Hillary supporters defending jobs to Mexico and Asia and destruction of the middle class

[whereisjustice]

Amazing.. they smugly throw it back in our face as the new reality. We all know the USA was built on passive compliance, right?

The leading Democrat is proud of the job losses and her supporters are just as proud... she is picking up support from the job killers on Wall Street and her supporters can't find a limit to the stupidity of supporting the governments of Vietnam, Mexico, China and India over the US.

Just as incredible, the leading Republican promises to stop it... he's picking up support from working class and independents.

The right wing DNC is now pushing past Republicans in specific instances of economic policies designed to disrupt the middle class.

Wtf? I'll never understand or be able to forgive the Democrats who cheer on the destruction and sacrifice of our next generation in favor of building the economies and military might of Asia.

What's wrong with hiring Americans and taking care of our own kids instead of. exploiting the poverty in India and China? Can't these nations figure out how to take care of their own citizens without our jobs? Or are we afraid they'll attack the US if we don't pay them with our young?

This is a critical election issue and establishment conservatives in both parties are on the wrong side.

[MariaThinks]

1. we are not smug but keep making stuff up

[TheBlackAdder]

54. If HRC says it's OK to dodge US Taxes, like Disney & Koch Ind., these guys would be all for it too!

.


http://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire


http://www.reuters.com/article/luxembourg-tax-disney-idUSL6N0TT4EM20141210


.

[Trust Buster]

2. Because globalization IS the new reality.

[whereisjustice]

5. Bull. TPP is reviled by majority of Americans.. More and

more we are being prevented from living in the country we want while being told we have to take what we are given under threat if force.

[Trust Buster]

9. TPP has not been ratified yet we lost millions of jobs to Asia because of cheap labor.

How can you blame TPP for that truth bomb ?

[DanTex]

10. Polls suggest otherwise.

49% TPP good, 29% TPP bad.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-favor-tpp-but-less-than-other-countries-do/

[pampango]

12. And Democrats (51-26) are more positive on the TPP than republicans (43-34). n/t

[CorporatistNation]

87. The Mass Propaganda has Worked Its Magic!

[pampango]

88. Apparently not so well with republicans. n/t

[Trust Buster]

16. Reality suggest that we've lost millions of jobs to Asia w/o TPP. We live in a global marketplace.

[EndElectoral]

38. Workers pay has been flat while CEO's pay has skyrocketed. It takes two to make what one did years

before what is called "globalization" which is really another word for "cheap labor abroad" so CEO's pay can keep growing.

[Trust Buster]

50. I agree. But that happened before trade deals and it will keep happening.

[Silver_Witch]

68. Actually no...

it started with President Bill Clinton's NAFTA.

[Trust Buster]

69. NAFTA had nothing to do with Asia. During Reagan, Japan was the big concern.

[angstlessk]

15. Globalization was supposed to raise worker pay...

...instead now those same corporations want Americans to compete with those making 50 cents per hour.

Trade policies were a LIE...and to pretend a new policy TPP will not create a universal pot of workers who make $2.00 per day is a LIE

They want American workers not only live on $2.00 per day, they also want them to live in toxic communities!

[pampango]

17. Something has raised the pay for the poorest 70% of the world's workers.

It may be globalization or something else but it is a good thing



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/recent-history-in-one-chart/

Most liberals do not lament the rise in the incomes of the poorest 70% of the world's people. However, most of us see the dramatic rise in the incomes of the 0.1% as the real cause of the decline of the Western middle class and working class.

[angstlessk]

18. Hey, I WANT pay for everyone to go up...I don't want American workers

competing with a world economy that searches for the cheapest labor on earth...

[pampango]

23. I too want the pay of American workers to go up but not at the expense of poorer people

who happen to live in the 'wrong' country.

There is no reason that we cannot go after the obscene income gains of the richest 1% rather than the world's poor to raise the incomes of our 99%. Progressive countries already do that and they trade much more than we do. We can do the same thing that Germany, Sweden and other progressive countries do.

