Conference back40::soapbox

	popular topic! :)

	GATT will cut our ?

    
    Should a "Lame-Duck" session be allowed to even touch this?
    
    Is there any way to stop them?

  The current Congress was elected to a two year term, not a 22 month term.

  Free trade is a good idea that is catching on all over the world. Let's not
get left behind, vote yes on GATT.

  George

    
    RE: .4
    
    Right.....
    
    Would you let a disgruntled employee who was notified he's getting
    TFSO'd come anywhere near your source code???

    Too much questionable material in the new GATT proposal.  It will take
    more than two months to sort out all the undesirable crap, and then
    debate what's left.  This Congress should not touch it.
    
    Besides, we already have GATT.  Why is it so important to push through
    the new version is such a hurry?
    
    -steve

RE        <<< Note 29.5 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>

>    Would you let a disgruntled employee who was notified he's getting
>    TFSO'd come anywhere near your source code???

  In our group TFSO'd employees retain their network access throughout their
last week and we've never had a problem. But what, if anything, does that
have to do with GATT? Free Trade zones generally help the economy and provide
more jobs, not less.

  George

    
    
    It was an attempt at an analogy (which obviously went over your
    head...).
    
     If GATT is so good for the country, why is there talk amongst
    conservatives to defer voting/debate/whatever until after the 104th
    comes in? Are Republicans that much against helping the ecomony? You
    would think that from all the diatribes against them because of their
    capitalistic attitudes/outlooks, that they would want GATT... yet many
    don't.... why, pray tell is that?

    .8
    
    perhaps it's because, for all their high-flown rhetoric, they haven't a
    clue as to what is REALLY good for this country.

    
    Dick,
    
     You could be on to something there... ;)
    
     Although I would qualify the "they" as including the whole bunch of
    them.... Dems, Repubs, Indies... etc.

    "they" is anybody who isn't "we," andy.  dims, reichs, indies, all of
    em.

    The 9th round of GATT was proposed by the US.  It was finally signed a
    year ago, three years behind schedule, after 7 torturous years of
    negotiations under three separate administrations.  It continues the
    expansion of open trading policies by expanding covered trade areas to
    financial and professional services, never before protected, and
    extends intellectual property protection as well.  Current estimates
    are that ratification of GATT will increase world trade by over $500B
    in the next ten years; of which US-based businesses will gain over 25%.
    
    Delaying or refusing ratification will have several effects.  This was
    a US-proposed and US-lead round; if the US now declines to accept it, 
    few other nations will ratify it.  This will give momentum and initiative
    to the protectionist forces of declining industries worldwide; which
    will stifle economies with inefficiencies for decades further, if
    protectionist sentiments are allowed to take over.  If the ratification
    is delayed, it loses fast-track authority through COngress, which opens
    it up to amendment; again, something which after 7 years of negotiation
    to reach initial agreement, will force re-negotiation with all
    signatories, and effectively kill it.
    
    GATT isn't perfect.  But killing it off is immeasurably worse...unless
    you happen to belong to one of the inefficient industries which are
    afraid to compete in the world market.  That's why our aerospace,
    automotive, and high-tech sectors are unanimous in support of GATT.
    
    DougO

    
    This treaty is both oversold by its supporters, and overmaligned
    by its opponents.  Manufacturing jobs are being outsourced in all
    developed countries.  This treaty will simply up the rate of the
    inevitable.  Tariff levels are not historically high now.  Their
    reduction will not have nearly as much effect as is being said.
    
    NAFTA was the same way, except we have a year of data.  Trade volume
    has increased this year, but it did before NAFTA also.  Neither job
    losses or gains were as large as claimed.  The US trade surplus with
    Mexico declined, contrary to supporter's claims, but the effect is
    small.  Trade policy junkies on both sides overhype these agreements.
    
    Digital and we its employees will be winners under GATT.  The US
    manufacturing jobs are already outsourced anyway.  And, rare amongst
    US companies, Digital is a plus in the US trade balance.
    
      bb

      I have heard that GATT includes all signees (countries that
      join it) as being subservient to 'international laws' some
      of which are in conflict with the Constitution.
    
      Simple Question:
      Should the above be true, how can any politician vote for 
      this treaty?  Is such a person then desecrating the Constitution?
    
                                                  Tony

    Simple answer(s):
    
    They can vote for it because they don't give two spits about the
    Constitution, and...
    
    I don't know if "desecrating" is the right word, but they are certainly
    violating the letter and intent of the constitution.

   
>    I don't know if "desecrating" is the right word, but they are certainly
>    violating the letter and intent of the constitution.

Although this has been touted by its detractors, Judge Bork, a man more
intimately knowledgable about the constitution  than most, has commented
that the constitutional issues being raised are non-sense.

This treaty levels the playing field, and for those industries where the US is
in a leadership position, we will win big.

Things will change after GATT, things will change without it. Which set of
changes do you prefer?

Doug (A GATT supporter).

I understand that there are a whole bunch of unrelated ammendments attached to
this thing.  When this happens, it usually means it's a bunch of special
interest legislation that couldn't stand on its own.  As such, I am against
GATT until we get legislation that is GATT only, then we can debate the
goodness of GATT.

Bob

    
    Well, Ralph Nader challenged all 535 Congressmen and Senators to
    take a 12-question quiz on GATT, which he sealed in an envelope.
    
    Only one, Hank Brown, Republican senator from Colorado, took him up
    on it, and the quiz was administered in full glare of media circus.
    
    Sample question : Name the 3 reasons a country could cite under
    GATT as legitimate reasons for outlawing a product legal in other
    signatory countries.  Answer : Technology, Climate, and Geography.
    
    Brown was 12 for 12, to Nader's obvious disappointment, and the cheers
    of the audience.  Afterwards he said he'd been studying GATT intensely
    since the summer.
    
    So at least somebody understands it !
    
      bb

re: .18

I saw a part of that.  I believe at the end, Brown said that after reading
all of it, he had changed his position on GATT.

Does anybody know what his previous position was on GATT?

Bob

    According to an AP story in last night's paper, some other provisions
    'buried' in the GATT implementation legislation;
    
    a. New labeling rules aimed at reducing shipments of clothing sewn in
       China. The American Textile Manufacturers Institute wants garments
       sewn in China NOT to be counted as coming from Hong Kong beacuse the
       cloth was cut there.
    b. Parents will be required to obtain Social Security Numbers for their
       children at birth, rather than by age 1.
    c. The minimum 4% interest rate fro U.S> Savings bonds will be replaced
       with a floating minimum tied to six month T-Bills.
    d. A discount on government licenses will be granted to three companies
       developing the next generation of mobiel telephones. (one is
       partially owned by The Washington Post Company)

    
    and another is owned by Cox Enterprises - owner of the Atlanta
    Journal-Constitution - a mouthpiece for Clinton, et al.  These awards
    seem to be completely politically motivated.
    
    jeff

    The 2 billion dollar "gift" is for the Washington Post, Atlanta
    Journal Constipation, and an "unknown group of Clinton insiders"
    (tyson?)  The new gift is to supply exclusive rights on new
    cellular telephone service...
    
    To understand GATT, and the implications of GATT, or any "law" for
    that matter, one should understand how laws are created and passed
    (or defeated) and what happens to them along the line and who can
    influence the final outcome.  To say that Congress can debate what
    the final finished product is an absolute lie and untrue.
    
    With 60% (I hear) of the House/Senate turning over, to enact GATT
    in the 103rd Congress would be a major mistake.  MAJOR MISTAKE.
    The democrats set up the final debate to last 1 1/2 hours, after all 
    changes in the HUGE HUGE BILL: (Hint-ha, find the changes) are
    made by the committee. 
    
    If you are the owner of the above papers, do you honestly think this
    is being reported fairly?  I don't.
                          
    

    A primer on GATT: Sure, It's Tedious, 
    But the Important Things Often Are
    
    By Bob Davis, Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
    WSJ, 28 Nov 94, p-A3
    
    After seven years of negotiations in Geneva and six months of haggling
    on Capitol Hill, the trade pact known as GATT is finally coming to a
    vote in Congress.  Tomorrow [11/29/94] the House votes; Thursday, it's
    the Senate's turn.  GATT is one of those subjects that make people feel
    inadequate.  You know its supposed to be important, but you have no
    idea why.  Here's a guide for the perplexed:
    
    Q: Why should I care if GATT passes or flops?
    
