For our friends in Canada

[RED]

Good morning Sam,

Please re-read my post, I find nothing wrong with President Trump trying to get the best deal possible for the American people, this in my opinion is commendable. So to answer your question, no that is not wrong.

It is important to remember one fact and that is the population of the United States is about 10 times as large as the population of Canada. Also the fact Canada has a primarily resource extraction based economy, which means that we do not manufacture anywhere near as much as we harvest. Given those 2 facts it is easy to see why there is a trade imbalance. Even so Canada buys more from the United States than any other country buys from the United States. That is pretty remarkable given the difference as described above.

I look upon these present trade issues like they were a gold medal hockey game between the United States and Canada. Both teams and both coaches are going to do their very best to win, which is what they should be doing.

But to vilify the other side with terms such as "a threat to national security" is wrong and an insult to our veterans who have fought and died along side of America.

But as it was pointed out that this will pass, our nation's respect for one another is far greater than any trade spat or even a gold medal hockey game.

KTK

You are mistaking legalese double talk for sentiment. There is not one single American, including the President, that thinks Canada is anything other than our best friend. best neighbor. and best ally. But, when you get into the nuts and bolts, of a 2,000 word document, written in a foreign language ("legalese"), you come away with the opinion the only way to change the agreement is to use legalese wording contained in the original agreement. It is like Bill Clinton once said, "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is."

It reminds me of a popular phrase used by our troops in Vietnam to explain some really bad things, "Bro, it don't mean sh*t."

[togor]

Red I think you're giving Trump too much credit. Squeezing your long-time neighbor for leverage no different than if they were a one-off subcontractor is just plain insulting on the receiving end. The Canucks see it clear as day, as do some of us Yanks. And a good Conserative calls a thing what it is and doesn't hide behind some politician's double-talk, yeah?

[leftyo]

^ so you just want to keep bending over and getting the short end of the stick. the canadians may see it plain as day, that they have been taking advantage of us in trade for a long time, and naturally they dont want to lose their current advantage. my opinion is that it isnt very neighborly! short and simple, politics and biases aside, our tarrifs on their goods, should be exactly the same as theirs are on ours. of course you wont get them to see it that way, unless you first ruffle some feathers.

[ray55classic]

Strategic Assets

Has anyone here ever thought that no longer having the ability to make steel and aluminum IS a threat to national security?
I think the statement "a threat to national security'' was meant as in saving what is left of our national steel & aluminum production as the strategic assets that they are
and NOT an indictment of our allies.

[dryheat]

Everyone has the capability to make steel and aluminum. It's easy to find in the earth. And now there are fifty foot stacks of it sitting around.

[S.A. Boggs]

Has anyone here ever thought that no longer having the ability to make steel and aluminum IS a threat to national security?
I think the statement "a threat to national security'' was meant as in saving what is left of our national steel & aluminum production as the strategic assets that they are
and NOT an indictment of our allies.

Amen!
Sam

[togor]

^ so you just want to keep bending over and getting the short end of the stick. the canadians may see it plain as day, that they have been taking advantage of us in trade for a long time, and naturally they dont want to lose their current advantage. my opinion is that it isnt very neighborly! short and simple, politics and biases aside, our tarrifs on their goods, should be exactly the same as theirs are on ours. of course you wont get them to see it that way, unless you first ruffle some feathers.

We run a trade surplus with Canada in goods and services. At the end of the day we make money off of Canada in trade. That's getting the short end of the stick?

[togor]

Everyone has the capability to make steel and aluminum. It's easy to find in the earth. And now there are fifty foot stacks of it sitting around.

Exactly. And there is no credible reason to think that Canadian supply of those commodities is any less reliable than ours for national security purposes. Just ask the hardhats up there if they'll have our back in a fight. Before Trump, no doubt. But maybe now they start to wonder WTF, America, right?

[S.A. Boggs]

Each country will look after there own, that is a given. If Canada/America can't find common ground on trade so be it as it was not meant to be. I want Canada to look out for themselves first, they are no fool as charity begins at home. Canadians are not weaklings looking for the generosity of America, Canada is a strong sovereign nation with a similar language and outlook on life. Credible and shrewd trading partner who is looking for a good deal that will benefit their country, same for America. Tariffs are put in place by any country to try and level the trading table as much as possible. For the sake of argument, if the United States cut off all trade with Canada and Mexico which countries would be hurt the most? The answer is Canada and the United States as our nations share a common defense [NORAD], waterway [Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway], not to mention Alaska and the Canadian border. My state of Ohio borders Canada so there is a common need. These trade differences will iron themselves out, we must work together for each other's security. Personally I would wish for an open trading with Canada without many regulations. Trump is at heart a businessman who has had bad deals and hopefully learned from them. A politician learns to get reelected and very little more. Harry Truman from his failures learned WHAT NOT TO DO and history states a competent President. Canada and the United States have enough political internal problems without a trade problem.
Sam

[leftyo]

We run a trade surplus with Canada in goods and services. At the end of the day we make money off of Canada in trade. That's getting the short end of the stick?

you dont get it as usual. i dont care who buys more from who. makes zero difference. each item should have the same tax or tarriff. the fact that one country imports more than another or vice versa should have zero bearing on who gets to levy a heavier tax, unless of course you like your socialist ways. if we dont produce more products they need, thats our fault, if they dont produce items we need thats their fault. slanting a tarrif or tax if you will is only a solution to the liberal mind.

