HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Do you support the Free T...

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:50 AM

 

Do you support the Free Trade policies that the Corporate Democrats are selling?

The Corporate Democrats that support Goldman-Sachs and their sponsored candidate won't come to grips with the disaster that unregulated capitalism has brought to us. Clinton, when asked what to do about the growing wealth gap, says to grow the economy. No journalist will follow up and point out that the economy has been growing and is glowing, for the wealthy. In fact the Clintons are doing very well. But we all know that the rising tides lift the yachets and swamp the skiffs. Although waffling now, Clinton has always been a big supporter of Free Trade in spite of the fact that it brings massive job losses to the working class.

In theory, an improved economy should result in a higher standard of living for its citizens. However, in Mexico poverty and unemployment have actually increased since NAFTA was enacted in addition to an increase in illegal aliens crossing from Mexico to
the United States in recent years

One can argue that, this was (and still is) a major flaw within NAFTA and that has been the rapid growth of
Maquiladoras
(Mexican sweatshops) along the border. (From 1994-2000,

In 2004, the Washington post reported that ten years after NAFTA was enacted,
19 million more people were living in poverty than twenty years ago, and nearly one in
four Mexicans were unable to afford adequate food 17.
If one of the provisions of NAFTA was to create new employment opportunities and raise living standards, why has poverty
increased in Mexico?

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/naftas-sociaeconomic-effects-on-mexico.pdf

It's not rocket science. The Big Corporations are not about helping the workers of the world. In fact their charters require them to make as much profits as they can. That puts them in direct conflict with workers trying to make an honest living. If you let the Big Corporations write the "Free" trade agreements, it is abso-fracking-lutly a fact that they will screw the workers in our country and in foreign countries to increase their profits.

I ask those of you that support Clinton and the Major Corporations to consider that the status quo has given us 4.8 million homeless incl 2 million children, 50 million people living in poverty incl 16 million children and the worst infant mortality rate in the modern world. Goldman-Sachs and the other major corps that support Clinton expect to gain higher profits, that's a capitalist fact, and not help those struggling among us. Why would you help the major corporations keep their strangle hold on the People of this country?

The rich and powerful don't wish us peons to die, but we have resources they want and if we die as a result of them getting them, it's not personal it's just business.

139 replies, 10393 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 139 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do you support the Free Trade policies that the Corporate Democrats are selling? (Original post)
rhett o rick Jun 2016 OP
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #1
Zorro Jun 2016 #130
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #131
Zorro Jun 2016 #132
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #133
Zorro Jun 2016 #134
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #135
Loudestlib Jun 2016 #2
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #10
Loudestlib Jun 2016 #12
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #17
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #80
think Jun 2016 #3
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #42
appalachiablue Jun 2016 #78
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #121
pampango Jun 2016 #122
dmosh42 Jun 2016 #4
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #24
dmosh42 Jun 2016 #25
VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #5
Recursion Jun 2016 #6
Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #9
Recursion Jun 2016 #13
Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #19
dmosh42 Jun 2016 #27
tonyt53 Jun 2016 #28
Recursion Jun 2016 #34
Recursion Jun 2016 #31
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #30
Recursion Jun 2016 #33
MyNameGoesHere Jun 2016 #36
forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #32
Recursion Jun 2016 #57
forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #72
Recursion Jun 2016 #79
forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #98
think Jun 2016 #61
Recursion Jun 2016 #81
think Jun 2016 #84
Recursion Jun 2016 #85
think Jun 2016 #89
Recursion Jun 2016 #90
think Jun 2016 #92
Recursion Jun 2016 #96
think Jun 2016 #99
Recursion Jun 2016 #103
Orsino Jun 2016 #75
larkrake Jun 2016 #94
Recursion Jun 2016 #97
Mnpaul Jun 2016 #125
djean111 Jun 2016 #7
CharlotteVale Jun 2016 #46
HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #8
99Forever Jun 2016 #54
pampango Jun 2016 #58
Triana Jun 2016 #11
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #18
Triana Jun 2016 #22
yourpaljoey Jun 2016 #14
Recursion Jun 2016 #15
TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #23
Recursion Jun 2016 #29
TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #129
mmonk Jun 2016 #16
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #20
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #40
elana i am Jun 2016 #21
Robbins Jun 2016 #26
sadoldgirl Jun 2016 #35
pampango Jun 2016 #37
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #38
pampango Jun 2016 #43
EndElectoral Jun 2016 #39
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #41
Yavin4 Jun 2016 #44
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #45
Yavin4 Jun 2016 #48
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #49
Mnpaul Jun 2016 #47
rhett o rick Jun 2016 #50
Recursion Jun 2016 #55
Mnpaul Jun 2016 #60
think Jun 2016 #62
Recursion Jun 2016 #67
think Jun 2016 #82
Recursion Jun 2016 #83
think Jun 2016 #86
Recursion Jun 2016 #88
think Jun 2016 #91
Recursion Jun 2016 #95
think Jun 2016 #100
Recursion Jun 2016 #101
think Jun 2016 #105
Recursion Jun 2016 #107
think Jun 2016 #108
Recursion Jun 2016 #109
think Jun 2016 #110
Recursion Jun 2016 #112
think Jun 2016 #113
Recursion Jun 2016 #114
think Jun 2016 #117
think Jun 2016 #115
Recursion Jun 2016 #116
think Jun 2016 #118
Recursion Jun 2016 #119
Mnpaul Jun 2016 #124
undergroundpanther Jun 2016 #51
Scuba Jun 2016 #52
Sancho Jun 2016 #53
Armstead Jun 2016 #63
Sancho Jun 2016 #66
Armstead Jun 2016 #69
Sancho Jun 2016 #71
Armstead Jun 2016 #73
Sancho Jun 2016 #74
Armstead Jun 2016 #76
coco77 Jun 2016 #56
Jitter65 Jun 2016 #59
Armstead Jun 2016 #64
Recursion Jun 2016 #68
Armstead Jun 2016 #70
Recursion Jun 2016 #77
Armstead Jun 2016 #65
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #87
think Jun 2016 #93
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #102
think Jun 2016 #106
bigwillq Jun 2016 #104
Octafish Jun 2016 #111
amandabeech Jun 2016 #120
Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #123
Recursion Jun 2016 #126
Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #128
shanti Jun 2016 #127
hopemountain Jun 2016 #136
BootinUp Jun 2016 #137
LWolf Jun 2016 #138
amborin Jun 2016 #139

Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:51 AM

1. Good morning

 

Do you support Free Trade that destroys American jobs or do you support the People?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:36 PM

130. Does Obama support the TPP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #130)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:50 PM

131. Is Obama a corporatist?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #131)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:07 AM

132. Asked you first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #132)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:10 AM

133. Mine was an answer in the form of a question. He is a corporatist and he loves the TPP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #133)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:19 AM

134. If it's good enough for Obama then it's good enough for me

He knows what he's doing, and makes decisions based on the best interests of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #134)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:21 AM

135. It must be so comforting to blindly trust, but not Democratic. Skepticism is healthy.

 

People blindly followed Bill Clinton when he signed NAFTA saying the same as you. It's like Lucy telling you she won't pull the ball out this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:53 AM

2. 45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, seems reluctant to take a firm position on an issue dividing her party: whether President Obama should have fast-track trading authority for the immense trade deal he has been negotiating, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With some progressive voters eyeing her with some skepticism, and facing a challenge (such as it is) from candidates on her left, she is being advised to tack in that direction.
President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton should take notice."
Here's why the TPP is such a big deal

Here's why the TPP is such a big deal 03:24
She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudestlib (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:16 AM

10. Hillary Cannot Tell The TRUTH On Her Best Day... Especially Re: Her Position On TPP! NOWWW

The Obama State Dept REFUSES TO RELEASE HER EMAILS on TPP Until AFTER The FUCKING ELECTION... 11/20/16! Fuck THAT SHIT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:21 AM

12. That is some in your face crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudestlib (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:03 AM

17. This is clearly Clinton speak:"the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress,"

 

The president should...... Of course the president should, but the statement says nothing about her position. We should have world peace.

Here is some more Clinton speak about the TPP, "I don't like the wording as currently written.." What wording doesn't she like. And does that mean she would be against it's passage until reworded? She doesn't commit herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudestlib (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:48 AM

80. She doesn't really oppose it. Anyone who believes she now magically does also

 

believes in the Easter Bunny. It's just campaign rhetoric for the masses...kind of like Obama pushing a public option in the primaries, but then conveniently forgetting about it post election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:59 AM

3. Corporate laws written by corporations for corporations and their profits.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:35 PM

42. The logic of the non-progressives befuddles me. They support the Major Corporations that

 

have one goal and that is to gain the largest profits they can. Do the non-progressives think that their success will trickle down to those among us struggling? Actually I doubt they think any harder than they really adore Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:46 AM

78. The use of 'progressive' irritates me becasue it's normally associated with people

and society, not increased profits for corporate entities, aka 'persons.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:35 PM

121. They embrace the conservative ideology why can't they admit it? Rhetorical question.

 

They want to think they are progressive but supporting the big money in politics isn't progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #121)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 04:42 PM

122. The multi-country trade agreement is not 'conservative ideology'. FDR created it, Sweden uses it

more than the US does. Neither FDR nor Sweden were or are unprogressive. I agree with Bernie that we should be more like Sweden.

Prior to FDR, the US trade policy was essentially "Trump-like" - high tariffs, imposed unilaterally with ultimate national sovereignty over the process. We imposed tariffs and other trade penalties whenever we wanted, for whatever reason we wanted and against whomever we wanted.

FDR (a 'phony progressive' perhaps?) did not like that. First he lowered tariffs with dozens of bilateral trade deals. Then he went a step further and introduced the International Trade Organization - a concept (a multi-country trade organization that would govern trade rules rather than national governments doing it) that had not existed before.

You may not like the concept. That is fine. But that does not mean that it is conservative ideology. It means that liberals can disagree about some policies and still be liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:01 AM

4. The way that the Dems have favored banks, corporations, free trade and regulation has been the......

real reason for our division of the party. Since that became the strategy for Bill Clinton's wins in the 90s, many Dem supporters have come to realize that we're nowhere near the policies of FDR & Truman, which was the model for the modern Dem party. And the way we're lining up now will mean more happy days for Goldman Sachs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:25 PM

24. What is frustrating is those that are so devoted to Clinton will not discuss Free Trade.

 

One did and insinuated that American workers had it so much better than China that they shouldn't complain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:30 PM

25. Yes, you're so right. Not about what's best for the country, but being on the winning side!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:03 AM

5. Hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:05 AM

6. Yes. The trade deals have delivered.

NAFTA was enacted in 1994.

Unemployment is lower than in 1993.

Labor participation is higher than in 1993.

The poverty rate is lower than in 1993.

Median wages are higher than in 1993.

The wage at each quintile is higher than in 1993.

Median incomes are higher than in 1993.

The incomes at each quintile are higher than in 1993.

Your attempt to gaslight Americans will fail. They remember the 1990s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:14 AM

9. If everything is going so great why do so many people feel like they are barely surviving?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:27 AM

13. Why do people think crime is more common now than in the 1990s?

Who can say?

People are stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:15 AM

19. Something tells me you're missing a huge part of the picture

 

A lot of people's lives have been totally destroyed.

You're speaking in statistics and averages. I'm telling you we've got whole cities that look like a nuclear bomb got dropped on us.

