China Just Did One Thing That Means War With The United States
One of Donald Trump's campaign promises was to stand up to China.
That is one promise he followed through to a tee.
But now China is sick of it, and just did one thing that means war with the United States.
Since being elected, there is perhaps no promise that he took as seriously as standing up to
China.
For many years he has been sounding the alarm about trade deals with China that have ripped
off the United States.
So in the most "America First" fashion possible, President Trump has stopped talking
and made a major threat to slap a ten percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.
To anyone who supports Donald Trump's economic nationalism, this is a great move that undoubtedly
would lead towards both fairer deals and further U.S. manufacturing.
For China, and the anti-Trump crowd it is disastrous.
For China, it will undoubtedly harm their economy, which is the point.
To the anti-Trumpers, they believe it will create immense harm to the U.S. economy because
of increased costs on Chinese goods.
China is so upset about President Trump's threats that they have threatened to retaliate
against Trump for launching what they believe, probably correctly, is a trade war.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on their website that "[t]he United
States has initiated a trade war," before threatening to fight back against President
Trump.
Fighting back against President Trump in a trade war would end badly for China.
China benefits much more heavily from trading with the United States than the United States
does trading with China.
In classic "Art of The Deal" fashion President Donald Trump knows this.
After all, he wrote the go-to book on deals.
One of the central tenets of Trump's book is "using your leverage."
And in this case, President Donald Trump has $200 billion of leverage against China.
That leverage will eventually force China to come to the negotiating table.
This is something that no other President was willing to do.
The most sure-fire way to create more jobs in the United States is to encourage more
manufacturing.
In the past, there wasn't much incentive to manufacture U.S. goods, and China had an
unfair advantage in the market.
It is hard to promote free trade with a country that has an unfair advantage.
That's why President Trump is so supportive of "fair trade," which puts American interests
first.
This is a stark contrast to the strategy by former President Barack Obama, who was fine
with foreign countries having freer trade with the United States than domestic manufacturers,
who were tacked with heavy regulations.
During his eight-year reign, China had it made, while Americans were forced to struggle
for work.
But thankfully Donald Trump was elected President, who believes the exact opposite of Obama and
is making that clear with his policies.
And the fact that the unemployment rate is at near-historic lows shows that Trump's
plans are working.
Do you support President Trump's trade policy with China?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and
is instead promoting mainstream
media sources.
When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content.
Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends
and family.
Thank you.
For more infomation >> China Just Did One Thing That Means War With The United States - Duration: 11:14.-------------------------------------------
President Of The United States Tricked By A Prankster? | Deadline | MSNBC - Duration: 5:52.
For more infomation >> President Of The United States Tricked By A Prankster? | Deadline | MSNBC - Duration: 5:52. -------------------------------------------
Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States | Biography | Hungama Kids - Duration: 3:14.
In your life, if you are walking down the right path and you are willing to keep walking,
eventually you will make progress.
Not only is this sentence right, but the man who said this, also proved it right.
Today, we will meet the same personality.
Let's meet and know more about the 44th President of United States
and the first Afro-American President of US
Barack Hussein Obama
Right from the age of 6 till 10, Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia and in 1971,
he returned to Honolulu and lived here till he completed his high school.
He did various jobs like community organizer, consultant and instructor for a community
organizing institute, Law lecturer etc.
Besides, along with his wife he organized many Charity programs and helped various NGOs too.
Obama always believed in compassion towards others and was very liberal towards all the religions.
Right from the time he was a senator & till the time he was a President
he worked towards the betterment of American citizens by introducing & changing lot of policies
like Domestic policies,
Economic Policies, Health reforms, Environmental policies, Energy policies etc.
With his political career and life he conveyed a big message to humanity that
all the people of the world are one and they should be treated with equality.
Obama has rightfully quoted
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the change we seek."
A profound thought, said so simply and then proved right.
Even after leaving Presidency, he still continued to work for the well being of the people
and today, along with his wife, he runs a Charity program.
We hope that you will definitely be motivated and inspired by Barack Obama's beliefs and his life.
Do share and like this video
And for more such infotaining videos don't forget to subscribe to Hungama Kids.
-------------------------------------------
United States housing bubble - Duration: 2:46.
