Anyone who supports new "Free Trade" deals does not support American Labor. Period. n/t

[Odin2005]

[TeamsterDem]

1. Amen!!!!!!!!!! nt

[bhikkhu]

67. "US Exports rise to record as Trade Deficit Shrinks"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html

...at least consider that past results of trade agreements have been more the effect of monetary policy than trade itself. When we have a sound dollar policy - as it looks like we have currently - we can compete in any market.

Previous monetary policy has favored imports over domestic goods, and priced our own production out of world markets. Currently things are different, and while the idea that "we can't compete" may have been drummed into everyone's heads for decades, its not the case.

[Vincardog]

77. When wages have been flat for 30 years and the Treasury is running the money press full blast

people can not afford to buy (even the cheap Chinese shit) and exports are cheap.
What a BIG surprise that "US Exports rise to record as Trade Deficit Shrinks"

[Romulox]

83. Our standard of living has been EVISCERATED during the era of "free trade".

Please engage with reality, rather than an imaginary model! :hi:

[bhikkhu]

117. The point is that the current trend is different

and the evisceration was due in large part not to trade, but to monetary policy. Consider the possibility that US products can compete on a level playing field, and that the problems of the past are solvable if one understands the cause-and-effect.

Reality is that manufacturing in the US is on a historic upswing, and that it is largely due to a sound monetary policy. Trade is not feared in most countries, we've just gotten the short end of the stick for too long to think that it has any other end.

[Arctic Dave]

2. K&R

[Lasher]

3. K&R

[joshcryer]

4. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1902964&mesg_id=1903475

I'm trying to understand the implications.

[jwirr]

62. As long as we continue to import every damned thing we need or

want it is only going to get worse. These new trade agreements with SA will also be lopsided. We want their oil and a few food things but what else do we need. They also are pretty self-sufficient so they are not going to be buying much of what we make. Not to mention that the majority of their people are way too poor to buy anything.

[Ohio Joe]

5. I do not think that is exactly correct, I would say...

Anyone who supports new "Free Trade" deals opposes American Labor. Period.

[OhioChick]

6. Rec n/t

[pampango]

7. Why? European labor is stronger with more "free trade" than we have? Reagan broke unions

long before any "free trade" deals.

[Odin2005]

10. European countries are developed economies with strong labor laws.

Your pro-free trade talking points are predictable. *YAWN*

[pampango]

14. Precisely. It's the strong labor laws that are crucial. Europe proves that. n/t

[TeamsterDem]

30. Just as crucial is ENFORCEMENT. Laws are only as good as enforcement

Colombia has labor laws too. They lead the world in murdered unionists every year.

Mexico has labor laws. They're not enforced but they're ostensibly there.

China has labor protections. They are reportedly enforced but workers make nothing, so in terms of fair competition w/ us the protections mean little.

The other trick is that these countries pay their workers next to nothing even when organized. It's still a race to the bottom in terms of you and I, the working people. Unless you can compete here in the US with Chinese wages.

[pampango]

42. Agreed. Again Europe proves that labor laws combined with enforcement work.

European economies (with strong unions) prove that a high-wage, strong safety net economy can compete in the world. Germany is the #3 exporter in the world behind the US and China (despite having a fraction of the population) and they don't pay "Chinese wages".

Not only are European economies not afraid of the world's poor, they unilaterally waive any tariffs on imports from the world's poorest countries.

[Jakes Progress]

64. But support for "free" trade is backward.

Your idea would be fine if we had strong union laws and support. Right now the idea of supporting the "free" trade laws is an attack on unions.

You can't reverse engineer this. Once the cheap labor overseas is producing cheap products for here, we will not have the manufacturing jobs for unions to protect.

Fight for unions first. Then maybe we could talk about the republican and blue democrat dreams of "free" trade.

Right now, the headline for the OP is completely true.

[joshcryer]

15. I want to know why FTA countries have a more balanced trade deficit than...

...non-FTA countries.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Do you have a link to the figures, thanks n/t

[joshcryer]

21. See post #4, I am trying to figure it out myself.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Thanks and additional links ...

not doing the numbers tonight :)

http://export.gov/FTA/index.asp

"...With which countries does the United States have an FTA?

The United States has 11 FTAs in force with 17 countries. In addition, the United States has negotiated FTAs with Korea, Panama and Colombia, but these agreements have not yet entered into force. The United States is also in the process of negotiating a regional FTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

U.S. FTA Partner Countries

•Australia
•Bahrain
•Chile
•DR-CAFTA: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, & Nicaragua
•Israel
•Jordan
•Morocco
•NAFTA: Canada & Mexico
•Oman
•Peru
•Singapore

..."


Top Trading Partners - Total Trade, Exports, Imports
Year-to-Date December 2010

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1012yr.html

[FarLeftFist]

27. True, look at Germany. 75% of workers are unionized. 75%!!!

They have a HUGE say in trade.

[Enthusiast]

43. Thank you for pointing that out.....nt

[hifiguy]

73. And there is significant labor representation on the boards

of all the major companies. That makes an INCREDIBLE difference. Which is why German workers are both very well compensated and highly productive.

[AverageJoe90]

88. But if the extreme right gains any real power in Germany.....

...expect that to drop sharply not long afterwards. There's been concern for some time about an extremist resurgence in much of Europe.

[JDPriestly]

35. Europeans have a high VAT tax. It is a sales tax that is imposed equally on

imported and domestic goods. So it evens the tax burden on imported goods without discriminating against them. That way, the imports cut into tax revenues just a little less. If the VAT is higher, then the burden of taxation on imported products is also higher.

That, I think, is probably why Europe has not suffered as much from free trade as we have.

Our federal government relies primarily on income taxes for revenue. As people lose their jobs, or accept lower pay, the income to the federal government declines. A VAT would lessen the change.

A lot of DUers object to a VAT because they say it is regressive. But if it were not imposed on food or on children's basic clothing or medicines, then it would not be so regressive. Why don't we have a VAT that would tax items like cell phones, I-phones, children's toys, furniture, cars, adult clothing, etc.?

[Sirveri]

48. I'm pretty sure adults also need clothing.

The basic reason it's regressive is simply because it's a flat tax. The rich can better support taxes because they have dramatically more disposable income. With a sales tax (which already exists in several states), there is no way to differentiate between income levels. Society has already decided that people below a certain income shouldn't be paying any taxes because they simply can't support that burden, yet they should pay taxes when they buy clothing, or if they happen to want a cell phone instead of a land line? We could make it so those below a certain income bracket could request a sales tax refund on their income tax returns, but the amount of overhead that would add would be pretty severe and likely offset a good portion of the existing tax. The other option is similar to resale exemption, which invites fraud.

[dotymed]

39. That is the difference between Free Trade

and Fair trade.

In America, Free Trade is a buzzword for rape the worker and consumer ((if there are any).

[Marrah_G]

8. I agree- all previous FTA should be repealed.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Yeah! Smoot-Hawley 2 is *precisely* what we need! (nt)

[Elwood P Dowd]

37. Smoot-Hawley had almost ZERO effect on our economy.

Anybody that says otherwise is a liar. International trade was only about 4% of our economy before it was passed, and that dropped to 2% a few years after it was passed. Problem is, all trade was declining during the period before and after Smoot-Hawley. It made no difference if it was international, interstate, or intrastate. Smoot-Hawley didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Smoot-Hawley is a republican talking point based on lies!

[pampango]

38. Wiki: "Most economists at the time and since agree that it had a negative effect on the economy."

After the 1929 stock market crash unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months following that event, peaking at 9 percent, then drifted downwards until it reached 6.3 percent in June of 1930. Then the federal government made its first major intervention in the economy with the Smoot-Hawley tariff. After that intervention the downward movement of unemployment rates reversed and shot up far beyond the level it had reached in the wake of the stock market crash hitting 11.6 percent in November of 1930.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

The Smoot-Hawley was a republican act almost exclusively.

Smoot was a Republican from Utah and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Willis C. Hawley, a Republican from Oregon, was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. And, of course, we know which party Herbert Hoover (the president who signed it) belonged to.

The House passed a version of the act in May 1929, increasing tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods alike. The House bill passed on a vote of 264 to 147, with 244 Republicans and 20 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The Senate debated its bill until March 1930, with many Senators trading votes based on their states' industries. The Senate bill passed on a vote of 44 to 42, with 39 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting in favor of the bill.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke against the act while campaigning for president during 1932. Also, FDR's administration weakened Smoot-Hawley by signing bilateral tariff reduction agreements with many countries. Of course, it was FDR's idea to create a multilateral institution (first the ITO, then GATT) after WWII to govern international trade and prevent the return of high tariffs after the war.

BTW trade was 9.2% of the economy, not 4%, in 1929.

Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%.

Today imports are 13.4% of our GNP and exports are 8.9%. Trade represents 22.3% of our economy. Compare that to Canada where trade is 51.7% of their economy, Germany 65.5%, Sweden 62.8%, and the UK 64.1%.

Obviously the role that trade plays in our economy is a fraction of its role in Europe and Canada (which are much more progressive than we are). Yet there is no shortage of folks who blame our economic problems on too much trade though progressive countries trade 2 to 3 times more than the US does.

"Smoot-Hawley is a republican talking point based on lies!" No, Smoot-Hawley is republican history!

[Odin2005]

46. Most economists are establishment tools.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Yeah, what does Paul Krugman know anyway?

Nobel Schnobel.

[Romulox]

81. Paul Krugman earned his stripes as neoliberal "free trade" shill in the 90s.

He's supposedly recanted all of that, now.

[Nye Bevan]

92. Paul Krugman opposes free trade now? Please supply a link.

I'll be waiting.....

[Romulox]

93. Do your own research.

You're not a thoughtful poster, in my experience, so I'll expend no energy on you. :hi:

[Nye Bevan]

100. I already did. Just Google "Krugman free trade"

and you will get thousands of links where Krugman does indeed support free trade.

But I guess "do your own research, you non-thoughtful poster" sounds better than "sorry, I couldn't find a link to support my assertion, you are correct."

[Romulox]

107. Second hit on Google for "Paul Krugman Free Trade": "Bad free trade arguments, by Paul Krugman"

Add "can't google" to "not a thoughtful poster". :hi:

[Nye Bevan]

108. Nowhere in that article does he criticize free trade.

Try again! :hi:

[Romulox]

109. LOL. This is what I meant by "not a thoughtful poster". nt

[pampango]

59. In this case FDR apparently agreed with them much to the chagrin of the republicans. n/t

[Phaedrus76]

72. Dump the WTO

Bring back tariffs, end tax deductions for outsourcing
American jobs, and then we will all need to pay a little more
for all our cheap plastic crap. But amazingly,  manufacturing
jobs will be plentiful, they will pay well, and be more stable
and reliable than service sector jobs.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

65. yee-up

[Nye Bevan]

75. +1

[girl gone mad]

9. k & r

[roamer65]

11. Goddamn right.

[FarLeftFist]

12. But Trumka just put out a release approving of the bill.

[bread_and_roses]

50. He did? Where? When?

I have not seen/heard anything to indicate that the AFL-CIO has changed its' position on "Free" Trade agreements?

[OneGrassRoot]

69. A general statement about the bill by Trumka. Here ya go:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/09/08/trumka-in-speech-obama-goes-to-the-mat-to-create-new-jobs/

:hi:

[bread_and_roses]

70. Yes, got that in my mail box since I posted

I am disappointed, though not surprised by, Brother Trumka - our Labor leaders are almost as mired in the Beltway mire as our politicians, and they would desperately like to support Obama. They will offer support where they can - out of a (futile, I believe) "hope" that the Pres will actually work for the American workers and not the International Banksters. And our trades, our teachers and public workers, all desperately need ANY help on the horizon - the AFL-CIO is not going to turn it down.

However, I do expect that the AFL-CIO will continue to oppose the "Free" trade deals - and you will hear Trumka make that plain soon enough. I guess my "hope" springs eternal too, but I really do not see how he/we/they can backtrack on this. We have consistently opposed them, they are known job-killers.

[OneGrassRoot]

71. I'm anxious to hear him address the free trade aspect of the speech...

directly as well.

:hi:

[chill_wind]

116. “We need a new approach to trade, not the same broken deals that send jobs offshore

and benefit multinationals but not working people,” said AFL-CIO President Trumka. “If we want an economic future that is better than our past, we need to use a jobs lens to look honestly at the specific rules in our own trade laws and trade agreements, the partners we choose and their values. Old Bush-era deals are not the answer. We can and must do better to create good jobs here at home that fuel our economic growth and rebuild our economy.”

Trumka in July. Press Conference

Sen. Brown, AFL-CIO Pres. Trumka: Before Pursuing More Free Trade Agreements, Enforce Existing Trade Laws and Focus on Retraining For Displaced Workers

In Wake of Senate Stalemate on Linking Trade Adjustment Assistance to Pending Free Trade Agreements, Brown Releases County-by-County Report Showing Nearly 40,000 Displaced Ohio Workers Qualifying for Trade Adjustment Assistance Since Passage of NAFTA, CAFTA

http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=824079ED-EE68-45EC-9057-EC1E9F1AB160

[teddy51]

13. I agree with your post and have a look at this if you don't believe

free trade is destructive. This is a CNN (Larry King) debate between Ross Perot and Al Gore before NAFTA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg&feature=player_embedded

[blkmusclmachine]

16. That's 100% Accurate:

That's what it all boils down to.

"Nafta" means "gasoline" in Spanish.

[B Calm]

17. Kicked and Recommended

[bvar22]

18. No one can support MORE "Free Trade",

and be Pro-Working Class at the same time.
These two positions ARE Mutually Exclusive.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Campaign Rhetoric.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tomg]

103. absolutely. nt

[ixion]

19. spot on, that. k/r

[Dragonfli]

22. You didn't get the memo, it is now a Democratic ideal to "not support American labor"

Judging by the reaction to all those tax cuts, free trade, cuts to medicaid, deregulation, defunding of SS and paying for all if it with more Commission style cuts; most here got the memo and agree with it.

"we" are now in favor of Republican ideas and even APPLAUD them. Sigh, what party is left for a Democrat these days that supports Democratic ideals that were the heart of the party since the thirties? The part that under this president have been replaced by boilerplate Heritage foundation thought? I want to know because I am looking to join an ACTUAL Democratic party.

[Kermitt Gribble]

97. If you find an ACTUAL Democratic party

don't keep it a secret! Be sure to let me know - I'm looking for the same thing..

[Broderick]

23. Rec

[woo me with science]

24. Thank you. nt

[Odin2005]

26. KICK

[Oilwellian]

29. Kick n/t

[amborin]

31. K&R

[AmandaMae]

32. k&r

[JDPriestly]

33. Agreed, Odin2005. Where is the evidence that these free trade deals help American workers?

They don't. They destroy jobs.

This evening, I heard the argument that we have an obligation to help those living in underdeveloped countries, that the free trade agreements lift impoverished people in those countries, and that is why we should have them.

I disagree with that argument. I'm all for helping people in underdeveloped countries, but not via trade agreements. Trade agreements cost too many American jobs.

Trade agreements mean that we help underdeveloped countries by harming the poorest in our own country and impoverishing more and more Americans.

If we decide that helping lift up third world economies is important enough to justify sacrifices here, then the sacrifices should be borne by those in our country who are best able to bear them -- not by poor and poorly paid working people who cannot sacrifice their very basic livelihoods.

We cannot rectify injustice in other countries by increasing injustice in our own. There is no gain in that.

[Rochester]

34. K. & R.

[Raine]

36. K&R nt

:kick: :thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

40. Kicked and recommended!

The president claimed we have to have these deals so that Korea will have to allow our cars in their country.

What a load of bullshit. All we have to do is restrict their cars from coming in here. They would quickly open their markets. We don't need any job destroying trade deals.

Hey, Mr. President, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

[kentuck]

41. We have to re-train and educate ourselves so we can compete...

with the Chinese and the Indonesians...

Didn't you know that? :sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

44. Here's a start for retraining...

So McDonald's does indeed use a double fry method, but it's far from the traditional one. Rather than a slow low temperature fry for the first round, the fries get dunked into very hot oil for only 50 seconds (the second fry is then carried out at the actual location). In addition to this, the potatoes get a pre-fry blanching step in hot water. What could the purpose of this be?

To answer that question, it's important to understand exactly what happens when a french fry is cooked.

The Balance of Pectin, Starch, and Simple Sugars.....

[pampango]

61. Nice that you worked Indonesia into that. Didn't Obama live there as a kid? Maybe his loyalties are

divided. :banghead:

The tea party will love to run with that one. (Anybody got Jim DeMint's email address?) "Obama's trade policy is meant to weaken American and strengthen his real home country, Indonesia (sorry, Kenya - maybe next time).

Education and retraining are exactly how the rest of the developed world (Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.) competes with the "Chinese and Indonesians" (not to even mention "the Kenyans"). It can't possibly work in the US though, because we're different, right?

[Kermitt Gribble]

99. Yep..

But, re-training, in this instance, means training ourselves to live on 5 dollars a day..

[MissDeeds]

45. K&R

:patriot:

[Vinca]

49. +1000

[Roy Rolling]

52. NAFTA

I distinctly remember how much I was disappointed when Al Gore cast the deciding vote in the Senate to pass NAFTA in the 1990s. I was watching on TV and thought "what, are you kidding me"?

I agreed with 99% of Clinton's policies but this was one huge stinker that started the ball rolling, or should I say, sent American jobs rolling to foreigh countries.

[blindpig]

53. k&r

[court jester]

54. kr

oldie but goodie

[chill_wind]

55. Dem Leadership wasn't applauding.

Obama gets cool response from Republicans, even some Dems
By Alexander Bolton - 09/08/11 10:37 PM ET

President Obama received a subdued response from Republicans Thursday night when he unveiled a $447 billion stimulus plan to a joint session of Congress.

Democratic lawmakers in the chamber warmed up to the president’s speech as it rolled on but Obama did not get the same boisterous response from his party as at past State of the Union addresses.

Democratic leaders including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn (S.C.) refused to clap when Obama called on Congress to approve trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, which elicited raucous applause from Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stood reluctantly and belatedly clapped his rolled-up copy of the speech when the president called for cutting the growth of Medicare.

He later praised the speech in a statement and said it would challenge Republicans to get serious about creating jobs.

more:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/180505-obama-gets-cool-response-from-republicans-even-some-dems

[saras]

56. It's overly specific. Anyone who supports new "Free Trade" deals does not support America.

It's not JUST labor who pays - everyone in the country pays, as do all those in countries that have to trade with "free trade" alliances.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. The United Auto Workers supports the Korea - U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Period.

[Romulox]

82. The UAW also supports "dual tiered" wages: $14/hour for new hires. No bennies.

:hi:

[treestar]

58. I don't know one way or the other

But see no point in questioning the motives of those who may disagree on HOW something is to be done.

[valerief]

60. That's always been the case. nt

[bhikkhu]

68. That's only been the case under a "strong dollar" policy

which prices our goods out of the world market, while making imports very cheap. Currently: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html

[fascisthunter]

63. Well Said (nt)

[dash_bannon]

66. Ditto Amens!

I'm in my hometown of Toledo this week and I see how decimated it is from the loss of good jobs.