Something's not right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:35 PM

27. Many people have their own statistics, but the government has showed a 20 yr downward trend for.....

median income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:38 PM

28. 20 year? Proof please. 16 year maybe.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:51 PM

34. Not even 16.

We're at about 2007 levels this year, and that was the highest median income in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:41 PM

31. Upward

You're going full Orwell now. It's a 20 year upward trend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:39 PM

30. Nobody said the situation is perfect, far from it.

But most people who "feel like" they're barely surviving are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:50 PM

33. ^ That (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:59 PM

36. Barely making it because my trendy restaurant in the

Gentrified city raised the prices on my gluten free, free range, organic sushi. I tell you, it's like a nuclear bomb went off here and we are starving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:45 PM

32. Those may be backed up by the numbers

 

And yet still not tell the whole story.

Labor participation may be higher because more older people need to work instead of retire.

Unemployment may be lower because we were recovering from a recession in 1993.

The poverty rate may be lower but how many people are "just above" the poverty rate and still struggling?

The increase in median wages/income may not have accrued in an equitable manner and that may not show in the charts.

Has the increased wage/income in each quintile kept up with the increase in prices for necessities? For example, if your income goes up 25% but your rent goes up 200% and your grocery costs go up 100%, then you're losing.Also does this account for people working multiple jobs or needing additional sources of income?

For the most part I'm not being rhetorical, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because to my ears, it sounds like you're the one gaslighting Americans.

With that said, all of that may not be due to NAFTA, but dismissing the insecurity of a lot of people by saying "they're stupid" is not an argument.

And if you do think that everything is better than it used to be for the average person, what is your advice to the people who think differently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:34 AM

57. It actually is an argument, just not a tactful one

but dismissing the insecurity of a lot of people by saying "they're stupid" is not an argument.

Well, no: it is an argument, and it's a fact-based one, but it's not one I'd take on the road as a politician.

People at every quintile make more inflation-adjusted money today than they did in 1993, and for that matter the increase over those 23 years was larger than the increase in the 23 years from 1970 to 1993.

As far as why people "feel bad" about the economy, well, this really, really pisses people off, but that's largely a white male phenomenon, the polls tell us. And that makes sense, because the wage stagnation Sanders (and Trump) built their campaigns on is entirely a white male phenomenon: women and people of color saw huge income increases over that period while white males treaded water or slightly worse.

So, yes: white males don't like having to compete with women and minorities because their inflated pre-1970s wages took a hit. I don't know of a political way to even point that out, nationally, without taking a huge hit, let alone a "solution" (I'm still not sure what exactly the "problem" there is), but that is the reason white guys are angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:03 AM

72. There's research that shows the opposite, however

 

http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/

Racial wage inequality is commonly measured by the ratio of African-American (or Latino) wages to white wages. In 1979, the median black worker earned 83 cents for every dollar paid to the median white worker. The situation has not improved, but worsened since then. In 2013, the median black worker took home just 77 cents on the dollar. For the median Hispanic worker, that gap has gone from 81 cents on the dollar to a shocking 69 cents on the dollar.


http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3203265/Waters_ImmigrationEthnic.pdf?sequence=1

fter the passage of the (Civil Rights) act, the wage gap for minority groups narrowed, both in absolute difference with white wages and as a percentage of white wages, until the mid-1970s; at this time, progress for many racial minorities slowed, stopped, or reversed


http://www.hadsellstormer.com/blog/2015/08/the-widening-racial-wage-gap.shtml

What's more, research indicates that the gaps in wealth along racial lines is only widening with, from 2010 to 2013, the median household wealth for non-Hispanic black households falling from $16,000 to $13,700 or nearly 38 percent. During this same timeframe, the median household wealth of non-Hispanic white households increased more than two percent from $138,600 to $141,900.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/26/3639201/black-unemployment-recession/



Granted, wages and wealth are not the same. Also your thesis doesn't really make much sense when considering the real conditions of POC in America - it would suggest that white economic privilege isn't exactly a thing anymore which is...rather ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #72)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:47 AM

79. Your last paragraph gets to the point

Granted, wages and wealth are not the same.

That's exactly it.

Also your thesis doesn't really make much sense when considering the real conditions of POC in America - it would suggest that white economic privilege isn't exactly a thing anymore which is...rather ridiculous.

Huh? That's the literal embodiment of white economic privilege: they get angry when minorities even start[/] to catch up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:38 AM

98. Seems we have different things in mind

 

I'm talking about material privilege, you're talking about privileged attitudes. Both are valid but are describing different things.You're basically saying that the playing field has evened, all that's left is to make up generations of lost time, but white people are angry about the evening of said playing field. I'm saying the playing field isn't even close to even yet, either in wealth or income.

The question is why is there data that says two different things about the same issue?

Also I think location is an issue, as is expectations. For example, my wages may be higher on paper as a young AA than they would have been in 1990. But due to discrimination and other factors, to access those wages, I have to live in an expensive market like DC where the median price of a 1BR is 2000 dollars/mo (which is almost ALL of my after-tax income). Because after all, I can't access the kind of good-old-boy networks that create access to either the high pay, high access jobs, or the few quality jobs in suburban and rural locales. Right now, people are trying to sell *rooms* for 1k a month here (and yes I am considering moving). And also, it may be that young people had much higher expectations in terms of material wealth (even if many of the degrees are rather iffy, millenials are the most educated generation in history, and not ALL of those degrees are in basket weaving), and are comparing a tighter job market for middle wage jobs in diverse fields to a time when any mediocre white guy could support a family. I think young POC millenials share those heightened expectations, which is how Bernie Sanders was able to (barely) win black people under the age of 30.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:56 AM

61. The high cost of a college education is never figured into the snake oil statistics either

 

That's always left out of the equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:49 AM

81. Yes it is: education costs are included in the CPI

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm

Why did you make up the claim that it isn't?

What goods and services does the CPI cover?
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:57 AM

84. Where in this thread has anyone referred to the CPI except you in this post?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:59 AM

85. The CPI is the formula that adjusts for changing costs, so you brought it up (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

89. Please show me where I brought the CPI up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:02 AM

90. "The high cost of a college education is never figured into the snake oil statistics"

The CPI is how "high costs" are "figured into" "snake oil statistics"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:05 AM

92. I was referring to your snake oil statistics Recursion. You know the ones you create and post here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #92)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:31 AM

96. Since we're talking about inflation-adjusted income, that means the CPI (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #96)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:38 AM

99. Pew Research: "For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades"

 

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades

BY DREW DESILVER - October 9, 2014



Following the better-than-expected September jobs report, several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head back to work. Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course — health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

~Snip~

But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today....

Read more:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #99)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

103. Yup. But they rose more in the 2 decades after NAFTA

than in the 2 decades before it.

Like I said, FTAs delivered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:33 AM

75. Nope. Free Trade is a lie used to prevent wealth from trickling down.

Wages are stagnant, class mobility is down, and nearly all of the wealth gains have gone to the top.

Free Trade delivers nothing but misery to the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:22 AM

94. unemployment is higher, wages are lower, the poverty rate is higher and growing.....

 

where do you get your info-----Fox news? labor is decimated and our infrastructure is dismal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #94)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:32 AM

97. Well, other than the fact that all of those are false, that would be a good argument

where do you get your info

BLS. Go and do likewise. You'll probably learn a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:12 PM

125. Who did they deliver for? Wall St

certainly not for US manufacturing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:12 AM

7. Nope. And I will not support any politician who is for them.

 

No vote. No support. Set in stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:16 PM

46. ^^THIS^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:14 AM

8. We already have free trade with every TPP country.

 

The TPP isn't about free trade, it's about establishing corporate hegemony over government by the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:24 AM

54. ^^^This^^^

+1,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:37 AM

58. No we don't. Unless you consider ALL trade as being 'free' trade.

We have trade agreements with some of the countries. (Should they not be 'renegotiated'?) And the WTO governs trading rules with the other countries. (Should those rules not be 'renegotiated'?) Bernie is recommending renegotiating existing trade agreements including the WTO. Trump wants to rip them all up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:16 AM

11. NO. And I fail to understand voters who also do not and yet who will vote for Hillary

 

Because she is one of the biggest proponents of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:04 AM

18. I can explain it in one word, Authoritarian Adulation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:09 PM

22. Gotta be it.

 

I've always been a rebel so...maybe there's something to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:42 AM

14. The TPP is pure evil

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourpaljoey (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:55 AM

15. Why do you oppose Brunei workers having a minimum wage?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:17 PM

23. If they have a government capable of signing a deal then they have one capable of setting

a minimum wage.

We didn't wait on Brunei to set one for us and their's will not increase ours to a living wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:39 PM

29. We didn't wait; we forced them to implement one

Kicking and screaming, I might add.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:33 PM

129. We didn't wait on them to set our minimum wage and if they don't want one it is on them. We should

simply refuse to trade with them and deny Pax Americana to them until they do.

We don't need some phony wage and sovereignty killing deal to funnel more wealth to billionaires to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:59 AM

16. Hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:16 AM

20. Easy one. Nope.

 

So much so that I will be changing my registration to independent as soon as the Clinton is coronation is complete. Been a registered Democrat since 1976, but I can no longer accept the Party's shift to GOP lite. In 2008 I had some hope that maybe Obama was finally the change I had been hoping for, but I see now that for the neoliberal crowd, populism doesn't really exist beyond simple campaign rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:51 PM

40. I hear you. I think a lot of people will join you. The neoliberals have taken control of

 

our Party and will literally anything to hold down progressiveism.

The Wealthy don't wish us to die, but we have resources they "need" and if it brings our death, it's not personal, it's just business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:19 AM

21. nope.

and any dem who does doesn't have any business calling themselves a dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:32 PM

26. Of course they do

everyone who supports clinton candiate of top 1% support trad e deals like nafta and TPP.elections have consequens.they have choosen to back pro-trade deals candiate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:52 PM

35. No, I don't, especially after doctors without borders

came out against it. I don't want corporations to
decide that, what our courts do now either.

This is a big item for Trump as well as his support of
the blue collar workers, who have been forgotten by
the Third Way party. He is a liar, so we cannot believe
him, but both of those issues are attracting a lot of
voters to him.

These were the issues of our party until the seventies,
which were woefully dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:08 PM

37. According to polls, a lot more Democrats support 'free trade' than republicans. Trump read his base

well in knowing their opposition to trade agreements. He will 'rip them up'. Bernie will 'renegotiate' them. I know whom I support (and his first name starts with a 'B').

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:16 PM

38. Well Free Trade does have the word "Free" in it and I am afraid that's about as

 

deep as the Corporate Democrats go. They want the major corporations to be free. Not so much for the People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:27 PM

43. Apparently the republican base is not fooled by the "Free" the way Democrats are.

I suspect there is more to Democratic support than the word "Free" since they support international negotiations and agreements in general, but yours is an interesting opinion of Democrats from a liberal Democrat.

Why is the republican base not fooled by the word "Free"? IMHO, they are not known for their deep and intelligent insight into complex issues. And they are well known for their opposition to essentially all international agreements (which Trump perceives and led him to promise to 'tear them all up').

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:19 PM

39. Is it free trade or free labor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:53 PM

41. No. I'm not a neolib.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:48 PM

44. Do you have an iPhone? Mac? a PC? a Flat Screen TV? A Samsung phone?

If you have any of these items, then you directly support free trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:15 PM

45. What's your point?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:22 PM

48. We live in a global economy

We buy goods and services from companies from around the world. There's no realistic way to manage the economy without trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:07 PM

49. No one said anything about doing away with trade. The TPP isn't about trade it's about empowering

 

corporations to side-step regulations. It's about reducing wages around the world. It's about more and more profits for corporations.