    A:  A few reasons.  GATT means big money.  GATT cuts tarriffs
    world-wide.  That reduces the price of U.S. exports, which boosts
    sales, and cuts the price of imports, which boosts income.  Sweaters
    will be cheaper because of GATT, so will semiconductors.  Depending on
    who's doing the counting, GATT could pump up U.S. national income by
    $25 billion to $100 billion annually after the agreement takes full
    effect in 10 years.  Overall, the number of jobs should grow too.  But
    there is a price to pay.  Businesses that depend on subsidies or can't
    meet foreign competition will suffer.  Look for textile and apparel
    jobs to continue their decades-long migration abroad.  Expect more
    for-sale signs on family farms.
    
    Q: OK, I'm reading.  What is GATT anyway?
    
    A: GATT stands for General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which sounds
    like a document but is actually an organisation that was founded in
    Geneva in 1947.  Since that time, GATT has sponsored seven rounds of
    trade talks in which tariffs have been cut to an average of 4.7% in
    industrialized nations.  World trade has boomed.  Now GATT's members
    have come up with its most ambitious agreement ever, and Congress is
    voting on whether the US should go along.  The newest GATT agreement
    would cut tariffs again, by roughly 40%, as well as reduce agricultural
    subsidies, extend patent protection, and set rules on global investment
    and trade in services.
    
    Q: Who could be against that?
    
    A: A lot of people.  They include many labor, consumer, and
    environmental groups as well as some conservatives.  They especially
    object to a provision replacing GATT with - and here comes another
    bureaucracy - a World Trade Organisation.  The WTO would have powerful
    arbitration boards to decide whether domestic laws violate the new
    trade pact.
    
    Under GATT, which is a pretty hapless organisation, any country could
    delay arbitration panels and veto their rulings.  That drove US
    negotiators crazy.  The US won decisions at GATT requiring the European
    Union to slash subsidies on soybeans, canned fruit and other
    agricultural products, for example, but the EU delayed or blocked the
    rulings and told the US to get lost.  The US could do the same when it
    comes out on the short end.
    
    Q: How would the WTO change that?
    
    A: The WTO arbitration boards would have to adhere to a strict time
    schedule.  No country would have a veto.  A country that lost a WTO
    ruling would have to comply or face trade sanctions by the winners. 
    Let's say that a WTO panel found that a US law blocking imports of
    $100M of Polish Ham was improper.  The US would either have to change
    the law or let Poland assess prohibitively high tariffs on $100M of US
    imports.  In trade circles, that's considered a big club.
    
    Q:  Trade critics say the WTO panels violate US sovereignty.  True or
    false?
    
    A: In a strict sense, false.  The WTO couldn't ever force the US or any
    other country to change its laws.  There are no trade police, after
    all, to enforce WTO rulings.  However, the US would be under pressure
    to accept rulings, for two reasons.  First, trade sanctions limit US
    exports, however modestly.  Second, the US wants other countries to
    obey WTO rulings that the US wins.  If the US simply pays the fines, or
    ignores the rulings altogether, so would other countries.  The WTO,
    then, would be a hapless as GATT.
    
    Q: What kinds of US laws might be challenged at the WTO?
    
    A: Under the trade pact, signatories agree to a phenomenally
    complicated code of trade conduct.  Environmentalists point to WTO
    provisions requiring that health and food safety laws be "necessary"
    and "based on scientific principles".  They worry that laws banning
    certain food ingredients may flunk if they unduly limit trade.  but
    trade lawyers say the GATT language is broad enough to protect such US
    laws and regulations, which are routinely based on scientific
    assessments.
    
    Q: Anything else at risk?
    
    A: During the drafting of the US GATT legislation, lobbyists managed to
    insert a number of provisions that could be tossed out by WTO panels. 
    After losing a big GATT case alleging that other countries "dump" steel
    in the US at below-market prices, the steel industry used the GATT bill
    to change parts of the US anti-dumping law.  WTO panels might find
    these changes improper.
    
    Q: If the US doesn't like WTO decisions, can it get out?
    
    A: Yes.  Any country can withdraw from the WTO after giving six months'
    notice.  in a bid to win support from Senate Republican Leader Robert
    Dole, the Clinton administration also agreed to set up panels of judges
    to review WTO panel rulings.  After three WTO decisions that the judges
    ruled were improper, Congress could start proceedings to withdraw. 
    Other countries will probably do the same thing.  In short, there are
    checks on checks on checks.  The real question, many proponents say, is
    whether the WTO will have any real power, not whether it will have too
    much.
    
    Q: Arbitration panels seem to be a pretty narrow reason to oppose a
    trade deal.
    
    A:  That may be, but there are broader issues involved that are hard to
    articulate and on which it is even harder to build a political
    campaign.  Apart from GATT's particular provisions, the pact is a
    metaphor for the growth of the global economy.  Domestic barriers fall,
    global investment increases, foreign competition intensifies.  For
    those with education, money and a sense of adventure, the world is
    their oyster.  But for many others, the world is a sea full of sharks. 
    GATT strips away domestic protection, including job protection.  Even
    those with skills feel more vulnerable.
    
    Q: Will GATT pass?
    
    A: Almost certainly in the House, where Newt Gingrich, the
    speaker-in-waiting, is trying to roll up a big vote.  The outcome is
    less certain in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed because of budget
    rules that are arcane even by GATT standards.  Given that almost all of
    corporate America backs GATT, that Sen Dole has finally signed on, that
    critics haven't roused broad-based opposition, and that Americans tend
    to look at the future optimistically, GATT is probably a go.
    
    Q: last year, there was the North American Free Trade Agreement; this
    year GATT.  Are we finally done with trade issues?
    
    A: No.  Next year, Congress will debate whether to give the
    administration authority to negotiate even more trade deals.  The US
    plans to extend NAFTA to Chile, for starters.  Expect a bruising fight;
    trade disputes always are.
    
    Q: Finally, some questions from the kids.  My nine-year-old son asks
    whether anyone really reads the GATT legislation, which consists of two
    bound volumes, each 2,000 pages long?  And my six-year-old daughter
    asks whether GATT will ever be fun.
    
    A: Judging from the phone calls that come in to trade reporters, some
    people apparently do read the GATT bill in its entirety.  Ralph Nader
    even boasts about reading it.  But GATT will never be fun.

    Ah, so after getting PORKED 3 times, we can begin the withdrawl
    procedings.
    
    Since this WTO big-fuzzy organization, chartered by whom?  The UN perhaps
    will be making/calling all the shots can the US junk the majority
    of it's programs (EPA, FDA, etc....) since they will no longer be
    needed?
    
    GATT will not force countries to change it's domestic laws.  True,
    it'll just override them.
    
    Big business is all for this.  No doubt.  Business and import duties
    and such, as outlined in the Constitution at one time is how the 
    Federal Government was funded.  Negating the need for a "personal
    income tax" on individuals which today is still only voluntary, because
    it's unconstitutional to tax people directly.  However, look for your
    rates to get jacked up (thereby volunteering more of your money) to fund 
    this boondoggle.

    the WTO is THE big unknown. LOTS of legal types to make huge dollars
    here.

    Let's look at a particular industry I happen to like.  The firearms
    industry.  What happens if Fredonia objects to the unfair advantage
    our gun manufacturers have in selling to free people.  Hey, the US
    unlike Fredonia has the 2nd Amendment.
    
    Fredonia lodges a complaint for unfair trade.  What happens?
    

    
    us law prevails. next question?

re: .20

Thanks for the info.

re: .21

A good reason to vote against GATT.  If any bill can't stand on its own two
feet, it's not a good bill.

Bob

    Here's a test for you.  If GATT's such a good thing, why won't congress
    consider it under the rules of the Constitution?  They are shoving it
    in under the still-current fast-track rule.  Normally, a treaty would
    not be considered by a lame duck session (normally, NOTHING would be
    considered by a lame duck session).  However, without the fast track
    simple majority and limited debate, we would get a full hearing on the
    treaty before a vote.
    
    I think (actually I'm fairly certain) that this POS would not stand the
    light of day, and would fail miserably.

|   [stupid nonsense delated] Normally, a treaty [even more stupid nonsense
|   deleted]
    
    GATT is not a not treaty.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE: .32
    
    delated = brought up to current events...
    

    > us law prevails. next question?
    
    How so? 

    >Since this WTO big-fuzzy organization, chartered by whom? 
    
    chartered by all the countries who sign and ratify this treaty, which
    creates the organisation.
    
    > The UN perhaps will be making/calling all the shots can the US junk
    > the majority of it's programs (EPA, FDA, etc....) since they will no
    > longer be needed?
    
    .24 addressed this.  Since most US laws intended for environmental or
    consumer product safety or food safety purposes have a scientific basis
    they're recognised as legitimate under GATT/WTO rules.
    