I see America's future in my hometown.

We need something to believe in, and invest in. We've got nothing at the moment.

[me b zola]

74. K&R

Some things are really just that simple.

[LanternWaste]

76. I support labor.

I support labor. Period. No national, religious or quota per-qualifications.

There is no worker in Burundi or Laos whom I feel to be more important than a worker in Dallas or Dulles, as hunger does not recognize imaginary red and blue lines on a map.

[Romulox]

84. LOL. nt

[geardaddy]

78. Yup. Agree 100%

[elleng]

79. U.S. Exports Rise to Record as Trade Deficit Shrinks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html?_r=2

[BOG PERSON]

80. [T]he protectionist system...

is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm

[totodeinhere]

85. If that is true then President Obama does not support American Labor. Period.

And that is a real shame. Even in last night's jobs speech he was talking about more free trade.

[DeSwiss]

86. K&R n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

87. Big time K&R!

:kick:

[mckara]

89. You Want to Understand American Trade Policies Truly?

Hudson, M. Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance

You have much to study, grasshopper.

[BOG PERSON]

90. anybody who opposes free trade is a psuedo-liberal

period (.)

[Romulox]

94. LOL. Try this one, it makes (a little!) more sense: "Free trade or you're a RACIST!!!1!11!"

:rofl:

[DainBramaged]

91. HEAR HEAR

[G_j]

95. K&R

for FAIR trade

[Romulox]

96. Why do you think the President didn't propose this crap in Detroit on Monday?

The answer is obvious.

[ProSense]

98. Unions vow to work for passage of Obama jobs plan

Unions vow to work for passage of Obama jobs plan

More union reaction


WTO Upholds Obama’s Tire Industry Relief Decision

The policy and the President's commitment matter.

[Romulox]

102. Odd that he didn't announce at his Detroit Union rally this past Labor Day, then...

:rofl:

[ProSense]

104. I suspect

you missed his speech. The teasers captured a lot of it.

Hey, keep laughing. It's good for you!

[Romulox]

106. "Korea" --- "search string not found". "Trade" --- "search string not found"

It's not like you to misrepresent the contents of a speech. Oh, wait. It's JUST like you. :hi:

[20score]

101. I very rarely rec one or two sentence posts. This is an exception.

[GreenTea]

105. Support Americn Unions - working people's ONLY united voice!

Corporations stealing billions of our tax payer dollars for government subsidies every year while spending millions upon million of dollars on teams of corporate lobbyist to destroy unions, the workers only united voice.....Distorting, smearing & pointing to the same republicans convenient manipulative lie about "union bosses" complete bullshit as the same slimy republicans make a fortune in corporate donation money to destroy unions for the corporations!

As corporations rob this country blind they take away working peoples benefits, health care and safety....why do you favor the corporations, the banks, oil corporation gouging us at the pumps while receiving billions of dollars in government welfare ("subsidies") every year for decades & huge gigantic tax cuts for the wealthiest that have produced zero jobs in over ten years?

The multi-millionaires & multi-billionaires despise working people having a strong union voice, fighting for the single solitary working person, who by him or herself is truly helpless against the "too big to fail" mighty corporations for fairness, better pensions & pay!

[Nye Bevan]

110. I remember the debate on NAFTA between Al Gore and Ross Perot.

I thought Gore was quite convincing.

Sounds like a lot of people in this thread voted for Perot.

[Oceansaway]

111. thanks...n/t...K&R...

[Plucketeer]

112. Absolutely! nt

[Pooka Fey]

113. K&R

[TheFarseer]

114. damn stright

I can't wait for the rest of the jobs to go to Panama! We should only trade with countries that have a similar standard of living or have products we just can't get anywhere else

[Laelth]

115. Hear, hear! k&r for labor. n/t