For more infomation >> United States housing bubble - Duration: 2:46. -------------------------------------------
Trade War Between United States And Canada Escalates With New Tariffs - Duration: 1:54.
For more infomation >> Trade War Between United States And Canada Escalates With New Tariffs - Duration: 1:54. -------------------------------------------
The United States Withdraws from the U.N. Human Rights Council | Connecting Point | June 28, 2018 - Duration: 9:06.
>>> EARLIER THIS MONTH THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWED THROUGH
WITH ITS PROMISE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.
CITING THE NEED FOR REFORM ON THE COUNCIL, AMBASSADOR NIKKI
HALEY MADE THE POTENTIAL MOVE KNOWN A YEAR AGO.
BUT WHAT IMPACT WILL THIS WITHDRAWAL HAVE?
WE GET DIFFERING OPINIONS FROM PROFESSORS VINCENT FERRARO OF
MOUND HOLYOKE COLLEGE AND GARY LEFORT FROM AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE. >> MY INITIAL REACTION WAS A
LITTLE DISAPPOINTED, BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE AN TORGS BEST
WAY TO DO IT IS FROM WITHIN. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I
UNDERSTAND WHERE THE U.S. IS COMING FROM.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT THE COUNCIL IS
POLITICALLY BIASED TOWARDS ISRAEL.
A NUMBER OF ITS MEMBERS ARE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE A HISTORY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. IN ALL GOOD FAITH IT'S HARD TO
BE PART OF AN ORGANIZATION WHEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE
LIVING UP TO THEIR MISSION AND GOAL.
I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS, IT GOES BACK TO THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION OF 2006, WHEN THE COUNCIL WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED.
>> BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, KOFI ANAN HAD DISSOLVED THE PREVIOUS
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. >> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AND ELEANOR ROOSEVELT CHAIRED THAT ONE.
BUT TO BRING IN PROFESSOR FERARO, WE HEARD NIKKI HALEY,
THE HEAD OF THE AMBASSADOR TO THE U. N. SAY ABOUT A YEAR AGO,
THAT IF CHANGES WEREN'T MADE THE U.S. WOULD REMOVE ITSELF FROM
THE COUNCIL. DO YOU THINK THE U.S. SHOULD
HAVE DONE THAT? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>> WHY IS THAT? >> WELL, IF YOU FIGHT AND LOSE,
THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF YOU DON'T FIGHT, THEN
YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO LOSE. >> HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE
SEEN THE U.S. PUT UP MORE OF A FIGHT TO USE YOUR WORDS?
>> I THINK HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNDER ASSAULT ALL OVER THE
WORLD. THE UNITED STATES IS ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT VOICES IN FAVOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO EXCUSE ITSELF MEANS THAT ESSENTIALLY IT
DOESN'T THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT.
>> WHEN AMBASSADOR HALEY SAID THAT SHE FELT, TO YOUR POINT
PROFESSOR LEFORT, THAT THERE ARE ABUSES, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE
COUNCIL WHO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO THE COUNCIL REPRESENTING
COUNTRIES WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS MAY BE BEING TRAMPLED, SHE'S
CONCERNED THAT THE U.S. BEING CONNECTED TO THE ORGANIZATION
ALIGNS THE U.S. WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE.
IS THAT NOT THE WAY EITHER OF YOU SEES IT?
>> THAT'S HOW I SEE IT, THAT'S WHY I SAY I UNDERSTAND THE U.S.
POSITION. WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNCIL THAT
BETWEEN 2006 AND 2016 HAD 135 RESOLUTIONS AND 68 OF THOSE
RESOLUTIONS WERE DIRECTED TOWARDS ISRAEL, THAT SEEMS KIND
OF UNFAIR. WHEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF
COUNTRIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED NONFREE THAT HAVE A HISTORY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, LIKE CHINA AND VENEZUELA, SAUDI
ARABIA, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN THAT JUST REENFORCES THE POSITION
THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS TAKEN.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE COUNCIL CONFIGURED THIS WAY.
THERE'S A NEED FOR REFORM. >> PROFESSOR FERARO, HOW DO YOU
THINK THE U.S. COULD HAVE STAYED INVOLVED BUT WORKED WITHIN THE
ORGANIZATION TO TRY AND BRING ABOUT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO GET AT?
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CLEAN UP ITS OWN
ACT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER
COUNTRIES NOT ADHERING TO HUMAN RIGHTS.