    > GATT will not force countries to change it's domestic laws.  True,
    > it'll just override them.
    
    This is silly.  It cannot.  If a WTO panel finds against a US law, that
    will not change the statute books in the eyes of the US court system. 
    People breaking the law will still be subject to penalty.  Only if the
    legislature repeals the law, or a court rules it illegal or
    unconstitutional, as per 200+ years of tradition, will the law be
    nullified.  We'll just be in violation of the treaty and subject to
    trade sanctions from whoever our law treats in an anticompetitive way.
    And the WTO panels will not allow us to complain about such sanctions;
    we'll be subject to unfair practises.  So be very clear about it; we
    can decide to comply with the treaty and gain the benefits of its
    protections; or we can ignore rulings that say US laws violate the
    treaty and take our chances.  But passing the treaty does not just
    "override" US law.
    
    > to fund this boondoggle.
    
    In the 47 years since GATT was founded, world trade has boomed.  US
    companies have been the most competitive, the most innovative, the
    leaders of this boom.  American consumers and employees have been the
    biggest winners, have recieved more of the benefits of global trade
    than anyone else.  This GATT agreement will continue that expansion;
    our competitively advantaged agricultural products will be allowed into
    more markets, our competitively advantaged services providers will be
    allowed into more markets, our product innovations will recieve
    strengthened copyright and patent protections, and our consumers will
    enjoy lower prices for a host of imports that are currently kept out by
    protectionist barriers that defend slothful and inefficient industries,
    which are not competitive with the rest of the world.  This is no
    boondoggle.  This is a well-placed shot of grease to lube the engine of
    world trade by removing structural inefficiencies that hinder markets
    and prevent buyers and sellers from finding the right prices to deal.
    
    All Americans need is the chance to compete.  All the world needs is
    that same chance.  There will be far more winners from opening up trade
    than there will be losers.
    
    GATT will pass.
    
    DougO

    re: .16
    
    Why do I get this creepy feeling whenever I hear the words "level the
    playing field"?  
    
    -steve

    It's not a treaty?  What else do you call contracts with foreign
    countries?

    
    It's not a contract.  It's an agreement.
    
    								-mr. bill

    > Here's a test for you.  If GATT's such a good thing, why won't
    > congress consider it under the rules of the Constitution? They 
    > are shoving it in under the still-current fast-track rule. 
    
    Why?  Because if they didn't offer fast-track, which means they vote
    upon it AS SIGNED, with no amendments, then no administration would
    ever undertake the lengthy negotiatons needed to achieve these kinds of
    agreements.  This thing started under the REAGAN admin, ferchrissake.
    At the INITIATIVE of the REAGAN administration!  Over 150 GATT members
    spent over 7 years negotiating the thing.  If they don't pass it under
    fast track, it'll get amended by the US Congress, and then its BACK to
    the negotiating table with all 150+ countries and two, three, seven,
    ten, who knows how many more years of negotiations?  And then it'll get
    amended AGAIN and...no.  The only way to get these kinds of agreements
    negotiated is to keep the Committee of 535 out of the negotiations, and
    allow them to pass it into US law AS IT STANDS.  Or reject it, as the
    case may be.  But if they are allowed to tinker with it, that kills it
    off.  And they agreed to give each administration fast track
    negotiating authority, and to numerous extensions of that authority,
    several times over the last eight years.  That is no valid basis for
    complaint.  Accept the agreement, or reject it.  Changing the rules to
    insists upon full debate now is the same thing as killing it; so do
    that, if that's what you must do.  And bear the political
    responsibility for pissing away $500B in lost business over the next
    decade.
    
    DougO

    mr. bill.
    
    Last time I looked, a contract was an agreement between two parties,
    and when the two parties are different countries, it is called a
    treaty.
    
    It sounds suspiciously like somebody is playing semantics, but I'm not
    sure, it depends on what you mean by "playing".
    
    And... if it's NOT a treaty, why on earth do they need to pass
    anything?  I mean, the other countries get together and piss on us
    anyway, why should we give them our permission?
    
    And... the house needs to get involved because it's gonna cost us
    M-O-N-E-Y.  And therefore, they have to write another blank check.
    
    And... if this thing is so damn good, why has it been "negotiated" for
    upteen years so that we need to fast track the idiot thing to get rid
    of it?
    
    

    
  >  Why do I get this creepy feeling whenever I hear the words "level the
  >  playing field"?  
   
  I give up. Why?

  Currently the US is the largest consumer in the world. Gatt will lower the
  barriers to buying US goods in other countries so that we can bring some
  of that money back home.

  If the US were allowed to compete with AirBus, as an example, would Airbus
  exist today? Not likely, but with government sponsership, here they are,
  cutting into what was a traditionally american supplied market.

  Under Gatt, these kinds of subsidies are no longer an issue, and the US
  can once again, compete for business. This is a double edged sword however,
  and we will need to accept that.

  Patents will have to be respected among member nations, a very important step.

  Is Japan part of the GATT group? I certainly hope so.

  Stop protecting and start competing. 

  Doug.  

    What about the requirement to procure a social security number for
    a Sovereign child?  If anyone has a copy of GATT (ho ho) is it actually
    in there and if so, what are the penalties under statute for avoiding
    it?  Or can you still declare your proper status on a W-8 and ignore this
    boondoggle too?                                          

    Read an article in the local paper today about my Congresscritter
    (Peter Blute) being in the (current) minority opposed to GATT...
    which surprises me because he voted for the crime bill (which,
    although it has nothing to trade demonstrates his legislative
    gullibility), and he also voted for NAFTA. Either way, he seems
    to be on the same side as I am for a change, even though he is
    a Republican....
    
    -b

    > What about the requirement to procure a social security number for
    > a Sovereign child? 
    
    what about it? that's already required by the IRS if you want to take
    your dependent deductions.  if congress stuck it into the GATT bill,
    well, its a bizarre place for it, but it really has little to do with
    anything. no?  whats the problem here?
    
    > If anyone has a copy of GATT (ho ho) is it actually in there and if
    > so, what are the penalties under statute for avoiding it? 
    
    I have an online pointer to what was negotiated in Uruguay.  What form
    the US Congress has cobbled it into I don't at the moment, but I'll
    look.
    
    DougO

    durn - found 20 bills with it mentioned...
    ----
    This is the search report for the search you ran on Nov 29 16:57:08
    1994.
    It is a temporary file, and will expire about an hour after the search.
    
    ---------------------------------------------
    
    Searching USHOUSE_house_bill_text_103rd...
    
    Your query was:
    
      GATT
    
    The database contains 21,416,166 words in 10,299 documents.
    There are 46,339 different words.
    
    gatt occurs 110 times in 20 documents.
    
    The search found 20 documents.  It took less than a second.
    
    ---------------------------------------------
    
    

    this looks like it....
    
    gopher://riceinfo.rice.edu/0waisdocid%3a/OtherGophers/WAIS/u
    /USHOUSE_house_bill_text_103rd.src%3aTEXT%3a127947%3a1%3ddiamond
    %3a210%3b2%3dUSHOUSE_house_bill_text_103rd%3b3%3d3395255%20127947
    %20/usr/wais/data/USHOUSE_house_bill_text_103rd/tl03.house.apr94
    .wais.data%3b4%3ddiamond%3a21
    
    Take out the <cr>s I put in to make it print nice...
    
    Heres how it starts...
    ----------------------
    103d CONGRESS H. R. 4206  As Introduced in the House
    
    Note: This document is the unofficial version of a Bill or Resolution.
          The printed Bill and Resolution produced by the Government
          Printing Office is the only official version.
    
    VERSION   As Introduced in the House
    CONGRESS  103d CONGRESS
               2d Session
    BILL                                   H. R. 4206
    TITLE     To provide for the implementation of the Uruguay Round of the
                  Genegula (for himself and Mr. Mineta) introduced the
                  following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees 
                  on Ways and Means, Rules, the Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs
                                      --------------------
    TEXT                                     A BILL
    
    ...
    
    For your reading pleasure...
    
    DougO

    
    Well, it passed the House about 2 to 1, bipartisan, nearly 2-1
    among Dems, more among GOP.
    
    After which Foley and Michel gave farewell speeches, and the 103rd
    House adjourned.  On to the Senate.
    
    Pity Bob Michel !  38 years in the House, never in the majority.
    During Foley's farewell speech, they let him bang the gavel, for
    the first and only time.  This is a record in futility, which may
    never be broken !
    
      bb

    On the basis of Ru's opposition, I'd know to be in favor of GATT. ;-)

    although there are reservations to GATT that I don't particularly like,
    overall, it is good for American business [thus that evyl 'Murican
    business owner]

    Well... over the last decade I've come to believe that there's a
    real difference between something being "good for American business",
    and being "good for American business *executives*".
    