Coolidge and Hoover reduced trade to almost zero. The result - not what you would expect - historically high income inequality that we still have not equaled. FDR saw the folly of this and promoted trade.

[angstlessk]

25. I would say YES at the expense of poor countries...

The poor countries have villages who support each other...we have housing that the poor cannot afford, and if they create 'tent cities' they are destroyed by the elite.

Sorry...Americans HAVE to make more money than those poor countries, just to exist, never mind living in luxury!

[pampango]

34. If you don't care about the global poor, that we should take what we want from them

because we are Americans then I have no response.

The Trump/Coolidge/Hoover trade policy may be the most suitable for what you want to accomplish. They didn't and he won't create a progressive America but they will stick it to those poor foreigners who are out to get us and who have their grass-hut villages to support themselves.

[EndElectoral]

41. Pennies for the Global Poor and Massive Profits for CEO's. Who are we really caring about?

[pampango]

46. As I said we should focus on the massive profits of the CEO class and others in the 1%

not on the significant gains of the poorest 70% of the world's people.

[ibegurpard]

35. No one is against trade

This is not trade though. It is wealth extraction and it's flowing disproportionately to the increasingly tiny owner classes and not the workers.

[pampango]

45. We should fight the disproportionate income gains of the rich whether it comes from

trade or from domestic economic activity (which is a much larger part of our economy).

Progressive countries do just that through strong unions, strict business regulations, high taxes and effective safety nets. FDR did the same in the US. Neither modern progressive countries nor FDR were afraid of trade. Indeed he did and they do embrace it.

[Avalon Sparks]

61. Fair Trade not Free Trade

Learn the difference....

Or just continue to blindly support Neoliberal policies.....

What's with these Hillary supporters, do they really not understand the ideals they are cheerleading for? The rationales they offer sound like Repub newspeak.

Politics is like a football game to these folks, hip hip hooray!

I guess they been brainwashed by the mass media, by propaganda, falling for it just like the Repubs do.... Good little drones following in line.

That Can be the only reason there are Democrats voting for a Republican for the Democrat nomination.

Hillary is farther right on policy then Reagan for Christ's sake...

Clinton’s campaign message is: Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing.

When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that – and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message – the work of the American ruling class is done.


~Ava~

[pampango]

71. How do you define 'fair trade'? Is it necessarily a unilateral American policy or can it be

Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 12:33 PM - Edit history (2)

be negotiated with other countries? Should each country unilaterally establish its own definition of 'fair', decide on its own when another country has violated that standard then determine the penalty (tariff, quota, etc.) that it will impose? Or can these things be negotiated?

Learn the difference....

Or just continue to blindly support Neoliberal policies.....

If my support for "strong unions, strict business regulations, high taxes and effective safety nets. FDR did the same in the US" in the post you are responding to sounds 'Neoliberal' to you then we are not using the same definitions here.

What's with these Hillary supporters, do they really not understand the ideals they are cheerleading for? The rationales they offer sound like Repub newspeak.

I don't know if you think I support Hillary. I support Bernie and thought my sig line made that apparent. If my support for trade and "strong unions, strict business regulations, high taxes and effective safety nets" sounds like 'Repub newspeak', that is not what I intended. I meant for it to sound like 'FDR-speak'.

I blame our economic problems on weak unions (thank you, Taft-Hartley and its 'right-to-work), weak business regulation (deregulation), regressive taxes ('trickle-down economics') and a shattered safety net ('austerity') - all, notably, things that the US government has done to its own citizens. If you prefer to blame foreigners and our trade with them, be my guest.

We trade about 1/3 as much as most progressive countries. Using some type of logic that should mean that our middle class is much stronger than in Sweden, Canada or Germany. If that were the case, we would not be having this discussion.

[Avalon Sparks]

72. Hi Pampango

Most of the research I've done on free trade was at a website called Public Citizen.org. I tried to find the counter points but most seemed weak.

If agree with all your reasons for our economic problems, but also that free trade is one of them.

The website I referenced was started by a consumer group that Nader started in the 70's. The group is not associated with any party or politician, including Nader now....