We are engaged in a class war and either you side with the People and Sen Sanders or you side with the Big Corporations and Clinton. You decide. But remember, the big corporations in their quest for more and more and more have given us 2,500,000 homeless American children. Those that idolize capitalism don't care, rationalizing that it comes with the territory. I am hoping you don't think like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:08 PM

47. A guy called into a local show today

21 years ago he bought an American refrigerator. It lasted 19 years. He replaced it with a refrigerator made in Mexico. It lasted 2 years.
He now is looking for an American made one but can't find one.

All that stuff from China is in no way free trade. We put tiny tariffs on their stuff and they put huge tariffs on our stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:09 PM

50. But the key word is free. We are free to screw ourselves to make the corporations bigger and

 

bigger profits. Well, maybe we aren't doing it, our so called representatives are doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:29 AM

55. Then he isn't trying very hard; consumer reports even has a page for it

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/05/best-american-made-appliances/index.htm

All that stuff from China is in no way free trade.

Now you're getting it. China will never, ever agree to a free trade agreement with the US, because of the labor and environmental standards they would have to enforce. China bad, FTAs good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:42 AM

60. There aren't any labor rules in the TPP

just recommendations. Even if there were, do you think that the trade lawyers in charge of it are going to complain/rule against themselves over it? Enviromental standards?

What country in the agreement makes the things you listed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:12 AM

62. And union leaders being murdered isn't a violation of the agreements either

 

AFL-CIO’s Trumka: USTR Told Us Murder Isn’t A Violation Under U.S. Trade Deals

By Michael McAuliff - 04/22/2015 07:32 am ET | Updated Apr 22, 2015

~snip~


Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, testified to that claim at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on legislation to grant President Barack Obama so-called fast-track authority to cut at least two new enormous trade agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union. It appears to be the first time anyone has revealed such a stance on the part of a U.S. government that has been touting its efforts to improve wages and working conditions among its trading partners, relying in part on trade agreements.


But Trumka charged that the labor standards included in those trade deals are poorly enforced, and that before he would back the White House’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he wanted to see tougher labor provisions that could be enforced.


“When you say, ‘Oh these are some standards, they’re better than no standards,’ we were told by by the [United States Trade Representative] general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesn’t violate these standards, that perpetuating violence against a trade unionist doesn’t violate these agreements,” Trumka said, directing his remarks to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who backs the deals...


Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/fast-track-trade_n_7113412.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:42 AM

67. If you had a real argument you wouldn't have to resort to a lie like that

Brunei will be required to implement a minimum wage. Vietnam and Malaysia will be required to raise theirs. They have to certify that this is done before the first round of tariff cuts go into effect. All three will be required to allow unions to elect their own officers, and to allow those unions to affiliate internationally. None of them wanted to do that, but the tariff reductions were the incentive to get them to.

Either you never bothered to read the TPP and just reacted to shit you saw online, or you deliberately lied. Either way that's disappointing.

Enviromental standards?

Yes. Again, read the agreement. It's at the USTR's website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:53 AM

82. "But the document does not specify how any of those measures should work."

 

The TPP's Uneven Attempt at Labor Protection

ALANA SEMUELS JAN 22, 2016

~Snip~

The TPP’s Labour chapter reiterates that all members should adopt and maintain the labor rights of the ILO. It also calls for all participants to end child labor and forced labor, and to allow workers to form unions and collectively bargain. It requires a minimum-wage, and safety and health standards meant to prevent common abuses like overcrowding, fire hazards, and overwork. But the document does not specify how any of those measures should work. And that’s a big shortcoming, according to John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director with Human Rights Watch. The minimum wage, for example, could be set at a penny an hour—which wouldn’t do much to help workers.

Read more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/tpp-mexico-labor-rights/426501/


Colombia not enforcing U.S. trade deal labor standards -unions

WASHINGTON | BY DAVID LAWDER - Tue May 17, 2016 12:25am EDT

Colombia has failed to enforce worker protections in a free trade agreement with the United States, U.S. and Colombian labor unions said on Monday, raising questions about similar provisions in the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

In a complaint filed with a division of the U.S. Labor Department, the unions said threats and acts of violence against trade unionists in Colombia were neither properly investigated nor prosecuted.

The AFL-CIO and four Colombian unions said in the complaint that since the U.S.-Colombian trade deal took effect in 2011, some 99 Colombian workers and worker advocates were killed as they tried to exercise their rights. Six workers were kidnapped, and 955 death threats were received, the complaint said....

Read more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-colombia-trade-labor-idUSKCN0Y71G8


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:57 AM

83. We don't tell them how to raise the minimum wage, we just make them do it

It's not clear to me how many different ways a country can do a minimum wage, though.

In a complaint filed with a division of the U.S. Labor Department, the unions said threats and acts of violence against trade unionists in Colombia were neither properly investigated nor prosecuted.


Exactly. AFL-CIO can now file complaints with the U.S. Labor Department about shit like this, and they go to those evil "trade courts" people seem to hate. Without CAFTA AFL-CIO couldn't do a damn thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:59 AM

86. SoS Clinton had no problem telling the govt of Haiti it had to lower it's minimum wage....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #86)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:01 AM

88. Another reason I didn't vote for her (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #88)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:04 AM

91. But you just said we don't tell govts how to set the minimum wage. What happened?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:31 AM

95. Do we have an FTA with Haiti that I missed? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:45 AM

100. So you're saying that with the TTP we can't influence the minimum wage but without it we can?

 

And even though we have no authority to make sure the minimum wage isn't set at a penny this is guaranteeing and protecting workers rights in those countries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #100)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:48 AM

101. We did influence the minimun wage with the TPP

I don't know why you keep ignoring that. We forced all the Austalasian signatories to raise (and in some cases institute) their minimum wage, and they don't get market access until the plenary certifies they did so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #101)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:10 AM

105. We don't enforce the agreements we already have & the AFL-CIO prez calls the TPP a carbon copy:

 

Colombia not enforcing U.S. trade deal labor standards -unions

WASHINGTON | BY DAVID LAWDER - Tue May 17, 2016 12:25am EDT

Colombia has failed to enforce worker protections in a free trade agreement with the United States, U.S. and Colombian labor unions said on Monday, raising questions about similar provisions in the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

In a complaint filed with a division of the U.S. Labor Department, the unions said threats and acts of violence against trade unionists in Colombia were neither properly investigated nor prosecuted.