    I think GATT is probably a good thing for American executives, but
    I'm not so sure it's a good thing for most American workers, or
    even for America as a country.
    
    Like over 60% of Americans (according to a recent poll), not having
    read tens of thousands of pages of GATT agreement, I don't know enough
    about the details to know whether to be for or against.  Apparently
    most of Congress doesn't understand it all that well, either.  And
    I'm very troubled by this getting rammed through a lame-duck Congress
    by a lamer-duck President.  Why not wait for the next session?
    
    Chris

    Metzenbaum did a speech on C-Span on the evils of GATT.  Not being a
    fan of his politically, I began rethinking my position on GATT
    immediately. 8^)  Unfortunately, for the first time in his life (at least 
    that I've witnessed), he made some semblence of sense on one (maybe not 
    too) small issue....child labor in other countries.
    
    What does this have to do with GATT?  All initiatives to force an end
    to the abuse of children in factories abroad will become moot with the
    passage of GATT.  Not only that, but by relinquishing the import tax on
    the importation of these products made by children, we give them more
    incentive to continue or expand these practices.
    
    (please note I'm skimming the very basics of a rather long speech, so
    many aspects of this nit are missing)
    
    Some of the stories of child abuse (no other word for it, really) were 
    rather disheartening, to be sure.
    
    Just one small nit in a huge (thousands of pages) agreement, but
    perhaps not too insignificant.
    
    
    -steve

    Oh...and
    
    DOOM!

    When they're cramming something like this through like they are, count
    on it not being in your best interest, or your country's.

    when the opponents are reduced to arguing against the techniques of
    passage rather than the facts; that 47 years of GATT have seen a
    multi-fold expansion of world trade enriching all participants, that
    restrictions on trade (Smoot-Hawley) worsened the Great Depression and
    spread its effects world-wide, and that this latest round is estimated
    to boost trade world-wide by $500B within the decade, with the US
    expected to capture at least 20% of the increase; then you know they're
    clutching at straws, since they can't refute the history or the
    predictions.
    
    DougO

    GATT Trade Pact Gains Steam -- Senate Vote Today / White House
    pushing for big win by historic treaty 
    
    Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau 
    San Francisco Chronicle online edition of 1 Dec 94
    
    Washington 
    
    On the eve of today's decisive GATT vote in the Senate, approval of the
    Uruguay Round seemed all but certain as the Clinton administration made
    a final drive for a resounding ratification of the historic trade pact. 
    
    Members began a 20-hour debate, with California's Democratic senators,
    Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, reaffirming their staunch support
    -- a reversal of their trade stand a year ago against the controversial
    North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. 
    
    Supporters said Tuesday's big vote in the House gave them critical
    momentum going into the final Senate test, set for 6 p.m. EST tonight.
    U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor was almost exuberant at an
    afternoon press conference, declaring, ``My vote count is very good.'' 
    
    Kantor said the White House is aiming for an ample margin. ``We want to
    make this vote as big as possible,'' he said. 
    
    An overwhelming vote for the Uruguay Round of the GATT, or General
    Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, would send overseas a clear signal of
    American affirmation of free trade and assure continuation of the
    50-year postwar trade regime. 
    
    Although 33 nations have signed the agreement, 90 others are waiting
    for the United States -- the world's largest economy and the pact's
    chief champion -- to go first. 
    
    President Clinton continued to lobby senators by telephone. This
    morning he will host a White House breakfast for 20 undecided senators
    to corral more votes. 
    
    `THE MESSAGE IS SINKING IN' 
    
    At a rally of business and farm groups, Treasury Secretary Lloyd
    Bentsen said the Senate is about to take the ``most important trade
    vote in this country in 60 years. I think the message is finally
    sinking in up here on the Hill that this is a good deal.'' 
    
    Proponents were withholding a vote count, fearing that nervous
    supporters might defect if it looks too easy, while a count short of
    victory might cast gloom. 
    
    The administration needs a 60- vote supermajority to approve a waiver
    of budget rules before passing the agreement itself. The rules require
    that $30 billion in lost tariff revenue be offset by spending cuts.
    Some senators are loath to vote against the waiver, although experts
    believe that the pact will bring higher growth and taxes, more than
    offsetting tariff losses. 
    
    Among GATT's most surprising supporters is fiery pro-union Democrat
    Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, a self-described protectionist who
    yesterday turned her oratory toward free trade. 
    
    ``I've spent all of my public life fighting to save jobs,'' Mikulski
    said at Kantor's press conference. ``My heart and my soul lies with 
    the blue-collar communities of Baltimore. I am associated with the
    protectionist wing, but the old ways are not working.'' 
    
    The key to the future, she declared, ``is export jobs, and that's why
    I've decided to vote for GATT. The world is changing. A new economy is
    about to be born, and I don't want the United States of America to be
    left behind.'' 
    
    The Uruguay Round is the eighth and most ambitious of the postwar trade
    regime. It embraces 124 nations, bringing the Third World under
    international trade rules and incorporating large new sectors such as
    agriculture, services, textiles and intellectual property. 
    
    AMBITIOUS TRADE PACT 
    
    It also slashes world tariffs, or import taxes, by more than a third
    over 10 years. The White House calls the $750 billion tariff reduction
    ``the largest tax cut in the history of the world.'' 
    
    Senators yesterday stressed the benefits to agriculture, which was
    among the Uruguay Round's biggest breakthroughs and a key demand of the
    United States and other big farm exporters such as Brazil, Australia
    and Indonesia. Many markets have been closed to U.S. exports, and, in
    Europe, export subsidies have been spiraling out of control, hitting
    $193 billion a year in 1993 and heavily damaging U.S. farmers. 
    
    Yesterday, Feinstein emphasized that California's $19 billion farm
    industry, the largest in the country, exports half its production.
    ``This is a fairly easy one for me,'' Feinstein said. ``GATT is a
    win-win for America, for California and for agriculture.'' 
    
    Boxer predicted that the GATT will bring the state 200,000 new jobs.
    Both senators stressed the new patent, trademark and copyright
    protections for California's software, pharmaceutical, film and music
    industries, whose products are widely bootlegged overseas. 
    
    Boxer and Feinstein insisted that the GATT differs from NAFTA, even
    though both pacts cut trade barriers, because the GATT covers 124
    nations while NAFTA includes just the United States, Mexico and Canada. 
    
    ``GATT is about creating a more level playing field for America around
    the world,'' Boxer said. ``NAFTA created a special trade agreement with
    one country, a low-wage developing economy on California's border.'' 
    
    Although the GATT also includes poor nations, Boxer said, it ``makes
    sure trade will be two ways. The issue is, do we want to have rules to
    the game, do we want to make sure we can get into their countries?'' 
    
    GATT was created in 1947 under U.S. leadership after the disastrous
    global spiral of retaliatory tariffs sparked by the Smoot-Hawley Act,
    passed by a Republican Congress in 1930. The higher tariffs, avidly
    sought by U.S. business, led to a collapse in trade and sent the world
    reeling into the Great Depression and World War II. 

    There's tons of eloquent reasoning behind what's wrong with GATT.
    
    I'm just pointing to something so obvious even an idiot could
    understand.  When somebody, anybody, tries to hustle you, they are,
    well - hustling you.
    
    And this is precisely what is happening.  GATT is being pressed through
    a lame duck congress that has nothing to lose, that the new congress
    can blame everything on, under special rules that avoid constitutional
    requirements through the use of semantics.
    
    It's a hustle.  You don't need to read the gazillions of lines in the
    bill to figure this one out...

    It's all over, except for Klintons signature.  Now we just need to 
    keep our eyes open and see the "benefits" of this deal and be
    prepared to excersise our 6 month option after getting screwed 3
    times.

    It does trouble me that this was "pushed" through the lame-duck
    Congress even though I supported GATT.

    
    Vote was 76-24.  Same 3-1 margin both parties.
    
    Dole was interesting.  Said the agreement was oversold by both sides,
    and won't actually do nearly as much good or bad as is being said.
    With his support, it was a shoo-in.
    
    Then there were eulogies for departing senators, notably Mitchell,
    and the 103rd went to Congress heaven.
    
    Today, Clinton is claiming "I can work with Reppppuuuubbbblicans."
    He has trouble saying Republican, but he will practice.
    
      bb

	Clinton got by with this one ok, but the real test will be with welfare
reform. I guess the repubs have him scared. He asked for more money to give the
military yesterday, and now there is talk he will have his own welfare reform.
Then there will be the tax cut he wants to impose. Heard that it will be in the
form of tax deductables for kids, but will hit a lower income amount than the
repubs want to hit.


