Of course not. The question is - do we the real protection of strong unions, progressive taxes and (Reply #124)

In the discussion thread: I Simply Do Not Understand Obama's Support Of The TPP. [View all]

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 12:08 PM

pampango (24,691 posts)

124. Of course not. The question is - do we the real protection of strong unions, progressive taxes and

effective corporate regulation or the illusory protection of high tariffs? Just because tariffs hurt "them" (foreigners) does not necessarily mean that they help "us" (Americans). That is why Democrats have historically been the party of low tariffs.

There are no historical or current examples of countries with strong middle classes based on high tariffs without strong unions, progressive taxes and effective regulation. And if a country has the latter, it does not need high tariffs.

There are plenty of historical and current examples of countries with strong middle classes and low tariffs. That is because the "protection" they provide their workers is "real" in the form of strong unions, high/progressive taxes, effective regulation and a viable safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

127 replies	Author	Time	Post
I Simply Do Not Understand Obama's Support Of The TPP. [View all]	TheMastersNemesis	Sep 2013	OP
Of course he's a corporate Dem.	polichick	Sep 2013	#1
Wages of 23 cents an hour wow	warrant46	Sep 2013	#72
Reality.	grahamhgreen	Sep 2013	#83
I am not stumped at all.	99Forever	Sep 2013	#2
In A Way I Am Not Stumped Too.	TheMastersNemesis	Sep 2013	#4
Funny, that period you described is the one period of real wage growth in 40 years	Recursion	Sep 2013	#8
........	daleanime	Sep 2013	#12
Yes?	Recursion	Sep 2013	#14
No,	daleanime	Sep 2013	#15
Agreed.	progressoid	Sep 2013	#22
Plus one. I share your impression.	Enthusiast	Sep 2013	#48
I support and share your expression also. n/t	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#104
I agree! n/t	sabrina 1	Sep 2013	#123
More what? Meth? Fast food? Prisons?	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#32
Goods, in total, by inflation-adjusted dollar value	Recursion	Sep 2013	#33
You got a link for that assertion? Are you counting cooking hamburgers as manufacturing?	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#34
Why not? bu$h did.	RC	Sep 2013	#62
It's not good for jobs. and it's really not a trade agreement	cali	Sep 2013	#43
Copyright is great for some working people	Recursion	Sep 2013	#91
EFF certainly disagrees	cali	Sep 2013	#100
And in terms of copyright - it is especially about	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#114
Notice you didn't respond to my request to a link for your assertion. Figures.	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#86
Sorry, I assumed you could google	Recursion	Sep 2013	#88
You made the assertion, not me. Of course, when flipping HAMBURGERS are counted as manufacturing	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#95
Line cooks at McDonalds are not counted as manufacturing	Recursion	Sep 2013	#96
Sorry, no link.	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#126
True, you did not post any link to back up your claim that line cooks are counted	Recursion	Sep 2013	#127
Here's another graph of the change in manufacturing output and employment.	pampango	Sep 2013	#97
Huh. I thought I included that one	Recursion	Sep 2013	#99
Fast food was re-classified as manufacturing about ten years ago.	pa28	Sep 2013	#70
The huge factories where McDonalds assembles hamburgers are classed as manufacturing	Recursion	Sep 2013	#89
Does that include McDonald's and Burger King? That statistic isnt helping American	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#76
As I said, we're manufacturing more with much fewer people	Recursion	Sep 2013	#90
So manufacturing more isnt necessarily a good thing. We need to protect American	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#93
I don't think we need to protect manufacturing jobs anymore than wheat threshing jobs	Recursion	Sep 2013	#94
It dismantled the big manufacturing concerns concentrated in the Midwest...	WCGreen	Sep 2013	#73
It may be good for the giant agriculture corporations but not for workers.	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#75
Do you support the TPP? If so, please explain why. nm	rhett o rick	Sep 2013	#77
Did I say I support it? No	Recursion	Sep 2013	#87
.	jsr	Sep 2013	#19
Neither am I stumped: ye shall be known by your works and this and the Keystone Pipeline would	indepat	Sep 2013	#81
Maybe just a dirt magnet... pulling them out of the wall to get caught?	Tigress DEM	Sep 2013	#3
If he were doing that, "they" would have been caught and exposed long ago.	truebluegreen	Sep 2013	#80
He's already signed three "free" trade agreements	MannyGoldstein	Sep 2013	#5
Ah yes, the f**king KORUS agreement.	Chan790	Sep 2013	#59
I like to use the term COSTLY trade agreements.... It's more accurate and costly is the opposite	grahamhgreen	Sep 2013	#82
That's an excellent reframe of the term.	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#101
It's mostly about soybeans and wheat	Recursion	Sep 2013	#6
......	99Forever	Sep 2013	#17
"Some groups will be better off, others will be worse off." Exactly..	SomethingFishy	Sep 2013	#21
Middle class?	progressoid	Sep 2013	#23
Looks like NAFTA slowed that decline, doesn't it?	Recursion	Sep 2013	#25
If all the US wanted to do was sell soybeans,	Art_from_Ark	Sep 2013	#27
We'd like to keep doing that, and expand it to other asian countries	Recursion	Sep 2013	#41
Who is this "we" you speak of? The 1%? The multinational corporations?	Enthusiast	Sep 2013	#49