BUT WATER BOARDING IS AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND THE
UNITED STATES DID THAT. IN 1994 THE UNITED STATES SIGNED
A CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, WHICH SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBITS THE FORCIBLE SEPARATION OF CHILDREN FROM
THEIR PARENTS. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND
ANY NATION IN THE WORLD TODAY THAT ADHERES DISTRICTLY TO HUMAN
RIGHTS. ON THE ISSUE OF ISRAEL, IT MAY
BE A INDICATION OF BIAS, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCOUNT THAT.
BUT ONE CAN'T FORGET THAT THE UNITED NATIONS WAS CENTRAL IN
THE FORMATION OF ISRAEL. AND IT CREATED IN 1947 THREE
ENTITIES, A JEWISH ZONE, AN ARAB ZONE AND AN INTERNATIONAL CITY
OF JERUSALEM. THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
IS SOMETHING THAT THE U. N. CREATED.
THEREFORE IT HAS A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
SINCE 1947, THE ARAB ZONE HAS BEEN MADE MUCH SMALLER THAN IT
WAS IN 1947. AND JERUSALEM NOISE LONGER AN
INTERNATIONALIZED CITY. THEREFORE THE UNITED NATIONS IS
RIGHT TO CALL INTO QUESTION WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MIDDLE
EAST. >> AND I WOULDN'T QUESTION THAT,
I MEAN CERTAINLY THE UNITED NATIONS HAS THAT RIGHT.
BUT IT HAS TO BE A BALANCED RIGHT.
IT CAN'T BE AN OVERFOCUS, ESPECIALLY IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS
AREA, ON JUST ONE COUNTRY WHEN YOU HAVE OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND
THE WORLD COMMITTING ATROCITIES FAR WORSE THAN WE SEE HAPPENING
AS FAR AS THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.
LIKE SAUDI ARABIA, THE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WE SEE IN
NORTH KOREA, OR THE SITUATION IN VENEZUELA OR CHINA FOR THAT
MATTER. >> YOU MENTIONED NORTH KOREA A
MOMENT AGO AND WE SAW PRESIDENT TRUMP MEET WITH KIM JONG UN NOT
LONG AGO. HUMAN RIGHTS DIDN'T COME UP
DURING THAT CONVERSATION. SO, AND WE HEARD THAT SECRETARY
MIKE POMPEO WHEN HE CAME OUT AND SPOKE ABOUT THIS HE SAID THAT
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL WAS AN EXERCISE IN, QUOTE, SHAMELESS
HYPOCRISY, AND HE WENT ONTO TALK ABOUT HOW HE FELT THE COUNCIL
WAS BEING SILENT IN THESE AREAS. SO YOU HAVE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION BEING SILENT ON ONE HAND, NOT BRINGING UP HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NORTH KOREA, BUT THEN POMPEO COMING
OUT AND SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO HOW DO YOU JIVE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW?
>> WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT DISCUSSED AS FAR
AS THE MEETING WITH PREMIERE KIM AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THE MAIN FOCUS WAS DENUCLEARIZATION.
YOU HAVE TO BE SO CAREFUL IN MUDDYING THE ISSUES OR WITH
OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT, BUT THE MAIN FOCUS AT
THE MEETING WAS REALLY DENUCLEARIZATION.
I'D BE VERY SURPRISED IF IT WASN'T AT LEAST TOUCHED BASE ON,
BUT CERTAINLY WASN'T THE FOCUS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FELT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL FOCUSES.
I THINK THAT WAS THE WRONG FORUM.
GET A CLEAR COMMITMENT TO DENUCLEARIZE, AND THEN ON
FOLLOWUP MEETINGS AND NEGOTIATIONS YOU CAN ADDRESS
ISSUES LIKE THE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
>> PROFESSOR FERARO, TO THE POINT ABOUT SECRETARY POMPEO
SAYING IT'S A SHAMELESS HYPOCRISY, WHAT DO YOU THINK
ABOUT THAT PERSPECTIVE? >> WELL, LOOK AT THE U.S.
ALLIES. PROFESSOR LEFORT HAS MENTIONED
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES OF SAUDI ARABIA, A STRONG U.S. ALLY.