The AFL-CIO and four Colombian unions said in the complaint that since the U.S.-Colombian trade deal took effect in 2011, some 99 Colombian workers and worker advocates were killed as they tried to exercise their rights. Six workers were kidnapped, and 955 death threats were received, the complaint said....

~Snip~

The free trade deal was to guarantee Colombian workers the right to freely unionize and collectively bargain with employers. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal has similar provisions but also requires all 12 members, which include Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru, to establish minimum wages, working hours and occupational safety requirements.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the TPP labor provisions negotiated last year a "near carbon copy" of those in the Colombian trade deal and said they, too, would probably fail, driving down wages and standards in the United States

Read more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-colombia-trade-labor-idUSKCN0Y71G8


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #105)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:48 AM

107. And yet you want to take away the AFL-CIO's ability to sue Colombia over those outrages

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #107)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:52 AM

108. Bullshit. I want fair trade where the AFL-CIO sits at the damn table like Obama said he'd do

 

when he re did NAFTA. Which NEVER happened.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth. It's rude and completely dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #108)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:57 AM

109. Yes, you do. They're suing right now (that's what that complaint is part of)

You want to make that impossible for them to do. Again: why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #109)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:00 PM

110. If the unions were involved in drafting the FTAs they wouldn't be suing over the 99 murders

 

in Columbia.

Let that sink in...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #110)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:02 PM

112. The FTAs are why they can sue



Do you actually not understand that?

CAFTA allows AFL-CIO to sue foreign governments in those "evil trade courts" that people here for whatever reason hate.

They could not do that without CAFTA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:08 PM

113. Are you claiming unions wouldn't have the right to sue if they got to help draft the FTAs?

 

That's crazy talk!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #113)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:11 PM

114. They did help to draft the FTAs (just not as much as I would have liked)

but if CAFTA were abandoned and we went back to PNTR they would not have the right to sue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #114)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:23 PM

117. "Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected." That's not helping draft the TTP. That's being shut out

 

of the process. 600 corporate lobbyist got their say though....

Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP)

The signing of the TPP is only the beginning of the process to make the TPP law – not the end. Each of the 12 TPP countries has to go through a domestic process to approve or reject the TPP. In fact, that’s what last year’s Fast Track fight was all about: to create the process by which Congress will vote on the TPP. We are doing all we can to make sure America’s working families are educated about the TPP and organized to fight against it.

The AFL-CIO provided the Obama administration with ideas to improve U.S. trade policies so that they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, our ideas were rejected. The final TPP will not create jobs, protect the environment or ensure safe imports. Rather, it appears modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement that boosts global corporate profits while leaving working families behind.

The TPP's backers--mostly big business lobbies--boast the trade agreement as a “gold standard,” and the Obama administration promises it will promote and respect labor rights and raise wages for U.S. workers and workers across the Pacific Rim. The grim conditions facing workers in TPP partner countries were not effectively addressed in the TPP text or the side agreements called "consistency plans." Too many commitments to improve labor rights and environmental practices are vague, and the proposed enforcement scheme relies wholly on the discretion of the next administration. The failure of the TPP to incorporate needed improvements to labor commitments that already have proved inadequate in existing trade deals belies the agreement’s stated commitment to workers. Instead, the TPP contains strict, clear and strong protections for foreign investors and pharmaceutical monopolies. It is clear that, as currently drafted, the TPP would increase corporate profits and skew benefits to economic elites, while leaving workers to bear the brunt of the TPP’s shortcomings, including lost jobs, lower wages and continued repression of worker rights.

During the negotiations, labor union input was sidelined, especially in comparison to corporate input. Here's more information on the risks of the TPP:....

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP


Labor's So-Called "Seat at the Table" at TPP Negotiations

For the average citizen, the negotiating process for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is anything but transparent. The negotiators for the United States and the other 11 TPP countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Japan, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) meet in private. The negotiating texts are not public. Even Members of Congress do not have unlimited access and cannot seek advice from outside experts.

The TPP, like many of the failed trade agreements that came before it, will cover issues including health, food safety, conservation and environmental protections, Wall Street regulations, labor rights, and a whole host of other issues that, under our system of government, would have to be debated publicly in Congress before becoming law. But because the U.S. government treats trade deals differently than all other policies—it is allowed to negotiate rules that affect our lives in these areas behind closed doors. This is undemocratic.

I’ve heard “labor” has a seat at the table and gets to see the TPP texts. Is this true?


No. Under U.S. law, there are several trade advisers—private citizens appointed by the President—who advise on trade policies. Of these advisers, the vast majority

(85% according to the Washington Post) represent businesses. About 5% of the advisers represent labor. The other 10% represent local and state government officials, academics, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Labor advisers are allowed to review and advise on draft U.S. proposals—advice that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) can freely ignore. But we are locked out of the negotiating room and cannot see the actual negotiating texts, which combine the proposals from all 12 countries and evolve over time as negotiations progress. Nor can we share what we learn with members without violating national security laws.


http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Labor-s-So-Called-Seat-at-the-Table-at-TPP-Negotiations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:13 PM

115. 99 union members and leaders were murdered in Columbia. CAFTA FAILED to protect those workers.

 

The US ignored those violations. The US labor unions now have to sue because the US govt failed to do it's job in enforcing the trade agreement.

The US labor unions aren't the ones designated to enforce treaty agreements are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #115)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:21 PM

116. Well actually yes they are

The whole premise is that governments in developing countries are forced to allow local unions to elect their own officers and affiliate internationally. The international union they choose to affiliate with is generally AFL-CIO (just because it's the 900-pound gorilla) but is sometimes SEIU.