Glen

    
    
    So Clinton's going to try and get reelected by looking like a
    republican.....

	A gentler, kinder rebub. He'll come in lower on every repub plan.
Repubs want 50m/year for defense, he will come in at 25m. repubs want a tax
cut for those who make under 100k, clinton will set it at 50k. Now these
numbers are made up, but they paint the picture clinton will probably use.

RE   <<< Note 29.62 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Montanabound, oneof these days" >>>

>    So Clinton's going to try and get reelected by looking like a
>    republican.....

  Clinton will do what ever it takes to get elected. In that way he's not
much different than any politician, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.

  George

    I heard Fatboy would kill to be elected...

    Gachk

Why was it that one day after the GATT vote the senate released figures from 
one of their subcommittees that under NAFTA the US suffered a net _LOSS_
of jobs? the report was apparently ready earlier.

well at least that giant sucking sound will come from all around instead of 
just from the south.

Amos

    The report is disputed by other independent investigators.  When the
    dust settles, I expect the CIO report to be shown to have used invalid
    methodologies for estimating job creation in companies which have geared
    up for the expanded opportunities NAFTA provides to export to Mexico.
    
    DougO

    
    If you think anybody will ever know what the employment effects
    of any government policy really are, agreed by both its proponents
    and detractors, then I'll have whatever you're drinking.
    
    Even the gullible public doesn't believe any such numbers, no matter
    what the source.  To take an example, Zenith is a company with both
    exports/imports/jobs going to Mexico/jobs coming to the US.  These
    trends preceded NAFTA.  When asked, they said they could not tell
    to what extent their decisions were influenced by tariff levels, trade
    barriers, except to say they WERE taken into account, along with many
    other factors.  But they didn't know what the effect of NAFTA/no NAFTA
    was.
    
    Statistics are less effective lies today, since most of the audience
    has been burned by believing them before.
    
      bb

    Lets see, independent investigators.
    
    Yup... some say it's so, some say it ain't.  And they arrive at the
    conclusions independently of one another.  That makes them independent.
    
    Of course, the old saw about "liars can figger" may play a part here.
    
    It's really tough to believe that anybody actually believes any of this
    crapola, no matter what it says.

    I still want to know why this was rammed through a lame duck Congress. 
    
    In any case, I said it would pass in the last box...I hate being right
    all the time.  8^)

 
>  I still want to know why this was rammed through a lame duck Congress. 
 
Because it is one of the issues that both sides could agree on.
Because it would have been pasted by the 104 anyway.
Because the timing was internationally important.

Clinton signs GATT, defends trade policy



Associated Press

    WASHINGTON -- Signing a pact to slash tariffs around the globe,
    President  Clinton defended his trade policy Thursday against critics
    who say it will pit U.S. workers against low-wage employees abroad.

    "We must never run away from the world," he declared moments before
    signing  legislation authorizing the United States to join with 123
    nations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

    GATT passed Congress by lopsided margins in a rare lame-duck session,
    giving  Clinton a badly needed victory after the Republican election
    triumph.

    GATT foes said the World Trade Organization established under the
    accord  represents an unprecedented infringement on American
    sovereignty.

    Opponents also charged that GATT, by lowering U.S. barriers to trade,
    would make  American workers more vulnerable to competition from
    low-wage workers in other countries.

    "Hey, Bill! You're selling out!" shouted a man with a megaphone outside
    the  Organization of American States as Clinton climbed out of his
    limousine. The man was joined by about a dozen fellow protesters
    shouting,  "Don't sign GATT!"

    With flags from dozens of countries draped from a marble wall above his
    head,  Clinton told 400 free-trade supporters in the cavernous main
    hall, "Yes, it is true that one of the reasons for stagnant wages in
    the  United States is intense competition in our own markets and in
    other markets from people who work for wages our folks couldn't live
    on."

    But, he added, "That would happen if there is never another trade
    agreement."

    In the long run, Clinton said American workers will benefit from his
    efforts to  open markets under GATT, the North American Free Trade
    Agreement and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group. Hours after 
    signing GATT, Clinton was shifting his focus to Latin America,
    traveling to Miami for a summit of Western Hemisphere leaders.

    "America cannot and will not succeed ... until we have more folks
    buying what we  sell," Clinton said. "Some say the answer is to try to
    hunker down within our borders. That is clearly not an option. No
    country can  escape the global economy."

    At the three-day summit, Clinton was expected to announce the start of 
    negotiations to make Chile the first South American nation drawn into
    the free-trade zone that now covers Canada and Mexico. That trade  zone
    was established under the NAFTA, which Clinton barely squeezed through
    Congress.

    In signing the GATT, Clinton was flanked by members of his economic
    team,  outgoing House Speaker Tom Foley and incoming Senate Majority
    Leader Bob Dole, who forced concessions out of the White House  in
    return for his support for GATT.

    "Bipartisan victories are the best victories," Vice President Al Gore
    said.

    The 22,000-page agreement cuts global tariffs by 38 percent and knocks
    down  other barriers to trade. With Clinton's signature, almost 40
    countries have now approved the agreement and another 40 are expected
    to do  so before the end of this year. The World Trade Organization
    will police trade disputes once the accord goes into effect Jan. 1.

    This is a very sad thing folks.
    
    First, ask yourself what the MAIN constitutionally allowable federal
    income source is.
    
    Second, wonder why the feds just pissed it away and flushed it down the
    toilet.

    Third, think of all those people dropping that dreaded "t-payer"
    designation from themselves.  (40 million so far?)
    
    Congress is gonna be getting it in both ends.

re: Note 29.77 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
>    > First, ask yourself what the MAIN constitutionally allowable federal
>    > income source is.
    
>    lessee, 16th amendment, personal income taxes.
Which is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 9 para 4.

Congress gets its taxing power from Article 1, section 8 para 1.
It limits state control of this authority in Art 1, Section 10 para 2.

The IR code is Title 26, it get's its ability to tax "US Citizens" which
are defined as people who accept citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
(you want to pick a nit, they can tax everyone who is a resident in the
federal zone, and those who work for the federal gov't as well, that it.)
If Anything in title 26 were to be challenged and tried to get its
backing from the 16th Amendment, it'd be in conflict with Art1/Sect9
which would make it, er... Unconstitutional.  That's why title 26 hangs
on the 14th.  I'd love to see someone "untax" Mr. Strawberry and see how
the media handled it.
   
>    > Second, wonder why the feds just pissed it away
    
>    GATT has nothing to say about income tax.
 
Yabut... as above, the federal government can only collect tax on the
things GATT just lowered, so,  If enough people scream and the dung hits
the fan they'll have to raise tariffs/duties to increase their lawful
income.
   
>    of doing business.  These effects were simply not understood by the
>    Founding Fathers;

They understood very well what an out of control gov't could do.  Gov't
run with business in mind as opposed to the people it should serve is a bad 
thing.  

>  but fortunately, they equipped us to amend the Constitution and to adapt. 

If you can't break the rules, change 'em, after you get 3/4th's of the
states to go along.

> Your side lost this round; and the economy
>    of the US will benefit from it.  As will that of the world.
 
MAY benefit, and the jury is still out over NAFTA, but it don't look too
good.

MadMike

Actually, MadMike answered most of .77 for me.

Again, and again, and again.  Title 26, the "law" (except that it has never 
been enacted) under which you may volunteer to pay income tax, does not 
derive it's power from the 16th amendment.

I am not disputing the 16th amendment as a means to raise revenue.  
However, it is a *small* amount of revenue as compared to tariffs.

Again, keep in mind, that the IRS does not use the 16th as a basis for 
collecting tax.  

    Just one more spoke in the wheel for the NWO.
    
    Laugh now, but just wait and see what happens in the next few years.
    Who needs sovereignity in a global society, right?
    
    -steve

   Just for the record, those of us who bother to read the contributions of
   Mike and Mike do not agree with their interpretation of the
   Constitution in this matter ... 8^)

    Just for the record, I've read Mike and Mike's interpretations of the
    Constitutions and I do agree with them on this matter...  8^)

    your in good company leech, most federal courts do too. 

   Most federal courts agree with your interpretation of the Constitution?
   What a fib!

    Jong we've been down this road before.  Please see
    
    Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238                      (1922)
    Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)
    Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819 (1930)
    Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, 301 U.S. 548
    Helvering vs. Davis, 301 U.S. 619
    
    Read Title 26 USC 1313(b) and 7701(a) (14).
    
