Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Nov '13 17:25
    As a President once said: There they go again!
    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/obamas-secret-treaty-which-will-merge-america-more-deeply-into-the-emerging-one-world-economic-system
    After NAFTA and CAFTA made mucho bucks for a chosen few, and deprived the rest of us of jobs, the latest from our favorite corporate/government alliance (AKA National Socialism) brings us this. And, it will pass, one way or another. (After all, they extended the CAFTA voting time in the House to get that last voter to pass it, and that was by a simple majority. Not 2/3rds as a treaty is required to have!)
    Here are some stats from this article, for those who cannot abide reading it, as it's long and has tons of crappy ads:
    "-The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

    -Back in the year 2000, there were more than 17 million Americans working in manufacturing. Now there are less than 12 million.

    -There are less Americans working in manufacturing today than there was in 1950 even though the population of the country has more than doubled since then.

    -Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

    -When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars. By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.

    -Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little "m" for the entire year. In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315 billion dollars. That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.

    -According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year."

    So. Comments?
    Or will it be: "The man hears what he wants hear,
    and disregards the rest." - P Simon
  2. 16 Nov '13 17:56
    Originally posted by DanTriola
    As a President once said: There they go again!
    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/obamas-secret-treaty-which-will-merge-america-more-deeply-into-the-emerging-one-world-economic-system
    After NAFTA and CAFTA made mucho bucks for a chosen few, and deprived the rest of us of jobs, the latest from our favorite corporate/government alliance (AKA Natio ...[text shortened]... mments?
    Or will it be: "The man hears what he wants hear,
    and disregards the rest." - P Simon
    You say, "After all, they extended the CAFTA voting time in the House to get that last voter to pass it, and that was by a simple majority. Not 2/3rds as a treaty is required to have!"

    But the Senate is the body that has to concur by a 2/3 margin, the House isn't involved. "The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur... "
    Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2

    Aside from that, my comment is that we are in a race to the bottom.
  3. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    16 Nov '13 18:05
    Originally posted by DanTriola
    As a President once said: There they go again!
    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/obamas-secret-treaty-which-will-merge-america-more-deeply-into-the-emerging-one-world-economic-system
    After NAFTA and CAFTA made mucho bucks for a chosen few, and deprived the rest of us of jobs, the latest from our favorite corporate/government alliance (AKA Natio ...[text shortened]... mments?
    Or will it be: "The man hears what he wants hear,
    and disregards the rest." - P Simon
    It's a swindle all the way around.
  4. 16 Nov '13 18:20
    Originally posted by JS357
    You say, "After all, they extended the CAFTA voting time in the House to get that last voter to pass it, and that was by a simple majority. Not 2/3rds as a treaty is required to have!"

    But the Senate is the body that has to concur by a 2/3 margin, the House isn't involved. "The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ...[text shortened]... d States, Art. II, Sec. 2

    Aside from that, my comment is that we are in a race to the bottom.
    I knew I'd screw up something! Why I never start threads. (Well, hardly ever.)
    But, I could say I was just seeing if anyone paid careful attention.
    (I wasn't though.)
    Congrats. Good catch!
  5. 16 Nov '13 19:31
    People should have the freedom to trade their products and services around the globe without barriers.
  6. 16 Nov '13 20:13
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    People should have the freedom to trade their products and services around the globe without barriers.
    No
  7. 16 Nov '13 21:24
    Last 2 posts are slogans. (Well, "No" was Nancy Reagan's!)
    Let's see some discussion with substance. Should free trade or restrictive tariffs be better for the people of the US of A today? (Not just for a few uber-wealthy corporations, who buy politicians.) Or, are we all just commodities to be sold to the rest of the World to pay that trade deficit?
    Is the US even a free nation anymore, or was it sold out from under us?
  8. 16 Nov '13 21:48
    Originally posted by DanTriola
    Last 2 posts are slogans. (Well, "No" was Nancy Reagan's!)
    Let's see some discussion with substance. Should free trade or restrictive tariffs be better for the people of the US of A today? (Not just for a few uber-wealthy corporations, who buy politicians.) Or, are we all just commodities to be sold to the rest of the World to pay that trade deficit?
    Is the US even a free nation anymore, or was it sold out from under us?
    Just say no to crack.
  9. 16 Nov '13 22:13
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Just say no to crack.
    That is a substance. But, it does not have substance.
  10. 16 Nov '13 22:36
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    No
    You just say that because you love big government. Personally, I don't appreciate people telling me who I can and cannot do business with.
  11. 16 Nov '13 22:55
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra to Joe Beyser
    You just say that because you love big government.
    Personally, I don't appreciate people telling me who I can and cannot do business with.
    "I don't appreciate people telling me who I can and cannot do business
    with."
    --KazetNagorra

    So would you (if you were a US citizen) object to US economic sanctions
    against countries such as Cuba, Iran, the DPRK (North Korea), etc.?
  12. 16 Nov '13 23:04 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You just say that because you love big government. Personally, I don't appreciate people telling me who I can and cannot do business with.
    If it takes big government to bar the sale of, say, slave-produced goods, or goods whose production ruins the health of workers, then we have to decide whether the right of other people to their personal liberty and health trumps our right to do business where we want. This is the substance of my "race to the bottom" comment.

    Edit: The above is just a hypothetical example. A number of different trade-off situations will have to be be considered and decided.
  13. 16 Nov '13 23:12
    Originally posted by JS357
    If it takes big government to bar the commerce in, say, slave-produced goods, or goods whose production ruins the health of workers, then we have to decide whether the right of other people to their personal liberty and health trumps our right to do business where we want. This is the substance of my "race to the bottom" comment.

    Edit: The above is just a h ...[text shortened]... l example. A number of different trade-off situations will have to be be considered and decided.
  14. 17 Nov '13 12:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "I don't appreciate people telling me who I can and cannot do business
    with."
    --KazetNagorra

    So would you (if you were a US citizen) object to US economic sanctions
    against countries such as Cuba, Iran, the DPRK (North Korea), etc.?
    Yes. (arms embargoes might be an exception)
  15. 18 Nov '13 00:48 / 1 edit
    Well, one post all day.
    This is now a dead thread.
    No one seems concerned with this last attack on a once great US manufacturing industry.
    Is it because you Leftists will not attack Obama, or, you Right-Wingers support the corporations pushing this latest trade agreement?
    So, as I see it, what difference is there, between Left and Right, when National Socialism is once more in power?
    Nada.

    And, a storm is coming. (Winds up to 65 mph) across the Heartland tonight.