Anyway I doubled check some of the stats and found that most seem to check out. If you have time can you check it out and tell me what you think. If not that's ok, but I am open to any counter opinions of the data there and you seem to be informed.....

[pampango]

73. Hi Avalon Sparks

I'm familiar with Public Citizen.org. I can't say much about its opinions on free trade other than that they seem to be pretty consistent with most liberal organizations. Nothing wrong with using it as a site to do research.

I just look at liberal governments' policies over the past 100 years and see a pattern as to which policies the successful ones share.

Before FDR we had 12 years of republican tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, union bashing, no safety net to speak of and high tariffs that eliminated most trade. The result: the worst income inequality in our history and a Great Depression.

FDR reversed all those policies. He raised taxes and made them more progressive; he tightly regulated businesses; he passed legal support for labor unions; he created a safety net; and he lowered tariffs beginning in 1934 then created the International Trade Organization in 1944.

His economic policies insured that all economic activity - both that related to international trade and the much larger part that is strictly domestic - benefited everyone, not just the 1%. He could have stopped there and left us with high tariffs and little trade but he didn't. He went on to expand trade believing that it made the 'pie' bigger and that the larger 'pie' would benefit everyone.

IMHO, modern progressive countries operate the same way that FDR's America operated. High/progressive taxes, strong safety nets, effective business regulation, legal support for strong unions and lots of trade. I'll be the first to say that more trade will not solve the problems of our middle class; but neither will less trade. The solution will come from the policies that FDR brought to the US and which modern progressive countries still follow.

[angstlessk]

49. Exactly, the have no interest to raise the poor out of poverty...only to move the Middle Class

INTO Poverty...and not just poverty, but abject poverty!

[840high]

80. .^that x100

[ibegurpard]

33. globalization is not a force of nature

It is a political phenomenon with political solutions.

[pampango]

40. True. Krugman has pointed out there have been cycles of globalization-nationalism before.

Republicans in the 1920's reversed a period of globalization in the early part of the century. FDR started a new era of globalization which has probably about run its course. It's been going for practically 70 years.

Trump's popularity shows that economic nationalism of Coolidge/Hoover is gaining and the era of international cooperation is fading.

[ibegurpard]

78. And those political solutions

Are not just free-trade vs "close the borders."

[pampango]

82. That's true but like 'true believers' in modern 'trickle-down' economics (mostly but not all repubs)

the republican 'true believers' in higher tariffs who preceded FDR three times. First they raised tariffs in 1921. That did not work as they expected. Rather than examine the wisdom of the policy they doubled-down and raised tariffs again in 1924. Again that did not satisfy them. Rather than question their 'true belief' they raised tariffs again in 1930.

Maybe the economy and the middle class would have been fine with a little bit of protectionism - say just the first of the higher tariff laws - but it seems to be hard for 'true believers' to stop with just a 'little bit' of what they think should work, even when it doesn't.

Of course income inequality reached historically high levels under those republicans and FDR would eventually reverse all of that. Maybe he should have left a little bit of that protectionism in place for the long term but by 1944 he went with the ITO designed to govern international trade cooperatively with other countries rather than leaving national governments solely in charge of it. He thought governments would always err on the side of protectionism - which his experience taught him was a flawed policy - since the 'magic' of high tariffs would always be alluring to politicians. (The 'magic' being that people think of tariffs are just hurting THEM and helping US. What's not to like from a vote-seeking politician's point of view?)

And those political solutions

Are not just free-trade vs "close the borders."

Agreed. Those 'happy mediums' are hard to find and maintain in the face of 'true believers' who view them as compromises and want trade policy be all one way or the other.

[TowneshipRebellion]

70. Bullshit it is for me.

When the revolution comes, the elites who sold us out will hang first.

[upaloopa]

3. Don't use your paradigm to define me.

[w4rma]

26. Don't defend the folks doing this, then. (nt)

[upaloopa]

28. I said don't define me!

Don't use us to support you narrative because we aren't here for you to use.

[Katashi_itto]

58. Defending the 1% as usual

[Avalon Sparks]

62. Apparently you're here to...

Vote for a Republican for the Democrat nomination.

Do you have any understanding of what a neoliberal is, Loopa?

Have you ever googled the term?

~Ava~

[upaloopa]

63. I voted for Gerald Ford when I lived in Michigan. Since 1968 when I first

voted that was the only repub I ever voted for.

[Avalon Sparks]

65. Sure.....

You're voting for a neoliberal now, another first for you I guess.

[upaloopa]

66. Well I don't live in your paradigm so we don't see things the same

[Avalon Sparks]

67. Or Perhaps it's as simple as you don't understand what a neoliberal is....

Casting a vote for Clinton is to affirm militarism, economic inequality, and Wall Street.

It is to vote for the ecological meltdown of our planet, duplicity in government, the control of our institutions by the rich, drone strikes, government surveillance of the people, and perpetual war.

It is to cast a ballot against the interests of the working poor, and for the interests of Goldman Sachs and Big Pharma.

~Ava~

[Jackie Wilson Said]

4. How about having a real discussion about jobs, manufacturing jobs I assume you mean.

Mostly, right?

They arent coming back, because of two reasons.

1. automation

2. American people are not willing to engage in the kind of trade policy that would make it possible

So...why not figure out a way to make the wealth we already have, work for everyone.

[basselope]

7. Your reasons are nonsensical.

2. American people are not willing to engage in the kind of trade policy that would make it possible


Gee... http://www.gallup.com/poll/113200/opinion-briefing-north-american-free-trade-agreement.aspx http://www.citizen.org/documents/election-2012-polling-memo.pdf

Well.. we know the trade policies they are AGAINST.

So what is it exactly they are not "willing to engage in".


And sorry, yes, automation did kill SOME jobs, but not NEARLY the number of jobs killed by enabling companies to take full advantage of labor that is pennies on the dollar.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

19. Tariffs, protectionism to a degree. Get back to me when the people figure it out.

[basselope]

48. "The people" figured it out a long time ago.

And it worked.

Clinton broke it.

[TheFarS1de]

81. Nail....

Meet hammer . Bang on

[whereisjustice]

8. Bull. Engineering medical and legal work is not done by robots

You listen to too much NPR.

And China and Mexico assemble by hand. I know this first hand.

Stop apologizing for the greed and moral cavitation destroying our economy for 300,000,000 people.

[pangaia]

14. I like your use of the word "cavitation."

I have not heard it used in that context before. Perfect.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

20. NPR, hey, I should listen, but never do.

So who is taking all the engineering, medical and legal work?

Immigrants?

[whereisjustice]

55. The work is being sent to India. H1Bs are being hired to move to USA, to manage teams in India

that is the new reality.

Chances are very good your x-ray is being read in India for $6/hr. The hospital who took the picture is charging you for $300 per hour as if the pic was read here. They are not passing the savings onto you.

That is a fact.

[Recursion]

60. Literally every claim you made there is wrong

e-discovery has cut the need for paralegals by 2/3rds over the past 20 years.

automated medicine has caused job losses at every level other than "physician".

China is seeing huge increases in automation and decreases in manufacturing employment:

http://marketrealist.com/2015/11/factory-automation-in-china/

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/feature/Automation-sweeps-Chinas-factory-floors/shdaily.shtml

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/27/business/tech/robot-revolution-rises-china-factories/#.VvISC5N968p

[truedelphi]

6. Coming soon, with support from both Big Parties --

Smart cars.

Now the reason that is being given to the public for the need for "Smart Cars" is that supposedly they will be safer at driving than people will.

But these "Smart Cars" operate due to sending out radar signals. There is no current body of scientific research to show what effect it will have on a civilian population, to be bombarded 24/7 by radar signals.

If the car makers really want our driving to be safer, then they should install the devices that would turn off our electronic devices when our car speeds go over 15 mph. (Such items already exist, but there is an Alliance Between Auto Maker and Electronics/Communications Companies.)