    I offer evidence, fact, stuff you can look up, not stuff I invent.  
    You simply blow smoke.

   Evidence, yes, Mike.  But still fanciful.

    What's fanciful about it?
    Have I looked at it?  I have a family.

   Your notions about taxation and citizenship are fanciful.

   Mike, are you arguing that the federal government has no jurisdiction
   over you, and non-"citizens" in general?

    re: Note 29.89 by TNPUBS::JONG
    
    >Mike, are you arguing that the federal government has no jurisdiction
    >over you, and non-"citizens" in general?
    
    > Let me get this straight (again)
    You didn't listen the first time.  Why should I think you will now?
    
    "citizens in general", ho ho, that's a freekin trap if I ever saw one.
    
    It depends on what your talking about.  What "law" you're dealing with.
       
    When dealing with the 16th Amendment, it DOES NOT APPLY to the 50
    FREE and INDEPENDANT states of America, only to the exclusive
    federal zone specified by Congress*, because such power/jurisdiction
    is as foreign to the 50 states as they are to each other by law.
    Ruled: NY re: Merriam 36 NE 505, 141 NY 479.
    AFFIRMED in U.S. v Perkins 163 US 625, 16 SCt. 1073, 41 LEd. 287.
    (Still in effect today)
    
    * 63rd Congress Sess. I CH 16. 1913 Page 177 Section 2
    District of Columbia and U.S.** Territories, Possessions, 
    Commonwealths and States in Free Association.
    
    ** The word "State" or "United States" when used in this section shall
    be construed to include any Territory, Alaska, the District of 
    Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands.
    
    This proves the "United States" doesn't always = "USA".  If it did,
    there wouldn't be any bitching about it in congress (defining of 
    jurisdiction).
    
    It is necessary to see how the "United States" is defined when
    discussing something. Usually, as above, the "United States" is
    only DC, American Samoa, guam, wake, midway, Navassa Island....
    If the law is non-positive it applies only to the federal zone.
    (or can be forced/challenged/beaten if applied outside the fed zone)
    Something like Title 18 in the US code is a little more difficult.
    Technically, the Assault Weapons ban (Anti Crime Law or whatever)
    applies nationwide, until challenged and beaten.  As it has been 4
    times around the country. Title 18 is positive law and applies all
    over the country.  Title 26 applies to "US Citizens" as defined
    in Amendment 14.  Easily beaten since Americans existed prior to
    1868.  Ah, but your birth certificate has a box checked on it
    saying you're a "US Citizen", so I guess you are.  Until you fix it,
    or make sure your children are marked off properly prior to leaving
    the hospital.  (Mine are "Other: American National". or Natural
    Born Citizens (Art 2, Section 1, paragraph 5 US Constitution).
    
    It's not that difficult.  Avoid any markings which tie you into the
    federal government.  
    
    For more confusion on taxpayers check 26 USC 864:c:4, 871:i:1+2:A
    1441:c:10 - your status could be EXEMPT.  All those confusing boxes don't
    allow for this (easily).  That's why people pay big $$$$ to tax
    accountants to figure it out.  Usurpation of power.  Coersion, 
    conspiracy?  no, you volunteered.  It's legal.
    
    

   Mike, I acknowledge that you have provided a goodly number of citations.
   I have printed out your reply to run them down when I get the chance.
   I also acknowledge that tax law is not entirely consistent with US law,
   and I suppose it's possible that there are inconsistencies that I would
   label "loopholes."
   
   That said, I'm willing to bet $5,000 (or whatever the heck I'm paying in
   federal taxes these days) that whoever put you on to these cases is
   flim-flamming you.  I'm quite sure that the cases you cite refer to
   whether taxes can be levied against people living in those areas *in
   addition to* people living in the various states, not *exlusively.*
   A declaration by the 63rd Congress cannot change the citizenship of 99%
   of US citizens (those born in the states), because, as you well know,
   the Constitution overrides all other laws.
   
   I am confident of my position because yours is so counter-intuitive,
   and because you previously demonstrated that your whole argument rests
   on a trivial misreading of the Constitution ("exclusive jurisdiction"
   versus "jurisdiction exclusively" -- the point you have never
   addressed), language written in the body by the Founding Fathers
   themselves.  
   
   You might also look up the meaning of the word "include" as
   it applies to the definition you entered:
   
   >> ** The word "State" or "United States" when used in this section shall
   >>    be construed to include any Territory, Alaska, the District of
   >>    Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands.
   
   "Include" does not mean the same thing as "consist of" or "comprise."
   
   Incidently, there is a current situation in Washington DC, where our
   friend Speaker Gingrich is attempting to disenfranchise the DC shadow
   Congresswoman.  Currently, the five representatives of DC, Puerto Rice,
   Guam, etc. (I'm not sure of the exact constituency, but it definitely
   includes DC) are allowed to vote in Congress, but not when their votes
   would make the difference.  Gingrich wants them out altogether.
   The problem is, citizens of DC (at least) pay federal income taxes, and
   thus Gingrich's actions are in effect an attempt to impose taxation
   without representation -- a very old problem, and one which in this
   country is considered intolerable...
   
   I am also really entertained by your 360-degree spin in your positions.
   Previously you argued passionately that we were not automatically
   citizens, that the federal government had no jurisdiction within the
   states.  When I went to the law books and argued that you were wrong,
   you suddenly did a 180 and argued that *of course* the federal
   government has jurisdiction, and I was an idiot to think you'd said
   otherwise.  I hardly imagined you'd be back so soon arguing that it
   doesn't!
   
   But I'm also concerned, sincerely, that you have altered your children's
   birth records to list them as not US citizens.  Mike, it's one thing to
   choose to cheat on your own taxes; it's another to deny your own
   children their birthright.  As I understand it, they cannot travel
   abroad, enlist in the military, or even apply for real jobs without a 
   hassle, thanks to your action.  Of course, they can easily lie on the
   application forms where it says "Are you a US citizen?"; and I suspect
   that it's entirely possible your mischief is without force; but still,
   what kind of an example are you setting?

    re: Note 29.91 by TNPUBS::JONG
    
    Answered offline.  The scope of the discussion doesn't belong in
    soapbox.
    
    All I'll say is, do your own research.  The information is out there
    if you know where to look for it.  Think. ask questions.  When your
    children learn to put on condoms and valdiff in school, make sure you
    suppliment their education with things that matter.  As Abe said: 
    "Read the Constitution".  When you get tired of seeing it being crapped on,
    maybe you too will peacefully make an effort to bring the gov't back.
    
    Soapbox -> Ballot Box -> Jury Box ->  Cartridge Box.
    

    <-- And usually casket box, without good leadership on the opposing
    	side.
    
    	

.91, Jong...

A couple of things.  First, and easiest to check, the word "include" when 
used in law DOES mean a complete list.  It's just like using "include" as a 
command parameter.  The "...but not limited to..." implication does not 
exist in law.  It must be explicitly stated.

Second.  "Whoever" put me "on" to these cases is quite a long list.  After 
the first couple of dozen check out, you begin to trust the sources.  
Actually getting a copy of the laws is a pretty fascinating excercize as 
well.  I can state confidently that I am not being flim flammed.  MadMike 
has different sources than me, and they seem to agree, oddly enough.

Regarding the citizen stuff - are you arguing that before the civil war 
there were no US Citizens?  Or what status existed for somebody born in, 
say, Virginia, 1850?  All I'm saying, and MadMike too, is that we people 
born in the states have exactly the SAME status we would have had if the 
fourteenth amendment did not exist.  Perhaps that will make things more 
palatable for you (although you'll probably balk if you bother to look up 
what that actually means).

Regarding jurisdiction.  Where you are and what you are doing has much to 
do with jurisdiction.  Because you are in Massachusetts does necessarily 
mean you are subject to its laws, even if you are not a citizen.  
Massachusetts law is subject to be in harmony with the Consistution of the 
United States of America, as is federal law.  However, a Massachusetts 
citizen visiting Nevada can partake of an activity legal in Nevada, 
gambling or prostitution come to mind, even though it is explicitly 
*against* the law in Massachusetts.  This is because of the location of the 
individual.  

Federal Law has jurisdiction over sovereign nationals only where they are 
involved in activities over which the federal government has been granted 
jurisdiction in the constitution, or where the congress has been given 
legislative authority, which paragraph specifically (by stating "not 
exceed") excludes the states.  Nowhere in the constitution does it state 
that the congress has ANY legislative jurisdiction over the citizens of 
states, and, as you know, if it ain't explicitly given unto the fed, it 
belongs to the state or the individual.  Not that anybody pays attention to 
those amendments, but it's still the law.