CAFTA FAILED to protect those workers

And PNTR failed to protect workers too. Now AFL can sue Colombia. Under PNTR they couldn't. That's better.

Again, I think you should explain why you want to remove AFL/CIO's ability to sue Colombia. It makes no sense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #116)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:40 PM

118. NO. The ILAB division of the Department of labor is in charge of over seeing FTA enforcement.

 

And the USTR is the one designated to enforce the treaty.

http://trade.gov/fta/compliance.asp Do you see trade unions listed anywhere on that page?


And again you repeat the lie that unions would lose the right to sue if they were REALLY included in the creation of the FTAs.

Trade Negotiation & Enforcement

~Snip~

Objectives

through bilateral partnerships, improve other governments' enforcement of laws and policies that protect workers' rights;
expand the ability of workers and their representatives to protect workers' rights;

increase governments' understanding of workers' rights, including specific labor commitments in trade agreements and the benefits of enforcing these obligations; and strengthen employer compliance with international standards and national labor laws.

ILAB tracks the implementation of these objectives by monitoring how well:

governments are adopting or revising laws, regulations, policies, and/or other instruments that strengthen worker rights;
labor inspectorates and other relevant enforcement agencies are improving their performance in conducting labor inspections and enforcing national labor laws; and

employers are increasing participation in effective social compliance programs (e.g., using the ILAB Toolkit for Responsible Businesses or participating in the Better Work program).

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/trade

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #118)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:28 PM

119. Since I never claimed that, I obviously haven't repeated it

That was your invention. The unions' right to sue does not depend on who advised the teeaty negotiators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:09 PM

124. Why don't you back up your claims

since you have claimed to have read it.

Free trade agreements are used to destroy enviromental regulations not the other way around. Mexico sued us over dolphin safe labeling and won. Canada is suing us over the Keystone pipeline.

The WTO could also sue my state for our ban of the sale of non US made flags but they chose not to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:38 PM

51. No NO and no.

Not at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:42 AM

52. ...

 

"If the Democratic Party would fight as hard for the Working Class as the Republican Party fights for the Ruling Class, the Republicans would be a powerless minority party within a few election cycles.

The Democratic Party knows this, the Republican Party knows this, the Ruling Class knows this- and they've been astonishingly successful at making sure the Working Class never learns this." ~ Anonymous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sancho (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:13 AM

63. I clicked the first link ....Written by a member of a right-wing "freedom" think tank

 

I think I'll skip the rest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:32 AM

66. Other articles by DANIEL BIER...there's more than one person with that name

Which of these do you disagree with?

Legal Weed Is Slowly Ending the Drug War
Jimmy Carter Was a Better President Than You Think
Scalia’s Defense of the Death Penalty Is in Tatters
Are We Executing Innocent People?
Confiscating 'Criminals’' Property Is a Cop Racket

Again...you need to look before you leap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:49 AM

69. I clicked to the links to the author....A true liberal bashing conservative

 

He is against government funded mass transit, raising the minimum wage...on and on. Pretty much everything liberals and Democrats claim to stand for -- or at least used to stand for.

(Although they might agree with progressives on personal on some issues like easing drug laws.)

Hey if you want to use the right wing to set us straight about the wonders of "free trade" ...That's your prerogative I guess. I don't know what Democrats are supposed to stand for anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:01 AM

71. Pick whatever sources you want. Very few will agree 100% with anyone.

Some of those links are clearly neutral or progressive. Some relate to scholarly studies.

I repeat the original point. NAFTA is not a simple yes or no.

I picked tobacco alongside migrants in the 60s in GA. I worked in a textile mill in SC in the 70s. When those jobs were lost to NAFTA, many were replaced with BMW, Michelin, etc. with better paying jobs from European investments. Mill villages were not "progressive".

The South still resists unions, but it's not ALL bad. Some parts of trade agreements are good, others are bad for US workers.

If you look at the facts, it's stupid to throw out the baby with the bath. That's what Bernie want to do. It's naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #71)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:07 AM

73. I agree with Ron Paul on certain things...like his opposition to the War in Iraq

 

But as for the larger questions about the basic role of government and the total primacy of "free markets" over the public interest, he's 180 degrees from what Democrats claim to stand for.

..or at least used to stand for. It's becoming harder to tell the difference these days.

So great. Let's just let corporations bargain away our national sovereignty and our standard of living so that those wonderful Big Corporations can do whatever the hell they want to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #73)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:29 AM

74. War? Trade?

My father was an Army officer during the 50's who went to school on the GI Bill after WWII (50,000 Americans killed in Korea). I grew up on military bases.

I was A1 in the Vietnam draft, got a college deferment, and never got called (60,000 Americans killed).

The Iraq wars were minor in terms of American losses. Still, I burned a draft card while in college. We stood up in the 60s and early 70s to stop the Vietnam war.

I didn't see any real effort to stop Iraq. One or two politicians' votes have nothing to do with the general population rising up against war. In today's America, we glorify war!!! No one is seriously making the military budget an issue in this election with terrorists shooting people everyday.

Inequality is not a US issue - it's a worldwide economic issue that has been growing for decades. Manipulation of free markets is part of the problem. There is not enough international regulation of trade and monetary abuse. That seems obvious from the Panama papers, even though it was well-known for years.

Some trade agreements were purely created by corporations, but others had a lot of people at the table. It's been a mix. I think there are about 20 trade agreements now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #74)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:35 AM

76. I'm not discussing the large subject of war...only as an example

 

(I was in college but foolishly dropped out during the Vietnam War, which made me prime 1A Grade A chuck meat for the draft. Fortunately, they held the lottery shortly after that, I had the right birthday, so I escaped getting drafted.)

No one is saying there should be no trade agreements. But the devil is ion the details.