The top execs at Uber and at many delivery service companies desperately want the smart cars, as then they won't have to pay for drivers, their health insurance, their pension plans, etc.

It is estimated that world wide, some 250 MILLION jobs will be lost to smart cars, once they are on the road in full force!

[Doctor_J]

11. And more war in the middle east

[riversedge]

13. Your post takes the prize the worst made up vile so are today.

[whereisjustice]

22. Lol. I didnt make anything up...

either you understand that keeping good jobs here is the only way to improve America or you support the nations of India and China and the sweatshops and abuses they stand for.

Which side is Hillary and her supporters on? I know, because they remind me every say that India and Mexico deserve those jobs more than Americans because of the free market and all the govt. incentives they get via help from Obama and Hillary.

[pampango]

29. I hope that Hillary and Bernie are on the same side as FDR.

He proposed an international trade organization that would govern trade collectively and would prioritize enforceable shared labor rights and business regulation over national sovereignty.

FDR said the ITO and the promotion of trade were to prevent a return to the hyper-nationalism and protectionism of the Coolidge/Hoover administrations that preceded him and to promote peace and prosperity.

[Ferd Berfel]

21. Yep. I've had them defend

GMOs, - AND corporations not telling you they are in your food.
Monsanto
Fracking
TPP,
NAFTA



None of that is Liberal or Progressive yet they want to argue that these are Liberal

[Ferd Berfel]

37. but tehy keep pushing this Orwellilan meme that all of that RW crap

is actually liberal and progressive

[Avalon Sparks]

64. So bizarre...

They are pumped up with propaganda, no? Are these the teabaggers of the Dem party? When did they infiltrate? I've been off DU since Dubya took his last plane ride outta Washington in 2008, and the DU Hillary supporters are cheering initiatives and policies that mirror the opinions and rationales a Free Republic member would burp up.

That they cannot recognize a Repub is alarming to me, a real life Emperor Has no Clothes situation. I continually feel the Democratic Party has been hijacked.

~Ava~

[Ferd Berfel]

74. YEs it has been hijacked

But The Dem Party was sold to the Koch Bros by the Clinton's DLC cabal in the 80's

[Avalon Sparks]

75. Really...

God the Koch brothers are the most evil mofos in the USA.

They are the real terrorists.

I'm going to try and find more info about them buying the Dems.

Thanks,
~Ava~

[Ferd Berfel]

84. Start with the Clintons and the genesis of the DLC

when they sold the Democratic Party to the Koch Bros (and other RW oligarchs) in the 80's



and good luck!

[Avalon Sparks]

90. Thank you Ferd!

Will do! 🤔

~Ava~

[EndElectoral]

24. I guess this is what they call the Third Way.

[Kip Humphrey]

27. It has been a necessary part of Hillary's globalism vision since 1970.

Which is why I oppose her to this day.

[Hoyt]

30. Sounds like Nationalism, America First, Screw the World, to me.

America has taken more than its share of the world's resources and wealth. Yet, you want to take more.

Since I don't see them listed, are you just interested in trading with Europeans?

[EndElectoral]

43. That's a simplistic way of looking at it.

Who is really profiting from globalization?

[Hoyt]

47. Almost every country is falling all over itself to attract foreign investment for

jobs, tax revenue, and economic growth.

[whereisjustice]

59. Oh really? You think India, China, Iraq, Libya can't take care of themselves without Mother America

rushing in to saving the day like a neo-con super-hero?

Yes, I think that is exactly what you would say. America the superior. So superior we'll fuck our own in order to save yours.

[Teamster Jeff]

31. Kick rec

[ibegurpard]

32. They'll defend anything she says

Even if it's the opposite of last week.

[reformist2]

42. It's practically a personality cult. But seriously, I think it's more about hating her enemies.

They defend Hillary no matter what she says, because they can't bear to admit that her enemies, who they hate, might ever be right.

[EndElectoral]

44. The unquestioning acceptance and blind allegiance of a Hillary supporter can be frightening

[redstateblues]

52. as opposed to the fevered worship of a politician who has been in Washington for decades

who is making promises he knows he can't keep.

[redstateblues]

51. Just in: Bill and Hillary found to be melting glaciers to sell

ice water to people in the Sahara and they are splitting the proceeds with neo liberal third way oligarchs so they can take away everybody's guns.

[whereisjustice]

53. Hillary and Bill just want to send our jobs to help needy people in China and India. We have

more than we need here in the USA, according to them. So they want to to take from us and give to Asia and Mexico.

In return, they'll get a nice speaking fee for their speeches on the new global economy.

[Bern2WinUSA]

56. Great Post!!!!

Why don't more Americans see this Globalization as Devastation to USA and Our People?? Why can't people see thru her lies???

[Katashi_itto]

57. Awesome post!

[Hoyt]

76. Nationalism. Doesn't that sound quaint?

[whereisjustice]

85. Demanding our Govt. stop exploiting poverty and a captive workforce is not nationalism.

[Hoyt]

89. If trade clearly improved the lives of people in other countries, Nationalists would still grouse

Except for the poorest here, most Americans are the 1%ers to the rest of the world. Sorry, they deserve a chance even if the icrease in their wages doesn't seem like much to us.

[whereisjustice]

91. Not at my expense they don't, nor my kids. There's nothing nationalistic about a nation defending

itself against forces of evil exploiting populations for Wall Street investment which is just building the military might of Asia.

You have no idea what you are talking about and you are just parroting right wing talking points about how much more India needs our jobs than we do. But really this is all about lining the pockets of CEOs and the politicians who service them.

But you already know that.

[Hoyt]

92. So poor Mexicans, Vietnamese, etc., are forces of evil?

Sorry, I have nothing against poor countries improving themselves, even if as slowly as it took us. The only way they do that nowadays is through investment from wealthier countries.

[whereisjustice]

93. To you maybe they are. Wall Street CEOs and their shills are the forces of evil.

By the way, bank CEOs got average of $25 million raise this year in spite of shitty performance.

That's because they're paid to cut labor costs by creating US poverty by sending US jobs to shitty in Asia and Mexico where they are not really raising the quality of life for everyone.

To say the jobs we are giving India might be hurting the US but helping India is just too fucked up for words.

Worse yet, the poor in India are not being helped at all because like the US disparity is growing. All that income raising the standard of living is being generated by a small minority. Just like the US.

[Hoyt]

94. To you they are competition for your job, and you want to limit that competition.

That is Nationalism.

[demosincebirth]

77. the distruction of the midddle class started when Reagan fired the traffic controllers. This

started the landslide with 12 years of republican rule with the corporations and companies firing striking workers at will. Union membership dropped from 35% to 6-7% in the private sector. When you have Republican appointees to the NLRB for 12 years it's hard to stop that landslide.

[pampango]

83. Well said. Strong unions are key to a strong middle class. FDR knew this. Modern progressive

countries know this. It is not rocket science. It's a matter of national will. We apparently don't have it. Canadians, Germans, Swedes and others apparently do. We have Taft-Harley with its 'right-to-work' BS. They have nothing like that.

[AzDar]

79. Truth.

[NorthCarolina]

86. It is what they believe in so why wouldn't they defend it.

The whole morality profile of the typical Hillary supporter was summed up for me in the discussion over Bernie's Free College plan where their retort was "We can't do this because I don't want to pay for Trumps kids to go to College".

So consider that we simply forget the greater good to society as a whole that such a program would usher in because some would apparently choose to die before potentially spending one nickel sending Trumps kids to Community College on the tax payer dime.

Progressives look at the issue and can quickly make the determination that the concern of a rich man's children attending a state university or community college on the tax payer dime pales in significance to the benefit afforded to society. Progressives TIE socially liberal policy to fiscal policy and feel that the latter must in some manner aid the former. Our com padres on the right side of the party I think can best be defined, IMO, as Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative wherein the two facets of policy are completely separate from one another, and basically share the "bootstrap" theory on fiscal issues.

That basic fiscal policy difference really is the true divide between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters from my perspective.