What MM and I have been suggesting, is that you CAN "voluntarily" subject 
yourself to certain federal law.  However, absent this consent, such law 
does not apply.  Any such law applies to federal citizens, who are those 
people who live in the United States, but are not citizens of a State 
Republic.  A f'rinstance is somebody who lives in Washington D.C.  In these 
cases, you don't get to volunteer.

Also, we are not doing anything to deny our children any birthright.  I 
take offense at this suggestion.  My educated opinion is that by 
understanding the law and our status thoroughly, I am BETTER able to 
provide my children with their birthright, instead of simply signing them 
over to the government.  If my children become part of the system, it will 
be through THEIR choice, not through my ignorance.

And, BTW, I'm sincerely tempted to take your five grand.  It wouldn't be 
sporting of me, though.  However, mail me, and if you're right, I'll tell 
you where to get $100K.  We'll split the take, and I'll recant everything I 
said here in the 'box which disagreed with anything you said...


Later.  Much later (I'm reeeeeeallly busy),

					     Mike

    I have reviewed a long "legal" document which, I think, deals with
    the points you raise, Mike.  I see the entire thing as built upon two
    faulty bricks of legal logic:
    
    	The federal government has jurisdiction exclusively in the District
    	of Columbia and other "federal" territories.
    
    	The 63th Congress (1913) declared that the United States
    	"includes" DC and other federal territories.
    
    The entire document builds upon those bricks to exempt the user from
    the Social Security system, the IRS, the military, and everything else.
    The user of this document declares himself a free, white, sovereign
    male national of the united States (note the capitalization).
    
    Well, I have already dealt with those bricks.  The difference between
    "jurisdiction exclusively" (which is not in the Constitution) and 
    "exclusive jurisdiction" (which is) is the difference between night 
    and everything but night.  And the difference between "includes" and
    "comprises" is the difference between night and day.  I say the 1913
    declaration by Congress had to do with adding DC to the tax rolls, not
    limiting the tax rolls to DC.  Frankly, after all the talk about facts,
    I'm disappointed that the whole thing boils down to two such poorly
    constructed arguments.
    
    As for my tax monies, I'm not going to hand them over to you because
    you say you're right.  You can do what you want to your children, but
    before I do anything I want to see you put your money where your mouth
    is.  *You* send in the forms, stop paying taxes, and let's wait a
    reasonable period -- say ten years -- to see if you go to prison.  If
    you manage to survive the application of this legal redress, then we'll
    all do it, and I'll be happy to turn over a year's tax payments as a
    commission.

    re: Note 29.95 by TNPUBS::JONG
    
    I'm smiling.  Why, I can't say, but I'm smiling.  Notice that long
    "legal" document (called an affidavit) was addressed to Llyod Bentsen
    (sp?).  He'll read/heed it too, if he's smart. (after he quits, he's
    off the hook)  
    
    Now, I didn't send it (yet?), but I know people who did.  Like I said, I'm 
    smiling.  You also don't just send the affidavit to LB either, it
    goes to BC -> to the mayor and street sweeper.  Basically, it puts
    folks on notice.  The only folks going to prison as you proclaim with
    glee is "them".  Look up "Color of Law".
    
    Your "faulty bricks" statement is trash.  You've been pointed to the
    proper case law(s) backing that up, time and again, yet you can't
    comprehend this simple fact.  Your getting trounced in sterio, even.
    You came to a gun fight armed with a swiss army knife.  Yer gonna
    lose.
                

    Anent .94 (Mike Ciarochi):
    
    >> First, and easiest to check, the word "include" when
    >> used in law DOES mean a complete list.  It's just like using "include"
    >> as a command parameter.  The "...but not limited to..." implication 
    >> does not exist in law.  It must be explicitly stated.
    
    Why do you spout such nonsense and then challenge me to check it out?
    Do you have a Gary Hart complex?
    
    On the way back from recycling newspapers this morning I stopped by the
    local library.  As you said, it's easy to check.  Two law dictionaries
    and the _Encyclopedia of American Law_ confirm that you're wrong.
    Depending on the context, "include" can mean exactly what it means in
    ordinary English.  In other words, in 1913 the Congress declared that
    for the purposes of levying income tax, the "United States" *includes*
    Washington DC, and I am confident they meant that DC residents had to 
    pay *too,* not that they *alone* had to pay (which is insane).
    
    Your argument has the force of my twelve-year-old trying to talk his
    way out of being sent to his room.
    
    Mike M., instead of saying my arguments are "trash," perhaps you should
    try your hand at a rebuttal.  What is the difference between "exclusive
    jurisdiction" and "jurisdiction exclusively"?  As far as I'm concerned,
    the argument is won; anyone who attempts to use those bricks to build a
    wall against paying income tax will, and ought to, go to prison.

    re: Note 29.97 by TNPUBS::JONG
    
    I rebutted you before.  I flatly stated I'll go by what the
    Constitution says, and not buy into your fancy play on words.
    
    You apparently have no idea of the history of taxation in our
    Country.
    
    I can't discuss something with someone who fails to listen. 
                                                                 

    Mike, you've done no such thing!  I am dealing in the plain English of
    the Constitution; it's you who is attempting fancy plays on words by
    attempting to redefine their meanings.
    
    You have never addressed the difference between "exclusive
    jurisdiction" and "jurisdiction exclusively."  One is what the
    Constitution says, the other is what you pretend it says.
    
    The other Mike attempted to claim "include" means something different
    in  American law, but he was easily refuted.
    
    Upon those two faulty bricks is built a whole faulty edifice.

    
    And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

    This is the wrong place to put this, but it goes on to again, prove my
    point of jurisdiction.  Too bad wordy split, but, he prolly wouldn't
    have believed this either...
    
From:	US3RMC::"CP-DISCUSS@tomahawk.welch.jhu.edu" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  9-JAN-1995 23:32:00.38
To:	CONSTPARTY@tomahawk.welch.jhu.edu
CC:	
Subj:	"Federal Lands" Belong to States

Carver speaks at Constitutional Conference

   (Dick Carver was a featured speaker at a "Constitutional Awareness
Conference" held Sept. 17,1994, in Montrose, Colo. An account of his
presentation was published in the Sept. 19 edition of The Montrose Daily
Press.
The complete text of The Daily Press' article folIows.)

Carver hits Feds on land ownership
By LANE MILLS

Daily Press Staff Writer

   Nye County, Nev., county commissioner Dick Carver, who is challenging
federal ownership of public lands nationwide, was received warmly by the more
than 200 people who attended the "Constitutional Awareness Conference"
sponsored by the Stewards of the Constitution of Montrose at Friendship Hall
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday.

   Carver was the third featured speaker during the conference. He made his
presentation after Dr. Gene Schroder and Colorado State Rep. Charles Duke, R-
Monument.

   "Federal law only applies to federal property," Carver said. "lt's very
clear and the courts have held that up for the last 200 years. The problem we
have to deal with is to define what is that federal property.
   
   "lt's time for you to not recognize (federal ownership of public lands)
any
longer--you recognize the constitution and we'll get it back," he said.

   "You're the ones who can make it happen. Not me ...not Charlie (Duke)
... not Gene (Schroder) -- it's you. You can make it happen.

   "We have to quit assuming that the federal government has all that power.
The supreme law of the land are only laws made pursuant to the Constitution
of the United States of America.

   "That's clearly only about 20 powers the federal government has," Carver
said.

   He said the first thing to ask federal agencies for is proof that the
federal government owns the land. He said the federal agents cannot provide
documentation because it does not exist.

   Carver stated that claims by the federal government that it owns public
lands are groundless because the claims are not supported by the Constitution
or court decisions historically.

   Carver also discussed how he operated a bulldozer to open a road closed
by the U.S. Forest Service. A Forest Service law enforcement agent attempted
to block the operation and Carver filed charges against the employee the
next day.

   He said the county district attorney did not follow up. Nor did the state
attorney general. Carver said he will try to call a citizen's grand jury to
pursue the case against the Forest Service employee and to investigate the
county district attorney and state attorney general for collusion.

   Carver said federal law enforcement agents in the Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management have no authority to enforce laws on public lands.

   He stated that since public lands belong to the states and the states are
made up of counties, the function of law enforcement belongs to the county
sheriff.

   "lf anybody can prove that I am wrong, I will back off and say I am
wrong,"
Carver said. "They haven't so far and that is because they cannot.

   "Ownership of public lands is a political issue which has nothing to do
with the law."

   He said Babbitt can enforce Rangeland Reform on federal lands in Nye
County--that is, the U.S. Post Office in Tonopah.