[togor]

you dont get it as usual. i dont care who buys more from who. makes zero difference. each item should have the same tax or tarriff. the fact that one country imports more than another or vice versa should have zero bearing on who gets to levy a heavier tax, unless of course you like your socialist ways. if we dont produce more products they need, thats our fault, if they dont produce items we need thats their fault. slanting a tarrif or tax if you will is only a solution to the liberal mind.

What you don't seem to understand is that the two economies aren't exactly the same, and that each state is sovereign and will choose to emphasize certain sectors for reasons that are important to the people of that country. So that has to be beaten down into a set of pan-governmental rules that are exactly even in every detail both ways before we can trade? Who is being the socialist here? Not me.

I'll give you an example. Country A is big and has a huge dairy industry that can produce crazy amounts of milk and cheese. Country B is small by comparison and has a small dairy industry, limited by geography to just one region. But they have a long tradition and are part of the culture even if they only produce enough to satisfy say 40% of local demand. So Country B has to import dairy. Country A has a huge cost advantage and can sell product in Country B at prices that would completely put the locals out of business. But because of the size differential, Country B represents only a 2% of the dairy market that Country A sees. Country A needs no import duties to speak of on dairy because their production costs are so low that there is very little import except to satisfy boutique tastes. Country B can't protect their "heritage" dairy from Country A? Why not instead use some of these duty differentials as another bargaining item in the trade negotiations? Well in fact that's what they do, for the reasons I sorta describe, but you think that is being stupid. Why is it stupid?

[leftyo]

What you don't seem to understand is that the two economies aren't exactly the same, and that each state is sovereign and will choose to emphasize certain sectors for reasons that are important to the people of that country. So that has to be beaten down into a set of pan-governmental rules that are exactly even in every detail both ways before we can trade? Who is being the socialist here? Not me.

I'll give you an example. Country A is big and has a huge dairy industry that can produce crazy amounts of milk and cheese. Country B is small by comparison and has a small dairy industry, limited by geography to just one region. But they have a long tradition and are part of the culture even if they only produce enough to satisfy say 40% of local demand. So Country B has to import dairy. Country A has a huge cost advantage and can sell product in Country B at prices that would completely put the locals out of business. But because of the size differential, Country B represents only a 2% of the dairy market that Country A sees. Country A needs no import duties to speak of on dairy because their production costs are so low that there is very little import except to satisfy boutique tastes. Country B can't protect their "heritage" dairy from Country A? Why not instead use some of these duty differentials as another bargaining item in the trade negotiations? Well in fact that's what they do, for the reasons I sorta describe, but you think that is being stupid. Why is it stupid?

i fully understand the differences. it isnt fair unless the same tax is levied on each product. we buy a whole bunch more from canada than they do from us, therefore they come out ahead no matter what. 3 things right off the top of my head, the NE portion of the US uses enormous amounts of canadian electricity, the vast majority of our lumber comes out of canada, as do large portions of our paper products. not so easy to name huge items canada imports from us.

[S.A. Boggs]

i fully understand the differences. it isnt fair unless the same tax is levied on each product. we buy a whole bunch more from canada than they do from us, therefore they come out ahead no matter what. 3 things right off the top of my head, the NE portion of the US uses enormous amounts of canadian electricity, the vast majority of our lumber comes out of canada, as do large portions of our paper products. not so easy to name huge items canada imports from us.

I understand that Canada allows Mexicans but not Hollyweird stars asylum and Canada must take them! If not the UN should investigate why and fine Canada a million Hershey bars per day [ I was going to say Canadian Club but I can't drink anymore] until these "poor" refugees are allowed in.
Sam

[Sandpebble]

I understand that Canada allows Mexicans but not Hollyweird stars asylum and Canada must take them! If not the UN should investigate why and fine Canada a million Hershey bars per day [ I was going to say Canadian Club but I can't drink anymore] until these "poor" refugees are allowed in.
Sam

Well Well Well .... the truth comes out . " You can't drink any more." Now we know why you are so easy to accuse others of being alcoholics on a public forum on the strength of one sentence ......

You attend AA don't you ??.... don't deny it.... my lifes experience tells me that is so through things you say ..... your're a trailer dweller... and a member of the local AA .... how am doing so far ?

[RED]

Has anyone here ever thought that no longer having the ability to make steel and aluminum IS a threat to national security?
I think the statement "a threat to national security'' was meant as in saving what is left of our national steel & aluminum production as the strategic assets that they are
and NOT an indictment of our allies.

You are exactly right. Togor, the American hater, hates everything that his country does and claims it is always because Trump is a thief trying to strike it rich. It is just like when Giulani quotes the U.S. Constitution that says the President can only be impeached and not indicted, Togor and his ilk claim that Rudy said if Trump shoots Comey in the oval office he can't be punished. That is NOT what he said.

We are battling a coup de gras and togor and the twisters and haters are winning. In a very short time (historically speaking) there will be no elections. There will be no need for them because no matter what the voters say the schemers and traitors will still claim victory and proclaim the election was rigged.

Lie, lie, lie, twist and turn, hate America and burn it down.