrats would do a better job dealing with Iraq, gasoline prices, immigration, taxes, prescription drug prices and civil liberties.
Fifty percent said Democrats came closer than Republicans to sharing their moral values, compared with 37 percent who said Republicans shared their values. A majority said Republican members of Congress were more likely to be financially corrupt than Democratic members of Congress, suggesting that Democrats may be making headway in their efforts to portray Republicans as having created a "culture of corruption" in Washington.
By better than two to one, Democrats were seen as having more new ideas than Republicans. And half of respondents, the highest number yet, said it was better when different parties controlled the two branches of Congress, reflecting one of the major arguments being laid out by Congressional Democrats in their bid to win back the House or the Senate.
Americans said that Republicans would be better at maintaining a stronger military than Democrats. But the Republicans had only a slight edge on combating terrorism, an issue that has helped account for the party's political dominance since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The nationwide telephone poll, of 1,241 adults, was conducted from May 4 to May 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Seventy percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction, compared with 23 percent who said they approved of the direction in which the country was heading. Those findings are not significantly different from the responses to a CBS News poll last week and suggest that Americans are more pessimistic about the country's direction than at any other time in the 23 years that The Times and CBS News have asked the question.
More New York Times Polls Immigration is another issue undercutting Republicans and Mr. Bush. As Republicans battle over how to respond to illegal immigration, the poll found considerable opposition to the strict measures being pressed by conservative Republicans in the House.
About 60 percent of respondents said they favored the plan proposed by some Republicans in the Senate that would permit illegal immigrants who had worked in the United States for at least two years to keep their jobs and apply for citizenship. Just 35 percent endorsed the view of some conservatives that illegal immigrants should be deported. Two-thirds opposed building a 700-mile fence along the United States-Mexican border.
The two biggest problems for Mr. Bush and Republicans are gasoline prices and Iraq. By 57 percent to 11 percent, respondents said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to find a way to curb gasoline prices.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said the increase in gasoline prices was not beyond the control of a president, but 89 percent said this administration did not have a plan to deal with the problem.
More than two-thirds said the war in Iraq was to blame for at least some of the increase in gasoline prices. Seventy-one percent said they believed that oil companies were profiting from higher prices, and a majority said oil companies were much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party.
"Bush could put in some kind of regulation to control the profits of the oil companies," said Jane North, 43, a Republican from Reisterstown, Md., who said she recently changed her registration to Democrat. "He comes from the oil business, so he certainly knows how it works. I think Bush will just run out his term and not do anything to control gas prices."
On Iraq, two-thirds of poll respondents said they disapproved of how the president had handled the war. Fifty-six percent said going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 50 percent in January. And 60 percent said things were going "somewhat or very badly" in the drive to stabilize the country. Sixty-three percent disapproved of Mr. Bush's handling of foreign policy in general.
Still, 55 percent said they believed the effort in Iraq was somewhat or very likely to succeed.
"We have enough problems here at home without worrying about Iraq," said Bill Trego, 64, a Republican from Waymart, Pa.
"I believed him at first, in the beginning," Mr. Trego said of Mr. Bush, "that there were weapons of mass destruction and if that was a fact, it was probably not a bad move to go in there. But they didn't find anything. When they couldn't prove it, I realized it was just a barefaced lie."
The problems plaguing the Republicans have clearly helped the Democrats: 55 percent said they now had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 57 percent had an unfavorable view of Republicans, compared with 37 percent who had a favorable view.
The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.
And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
really? good stuff!
LOL love the "rating" pic
The Art of the Deal
by Donald Trump
I picked this one up thinking I might learn a few things about negotiating... but so far it's mostly The Donald blowing his own horn...
[edit] iHub is so frustratingly slow this morning... I'm trying to imagine why hardware changes would do this... doesn't sound right... but making software changes on the fly on a live system could explain it and is very amateurish
Finally finished the Harry Potter Series and have to admit once I started reading them I was hooked. The last one, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was probably the best yet. I can't help but feel that the books have grown darker in reflection of the times...
Can't wait for the next one to come out...
750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required.
sounds more "dictorial" than presidential
that's true here too. In fact there is some sort of city agency in the neighboring town that actually signs them up and helps them hook up with people wanting to hired them.