LOOK AT THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRUMP TO PUTIN, A HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATOR. LOOK AT TRUMP'S RELATIONSHIP TO
THE PRESIDENT IN CHINA. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE'S
RAMPANT HYPOCRISY ON THE ISSUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THAT'S
UNFORTUNATE. IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE TRUE
TO ITS VALUES AND ITS CONSTITUTION, SHOULD BE THE
FOREMOST PROPONENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WORLD.
AND I WISH THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD RETURN TO ITS
VALUES AND ITS ROOTS, AND ARTICULATE THAT DECISION VERY
STRONGLY. >> WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT,
I WANT TO PUT ONE QUESTION TO EACH OF YOU.
AMBASSADOR HALEY SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY COME BACK AND
BECOME A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IF A FEW CHANGES ARE MADE.
DO YOU THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN, DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES
WILL EVENTUALLY COME BACK TO THIS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL?
>> I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, THAT'S ONE OF THE POINTS
THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF.
THE UNITED STATES ISN'T SAYING THAT IT'S NOT CONCERNED WITH
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS, IT'S SAYING IT'S CONCERNED WITH THE
WAY IT'S HANDLED IN THE COUNCIL. AMBASSADOR HALEY DID SAY THAT
WE'RE NOT A MEMBER NOW, BUT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE
RECOMMENDED TO IMPROVE THE COUNCIL ARE IMPLEMENTED THAT
THEY WOULD RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION AND REJOIN.
ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS IS THE FACT THAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN
BROUGHT UP IN EVERY SINGLE SESSION THAT THE COUNCIL HAS
GOING BACK TO 2006. SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE
TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY. SO ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD
BE THAT ISRAEL BE TAKEN OFF AS ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS AT EVERY
SESSION. >> PROFESSOR FERARO, I WANT TO
GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND. >> I THINK AS LONG AS PRESIDENT
TRUMP IS PRESIDENT, THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT RETURN TO THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, IT'S NOT A PRIORITY FOR HIM, HE DOESN'T
CARE. >> THANK YOU.
-------------------------------------------
How does living in a community property state affect life insurance? Q+A Fridays Ep. 6 - Duration: 2:41.
Coming to you live from sunny, Hollywood, California.
Welcome to Quotacy's Q&A Friday where we answer your life insurance questions.
Quotacy is an online life insurance agency where you can get life insurance on your terms. I'm Jeanna and I'm Natasha
Today's question is how does live in a community property state affect life insurance, but first, Natasha, can you tell our viewers
What a community property state is? I can. A community property state follows
The law that all assets acquired during marriage are legally owned 50/50. As of today
There are nine community property states: Arizona
Idaho, Louisiana
Nevada, New Mexico
Texas, Wisconsin
Washington and California.
So, for example,
If John and Jane Smith are living in California, and are married, and John goes out and buys a fancy new Corvette
Jane legally also owns that Corvette.
Right, but it's important to note that all community property states may have slightly varying laws
There is not one uniform community property system.
Good to know. So going back to today's question, how does living in a community property state affect life insurance?
Well it mainly affects the death benefit.
So let's say you and your husband Chad live in
California and Chad buys a life insurance policy on himself and names his mother the sole beneficiary.
You actually legally are entitled to 50% of that death benefit.
And if Chad wants his mother to receive 100% of the death benefit
He will need you to sign a consent form waiving your rights to the benefit.
Okay, so we have a question from one of our blog readers.
She lives in Washington with her husband,
which is a community property state, and
She is wondering if she's entitled to 50% of the death benefit of the policy on her husband that his sister owns.
No
A policy owned by a sibling does not fall under community property law.
That policy owned by the sister is also paid for with her money
This is completely separate from the shared assets of the husband and wife.
But if he purchased the policy himself and made his sister the
Beneficiary then the wife would be entitled to the benefit. Right. And just as another reminder to our viewers community property states
Do not all follow the exact same laws and permanent life insurance is more complex than term
So if you live in a community property state be sure to work with a professional who is familiar with community property law.
We have those professionals here at Quotacy. We do. Thanks for watching.
If you have any questions about life insurance
Leave us a comment. And if you have any questions regarding today's topic check out the blog link posted below.
Otherwise tune in next week when we discuss how to find out if your deceased loved one had a life insurance policy. Bye!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét