on the trade deficit chart, coincides with the worst of the recession, when people stopped spending, then resumed downward as the economy recovered.

in light of the facts

Free trade with no mandate on participating countries to improve standard of living for workers will move the standard toward the bottom, not move the bottom up. It truly is reverse trickle down economics supported by invested Democrats.

But never again. It's long been obvious that they are a disaster for American worker. And agreements of any kind made in secret? Forget it.

Now, if we could figure out the Pope's religion, we'd have this thing dicked...

far bigger culprit: currency manipulation. A 2012 paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the American trade deficit has increased by up to $500 billion a year and the country has lost up to five million jobs because China, South Korea, Malaysia and other countries have boosted their exports by suppressing the value of their currency.

HOW TO WRITE A BETTER AGREEMENT

The trade agreements the Obama administration is negotiating provide a chance for the United States to press countries to stop manipulating their currencies. The administration appears to be afraid that raising the issue could scuttle the talks. It’s time the administration stiffened its spine.

The president also needs to make clear to America’s trading partners that they need to adhere to enforceable labor and environmental regulations. This would level the playing field for American workers and improve the lives of tens of millions of workers in developing countries. If done right, these agreements could improve the ground rules of global trade, as even critics of Nafta like Representative Sander Levin, Democrat of Michigan, have argued. They could reduce abuses like sweatshop labor, currency manipulation and the senseless destruction of forests.

The Obama administration also needs to do much more to counter the demands of corporations with those of the public interest. Consumer and workers groups should have been on the same industry advisory committees. And Mr. Froman, the trade representative, must make clear that these agreements will allow countries to adopt regulations without the threat of a lawsuit from powerful businesses. On patents, the agreements should not cut off developing countries’ access to lifesaving generic medicines.

A study published last year blamed increased imports from China for 44 percent of the decline in manufacturing employment from 1990 to 2007. (Much of the rest of the decline was blamed on increased productivity due to the increased use of technology and automation.) People who lost those jobs were more likely to stop seeking work or to find lower-wage jobs in other industries, suggesting that government programs to retrain workers hurt by trade are inadequate. A second paper by the same scholars concluded that the negative impact of imports from Mexico and Central American nations with which the United States has agreements were “economically small and statistically insignificant.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/this-time-get-global-trade-right.html?_r=0

Nice editorial. If the administration is unable or unwilling to include action on currency manipulation and enforceable labor and environmental regulations, it should walk away from the TPP.

"let's destroy Medicare and Social Security" goons as a source to defend the giant sack of shit called "Free Trade"?

not a problem, you are entitled to your opinion. I doubt many liberals would agree with that analysis.

What part of that do you construe as a defense of 'free trade"?

and they went gag-ga. And it has taken them at least 30 years to see the light. I am not encouraged. These nitwits will follow the next charlatan that comes along. Trickle-Down doesnt even make logical sense. Removing trade barriers will logically level the standards of living of the masses of the world.

I am not claiming socialism is the answer, but it's only logical that continuing the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the select few at the top is unsustainable.

I fully understand that those capitalists that gain wealth (their ultimate goal in life) would support continuing the status quo. What I dont understand are those people that call themselves Democrats (The Third Way, DLC, Conserva-Dems, etc) that willing to maintain the status quo and continue to watch the wealth gap widen.

Put the kool-aid down, join the populist movement, shun the Democrats owned by the Oligarchs. That they're better than the Tea Party is a trick. Dont fall for it. Support progressive Democrats. Let the Blue Dogs lay (or lie) with the Republicans.

And sometimes I think the goal is to turn this country into a banana republic...at least it seems that way.
Third world countries are a great place to live if you are the 1% or one of their vassals.

They do it because they are moderate Republicans.

Their problem is moderate Republicans were driven out of that party by the crazy Republicans. So they needed a new home, and settled into the right end of the Democratic party.

Democratic party officials saw an opportunity to get more votes, and have tried to be everything to everyone - "get these moderate Republicans as well as the liberal Democrats and we will never lose!!!"

Problem is you can never be all things to all people.

At this point, there's going to be a realignment. The Republican party appears to have wandered off into permanent insanity, so they will go the way of the Whigs. The Democratic party can't be all things to all people, so they'll fracture in half. One end will settle into roughly where the party was in the 1950s-1970s - supporting labor, civil rights, etc. The other end will settle into roughly where the Republican party was in the 1950s-1970s.

We just don't know which half will end up with the name "Democratic party".


In primary elections. In general elections, vote for the Democrat, holding your nose if necessary. Then vote them out in the next primary.

This is exactly how the crazy Republicans dragged the Republican party to the right. We can use the same tactic to drag the Democratic party to the left.

Refusing to vote for the DLCer in the general results in the party giving up on you, and that sends the party to the right as they try to replace your vote with votes from moderate Republicans. We need to fix the party in the primaries.

No good primary candidate? Then run. You don't have to win to turn the party. You just have to make them start worrying about their left flank.

You said,"Democratic party officials saw an opportunity to get more votes, and have tried to be everything to everyone - "get these moderate Republicans as well as the liberal Democrats and we will never lose!!!" "

My take is slightly different. Pres Obama needed the left to get elected in 2008. He told us most everything we wanted to hear. Immediately and I mean immediately upon being elected he distanced himself from the left. I mean he had Rick Warren at the inauguration. To me it was a punch in the gut. What did we do? He proceeded to appoint Republicans and conservative Democrats. And if you think about it, it makes sense. If you lose a lefty vote but pick up a righty vote you gain one vote because for every righty vote you get it removes that vote from the R candidate. And it turns out that well over half the lefties will vote for you anywayz because (unlike the right) there is nowhere to turn.

H. Clinton-Sachs isnt even going to bother to lie to the left. She knows to beat Bush she needs to steal votes from him. The left will be faced with voting for the lesser of evils again. The coup de gras is that if she loses, the centrists will blame the left.

He swung left for the election, but staying left would drive off the right end of the party. So he swung right, culminating in 2011. Then they figured out they had gone too far right, and swung left again for 2012.

In the general election.

That's why primaries are so critical to steering the party. The dynamic you describe doesn't work - you can't pick up "Reagan Democrats" or "Clinton Republicans" because they don't get to vote in the primary for the opposite party.

The crazy Republicans turned their party right by losing a lot of primary elections. Just being present in the primary forced the mainstream Republicans to defend their right flank, and running too far to the middle in the general earned the mainstream candidate a primary opponent in the next election that could beat them.


Assuming she's the candidate in the general. I seem to remember lots of people insisting no one could possibly beat her in 2008.

Again, stop ignoring primary elections. They are the most important elections we have.

(And you should also stop ignoring mid-terms and local elections. They're more important than top-of-the-ticket, despite all the media focus on presidential elections)

and "And you should also stop ignoring mid-terms and local elections." You dont know me or whether or not I am, in fact ignoring local elections and primaries. So what's your motivation for insinuating such?

By the way, Pres Obama never swung back to the left.

And you write only about a Hillary in the general election in 2016.

Nothing about primaries, nothing about local, and nothing about 2014. In fact, in any thread talking about such topics you usually start writing about Hillary in the 2016 general.

If you thought these other elections were important, you'd write about them. Alternatively, you are doing a terrible job of getting across your opinion on what's important.

Compared to where he was in 2011 he did.

on what's important"? Really? Go bait someone else.