Forget Obama's preacher, check out McCain's.....

[pBills]

Then it ceases to be free. But don't let that stop your logic. (Never mind that both D candidates wink at their potential trade partners that their posturing is just to get the Rust Belt votes)

 

 

Every agreement has stipulations.

 

"The United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit."

 

 

Guess Ross Perot was correct, NAFTA did create that giant sucking sound - American jobs leaving the country

[Alaska Darin]

Every agreement has stipulations.

 

"The United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit."

 

 

Guess Ross Perot was correct, NAFTA did create that giant sucking sound - American jobs leaving the country

EPI says a million jobs during the Clinton Administration alone.

[pBills]

Wouldn't doubt it.... some would say 30,000 jobs right off the bat in the textile industry.

[GG]

Every agreement has stipulations.

 

"The United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit."

 

 

Guess Ross Perot was correct, NAFTA did create that giant sucking sound - American jobs leaving the country

 

Perhaps you can refresh my understanding of geography and tell me in which part of China, North America lies.

[pBills]

Whoops mixed and matched on accident. I am a bit on the tired side.

[colin]

Every agreement has stipulations.

 

"The United States and China share the most imbalanced bilateral trade relationship in the world. The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit."

 

 

Guess Ross Perot was correct, NAFTA did create that giant sucking sound - American jobs leaving the country

 

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm, nafta = bad because of the chrony capitalism and regulations involved.

 

trade is a GOOD thing, to the extend that nafta bolsters trade that is good.

 

trade with china is a good thing for america, products are much much cheaper because of it. we also have a luxo market (where regular goods, bags, coffee, phones, you name it) are luxurized (not a word) because people have so much disposable income. those goods are getting backed off of with the current economic downturn, but walmart and such are selling MORE goods as americans swtich back downmarket. this is interesting because it used to be people would do without and companies would really feel a pinch, but now it is more of a case of people just not blowing as much on the same goods.

 

so ross perot was kinda right that nafta had bad things about it, but the trade itself is awesome.

 

also it's not like america has high unemployment by any stretch. sub 5% even in today's state. america doesn't need most of the jobs that get exported. having china scramble to be america's cheap goods producer is good.

[pBills]

america doesn't need most of the jobs that get exported.

 

 

You could say to those people that lost their jobs.

[colin]

You could say to those people that lost their jobs.

 

they can get new jobs. and the vast majority have (you read the comment about low unemployment right?).

 

things that can be done cheaper and better in another place should be done cheaper and better in another place. not really that complicated.

[pBills]

Of course they can get new jobs... but again say that to someone who may have worked 20+ years in a position. Most likely they lost their pension and benefits... plus being in a certain position so long, they may not have the necessary skills to gain a worthy job. Point is that it's not that easy.

[Alaska Darin]

they can get new jobs. and the vast majority have (you read the comment about low unemployment right?).

 

things that can be done cheaper and better in another place should be done cheaper and better in another place. not really that complicated.

I wouldn't say many of the things done overseas are done better. Cheaper? Certainly.

[KD in CA]

Point is that it's not that easy.

 

It's work. It's not supposed to be easy.

[pBills]

Follow along... someone replacing their income/job once that job has left the country is NOT that easy. The work is work.

[SilverNRed]

I'm under the impression that McCain is just following Bush's Iraq policy, if I'm wrong please let me in on it.

Perhaps you wouldn't be "under the impression" if you'd spent 20 seconds of your life Googling the actual quote.

 

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_ir...rs.php?page=all

 

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

 

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

 

Pretty clear what "100 years McCain" is saying. That is, unless you want to distort it because you're a schill for a political party.

 

So you like McCain? Why's that?

I don't have to like McCain to call you out on misrepresenting what he said.

[GG]

I don't have to like [insert any topic] to call you out on misrepresenting [insert any topic].

[SilverNRed]

[PastaJoe]

Perhaps you wouldn't be "under the impression" if you'd spent 20 seconds of your life Googling the actual quote.

 

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_ir...rs.php?page=all

 

 

 

Pretty clear what "100 years McCain" is saying. That is, unless you want to distort it because you're a schill for a political party.

 

I don't have to like McCain to call you out on misrepresenting what he said.

 

The problem with McCain's 100 year quote is that he says it's fine as long as troops aren't being harmed. But then he also believes our troops have to stay there as long as the country is unstable and fighting continues. So bottom line is if he's president our troops will be there whether there's fighting or not. So what's his criteria to remove the majority of our troops? There isn't any.

[Alaska Darin]

The problem with McCain's 100 year quote is that he says it's fine as long as troops aren't being harmed. But then he also believes our troops have to stay there as long as the country is unstable and fighting continues. So bottom line is if he's president our troops will be there whether there's fighting or not. So what's his criteria to remove the majority of our troops? There isn't any.

If we used that criteria, we'd be flushing all the government programs you liberals love so much...

[pBills]

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

 

 

 

Wow, that makes me want to have our troops over there even more than before.

[colin]

Of course they can get new jobs... but again say that to someone who may have worked 20+ years in a position. Most likely they lost their pension and benefits... plus being in a certain position so long, they may not have the necessary skills to gain a worthy job. Point is that it's not that easy.

 

people without skills for a worthy job have not lost a worthy job, they've lost a sh1tty job that is better done overseas.

 

since you agree with that (as per the part of your post i bolded) do you have something to say about america's trade with china that might be considered negative?

[pBills]

people without skills for a worthy job have not lost a worthy job, they've lost a sh1tty job that is better done overseas.

 

since you agree with that (as per the part of your post i bolded) do you have something to say about america's trade with china that might be considered negative?

 

 

 

 

You have got to be kidding me. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Before I really get into this... may I ask what you do?

 

I have seen people who were making $25.00 per hour after many years of service - lose their job, lose their pension, health benefits, etc. all because the company wanted cheaper labor. So now that person has to scramble and hope to make at least 3/4 of what they were making with at least some of the benefits. That person has to figure out how to keep the roof over their head and how to pay the difference (if one) in health coverage. Their job may have been crappy to some - however they were good at it. The skills that they acquired by being a good, loyal soldier for the company don't mean much in other markets or even in their own. They can get a new job doing pretty much the same thing, but they get hired for less. And really who is to say the job is better done overseas? Ever hear of the saying you get what you pay for?

 

 

 

Let's see, something negative about our trade with China (as per USCC)...

 

-- The rise in the United States' trade deficit with China from 1989 to 2003 caused displacement of production that supported 1.5 million U.S. jobs. The loss of jobs due to the growing trade deficit with China has more than doubled since it entered the WTO in 2001.

 

-- Over 1.5 million job opportunities lost nationwide are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms:

 

California (-211,045)

Texas (-106,262)

New York (-87,037)

Illinois (-74,070)

Pennsylvania (-73,612)

Florida (-65,733)

North Carolina (-65,279)

Ohio (-61,914)

Michigan (-54,313) and

Georgia (-49,589)

 

Missed opportunities must have come from all of those people with sh1tty jobs/skills. How about we support American workers a bit instead of the cheap labor in other countries.