How will Obama's TPP deal help the American
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
Allows us to sell cars to Japan.
No idea what the final details are, but it will help some American workers and hurt some, hopefully with a net gain. I thought you'd be for free trade?
Yea, the right's unified effort to squash this pretty much illustrates that. Any bill Obama puts his name on is evil.
Deals like TPP, NAFTA, and the gutting of unions are why we are in the situation we are in now, and that is both parties' fault.
Wasn't TPP President Obama AND the Congressional Republicans' deal?
Wasn't TPP President Obama AND the Congressional Republicans' deal?
Last edited:
No, it was negotiated by the US Trade Representative. Congress still has to vote on it, and it doesn't have broad support from either party.
Oh, I thought that a lot of the Republicans were for it and a lot of Democrats were against it. I may have it confused with something else.
You talking about Bernie?
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) labeled a new trade deal finalized by the Obama administration on Monday as “disastrous,” and said he would work to defeat it.
Sanders, the Vermont senator leading Hillary Clinton in polls of the early-voting state New Hampshire, said the Trans-Pacific Partnership will lead to the loss of U.S. jobs, adding he was “disappointed but not surprised” by the decision to complete it.
“Wall Street and other big corporations have won again,” Sanders said.
Sanders says the agreement follows other trade deals with “Mexico, China and other low-wage countries that have cost millions of jobs and shuttered tens of thousands of factories across the United States.”
“In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat this agreement,” he said.
“We need trade policies that benefit American workers and consumers, not just the CEOs of large multinational corporations.”
To prove this point further, the Conservatives up north here are all for it, and the Liberals dead set against it...
Let's dig a little deeper into this. Mainstream Republicans getting cash from Wall Street are all for it. Conservatives, not so much.
I think your definition of a conservative and mine differ. A fiscal conservative should be all for free trade.
Edited to add: BTW, I assure you I will receive no cash from "Wall Street" for my post.
If you change that to FAIR FREE TRADE, I think you may be accurate. When the government has the ability to control numbers, the scales get to be a bit tilted. When you remove restrictions on numbers and comparative value, US would fair pretty well.
You talking about Hillary?
Just days after the U.S. and 11 nations released a monumental trade deal that still faces a fight in Congress, Hillary Clinton says she does not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Speaking with Judy Woodruff Wednesday, the Democratic presidential candidate said that as of today, given what she knows of the deal, it does not meet her bar for creating jobs, raising wages for Americans and advancing national security.
Hmm -- there are a number of countries in Europe that would disagree with you on that. But I'm not sure what it has to do with this.
Funny isn't it. When she was Secretary of State she was all for it. Many politicians suffer from that same allergy known as "I was in favor of it until I was opposed to it."
You sure about that?
Military
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Firefighters
Highways
Bridges
I kinda like that stuff.
Wait, you're saying our nation's public schools are a success?
Thanks for the laugh.
They could use improvement for sure, but I wouldn't call them an abject failure.
I'm assuming you took advantage of them? I wouldn't consider you a moron.
Socialism takes away incentive to become better. Socialism isn't what you listed. Socialism is the belief that govt will make your life better by taking from somebody else, spending it on things and people that they like. If you think life in France, Sweden, England, Greece , etc is so good, get the hell out of our country. Our standard of living is the greatest that's ever been imagined and it's a directly related to capitalism. As Margret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other's people money . Europe has benefitted from our country's willingness to defend them at great cost to us and none for them. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have become the most dominant country the world has ever known. Socialism is a disease that robs people of the desire to become better, the desire for their children to become better and their country to become better.
I would consider them an abject failure, especially now that I am shopping private schools for my kids. There is no comparison.
Bernie Sanders isn't proposing we change the entire way our country works. We already have a lot of socialist benefits and our country is better for them.
Free market capitalism doesn't work either. That's why we have OSHA and labor laws and environmental regulations and things like that.
That may be, but not everybody can afford a private school. Should education only be for those that can afford it, or are we better off as a nation when more people have at least some level of education?
I started to post something funny here, but I get your point. I'm not advocating for shutting their doors, but a candidate whose sole platform was to kill the teacher's union would get my vote. There are public school systems that are fantastic, however, it directly correlates to income levels of the parents of the kids attending.
My mother was a Director in the school board and she sent me to Private school if that tells you anything.
Sewers
Water
Landfills
Public defenders
Street lights
Sidewalks
Police
FBI
CIA
DHS
State and national parks
Museums and monuments
FDA
We are already a lot more socialist than a lot of people realize or want to admit.
I started to post something funny here, but I get your point. I'm not advocating for shutting their doors, but a candidate whose sole platform was to kill the teacher's union would get my vote. There are public school systems that are fantastic, however, it directly correlates to income levels of the parents of the kids attending.
My mother was a Director in the school board and she sent me to Private school if that tells you anything.
There is absolutely no question that our public schools can use improvement. My mother wasn't on the school board, but was a teacher. My parents couldn't have afforded private school for me.
Our schools have any number of problems which are beyond the scope of this thread to address. The same can be said for just about every program we have as well as every private business too.
As far as the school are concerned we are better off having them than not. There are issues, but I don't see how anybody can argue that we would be better off without them. (I know you aren't making that statement)
Directly funded by capitalism at unprecedented levels. All one has to do is look at what we have vs what England, France etc has in the way of benefits associated with their govt mandates. Again, all the great socialist countries have benefitted from our largess. We defend them so they can bankrupt themselves giving the people what they want. Greece is just the start of it. France can't put ships out to sea. Look how far England has fallen, once the largest now barely able to defend itself. Again, our stuff has been funded by capitalism and if you think it's better elsewhere, feel free to leave. Unfortunately, those countries probably have restrictions on who gets into their countries.
That's why we have courts. The EPA is a travesty. It is a political football for the left. The first thing I would do if I were president is abolish it, send all the employees to the US -Mexico border. I would then ask for congress to pass a law that states any regulations proposed by any govt agency be approved by 3/4 of Congress.
I really don't understand your point ... of course this stuff is funded by capitalism, but they are still socialist programs, and I haven't even listed half of them.
Again, Sanders isn't trying to make us a purely socialist country. You can't talk about our unprecedented standard of living, which is partially attributed to all of these socialist programs and ideas and completely denounce socialism. We are already a largely socialist country.
Without the EPA, our country would be unlivable by this point. At one point the majority of streams in WV were poisoned by coal runoff and nearly the entire state was deforested. Remember the smog in LA? You have a pretty short memory or are unaware of a lot of history if you don't think the EPA has had a positive impact.
Go ahead and cherry pick though if you want to try to make a point ... but take everything I've listed so far, and think of everything else that there is and tell me honestly that we would be better off with none of it.
Spoken like a true believer that industry should be allowed to do whatever the heck it pleases, and the environment be damned. The Pure Food and Drug Act, OSHA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, all were passed because industry didn't care about anything but profits. As for your assertion "That's why we have courts" the notion is laughable -- corporations have armies of lawyers and damn near unlimited funds to fight in court. Look up Erin Brockovich (the real person, not the movie). It took almost 30 years to win that case. Your last suggestion might have some merit -- enabling legislation passed by Congress gives agencies pretty broad authority to enact new regulations without much further oversight, maybe that should be revisited.