It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SIRR1
What in the "He double hockey sticks" ever happened to the NAFTA agreement, this should not be happening, new trade taxes between the US and Canada?
It must be the French Canadians behind this.
Originally posted by SIRR1
What in the "He double hockey sticks" ever happened to the NAFTA agreement, this should not be happening, new trade taxes between the US and Canada?
Originally posted by marg6043
It saddens me that most "patriotic" around here ignore the facts and the reasons, for a good bashing of another foreign country.
The US economy is healthy and thriving, despite what you naysayers and doomsayers assert.
The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 was enacted on October 28, 2000, as part of the appropriations act for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. CDSOA requires that the revenues from antidumping and countervailing duties on a given import be distributed on an annual basis to the domestic producers that were either petitioners or interested parties supporting the petition in the case that resulted in the duties being levied on that import. Under CDSOA, $231 million in duty revenues was distributed in 2001, $330 million in 2002, and $293 million in 2003.(1) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that distributions will total $3.85 billion from 2005 through 2014. On June 16, 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body agreed with the ruling of an earlier panel that CDSOA violates the WTO agreement by providing remedies for dumping and subsidies beyond those permitted by the agreement. The United States is therefore vulnerable to retaliation--the amount has not yet been determined--if it does not repeal or modify the law.
In addition to the prospect of foreign retaliation against U.S. exports, the distributions mandated by CDSOA are detrimental to the overall economic welfare of the United States because (1) they encourage the filing of more antidumping and countervailing-duty cases, resulting in more duties that on balance harm the economy; (2) they subsidize the firms receiving them, preventing resources from flowing to higher-value activities in other firms and industries; and (3) they increase the private and public cost associated with the operation and implementation of the laws. They also discourage settlement of cases by U.S. firms, which has mixed effects on the economy.
cbo
Originally posted by marg6043
Thanks Duzey is all about fairness and fair practices, I said "taking advantage" because you know how it goes around here when you put the blame on the US, the thread would have gotten into another "topic"
as posted by DEEZNUTZ
F#$% that, the US is going to get a taste of it's own medicine and it's about time.
Originally posted by SIRR1
Lets tax every Canadian who crosses the border 15% of their wages made at US job each day!
We will call it the Deliverance Tax (swine) bend over and squeel like a pig tax.
What in the "He double hockey sticks" ever happened to the NAFTA agreement, this should not be happening, new trade taxes between the US and Canada?
It must be the French Canadians behind this.
Originally posted by Seekerof
as posted by DEEZNUTZ
F#$% that, the US is going to get a taste of it's own medicine and it's about time.
Yeah, the loss of $28 million+/- (EU) and $14 +/- (Canada) ought to set us back real good, eh? Neither are noticable in international trade circles, but hey, if it makes you feel better, more power to it.
seekerof
You have voted DEEZNUTZ for the Way Above Top Secret award.
Originally posted by Seekerof
The EU and Canada don't want to start a trade war, do they?
We know who the winners will be, and it won't be them.
All this won't do nothing but hurt hte EU more than the overflated and overhyped Euro has.
IMHO, the US should just simply respond by raising the tariffs on the imports of those countries.
Manufacturer . Com
The World Trade Organization ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal in 2002 and gave some countries the right to retaliate against the U.S. with their own duties. The law has also been criticized domestically as an incentive to sue, and as a form of corporate welfare. It is also a distraction from business, as Ramstad pointed out. "This illegal trade subsidy provides incentives for companies to seek anti-dumping and countervailing duty rewards rather than seeking new markets for their products," he said. "This is time, effort and capital that is being wasted chasing court cases instead of contributing to our economy and creating jobs."
According to Steve Alexander, executive director of the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC), whose members include Procter & Gamble and Toyota, Byrd "undercuts the whole U.S. position on trade."
Repealing the amendment would also help the federal budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that an extra $4.2 billion would revert to the U.S. Treasury over the next ten years.
Indystar . Com
WASHINGTON -- The World Bank on Thursday approved Paul Wolfowitz as its new president, affirming the administration's choice of a Bush loyalist to take the helm of the 184-nation development bank.