A Sanders announcement 'within days'?

[GG]

 

Negotiating the deal in secret, creating laws that make it near impossible for nation states to regulate international corporations while creating a codified means for corporations to sue governments without appeal, US civil law being subject to UN review and tribunals -- yeah... nothing to worry about with the TPP at all.

 

That's quite the laundry list of protectionist scaremongering. Do you ever wonder how a country with 5% of the global population generates nearly a quarter of the global economic activity?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

That's quite the laundry list of protectionist scaremongering. Do you ever wonder how a country with 5% of the global population generates nearly a quarter of the global economic activity?

 

There's quite the laundry list of reasons to be concerned, or at least suspect of the TPP. There's also a need for some elements of the TPP. But it'd be a lot easier to understand the issue and its nuances if the deal points were made more public and transparent.

[truth on hold]

 

That's quite the laundry list of protectionist scaremongering. Do you ever wonder how a country with 5% of the global population generates nearly a quarter of the global economic activity?

No, but its a good question. Why do you think thats the case?

[GG]

 

There's quite the laundry list of reasons to be concerned, or at least suspect of the TPP. There's also a need for some elements of the TPP. But it'd be a lot easier to understand the issue and its nuances if the deal points were made more public and transparent.

 

How about a more rational view?

No, but its a good question. Why do you think thats the case?

 

Because the fundamental reason for this nation to be born was free commerce, including open trade.

[IDBillzFan]

 

But it'd be a lot easier to understand the issue and its nuances if the deal points were made more public and transparent.

 

Which is why criticizing the actual deal is pissing in the wind. You can't criticize something for which you do not have all the details.

 

The secrecy bit? Absolutely. It's unfortunate, but many on the right are willing to accept the deal being done in secret if only because it's making progressive heads explode throughout the country. And while enjoyable, it's not a reason to allow this, like everything else the WH does, to be done behind locked doors.

[B-Man]

Another question.

 

Why is Registered Independent (and fiercely proud of it) Bernie Sanders running for the Democrat nomination ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[....lybob]

Most (not all, but most) of the countries that would be included in the TPP are poorer and more labor-abundant than the United States. Standard trade theory has a clear prediction of what happens when the United States expands trade with such countries: total national income rises in both countries but so much income is redistributed upwards within the United States that most workers are made worse off. This is sometimes called “the curse of Stolper-Samuelson”, after the theory that first predicted it. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it’s not just a theory, but a pretty good explanation for (part of) the dismal performance of wages for most American workers in recent decades and the rise in inequality. And the scale of the wage-losses are much, much larger than commonly realized—it’s not just those workers who lose their jobs to imports. Instead, the majority of American workers (those without a 4-year college degree) see wage declines as a result of reduced trading costs. The intuition is simply that while waitresses and landscapers might not lose their jobs to imports, their wages are hurt by having to compete with trade-displaced apparel and steel workers.

 

http://www.epi.org/blog/no-the-tpp-wont-be-good-for-the-middle-class/

Perhaps it is time for a profit and loss statement of its costs and benefits. Undeniably, free trade has been a bonanza for the top 1 percent and many among our top 10 percent. As U.S. manufacturers shut down scores of thousands of U.S. factories to finance new plants in Asia, their production costs plummeted. Wages and benefits for Asians were, and are still, but a fraction of those of American workers.

Health, safety, and environmental standards were in some cases almost nonexistent. The eight-story garment factory in Bangladesh that collapsed in April, killing 1,100 workers, mostly women, and injuring another 2,500, would never have passed a U.S. building inspection.

After having shifted production overseas and dramatically lowered costs, U.S. transnationals saw a surge in profits. These were used to push corporate salaries into the stratosphere, increase dividends to shareholders, and keep the Washington lobbyists working the Hill day and night for fast track and free trade. And the lifestyle of our corporate elites changed. Where their fathers walked sooty factory floors in smokestack towns in World War II, these masters of the universe fly Gulfstream Vs to Davos and Dubai to dine with titled Europeans, Saudi princes and Chinese billionaires.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/free-trade-middle-america/

[truth on hold]

 

 

Because the fundamental reason for this nation to be born was free commerce, including open trade.