As for that link, I was simply pointing out that using someone who has an inherent (and outspoken) bias against basic Liberalism is not a neutral source of objective analysis on the issue, or a reasonable filter for a critique of Sanders positions -- unless one is already a conservative and wants to conform their existing biases.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:29 AM

56. None of this matters because..

 

she is a woman and your being sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:37 AM

59. Some parts of all trade agreements are good for the US, some parts not. We will never get 100%

 

of anything. It's a matter of the perfect vs the good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:14 AM

64. Yeah those silly domestic laws should be gotten rid of to make life easier for Corporations

 

It's a matter of the BAD vs. the good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:45 AM

68. This is a ridiculous argument though: the countries joining have to *raise* their minimum wage

On what planet do "Corporations" want that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:57 AM

70. "We'll pay you $1.25 a day instead of $1."

 

And then we can get rid of that stinky $10 an hour we pay to Americans. Maybe we can apply that $1.25 standard to Americans too, even though they are totally different societies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:45 AM

77. But right now, today, they can move to those countries and just pay $1

After TPP goes into effect they have to pay $1.25. Why would they want that cost to go up?

And any tariffs are paid by their customers, not them; they don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:16 AM

65. Who cares? Trade is now off the table. Along with fracking. Universal Health....etc.

 

It's all about how bad Trump is and The First Woman President.

The rest of it? Fergedaboutit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:00 AM

87. Absolutely. No reputable economist opposes free trade.

Why do you think President Obama has signed so many free trade agreements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:20 AM

93. TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452

There is a difference between corporate created "free trade" agreements and fair trade.

And the majority of the House Democrats understand that. That's why Obama needed the GOP House members to pass fast track:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/18/1394407/-These-are-the-28-Democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track-twice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #93)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

102. The TPP is not a "free trade agreement".

Even Paul Krugman, who supports free trade, does not support the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:30 AM

106. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:53 AM

104. No (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:02 PM

111. Kissinger helped spawn NAFTA.

Like a friendly bridge between Poppy and Bill.



Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace

Last night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands.


By Greg Grandin
The Nation,FEBRUARY 5, 2016

EXCERPT...

 Then in the early 1990s, Hillary Rodham Clinton would again be caught up in events related to Kissinger’s actions. Her husband, Bill Clinton, embraced Kissinger, which began Kissinger’s apotheosis into his current incarnation as a bipartisan elder statesman, invoked by politicians who want to appear “serious.”

As first lady, Hillary Clinton spent the early months of her husband’s administration drafting healthcare-reform legislation, only to see it put on the back burner by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Kissinger, in his role as a global consultant, had played a critical role in bringing the various parties who would write that trade treaty together during the previous George H.W. Bush administration. Kissinger continued his NAFTA advocacy with Bill Clinton. As Jeff Faux writes in his excellent The Global Class War, Kissinger was “the perfect tutor” for Clinton, who was “trying to convince Republicans and their business allies that they could count on him to champion Reagan’s vision.”

By September 1993, Hillary’s healthcare bill was ready to be presented to the public and to Congress. But so was NAFTA. All of Kissinger’s allies in the White House, including Mack McLarty, who would soon join Kissinger Associates, pushed Clinton to prioritize NAFTA over healthcare. Clinton did. It was Kissinger who came up with the idea of having past presidents stand behind Clinton as he signed the treaty. Reagan was sick and Nixon still non grata, but “flanked by former presidents Bush, Carter and Ford at a White House ceremony, Mr. Clinton delivers an impassioned speech,” The Wall Street Journal reported. No such presidential backdrop was assembled to help support Hillary Clinton’s healthcare proposal. By August 1994, healthcare was dead.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/



Too bad about all those jobs and middle class. Losers. They should stop complaining a get a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 02:17 PM

120. I'm currently living in my home state of Michigan.

 

No trade deal has worked out well for Michigan thus far, and I have no hope that any of them will work out well here in the future.

If Michigan goes for Trump over Hillary in November, it will be because of the trade deals, and not much more. People here are just sick of being told that everything is rosy when it simply is not.

I've been talking about this for decades, and I have nothing more to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 04:54 PM

123. Why do you always pick on Goldman Sachs, as opposed to Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, or Barclays?

From my point of view, MFN for China was a far worse proposition than NAFTA. Many jobs that might have moved to Mexico and ultimately strengthened their economy went to China instead. A Mexican economy more on par with Canada or Costa Rica would be a good trading partner and be good for the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #123)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:30 AM

126. PNTR for China is the culprit that NAFTA always gets blamed for

They've done a really good job of convincing Americans to be angry about the wrong thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #126)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:58 AM

128. If we have to ship jobs, I'd much rather keep them in Central America or the Caribbean

We get so focused on Asia and the Middle East when there is so much positive impact we can have here in the Americas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:48 AM

127. Not only no

But HELL no!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:21 AM

136. hell no and no!

there are too many of our rights being handed to the corporations - both domestic and internationally:
they will have the right to copyright and patent at their discretion - anyone who sues for their "rights" or even a right protected under local or international law will be sued for damages and loss of revenue.

the tpp and tpip has sections which over rule or outlaw any local or state or government law or statutes designed to stop, prohibit or keep out gmo seeds/plants/trees/fish, mining operations, logging, pipelines of oil or gas or fracking or any corporate venture that is not in the best interests of the local or state community's citizens.

the purpose of those Free Trade policies is immanent domain over any land - public or private, any resource - public or private - everything will belong to them. even books and ebooks such as gutenberg press - that have been in the public domain for years - will now be owned by them - they aim to create and purchase the rights to everything.

this means eventually or land, water, air, food, etc - will belong to them and we will have to pay for them at prices they set.

greed, plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:57 AM

137. Clinton Spokesman Brian Fallon on Hillary’s Economic Message | Video link below

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:03 AM

138. No. I never have,

but that's no secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:18 AM

139. HRC Owns TPP and Would Pass It As Well as TTIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread