So, why do I find myself on the side of the Democrats, against many of the Republicans, and obama?

[Manonthestreet]

that would be double talk then

 

[occupied]

If you oppose this trade deal just because Obama then you are on the right side of the debate for the wrong reasons.

Jesus! Where did I say that you illiterate fuck? Can you answer my question nit wit?

Truthfully I cannot fathom why Obama is so set on this thing but he is certainly not my hero. That's my honest answer, now, convince me that you would be against this thing if our president was a republican.

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

It's self-explanatory, most republicans support anything with free trade in the title as you do. I am fascinated at the motives for the small republican opposition, it must just be because Obama, anything else would be an admission that "free trade" fever has cost us dearly.

There's always been a doom and gloom hysterical fear wing of the Republican party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And other than that I'm not a Republican and I don't support "anything with free trade in the title," I support free trade.

Also, how do you know the field of economics is wrong when you say free trade has cost us?

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

 

[kaz]

I have stated time and time again that protectionism is a two edged sword............to much protection then you get higher prices and they offset the savings of jobs...........too little and you outsource your jobs................

Nonsense. First, you should consider like the libs that you are directly contradicting the field of economics.

Now it is true there are winners and losers in free trade, but economics says the more the better as a whole. We don't have blacksmiths anymore either. Some will have to be retrained. Some companies will lose. But more companies will win and more jobs will be created than lost. You know what economics also says? Having our borders open even if other borders are closed is better than having our borders closed.

Here are a few things you are not factoring

- It's not a zero sum game. Lower prices mean consumers pay lower prices, they spend the money they save on something else
- Corporations that offshore save money and have more money to fund new projects or return it to their owners, the shareholders
- Foreign corporations are offshoring, which puts ours at a disadvantage
- Our government is actually driving companies offshore with taxes and regulations, shouldn't you start there rather than punishing companies who are trying to be more efficient?

Our borders are not necessarily closed with tariffs.............If china bans products there..........which they do in some areas......then they get hit for it in return...................Tariffs don't close borders.........and they don't necessarily sky rocket prices when they are done in moderation...............

And the border closed argument would be if we started a trade war over it..................

I didn't say our borders are closed. I talked about open borders and the more open the better, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

NAFTA allowed corps to move south of the border...........use it to their advantage........and then ship it back here free gratis..........at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.....................How is that beneficial to the average working man in this country?

Do the lower costs offset those who now have the great SERVICE SECTOR JOBS at McDonalds and Walmart....................that ain't a good trade off..............

I must have missed the post you explained how you know more than economists about the economy. Can you give me that post # and I'll review that and we can take it from there?

 

[eagle1462010]

America s Biggest Companies Continue To Move Factories Offshore And Eliminate Thousands of American Jobs

Here are some of the filings:





Flextronics Americas in Stafford, Texas, will lay off 147 workers because their jobs "are being transferred to Juarez, Mexico," writes Chrystal Broussard Johnson, a Workforce Account Executive at a TAA "One-Stop Operator/Partner."



Jabil of Tempe, Ariz., will lay off more than 500 workers making printed circuit boards and box-build assemblies for the medical, industrial and aerospace sectors. "We are in the process of moving several assemblies to other Jabil facilities in Mexico and Asia in order to reduce labor costs and meet our customers' pricing expectations," writes Jabil HR Manager Dawn Tabelak in a July 15 TAA petition.


Joy Global of Franklin, Penn., will lay off 245 workers making underground mining equipment because production is "being shifted to a foreign location, outsourcing increased imports, articles and services," writes Timothy Buck, a union official in York, Penn.


Phillips Lighting Company's Bath, N.Y., factory making finished lamps will lay off 265 workers because "production is being shifted to a foreign country," writes Amy Heysham, Director of Human Resources for Phillips.


Hewlett Packard will lay off 500 employees working in customer service and technical support in Conway, Ark., due to "global restructuring," according to Mazen Alkhamis, Business Solutions Analyst for the state of Arkansas in Little Rock.


DAK Americas of Leland, N.C., is laying off 340 full-time workers and 264 contract workers because it closed its entire production facility at its Cape Fear site due to dumped imports of competing products, according to Stephen Seals, DAK Americas' Senior Director of Human Resources. "Imports of PET resins have continued to rise in quantity over the last several years, especially from China and Oman," writes Seals. "The low price of these imports as well as the increasing volume continues to have a negative impact in the U.S. marketplace. For DAK Americas' Cape Fear site, it is the price suppression that these low-priced imports has brought with them that has been the most damaging. The continuing decline in prices has forced DAK Americas to rationalize capacity." Shutting down the Cape Fear PET resins manufacturing plant "would not be the outcome if the increasing volume of low-priced imports had not driven the manufacturing economics for this site beyond a state that cannot be maintained and be viable.

"DAK continues to participate in trade actions against these low-priced imports. There are three major trade cases for antidumping actions for Certain Polyester Staple Fiber products against Korea (A-580-839), Taiwan (A-583-833) and China (A-570-905) that remain active with trade actions aimed at controlling the dumping of fibers from these countries, yet the flow of imports continues to affect our business and the marketplace. As a result of continuing imports of those dumped products, DAK will be closing fiber manufacturing at the Cape Fear site. A significant portion of the Polyester Stable Fiber produced on-site will now be transferred and be manufactured in Queretaro, Mexico. . . Even with the renewed anti-dumping trade case affirmative actions against Korea, free-trade agreements with Korea were put in place that bolster the ability for these imports to continue. If imports were not given increased access to the U.S. marketplace for the products produced at DAK Americas Cape Fear site, the site would not be forced to rationalize capacity and shut down its operations resulting in the loss of approximately 600 jobs at the site."


Eli Lilly will lose nearly 1,000 sales representatives nationwide "as a result of the loss of patent protection from two of its best-selling drugs: Cymbalta and Evista," writes Susan Fracasso, Rapid Response Coordinator for the state of Connecticut in Wethersfield. "Those two products will be made generically, likely by facilities outside of the United States.


Charles Inc. of Council Bluffs, Iowa, will lay off 60 furniture workers. The reason: "Since mid-1990s, many upholstered furniture companies have been importing completely upholstered furniture, cut & sewn kits and raw materials from China, Mexico, Vietnam and other Southeast Asia countries," according to Lindsay Anderson, TAA Coordinator for the state of Iowa. "This has resulted in Charles Inc.'s inability to compete with them and be able to meet their prices. Charles Inc. has tried many different approaches, but the labor and material saving on imported products was too much for Charles Inc. to overcome."


PDM Bridge based in Proctor, Minn., will lay off 35 workers because the company is "losing local contract product bids in the last year to multinational and overseas buyers and producers of like and similar bridge products," according to Debra Schlekewy, TAA Coordinator for the state of Minnesota.


Honeywell Process Solutions, manufacturer of electronic industrial control units in York, Penn., will lay off 110 workers. "Company filed WARN stating closure in the first quarter of 2014 with layoffs expected to begin in August 2013," writes Terri Zimmerman of the Pennsylvania state government. "Per company official most of the work is transferring to Mexico."


Nordex USA Inc., maker of wind blades in both Jonesboro, Ark., and Chicago, Ill., will lay off 80 workers because production is "being sifted to a foreign country," according to Francene Miller of the Arkansas state government.

Good for them. Doing what the Democrats want and saying inefficient is a great way to go under and kill all their jobs. As I pointed ou tto you, more jobs will be created. That is if you believe the field of economics anyway. It made sense to me. I am an MBA in Finance from Michigan, Finance is a branch of economics

NAFTA has been around for a long time..............I've shown the manufacturing jobs losses.................now show me the replacement jobs............................in the service sector you say are being created...............Mind you don't add in the h1b visa jobs with foreign workers in the equation. unless they are citizens.

 

[kaz]

Jesus! Where did I say that you illiterate fuck? Can you answer my question nit wit?

Truthfully I cannot fathom why Obama is so set on this thing but he is certainly not my hero. That's my honest answer, now, convince me that you would be against this thing if our president was a republican.

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

It's self-explanatory, most republicans support anything with free trade in the title as you do. I am fascinated at the motives for the small republican opposition, it must just be because Obama, anything else would be an admission that "free trade" fever has cost us dearly.

There's always been a doom and gloom hysterical fear wing of the Republican party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And other than that I'm not a Republican and I don't support "anything with free trade in the title," I support free trade.

Also, how do you know the field of economics is wrong when you say free trade has cost us?

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

 

[Papageorgio]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

I'm against it, I don't understand why anyone could be for this.

 

[Manonthestreet]

simple fact is we dont need any more huge legislation or treaties we dont know what is in it. ...The supposed teabagger who replaced Bachmann...doesnt want to say what his position is..........

 

[eagle1462010]

I have stated time and time again that protectionism is a two edged sword............to much protection then you get higher prices and they offset the savings of jobs...........too little and you outsource your jobs................

Nonsense. First, you should consider like the libs that you are directly contradicting the field of economics.

Now it is true there are winners and losers in free trade, but economics says the more the better as a whole. We don't have blacksmiths anymore either. Some will have to be retrained. Some companies will lose. But more companies will win and more jobs will be created than lost. You know what economics also says? Having our borders open even if other borders are closed is better than having our borders closed.

Here are a few things you are not factoring

- It's not a zero sum game. Lower prices mean consumers pay lower prices, they spend the money they save on something else
- Corporations that offshore save money and have more money to fund new projects or return it to their owners, the shareholders
- Foreign corporations are offshoring, which puts ours at a disadvantage
- Our government is actually driving companies offshore with taxes and regulations, shouldn't you start there rather than punishing companies who are trying to be more efficient?

Our borders are not necessarily closed with tariffs.............If china bans products there..........which they do in some areas......then they get hit for it in return...................Tariffs don't close borders.........and they don't necessarily sky rocket prices when they are done in moderation...............

And the border closed argument would be if we started a trade war over it..................

I didn't say our borders are closed. I talked about open borders and the more open the better, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

NAFTA allowed corps to move south of the border...........use it to their advantage........and then ship it back here free gratis..........at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.....................How is that beneficial to the average working man in this country?

Do the lower costs offset those who now have the great SERVICE SECTOR JOBS at McDonalds and Walmart....................that ain't a good trade off..............

I must have missed the post you explained how you know more than economists about the economy. Can you give me that post # and I'll review that and we can take it from there?

post 3 and 4

focus on 4

show the new jobs that replaced those lost in the graphs now please..................

 

[kaz]

America s Biggest Companies Continue To Move Factories Offshore And Eliminate Thousands of American Jobs

Here are some of the filings:





Flextronics Americas in Stafford, Texas, will lay off 147 workers because their jobs "are being transferred to Juarez, Mexico," writes Chrystal Broussard Johnson, a Workforce Account Executive at a TAA "One-Stop Operator/Partner."



Jabil of Tempe, Ariz., will lay off more than 500 workers making printed circuit boards and box-build assemblies for the medical, industrial and aerospace sectors. "We are in the process of moving several assemblies to other Jabil facilities in Mexico and Asia in order to reduce labor costs and meet our customers' pricing expectations," writes Jabil HR Manager Dawn Tabelak in a July 15 TAA petition.


Joy Global of Franklin, Penn., will lay off 245 workers making underground mining equipment because production is "being shifted to a foreign location, outsourcing increased imports, articles and services," writes Timothy Buck, a union official in York, Penn.


Phillips Lighting Company's Bath, N.Y., factory making finished lamps will lay off 265 workers because "production is being shifted to a foreign country," writes Amy Heysham, Director of Human Resources for Phillips.


Hewlett Packard will lay off 500 employees working in customer service and technical support in Conway, Ark., due to "global restructuring," according to Mazen Alkhamis, Business Solutions Analyst for the state of Arkansas in Little Rock.


DAK Americas of Leland, N.C., is laying off 340 full-time workers and 264 contract workers because it closed its entire production facility at its Cape Fear site due to dumped imports of competing products, according to Stephen Seals, DAK Americas' Senior Director of Human Resources. "Imports of PET resins have continued to rise in quantity over the last several years, especially from China and Oman," writes Seals. "The low price of these imports as well as the increasing volume continues to have a negative impact in the U.S. marketplace. For DAK Americas' Cape Fear site, it is the price suppression that these low-priced imports has brought with them that has been the most damaging. The continuing decline in prices has forced DAK Americas to rationalize capacity." Shutting down the Cape Fear PET resins manufacturing plant "would not be the outcome if the increasing volume of low-priced imports had not driven the manufacturing economics for this site beyond a state that cannot be maintained and be viable.

"DAK continues to participate in trade actions against these low-priced imports. There are three major trade cases for antidumping actions for Certain Polyester Staple Fiber products against Korea (A-580-839), Taiwan (A-583-833) and China (A-570-905) that remain active with trade actions aimed at controlling the dumping of fibers from these countries, yet the flow of imports continues to affect our business and the marketplace. As a result of continuing imports of those dumped products, DAK will be closing fiber manufacturing at the Cape Fear site. A significant portion of the Polyester Stable Fiber produced on-site will now be transferred and be manufactured in Queretaro, Mexico. . . Even with the renewed anti-dumping trade case affirmative actions against Korea, free-trade agreements with Korea were put in place that bolster the ability for these imports to continue. If imports were not given increased access to the U.S. marketplace for the products produced at DAK Americas Cape Fear site, the site would not be forced to rationalize capacity and shut down its operations resulting in the loss of approximately 600 jobs at the site."


Eli Lilly will lose nearly 1,000 sales representatives nationwide "as a result of the loss of patent protection from two of its best-selling drugs: Cymbalta and Evista," writes Susan Fracasso, Rapid Response Coordinator for the state of Connecticut in Wethersfield. "Those two products will be made generically, likely by facilities outside of the United States.


Charles Inc. of Council Bluffs, Iowa, will lay off 60 furniture workers. The reason: "Since mid-1990s, many upholstered furniture companies have been importing completely upholstered furniture, cut & sewn kits and raw materials from China, Mexico, Vietnam and other Southeast Asia countries," according to Lindsay Anderson, TAA Coordinator for the state of Iowa. "This has resulted in Charles Inc.'s inability to compete with them and be able to meet their prices. Charles Inc. has tried many different approaches, but the labor and material saving on imported products was too much for Charles Inc. to overcome."


PDM Bridge based in Proctor, Minn., will lay off 35 workers because the company is "losing local contract product bids in the last year to multinational and overseas buyers and producers of like and similar bridge products," according to Debra Schlekewy, TAA Coordinator for the state of Minnesota.


Honeywell Process Solutions, manufacturer of electronic industrial control units in York, Penn., will lay off 110 workers. "Company filed WARN stating closure in the first quarter of 2014 with layoffs expected to begin in August 2013," writes Terri Zimmerman of the Pennsylvania state government. "Per company official most of the work is transferring to Mexico."


Nordex USA Inc., maker of wind blades in both Jonesboro, Ark., and Chicago, Ill., will lay off 80 workers because production is "being sifted to a foreign country," according to Francene Miller of the Arkansas state government.

Good for them. Doing what the Democrats want and saying inefficient is a great way to go under and kill all their jobs. As I pointed ou tto you, more jobs will be created. That is if you believe the field of economics anyway. It made sense to me. I am an MBA in Finance from Michigan, Finance is a branch of economics

NAFTA has been around for a long time..............I've shown the manufacturing jobs losses.................now show me the replacement jobs............................in the service sector you say are being created...............Mind you don't add in the h1b visa jobs with foreign workers in the equation. unless they are citizens.

You can name the jobs lost, or a lot of them, when companies announce offshoring. How do you name the jobs that are created when they are created from increased money?

And yes, the liberals have informed me NAFTA is the only thing that happened to our economy the last 20 years and we can therefore assume that everything that has happened since then is because of NAFTA, glad to see you found common ground with them. Well, except that you're wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

America s Biggest Companies Continue To Move Factories Offshore And Eliminate Thousands of American Jobs

Here are some of the filings:





Flextronics Americas in Stafford, Texas, will lay off 147 workers because their jobs "are being transferred to Juarez, Mexico," writes Chrystal Broussard Johnson, a Workforce Account Executive at a TAA "One-Stop Operator/Partner."



Jabil of Tempe, Ariz., will lay off more than 500 workers making printed circuit boards and box-build assemblies for the medical, industrial and aerospace sectors. "We are in the process of moving several assemblies to other Jabil facilities in Mexico and Asia in order to reduce labor costs and meet our customers' pricing expectations," writes Jabil HR Manager Dawn Tabelak in a July 15 TAA petition.


Joy Global of Franklin, Penn., will lay off 245 workers making underground mining equipment because production is "being shifted to a foreign location, outsourcing increased imports, articles and services," writes Timothy Buck, a union official in York, Penn.


Phillips Lighting Company's Bath, N.Y., factory making finished lamps will lay off 265 workers because "production is being shifted to a foreign country," writes Amy Heysham, Director of Human Resources for Phillips.


Hewlett Packard will lay off 500 employees working in customer service and technical support in Conway, Ark., due to "global restructuring," according to Mazen Alkhamis, Business Solutions Analyst for the state of Arkansas in Little Rock.


DAK Americas of Leland, N.C., is laying off 340 full-time workers and 264 contract workers because it closed its entire production facility at its Cape Fear site due to dumped imports of competing products, according to Stephen Seals, DAK Americas' Senior Director of Human Resources. "Imports of PET resins have continued to rise in quantity over the last several years, especially from China and Oman," writes Seals. "The low price of these imports as well as the increasing volume continues to have a negative impact in the U.S. marketplace. For DAK Americas' Cape Fear site, it is the price suppression that these low-priced imports has brought with them that has been the most damaging. The continuing decline in prices has forced DAK Americas to rationalize capacity." Shutting down the Cape Fear PET resins manufacturing plant "would not be the outcome if the increasing volume of low-priced imports had not driven the manufacturing economics for this site beyond a state that cannot be maintained and be viable.

"DAK continues to participate in trade actions against these low-priced imports. There are three major trade cases for antidumping actions for Certain Polyester Staple Fiber products against Korea (A-580-839), Taiwan (A-583-833) and China (A-570-905) that remain active with trade actions aimed at controlling the dumping of fibers from these countries, yet the flow of imports continues to affect our business and the marketplace. As a result of continuing imports of those dumped products, DAK will be closing fiber manufacturing at the Cape Fear site. A significant portion of the Polyester Stable Fiber produced on-site will now be transferred and be manufactured in Queretaro, Mexico. . . Even with the renewed anti-dumping trade case affirmative actions against Korea, free-trade agreements with Korea were put in place that bolster the ability for these imports to continue. If imports were not given increased access to the U.S. marketplace for the products produced at DAK Americas Cape Fear site, the site would not be forced to rationalize capacity and shut down its operations resulting in the loss of approximately 600 jobs at the site."


Eli Lilly will lose nearly 1,000 sales representatives nationwide "as a result of the loss of patent protection from two of its best-selling drugs: Cymbalta and Evista," writes Susan Fracasso, Rapid Response Coordinator for the state of Connecticut in Wethersfield. "Those two products will be made generically, likely by facilities outside of the United States.


Charles Inc. of Council Bluffs, Iowa, will lay off 60 furniture workers. The reason: "Since mid-1990s, many upholstered furniture companies have been importing completely upholstered furniture, cut & sewn kits and raw materials from China, Mexico, Vietnam and other Southeast Asia countries," according to Lindsay Anderson, TAA Coordinator for the state of Iowa. "This has resulted in Charles Inc.'s inability to compete with them and be able to meet their prices. Charles Inc. has tried many different approaches, but the labor and material saving on imported products was too much for Charles Inc. to overcome."


PDM Bridge based in Proctor, Minn., will lay off 35 workers because the company is "losing local contract product bids in the last year to multinational and overseas buyers and producers of like and similar bridge products," according to Debra Schlekewy, TAA Coordinator for the state of Minnesota.


Honeywell Process Solutions, manufacturer of electronic industrial control units in York, Penn., will lay off 110 workers. "Company filed WARN stating closure in the first quarter of 2014 with layoffs expected to begin in August 2013," writes Terri Zimmerman of the Pennsylvania state government. "Per company official most of the work is transferring to Mexico."


Nordex USA Inc., maker of wind blades in both Jonesboro, Ark., and Chicago, Ill., will lay off 80 workers because production is "being sifted to a foreign country," according to Francene Miller of the Arkansas state government.

Good for them. Doing what the Democrats want and saying inefficient is a great way to go under and kill all their jobs. As I pointed ou tto you, more jobs will be created. That is if you believe the field of economics anyway. It made sense to me. I am an MBA in Finance from Michigan, Finance is a branch of economics

NAFTA has been around for a long time..............I've shown the manufacturing jobs losses.................now show me the replacement jobs............................in the service sector you say are being created...............Mind you don't add in the h1b visa jobs with foreign workers in the equation. unless they are citizens.

You can name the jobs lost, or a lot of them, when companies announce offshoring. How do you name the jobs that are created when they are created from increased money?

And yes, the liberals have informed me NAFTA is the only thing that happened to our economy the last 20 years and we can therefore assume that everything that has happened since then is because of NAFTA, glad to see you found common ground with them. Well, except that you're wrong.

NAFTA is only one of them.......................and I don't care if you see me with common ground with them.............

How many jobs lost via the deal with South Korea...........................

How many jobs via China and the WTO...........

And has China stopped our imports without challenge under the WTO..........

 

[kaz]

I have stated time and time again that protectionism is a two edged sword............to much protection then you get higher prices and they offset the savings of jobs...........too little and you outsource your jobs................

Nonsense. First, you should consider like the libs that you are directly contradicting the field of economics.

Now it is true there are winners and losers in free trade, but economics says the more the better as a whole. We don't have blacksmiths anymore either. Some will have to be retrained. Some companies will lose. But more companies will win and more jobs will be created than lost. You know what economics also says? Having our borders open even if other borders are closed is better than having our borders closed.

Here are a few things you are not factoring

- It's not a zero sum game. Lower prices mean consumers pay lower prices, they spend the money they save on something else
- Corporations that offshore save money and have more money to fund new projects or return it to their owners, the shareholders
- Foreign corporations are offshoring, which puts ours at a disadvantage
- Our government is actually driving companies offshore with taxes and regulations, shouldn't you start there rather than punishing companies who are trying to be more efficient?

Our borders are not necessarily closed with tariffs.............If china bans products there..........which they do in some areas......then they get hit for it in return...................Tariffs don't close borders.........and they don't necessarily sky rocket prices when they are done in moderation...............

And the border closed argument would be if we started a trade war over it..................

I didn't say our borders are closed. I talked about open borders and the more open the better, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

NAFTA allowed corps to move south of the border...........use it to their advantage........and then ship it back here free gratis..........at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.....................How is that beneficial to the average working man in this country?

Do the lower costs offset those who now have the great SERVICE SECTOR JOBS at McDonalds and Walmart....................that ain't a good trade off..............

I must have missed the post you explained how you know more than economists about the economy. Can you give me that post # and I'll review that and we can take it from there?

post 3 and 4

I don't see anywhere in there how you know the field of economics is wrong

focus on 4

That was happening anyway you realize, and again, NAFTA is actually not the only thing that has happened in the last 20 years, you are committing a single cause fallacy

show the new jobs that replaced those lost in the graphs now please..................

I addressed this in the post immediately following this one

 

[eagle1462010]

btw again...........................PROVE IT...............

 

[hipeter924]

Truthfully I cannot fathom why Obama is so set on this thing but he is certainly not my hero. That's my honest answer, now, convince me that you would be against this thing if our president was a republican.

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

Not true. 'Big government' as you term it is a product of corporations, as much as it is by popular vote. The two trade deals will clearly regulate and enforce provisions that monopolize the market and only favor a chosen few companies.*

And as for 'high prices', you will get a lot of those price hikes when the two trade deals go into effect, starting with electricity, healthcare, and education.

*High tech firms will leave America in droves the moment that TPP and TTIP are signed, as the draconian provisions will bar them from operating.

Hysterical fear with solutions with no basis in the field of economics is a great way to run the economy, I see your point

So all these companies and organizations are acting out of 'hysterical fear' by opposing fast track? Tech Company and User Groups Letter to Congress on TPP Fast Track Electronic Frontier Foundation

Strawman, I don't know why they oppose fast track and I didn't argue for fast track. I didn't even argue for these bills, haven't seen them. I argued for free trade and NAFTA

The 'Strawman' is supporting TPP: WikiLeaks - TPP Transparency for Healthcare Annex
Plenty of leaked texts of the treaty. Like the Healthcare Annex, which on the last page pertains to changes to Medicare,etc.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have stated time and time again that protectionism is a two edged sword............to much protection then you get higher prices and they offset the savings of jobs...........too little and you outsource your jobs................

Nonsense. First, you should consider like the libs that you are directly contradicting the field of economics.

Now it is true there are winners and losers in free trade, but economics says the more the better as a whole. We don't have blacksmiths anymore either. Some will have to be retrained. Some companies will lose. But more companies will win and more jobs will be created than lost. You know what economics also says? Having our borders open even if other borders are closed is better than having our borders closed.

Here are a few things you are not factoring

- It's not a zero sum game. Lower prices mean consumers pay lower prices, they spend the money they save on something else
- Corporations that offshore save money and have more money to fund new projects or return it to their owners, the shareholders
- Foreign corporations are offshoring, which puts ours at a disadvantage
- Our government is actually driving companies offshore with taxes and regulations, shouldn't you start there rather than punishing companies who are trying to be more efficient?

Our borders are not necessarily closed with tariffs.............If china bans products there..........which they do in some areas......then they get hit for it in return...................Tariffs don't close borders.........and they don't necessarily sky rocket prices when they are done in moderation...............

And the border closed argument would be if we started a trade war over it..................

I didn't say our borders are closed. I talked about open borders and the more open the better, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

NAFTA allowed corps to move south of the border...........use it to their advantage........and then ship it back here free gratis..........at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.....................How is that beneficial to the average working man in this country?

Do the lower costs offset those who now have the great SERVICE SECTOR JOBS at McDonalds and Walmart....................that ain't a good trade off..............

I must have missed the post you explained how you know more than economists about the economy. Can you give me that post # and I'll review that and we can take it from there?

post 3 and 4

I don't see anywhere in there how you know the field of economics is wrong

focus on 4

That was happening anyway you realize, and again, NAFTA is actually not the only thing that has happened in the last 20 years, you are committing a single cause fallacy

show the new jobs that replaced those lost in the graphs now please..................

I addressed this in the post immediately following this one

Specifics.............................none posted....................where are they................show the growth.

 

[kaz]

America s Biggest Companies Continue To Move Factories Offshore And Eliminate Thousands of American Jobs

Here are some of the filings:





Flextronics Americas in Stafford, Texas, will lay off 147 workers because their jobs "are being transferred to Juarez, Mexico," writes Chrystal Broussard Johnson, a Workforce Account Executive at a TAA "One-Stop Operator/Partner."



Jabil of Tempe, Ariz., will lay off more than 500 workers making printed circuit boards and box-build assemblies for the medical, industrial and aerospace sectors. "We are in the process of moving several assemblies to other Jabil facilities in Mexico and Asia in order to reduce labor costs and meet our customers' pricing expectations," writes Jabil HR Manager Dawn Tabelak in a July 15 TAA petition.


Joy Global of Franklin, Penn., will lay off 245 workers making underground mining equipment because production is "being shifted to a foreign location, outsourcing increased imports, articles and services," writes Timothy Buck, a union official in York, Penn.


Phillips Lighting Company's Bath, N.Y., factory making finished lamps will lay off 265 workers because "production is being shifted to a foreign country," writes Amy Heysham, Director of Human Resources for Phillips.


Hewlett Packard will lay off 500 employees working in customer service and technical support in Conway, Ark., due to "global restructuring," according to Mazen Alkhamis, Business Solutions Analyst for the state of Arkansas in Little Rock.


DAK Americas of Leland, N.C., is laying off 340 full-time workers and 264 contract workers because it closed its entire production facility at its Cape Fear site due to dumped imports of competing products, according to Stephen Seals, DAK Americas' Senior Director of Human Resources. "Imports of PET resins have continued to rise in quantity over the last several years, especially from China and Oman," writes Seals. "The low price of these imports as well as the increasing volume continues to have a negative impact in the U.S. marketplace. For DAK Americas' Cape Fear site, it is the price suppression that these low-priced imports has brought with them that has been the most damaging. The continuing decline in prices has forced DAK Americas to rationalize capacity." Shutting down the Cape Fear PET resins manufacturing plant "would not be the outcome if the increasing volume of low-priced imports had not driven the manufacturing economics for this site beyond a state that cannot be maintained and be viable.

"DAK continues to participate in trade actions against these low-priced imports. There are three major trade cases for antidumping actions for Certain Polyester Staple Fiber products against Korea (A-580-839), Taiwan (A-583-833) and China (A-570-905) that remain active with trade actions aimed at controlling the dumping of fibers from these countries, yet the flow of imports continues to affect our business and the marketplace. As a result of continuing imports of those dumped products, DAK will be closing fiber manufacturing at the Cape Fear site. A significant portion of the Polyester Stable Fiber produced on-site will now be transferred and be manufactured in Queretaro, Mexico. . . Even with the renewed anti-dumping trade case affirmative actions against Korea, free-trade agreements with Korea were put in place that bolster the ability for these imports to continue. If imports were not given increased access to the U.S. marketplace for the products produced at DAK Americas Cape Fear site, the site would not be forced to rationalize capacity and shut down its operations resulting in the loss of approximately 600 jobs at the site."


Eli Lilly will lose nearly 1,000 sales representatives nationwide "as a result of the loss of patent protection from two of its best-selling drugs: Cymbalta and Evista," writes Susan Fracasso, Rapid Response Coordinator for the state of Connecticut in Wethersfield. "Those two products will be made generically, likely by facilities outside of the United States.


Charles Inc. of Council Bluffs, Iowa, will lay off 60 furniture workers. The reason: "Since mid-1990s, many upholstered furniture companies have been importing completely upholstered furniture, cut & sewn kits and raw materials from China, Mexico, Vietnam and other Southeast Asia countries," according to Lindsay Anderson, TAA Coordinator for the state of Iowa. "This has resulted in Charles Inc.'s inability to compete with them and be able to meet their prices. Charles Inc. has tried many different approaches, but the labor and material saving on imported products was too much for Charles Inc. to overcome."


PDM Bridge based in Proctor, Minn., will lay off 35 workers because the company is "losing local contract product bids in the last year to multinational and overseas buyers and producers of like and similar bridge products," according to Debra Schlekewy, TAA Coordinator for the state of Minnesota.


Honeywell Process Solutions, manufacturer of electronic industrial control units in York, Penn., will lay off 110 workers. "Company filed WARN stating closure in the first quarter of 2014 with layoffs expected to begin in August 2013," writes Terri Zimmerman of the Pennsylvania state government. "Per company official most of the work is transferring to Mexico."


Nordex USA Inc., maker of wind blades in both Jonesboro, Ark., and Chicago, Ill., will lay off 80 workers because production is "being sifted to a foreign country," according to Francene Miller of the Arkansas state government.

Good for them. Doing what the Democrats want and saying inefficient is a great way to go under and kill all their jobs. As I pointed ou tto you, more jobs will be created. That is if you believe the field of economics anyway. It made sense to me. I am an MBA in Finance from Michigan, Finance is a branch of economics

NAFTA has been around for a long time..............I've shown the manufacturing jobs losses.................now show me the replacement jobs............................in the service sector you say are being created...............Mind you don't add in the h1b visa jobs with foreign workers in the equation. unless they are citizens.

You can name the jobs lost, or a lot of them, when companies announce offshoring. How do you name the jobs that are created when they are created from increased money?

And yes, the liberals have informed me NAFTA is the only thing that happened to our economy the last 20 years and we can therefore assume that everything that has happened since then is because of NAFTA, glad to see you found common ground with them. Well, except that you're wrong.

NAFTA is only one of them.......................and I don't care if you see me with common ground with them.............

How many jobs lost via the deal with South Korea...........................

How many jobs via China and the WTO...........

And has China stopped our imports without challenge under the WTO..........

I agreed that there are winners and losers. Pointing out there are losers doesn't contradict that.

And when you ask how many jobs were lost, I don't know. But there were net jobs gained. The problem I keep pointing out to you that you keep ignoring is government is actually actively driving corporations offshore, why are you not more concerned with starting there? We have high corporate tax rates compared to western countries, we are the only one who taxes repatriated money. Obamacare is a disaster for keeping jobs onshore. Unemployment taxes, our tort system. With all those things you want to try to pen in corporations rather than address ... why ... people like me keep moving operations offshore? I've proudly personally offshored many IT operations to India. I'm a great American, it's great for our country

 

[hipeter924]

Truthfully I cannot fathom why Obama is so set on this thing but he is certainly not my hero. That's my honest answer, now, convince me that you would be against this thing if our president was a republican.

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

Not true. 'Big government' as you term it is a product of corporations, as much as it is by popular vote. The two trade deals will clearly regulate and enforce provisions that monopolize the market and only favor a chosen few companies.*

And as for 'high prices', you will get a lot of those price hikes when the two trade deals go into effect, starting with electricity, healthcare, and education.

*High tech firms will leave America in droves the moment that TPP and TTIP are signed, as the draconian provisions will bar them from operating.

Hysterical fear with solutions with no basis in the field of economics is a great way to run the economy, I see your point

So all these companies and organizations are acting out of 'hysterical fear' by opposing fast track? Tech Company and User Groups Letter to Congress on TPP Fast Track Electronic Frontier Foundation

Strawman, I don't know why they oppose fast track and I didn't argue for fast track. I didn't even argue for these bills, haven't seen them. I argued for free trade and NAFTA

You made the Strawman by claiming everyone opposed to the TPP acted out of 'hysterical fear'.

 

[kaz]

Nonsense. First, you should consider like the libs that you are directly contradicting the field of economics.

Now it is true there are winners and losers in free trade, but economics says the more the better as a whole. We don't have blacksmiths anymore either. Some will have to be retrained. Some companies will lose. But more companies will win and more jobs will be created than lost. You know what economics also says? Having our borders open even if other borders are closed is better than having our borders closed.

Here are a few things you are not factoring

- It's not a zero sum game. Lower prices mean consumers pay lower prices, they spend the money they save on something else
- Corporations that offshore save money and have more money to fund new projects or return it to their owners, the shareholders
- Foreign corporations are offshoring, which puts ours at a disadvantage
- Our government is actually driving companies offshore with taxes and regulations, shouldn't you start there rather than punishing companies who are trying to be more efficient?

Our borders are not necessarily closed with tariffs.............If china bans products there..........which they do in some areas......then they get hit for it in return...................Tariffs don't close borders.........and they don't necessarily sky rocket prices when they are done in moderation...............

And the border closed argument would be if we started a trade war over it..................

I didn't say our borders are closed. I talked about open borders and the more open the better, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

NAFTA allowed corps to move south of the border...........use it to their advantage........and then ship it back here free gratis..........at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.....................How is that beneficial to the average working man in this country?

Do the lower costs offset those who now have the great SERVICE SECTOR JOBS at McDonalds and Walmart....................that ain't a good trade off..............

I must have missed the post you explained how you know more than economists about the economy. Can you give me that post # and I'll review that and we can take it from there?

post 3 and 4

I don't see anywhere in there how you know the field of economics is wrong

focus on 4

That was happening anyway you realize, and again, NAFTA is actually not the only thing that has happened in the last 20 years, you are committing a single cause fallacy

show the new jobs that replaced those lost in the graphs now please..................

I addressed this in the post immediately following this one

Specifics.............................none posted....................where are they................show the growth.

Show what graph? I am answering your questions

 

[kaz]

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

Not true. 'Big government' as you term it is a product of corporations, as much as it is by popular vote. The two trade deals will clearly regulate and enforce provisions that monopolize the market and only favor a chosen few companies.*

And as for 'high prices', you will get a lot of those price hikes when the two trade deals go into effect, starting with electricity, healthcare, and education.

*High tech firms will leave America in droves the moment that TPP and TTIP are signed, as the draconian provisions will bar them from operating.

Hysterical fear with solutions with no basis in the field of economics is a great way to run the economy, I see your point

So all these companies and organizations are acting out of 'hysterical fear' by opposing fast track? Tech Company and User Groups Letter to Congress on TPP Fast Track Electronic Frontier Foundation

Strawman, I don't know why they oppose fast track and I didn't argue for fast track. I didn't even argue for these bills, haven't seen them. I argued for free trade and NAFTA

You made the Strawman by claiming everyone opposed to the TPP acted out of 'hysterical fear'.

No, I said people who oppose free trade are acting out of hysterical fear. I never mentioned the TPP specifically

 

[occupied]

Truthfully I cannot fathom why Obama is so set on this thing but he is certainly not my hero. That's my honest answer, now, convince me that you would be against this thing if our president was a republican.

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

It's self-explanatory, most republicans support anything with free trade in the title as you do. I am fascinated at the motives for the small republican opposition, it must just be because Obama, anything else would be an admission that "free trade" fever has cost us dearly.

There's always been a doom and gloom hysterical fear wing of the Republican party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And other than that I'm not a Republican and I don't support "anything with free trade in the title," I support free trade.

Also, how do you know the field of economics is wrong when you say free trade has cost us?

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

 

[kaz]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

I'm against it, I don't understand why anyone could be for this.

Maybe if you give a more specific answer as to what you oppose that would help.

If you oppose free trade, the big reason to support it is you understand the field of economics.

I also support it because as a business guy I understand how critical it is to compete with foreign corporations and other American corporations.

If you have a different objection specific to the TPP, I don't know enough about it.