Well, my family who grow soybeans, for one	Recursion	Sep 2013	#92
As Monsanto might say:	Petrushka	Sep 2013	#46
one more time: this is not really a trade agreement.	cali	Sep 2013	#45
Have you bothered to look into the effect that NAFTA had on the jobs in this country?	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#102
Jobs? Employment went up after NAFTA	Recursion	Sep 2013	#105
The emplyment going up had more to do with	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#111
TPP	SamKnause	Sep 2013	#7
Corporations and the 1% have not really changed since the 19th Century.	Enthusiast	Sep 2013	#50
As Krugman pointed out yesterday,	deutsey	Sep 2013	#57
I would say...	Oilwellian	Sep 2013	#98
You are right, of course.............nt	Enthusiast	Sep 2013	#106
Do we know exactly what is in it?	dkf	Sep 2013	#9
It Is Very LIkely To Be LIke NAFTA. It Will Be More Far Reaching.	TheMastersNemesis	Sep 2013	#10
Why doesn't just the secrecy itself get this put on the radar?	dkf	Sep 2013	#11
Just read this post and my stomach is sinking.	dkf	Sep 2013	#13
dfk...Public Citizen has the best detailed explanation and links	KoKo	Sep 2013	#64
They say that he is very smart. Could he be planning for his retirement?	AnotherMcIntosh	Sep 2013	#16
you're stumped whether he's a corporatist or not?	Doctor_J	Sep 2013	#18
Obama's support of TPP is easily explained.	HooptieWagon	Sep 2013	#20
Obama has some tricks up his sleeve	mwrguy	Sep 2013	#24
Oh, good grief, REALLY?	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#31
I think mwrguy is being sarcastic	Skittles	Sep 2013	#35
gfbnr'tbj]pobm	WilliamPitt	Sep 2013	#63
As Ed says "Lets Get To Work"	Left Coast2020	Sep 2013	#26
MSNBC will slap Ed down.	Enthusiast	Sep 2013	#53
"Besides the TPP is primarily a GOP initiative." not according to this	solarhydrocan	Sep 2013	#28
You mean the person I keep hearing is our inevitable next president?	hughee99	Sep 2013	#125
Saw printouts for this	2naSalit	Sep 2013	#29
Nth dimensional chess and shit, doncha know?	Th1onein	Sep 2013	#30
Isn't this the 124on234x234 time were Obama is "supposed" to fuck something up and doesn't?	uponit7771	Sep 2013	#36
Virtually every facet of his ..	sendero	Sep 2013	#37
+1 That's it, right there. n/t	Egalitarian Thug	Sep 2013	#67
I wish people would stop pretending that this is a free trade agreement.	Democracyinkind	Sep 2013	#38
I don't understand it either. Looking for a good explanation. n/t	Laelth	Sep 2013	#39
Soybeans	Recursion	Sep 2013	#42
You sure this isn't a move to lock up markets before China can enter them?	Laelth	Sep 2013	#47
We need tariffs, not trade deals!	B Calm	Sep 2013	#40
Exactly.	Enthusiast	Sep 2013	#55
I guess your response means you aren't very willing to kickstart	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#103
If tariffs magically produced a strong middle class, FDR would have been for them not against them.	pampango	Sep 2013	#107
We didn't need tariffs in the 1930's and 40's. We had a strong union labor movement back then and	B Calm	Sep 2013	#108
People were not making a "livable wage" in the 1930's. FDR lowered tariffs because	pampango	Sep 2013	#113
Everybody loved FDR, but just like Obama, I don't agree with everything he did.	B Calm	Sep 2013	#115
Indeed we disagree. I think Europe proves that FDR's ideas still work today.	pampango	Sep 2013	#118
Ronald reagan was a globalist too. I am more	B Calm	Sep 2013	#120
"... the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy" seems to be damning with faint	pampango	Sep 2013	#122
you're stumped? really?	piratefish08	Sep 2013	#44
I don't understand why you are stumped.	LWolf	Sep 2013	#51
Payback For His Corporate Benefactors	cantbeserious	Sep 2013	#52
among other things for me.	Puzzledtraveller	Sep 2013	#54
How is this confusing?	TBF	Sep 2013	#56
Good synopsis. DADT and gay marriage didn't cost the owning class money	Doctor_J	Sep 2013	#68
I don't understand why a lot of seemingly-liberal Democratic Congresspeople support it either.	Chan790	Sep 2013	#58
Where do they get the majority of their	enlightenment	Sep 2013	#61
The Supreme Court's decision for "Citizens United" allowed Corporations	KoKo	Sep 2013	#65
+1000 !!!!	orpupilofnature57	Sep 2013	#79
Obama may be able to get 'fast track' and the TPP itself through the Senate, but	pampango	Sep 2013	#66
Hell the House will fight just because they hate him.	TBF	Sep 2013	#69
Part of it is racism and ODS but their base has been skeptical of trade for a long time.	pampango	Sep 2013	#71
That actually makes a lot of sense -	TBF	Sep 2013	#85
The house approved Obama's Korea free trade deal w/ 219 R's and 59 d's.	pa28	Sep 2013	#74
The deal that Bush had largely crafted years ago, no surprise they supported it.	tritsofme	Sep 2013	#84
A thinking person has to wonder just how many tens of	truedelphi	Sep 2013	#112
Maybe the reason you don't understand it is...	gulliver	Sep 2013	#60
Give an example.	WinkyDink	Sep 2013	#117
SCOTUS deciding to give corporations the Privilege of Owning	orpupilofnature57	Sep 2013	#78
23 cents an hour is more than is paid either to Salvation Army for Good Will handicapped workers.	lonestarnot	Sep 2013	#109
Oh no! Not the "Precious Merican Sovereignty" card!!!	RB TexLa	Sep 2013	#110
Yes, American workers should lose out to "the world."	WinkyDink	Sep 2013	#116
People in most places know their country is a small part of a big world and	pampango	Sep 2013	#119
I don't think it's exceptional for working people wanting more job protection. Globalists	B Calm	Sep 2013	#121
Of course not. The question is - do we the real protection of strong unions, progressive taxes and	pampango	Sep 2013	#124

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.