I think a conducive business environment is a factor, but do you really think it accounts for that much disproportionality? Edited April 29, 2015 by JTSP

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Which is why criticizing the actual deal is pissing in the wind. You can't criticize something for which you do not have all the details.

 

 

Certainly true. Just as it's true you can't really laud a deal or support it when no one knows what's really in it. Same coin, different side.

[reddogblitz]

 

Which is why criticizing the actual deal is pissing in the wind. You can't criticize something for which you do not have all the details.

 

I reserve the right to be extremely skeptical and critical of anything our government does in secret.

[4merper4mer]

I think a conducive business environment is a factor, but do you really think it accounts for that much disproportionality?

 

Let me guess where you're going with this:

 

Disproportionate number of Jews taking advantage of the rest of the world?

[Dante]

Bernie was smart enough to vote against the Iraq War.

 

He's also against the Fast track trade deal.

Well this is a good thing. At least we know he's not a globalist. It's not like he has good intentions though. All it means is he was total authoritarian control for himself. No way he wants to share with some UN parasite.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Dante

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

I reserve the right to be extremely skeptical and critical of anything our government does in secret.

 

You mean like negotiating with Iran against the will of the people?

 

Or unilaterally changing immigration law?

[birdog1960]

You have the trade issue, which is important. You have health care issues, which are very important. You have war and peace issues, economic priority issues, which are very important. And on those issues you can bring together coalitions, which redefine the normal paradigm which a lot of the corporate media creates when they talk about liberal and conservative. Bernie Sanders

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/

Edited April 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[keepthefaith]

You have the trade issue, which is important. You have health care issues, which are very important. You have war and peace issues, economic priority issues, which are very important. And on those issues you can bring together coalitions, which redefine the normal paradigm which a lot of the corporate media creates when they talk about liberal and conservative. Bernie Sanders

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/

He's hardly as pragmatic as that quote might suggest. So he rails on about the top 1% making too much but of course doesn't say what should be done to help the lower wage earners. Of course it will involve taking more or the hard earned money from the top. He also fails to give the 1% credit for the huge tax burden that is upon them. Funny thing about Liberals, they rarely say how to fix what they perceive as a problem and when they do the math usually doesn't work.

[IDBillzFan]

You have the trade issue, which is important. You have health care issues, which are very important. You have war and peace issues, economic priority issues, which are very important. And on those issues you can bring together coalitions, which redefine the normal paradigm which a lot of the corporate media creates when they talk about liberal and conservative. Bernie Sanders

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/

 

The one thing I love about Bernie Sanders is he is not afraid to admit he is a socialist. Watching progressives flock to him is hysterical.

[DC Tom]

 

The one thing I love about Bernie Sanders is he is not afraid to admit he is a socialist. Watching progressives flock to him is hysterical.

 

At this point, I'd vote for a guy who was at least honest about who he was and what he stood for.

 

Because even if he's socialist, I at least know where he stands and could hypothetically have a discussion with him. I can't even imagine having any sort of discussion with an auto-fellater like Obama, a pansy-ass chameleon like Kerry, or a rabid opportunist like Hillary.

 

I was going to add "obsessive lunatic like Rumsfeld" to that list, but I actually can imagine having a discussion with him. Since I have. It was pretty much as bad as you'd expect, given that it was in 2010 and started with him asking "So what's your opinion on Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

[birdog1960]

dennis kucinich and bernie sanders are gadflies. they know their purpose. they are not grandiose. and i agree, they're honest.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

At this point, I'd vote for a guy who was at least honest about who he was and what he stood for.

 

Because even if he's socialist, I at least know where he stands and could hypothetically have a discussion with him. I can't even imagine having any sort of discussion with an auto-fellater like Obama, a pansy-ass chameleon like Kerry, or a rabid opportunist like Hillary.

 

I was going to add "obsessive lunatic like Rumsfeld" to that list, but I actually can imagine having a discussion with him. Since I have. It was pretty much as bad as you'd expect, given that it was in 2010 and started with him asking "So what's your opinion on Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

 

How did that exchange turn out?

[Chef Jim]

 

How did that exchange turn out?

 

Probably ended with Rumsfeld at the bar telling someone "that !@#$er over there just called me an idiot. WTF?!?!?"