WASHINGTON, May 30 - The Bush administration announced on Monday that it would bring a case against the European Union at the World Trade Organization over European subsidies to the aircraft maker Airbus, reviving a dispute on a scale that may turn out to be the largest ever heard by the trade organization.
The dispute centers on the billions of dollars in government subsidies to the American and European industry giants, Boeing and Airbus, and it promises to involve the most money in any case that has been brought before the W.T.O.
After months of fractious negotiations, talks broke down after a European proposal on Friday to reduce, rather than eliminate all subsidies.
The United States trade representative, Rob Portman, released a statement late Monday afternoon, saying he would ask the W.T.O. on Tuesday to form a panel to consider the dispute....
Flyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2369 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5): Yeah.... boohoo the government won't pay for my retirement. What a disgrace.
HA...Yes it is a disgrace....the government takes care of the governed....at least they used to. That's right, grandma can eat cat food.
I am not sure what the government's point is in trying to fight this. Maybe I am unclear of what it is exactly they are upset about. Is it that some governments are giving money to Airbus to develop new aircraft? I don't really see the problem in that....it benefits their countries. I see it more as a sense of national pride. Airbus is not a company belonging to just one country (like Boeing is). They represent a few European countries.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21683 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2356 times:
Wait, so trying to keep a level playing field so we don't lose jobs to Airbus is bad for the US economy? And yes, I know there are joint suppliers based in the US, but still most of Airbus is not made in the US.
Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 2): Huge Homeless Populations
Lack of Healthcare
Lack of Social Security..
myopic view of life, you have. believe everything you read, you do.
if you were to investigate what the meaning of "poverty," "hunger," "lack of healthcare" etc. is in the US, you'd be shocked to discover that the numbers are greatly, greatly inflated due to the bizarre definitions they are tied to. Many, many people considered poor in the US are middle class in many other nations. Hunger is "going without a meal once in a thirty day span." Most of the world would wish they were that hungry. Lack of healthcare is defined as "without healthcare for any period of time for the last year" and includes those who don't buy it or want it (young people who don't see the value at this time, mostly), those who switched jobs and were without it for even a day, those who were unemployed for even a day, etc. Visiting other nations you see homeless too. I was shocked by the homeless in Tokyo and Osaka, in all the parks, in tent cities. Growing up I was told it was a unique American problem and nations like Japan don't have problems. But if you look throughout history, homeless have always existed. Not always by such nice a name...
But we do have more bankrupt airlines than most nations, I'll give you that. Of course, we have more airlines and much larger airlines than anybody else either. They were going bankrupt before 9/11 but used the excuse to get money from the Bush administration, they were going bankrupt before 2000 while Clinton was saving the country, but I guess it's still GWBs fault for the inefficient, mismanaged legacy carriers, because you say it is and others want to believe it is true.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.