It seems many dems and pubs agreed this was bad thing for the U.S. Have any of these trade agreements actually created more jobs in this country than they have cost? Best I can tell they have always benefitted big business and shipped jobs across the border or the ocean. Nafta was supposed to create jobs here and raise wages in Mexico. Their minimum wage is still about a dollar and we have lost LOTS of jobs to Mexico since that deal took place.
Fast Track defeated in the House
- Thread starter 3Rfan
- Start date
For those (mainly on this board) who continually say the right just votes against EVERYTHING this President wants, this fastrack bill was defeated mainly by DEMS and supported by the right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...ough-battle-against-house-democrats.html?_r=0
While I generally like trade deals, i'm not a fan of expanding the executive branch powers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...ough-battle-against-house-democrats.html?_r=0
While I generally like trade deals, i'm not a fan of expanding the executive branch powers.
You generally like trade deals because you study them completely and understand the ramifications for middle class Americans?
Everyone knows what a scholar you are Miller. In your own words, tell how wonderful NAFTA turned out for us. Get specific.
Everyone knows what a scholar you are Miller. In your own words, tell how wonderful NAFTA turned out for us. Get specific.
Since you must lack understanding of the English language, i'll try to explain it for you.
Generally......not always but most times.....not any specific time mentioned.
I never said I liked or disliked NAFTA. I assume you love it since Clinton was responsible for it.
The pupose of my post was to find out how you explain the right supporting Obama on this since you claim their ONLY goal was to stop Obama on EVERYTHING. You understandably avoided that question like the plague.
I have never said this. You "generally" like trade deals because you are a mindless puppet. Whatever you are told to like is what you favor. You just clarified that. You know no specifics. You study nothing. You like what you are supposed to like and don't even know why.
The right supports this because these things have ALWAYS been beneficial for big business, not so much for the folks that work for them. I have NO idea why Obama thinks this is such great thing nor did I know why Clinton thought NFTA was going to be a great deal. The difference is Clinton was better salesman than Obama AND we now know what NAFTA did TO us, not FOR us. aye you can tell me if any these trade deals have created more jobs in the U.S than they have cost in the U.S. The RR big shots told us how great NAFTA would be for RR's and RR jobs. You can guess how well that worked for RR labor.
When the playing field is not level and our government makes trade agreements in which we allow companies to ship their slave labor products to our country, then our workers lose jobs because we can't possibly compete with sweat shop level prices, you can say we made a "free trade" agreement if you wish. NAFTA didn't do squat for the American worker. Thanks Clinton. And also thanks for letting banks get too big to fail. All Clinton.
But those products are going to get to us anyway or companies simply won't do business in America. The workforce is changing and those types of manufacturing and labor jobs are leaving the U.S. anyway. Why not at least take advantage of the situation?
Who gets to take advantage of the situation? It's certainly NOT the labor force. When we have no good paying jobs here who will buy the products big companies are selling here but making somewhere else? If "free trade" just means everybody can make there stuff in another country and sell it here I don't see how that helps create jobs HERE. These agreements have ALWAYS been touted as "job creators." Tell me when one of them has helped the job market in this country, not just the bottom line for big companies.
The consumer who's paying $200 for his iPhone and $50 for his tennis shoes.
We will always have good paying jobs here. They just won't be in the manufacturing and heavy labor sectors.
I'm not sure it creates jobs here. I know that blocking free trades doesn't create any either. So would you rather pay $700 for your iPhone and $150 for you tennis shoes and still not have more or better jobs? Because blocking trade doesn't help labor either.
We will always have good paying jobs here. They just won't be in the manufacturing and heavy labor sectors.
I'm not sure it creates jobs here. I know that blocking free trades doesn't create any either. So would you rather pay $700 for your iPhone and $150 for you tennis shoes and still not have more or better jobs? Because blocking trade doesn't help labor either.
I don't have or need an I-Phone and I have NEVER paid $150 for tennis shoes. If I need to get on a computer I can use the one I'm on right now. Many people have those things at ridiculous prices now even though we have free trade agreements in place. I have seen jobs lost because of so-called free trade deals. There has to be more rules put in place about taking away jobs here in the name of free trade. All it has done is let big business move to other countries to make things for less and charge the same for it here and pad their bottom line.
Having a decent job and no iPhone worked for decades.
The DEMAND would drop thus the PRICE would too.
Just because you don't need an iPhone doesn't mean that there's not a use for them and people don't want them.
My point was that people now pay $50 for their tennis shoes and with no free trade you'd see an increase in price. The reason we have so many things for cheap right now is because of overseas labor. Those types of manufacturing jobs are not ever coming back, deal or no deal. We aren't protecting jobs over here by not allowing free trade. We have to shift away from the mindset that the middle class is going to be built on labor.
Wow, I sound like a republican.
Because it worked in the past doesn't mean it'll work in the future. Replace iPhone with computers. Still feel the same way?
The demand for goods in this country is not going to decrease. We need machines, computers, etc now more than ever. We would just be shooting ourselves in the foot if we demand everything be made here. Companies would never go for it.
The demand would decrease until the price point people could live with was found.
We don't NEED many things we have. I lived without computers and big TVs and all the gadgets for years. Heck there was a time when I was the TV remote for my dad.
Young people don't realize what crutches they've latched onto.
Um, the world would literally not function without computers. Let's live in the 21st century instead of the 1960s.
Companies are not going to slash prices beyond what makes them a profit. When you pay 4x the amount in labor, a lot of tech firms (the companies that drive the American economy) would cease doing business in the U.S.
They'd cease doing business at all then. You should think this through.
And we COULD function without technology. Your kind would struggle.
My point was never that this or any trade agreement was good or bad. My point was and is that it has been said over and over by libs that the right opposes Obama because they hate him. If that were true they would oppose him now. The truth is, they oppose him when they dissagree with him and support him when they agree with him. The ideologies are so far apart there is seldom any way to support him though.
The divide in this countries politics is driven by ideals not race, gender, or political affiliation. I would avidly support ANY Democrat who promoted my ideals (the exact opposite of runnys posts).
I do think free trade is the right path if it is truly free. I do not support the Executive branch being granted more power to make such deals though. There is an established process in place and support keeping it.
I can't remember the last President who opposed opening up trade (other than to use sanctions). There is a reason for that and it isn't to kill jobs.
If it's true you have never said the right opposes everything Obama does, then I sincerely apologise. It has been said (on this site) many times and I was sure you were one who had. The rest of your post is pure false drivel.
There is much truth here but also many omissions of fact. Just because prices would drop on existing technology to a pricepoint of saleabilty doesn't mean future technology would continue. ALL things are done for profit. If technology costs more to produce than a reasonable profit can be made on it, it would either stop being produced or labor to create it would be greatly hampered.
My kind? As in engineers that build the things that make society function? Yes, we could not do what we do in the time and quality we do it without computers. I rely on a supercomputer at my job because no human could do those calculations in a month, much less 15 minutes.
If you think society could function without computers, you're crazy. It's that simple.
Yes, business will just cease to exist. That seems likely. More likely that we would be passed up in quick order by China and most of Europe, who have no qualms about buying products made with cheap labor.
I think he was talking about personally. As in your chump azz generation can't give change without the computer telling you what it is. You don't even know how to write checks, reconcile your checking account, or remember someone's telephone number. When the apocalypse comes you will be useless.
My generation is the one creating all these amazing companies and inventions, fueling the computer revolution. I'm sorry some old timers don't like computers, but this is the world we live in now. Get used to it.
Cow I'll bet those of us that actually buy $50 tennis shoes are in the minority these days. Have you looked that crazy neon colored crap they have in the mall stores these days? Have you looked at the price on them? I'll pay $150 for good pair of work boots but NOT for tennis shoes.
Maybe you din't see the vote count. There something like 180 republicans that voted against it. The only reason they're saying democrats betrayed him is because with all of their votes it would have passed even with that many republicans voting against it.
A
ag-man
Guest
With all due respect, cow, the world functioned all but the last 50 or so years without computers, why do you think it wouldn't now?
Just because something comes along that makes things easier, people think they can't live without it? That would be like my wife saying she cannot wash dishes without a dishwasher, or I can't drive a car without an air conditioner. Yes, we can do without computers, we always did, and life was a lot better, actually.
Other than you thinking we cannot function without computers, I actually agree with your thoughts on trade.
The world survived without antibiotics prior to 100 years ago but that doesn't mean I want to go back to those times.
Life is better now by so many measures. Technology is a huge part of that. Sometimes it is a distraction from what is important but life wasn't better when your wife washed everything by hand. We have more time available to spend with our friends and family and doing the things we want because of technology.
When people complain about technology, they really complaining about how others use technology, not the benefits we've gained from computers and what not.
The idea that we should be functioning without computers is lunacy. I don't think you understand how much of your life has been improved and made safer by computerized automation.
A
ag-man
Guest
I do not think we should be functioning without computers, I said we COULD do it, as we have for thousands of years in the past.
You are correct, I must not realize how computers have improved my life. To my knowledge, we didn't have them when I was growing up, and I had a great childhood. Now my computer at work is always locked up and makes my life hell trying to get anything done. When I was young, I would go to the store and buy something, price marked right on it and easy. Now if the electricity goes off or computer goes down, you cannot buy a pack of gum. Cars malfunctioning because of wiring or computers telling it somethings wrong when there isn't, etc. etc. They cause me all kinds of grief, so, no, I don't care for them.
That's not to say they are not valuable, as in the medical field, record keeping and such, they just have not made my life easier to my knowledge.
With exponential increase in technology has come the corresponding decrease in health. I think they're related.
We COULD go back but we won't. The younger generation would struggle to function.
America is fatter, but I think it's a very, very difficult argument to make that we aren't healthier. Look at our lifespans, our infant mortality rate, rates of infectious diseases and so on. These gains come from technology.
Obesity isn't the only measure of health.
You are only noticing when you get frustrated by a computer, not when it makes your life easier.
We take an incredible amount of the day-to-day things controlled by computers for granted.
Cars are a very good example of how computers have improved our lives. For example, the use of computer-controlled robotic machinery to produce vehicles has significantly increased the reliability of cars. Computers run all sorts of safety systems on your car, like anti-lock brakes. Computers improve your gas mileage, saving you money. Computers reduce your car's emissions, improving the environment around us.
The above even ignores the "comfort" computers like your climate control and entertainment systems.
You really believe that computers haven't made your life better? Knowledge has never been more easily accessible than it is today. Computers have given a voice to those that haven't had one before. Communication is instantaneous. We are on the verge of making more technological progress in the next 30 years than we have in the last 300.
The pace of change in human technology over the last century or two surely exceeds that of any point in prior human history.
150 years ago, common person houses didn't have electricity or plumbing. Look at where we are today.
150 years ago, common person houses didn't have electricity or plumbing. Look at where we are today.
Obesity is a great indicator of true health. It causes more problems than just about any other conditions other than smoking (maybe more than smoking)
Kids/people growing up after the late 80s are fat and lazy as a general rule. Thanks Nintendo.
adults who've never played nintendo are a lot fatter than the generation before them.
Video games are a symptom of the issues, not the real issue.
Real issue is people eat horribly (way too many calories) and lead incredibly sedentary lives, including how they work. It's a lot easier to stay thin when you're on your feet all day.
That's the real way computers are affecting lives - sitting at one all day is horrible for your weight management.
Severe obesity shortens your life as much as smoking (~10 years). Being obese has some impact (~3 years). Being moderately overweight doesn't seem to really be a problem. Main cause of the shortening of life associated with severe obesity is cardiovascular (heart attacks and strokes).
Technology tends to lead to sedentary lives. People eat the Pyramid (which is/was stupid) and cheap. It's expensive to eat clean.
Diabetes is the major health issue facing our country from here forward.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Ukraine war: Still going. Gas and food prices: Still high- Latest: Veer2Eternity
-
C-17 and C-130’s. Moved to Texas and California- Latest: blindedbythelight