   Carver said he took up the issue of public lands ownership because he
swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

   He stated the Constitution clearly outlines the purposes for which the
federal government may own land. He stated Forest Service and BLM uses are
not included.

   He said he is waiting for the federal government to take him to court over
his road-opening activities to bring the issue of public land ownership to a
head.

   "I'm not going to ask the courts to tell the federal government I'm
right,"
Carver said. "I want the government to take me to court to prove I'm wrong.

   "They won't do that because it will bring the whole question of their
ownership to the forefront--they know I'm right and so do I."

   He said the important thing for people to do is to educate themselves
about ownership of public lands and then to pass that knowledge along to
county
elected officials. "I'm here to tell you to get behind your county
commissioners,"
he said.

   Carver singled out Montrose County commissioner Bob Corey to thank
him for attending the conference. He said the other two commissioners should
have been tied up and forced to attend.

   He also stated that Congress ignores the 10th Amendment because
citizens of the country have allowed it to happen.

   Carver thanked President Clinton for galvanizing the American public.

   "I'll tell you he is doing a damn good job--don't impeach him, don't
recall
(Interior Secretary) Bruce Babbitt, keep them right where they are," Carver
said.

   "They are making not only the miners and the ranchers mad but everybody."

   Carver said Nye County will not implement health care reform, the crime
bill, the Endangered Species Act or the Environmental Protection Act because
they are not constitutional.

   Carver commented on the importance of counties taking control of public
lands in an interview with The Daily Press Sunday.

   "First of all, the federal government can enforce all the laws and
treaties
it wants to on federal lands, that is, lands beneath water," Carver said.

   "When we go out here and encourage ranching, mining and recreation,
what is going to happen on the local level?

   "Your economy is going to come up. When the economy goes up unemployment
goes down, welfare goes down and government costs less to operate.

   "The people of the county will manage the land in an environmentally
responsible way because their livelihood depends on it.

   "We don't need Washington, D.C., to manage our lands--they don't have
a clue what our needs are," Carver said.

   "Of course the federal government has a role in managing lands but their
role has to be subordinate to that of the people.

   "If we can work together we can make this work. The time is right. The
time is now."

   Carver said he welcomes people to write to him. His address is HCR 60,
Box 5400, Round Mountain, Nev., 89045. He said his phone number is 702-377-
2175. He stated that people who want copies of documents Nye County
has available may call 702-482-8181 or 707-482-8191.
    

    Not that this belongs in GATT, Mikey, but since your boy is so easily
    refuted, here you go.  The second paragraph below gives the Feds all
    the power they need to make the Rules and Regulations (like, declaring
    themselves owners and giving responsibility to BLM, etc, etc) for any
    territory of the United States; and also asserts that NOTHING ELSE in
    the constitution should be considered to prejudice such Claims.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Article IV, Section. 3.  New States may be admitted by the Congress
    into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected witin the
    Jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the
    Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the
    Consent of the Legislaturs of the States concerned as well as of the
    Congress. 
    
    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules
    and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging
    to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
    construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
    particular State.

    re: .102
    
    I'm not so sure you read the second paragraph very well, DougO.  It
    mentions 'territory and other property belonging to the UNITED STATES'.
    
    The debate concerns their claim to the territories that should belong
    to the states, and their regulation of those territories.  The
    jurisdictional issue raises its ugly head again.  
    
    
    -steve         

    So when Jefferson negotiates the Louisiana puchase and BUYS the midwest
    and the pacific northwest from France, is that property belonging to
    the United States or not?  Feds have controlled it ever since.
    
    DougO

    re: Note 29.104 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    And the LP was split up into territories which eventually applied and
    recieved statehood.  And in the 1860's Abe was feeling generous and GAVE 
    AWAY what, 600 million acres of land to folks who staked a claim?  This 
    property was then NOT considered "territory or U.S. Property" anymore.
    
    Leech banged it, Jurisdiction.  Buy a house today with money from the
    FHA and opps, it's under federal jurisdiction.

    PS: 
    Article 4 Section 3 para 2 is a huge can of worms.
    (kinda like "provide for the general welfare").
    
    Go see Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 17/18 to clarify the above.

    The prez & co. make jobs flock to mexico.  They prop up a foreign 
    economy with your taxdollars.  
    
    Then with the stroke of the pen, Bill Clinton axes $1,000,000,000
    in possible income to an American company.
    
    I see a problem here.

    A billion dollars? To what American company?

    Conoco Oil.  'Twas a deal with Iran, and the gummint decided we
    oughtn't pour money into a terrorist state.

Just saving this for posterity.  I expect to have the last laugh.

DougO
================================================================================
Note 210.241                          Japan                           241 of 241
SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" 7 lines  11-MAY-1995 12:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    just for clarification....
    
    WTO = UN (impotence wise)
    
    
    

    
    Well, Mickey Kantor was breastbeating before the press yesterday.
    
    From a purely political standpoint, Japan-bashing is the biggest
    win the Prex could get, and he really has no reason to fold.  He's
    drawn a line in the sand, invoked "section 103", the wondrous new
    toy, the WTO, postured for the unions and press.  It sure beats
    dealing with this Congress, and the alledgedly free-trade GOP is
    not about to engage him on this, preoccuppied as they be with
    shredding his budget.  I think if the Japanese think he'll fold on
    his own, I think they're wrong - they're the perfect demon for him
    to attack.  They will either have to give him concessions, or else
    go Banzai and retaliate.  Even a Wimp can stand tough when tough is
    strongly in his own suvival interest.
    
      bb

    >> Even a Wimp can stand tough when tough is
    >> strongly in his own suvival interest.
    
    ...and when it appears that no one will beat him up in retaliation.
    It's like yelling down at the neighborhood bully from his upstairs
    bedroom window.  Of course, he has to come out sometime...
    
    Chris

>>    It's like yelling down at the neighborhood bully from his upstairs
>>    bedroom window.  Of course, he has to come out sometime...

	this gave me a little headache, yes it did.

    
    Things that make you say "GATT."
    
    -b

    
      Any child born before TODAY must have a social security number to
     be claimed as a dependent, or as a qualifying child for the earned
     income tax credit, on your 1995 tax return, the IRS says.  This
     comes from the GATT law enacted late in 1994.  Next year, those born
     before 12/1/96 need a social security number.  After 1996, all
     children, regardless of their birthday, need one.
    
      bb

    re: .115
    
    The law was changed several years ago to require the SSN of any person
    claimed as a dependent on your tax return.
    
    I don't know about the rest.
    
    Bob

From the 1995 Form 1040 instructions, page 13:

Column (2)

Each dependent must have a social security number (SSN) unless the dependent
was born in November or December of 1995. You must enter the SSN in column (2).
If you do not enter it or if the SSN is wrong, it will take us longer to issue
any refund shown on your return. You may also have to pay a $50 penalty.

If your dependent was born in November or December of 1995 and does not have
an SSN, enter '11/95' or '12/95' in column (2). Your dependent can get an SSN
by filing Form SS-5 with your local Social Security Administration office.
It usually takes about 2 weeks to get an SSN. If your dependent won't have
an SSN by April 15, 1996, see What If I Can't File on Time? on page 9.
If your dependent lives in Canada or Mexico, see Pub. 501 for details on
how to get an SSN.

    
    ...unless you file for religious objector status, which is routinely
       granted by the Social Security Administration.
    
       However, here's the turn-of-the-coin:
    
       The IRS may or may not require you to file for a Tax Identification
       Number, which is not the same as a Social Security number.
    
       Inquiries made to the Social Security Administration regarding
       an SSN requirement are now answered "You do not need a Social
       Security Number to be employed in the United States. HOWEVER,
       you do need one if you want your "account" to be credited."
    
       

    
    
     I still have my original SS card, and it states on the bottom:
    
    FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION
    
    
     Has that changed since... nineteen sixty... mumble.. mumble...

    re: .117
    
    I can't seem to find the reference to the GATT 'law' in your note. 
    Also, what GATT 'law' are you refering to in .115?
    
    Bob

    
      The GATT treaty was passed with enabling legislation, late in 1994,
     remember ?  I'm saying the new, this year, SSN requirement on your
     1995 tax return was in the enabling legislation.  My info for this
     is today's WSJ.
    
      bb

    re: .120
    
    It has changed.  I still have my card, and it says nothing of the sort.
    
    
    -steve

    
    < They legally neutered it in the early 60's. Not sure what year the
      cards began reflecting the change.

    I can't help but notice two things:
    
    	Differing opinions.
    
    	Both are correct.
    
    "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"