Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
77 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie Sanders: Wrong! (Original Post) Playinghardball Apr 2015 OP
Wow. postulater Apr 2015 #1
Not just jobs but TAX REVENUE. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #22
It's also because China will to build fast trains.... daleanime Apr 2015 #45
Yeah - reasons like.... Plucketeer Apr 2015 #51
Definitely one of the reasons... daleanime Apr 2015 #52
You can't have guns and butter and not raise taxes, so we borrow to fund wars. merrily Apr 2015 #69
So many reasons why "we can't have nice things." merrily Apr 2015 #61
This is supposed to be decision week for Bernie, right? BeyondGeography Apr 2015 #2
Meh. There's wiggle room. merrily Apr 2015 #65
Sounds like he's (pretty much) sticking to the schedule BeyondGeography Apr 2015 #67
Thank you very much! merrily Apr 2015 #68
I guess there must be a Third Way to interpret the word "compete". nt Zorra Apr 2015 #3
+1000. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #23
It's "Would you like fries with that?" merrily Apr 2015 #70
Your country needs you, Senator. hifiguy Apr 2015 #4
Our country needs at least 99 more like him Scootaloo Apr 2015 #34
534 just like him - Teabag heads explode and Nirvana is attained Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2015 #57
536 mas or menos, si, podemos! merrily Apr 2015 #62
Are we selling more to China regardless if they are selling more to us? aikoaiko Apr 2015 #5
Of course we are selling more to China, Curmudgeoness Apr 2015 #8
Stop it with the facts, damn it! erronis Apr 2015 #18
Yep, that deficit column is ominous. nt Curmudgeoness Apr 2015 #19
Isnt that two different things, is my point. aikoaiko Apr 2015 #29
That would have been a devious promise Curmudgeoness Apr 2015 #43
I'm glad you could explain it. I was at a loss for words. merrily Apr 2015 #71
Good grief. merrily Apr 2015 #66
Wow, it jumps up (or, rather, down) like crazy after 2001! arcane1 Apr 2015 #31
We sell very little to China, in way of goods Scootaloo Apr 2015 #37
We are being treated like a colony. We revolted from Great Britain because they wanted rhett o rick Apr 2015 #54
I heard on Charlie Rose--didn't verify--one new millionaire in China EVERY WEEK. merrily Apr 2015 #63
And because that was wrong, we have to do this TPP to offset China's influence in the region tularetom Apr 2015 #6
Exactly, one bad deal leads to another, works perfectly for those who benefit. TPP=NAFTA Part 2. appalachiablue Apr 2015 #10
TPP = SHAFTA aggiesal Apr 2015 #36
Yep Thom got that one exactly, hear him say it fairly often. A classic! appalachiablue Apr 2015 #38
Maybe Obama is just following Vortigern's lead. Maedhros Apr 2015 #7
Excellent historical Parallel! n/t gregcrawford Apr 2015 #9
Interesting historical citation but have questions? gordianot Apr 2015 #11
Here is a good start: Maedhros Apr 2015 #30
Yes I have seen that the more I research the more confusing. gordianot Apr 2015 #41
That's the big red flag, IMHO. Maedhros Apr 2015 #42
And maybe this has no relevance. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #17
Yes!!!! JDPriestly Apr 2015 #24
Hengist and Horsa? You sure it wasn't Hans and Franz? merrily Apr 2015 #64
The claimed rationale behind the TPP is that it is needed to compete with the Chinese. Maedhros Apr 2015 #76
Thank you. merrily Apr 2015 #77
Look up in the sky- It's a bird! It's a plane! nope it's nationalize the fed Apr 2015 #12
And under the bus goes Bill Clinton. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #16
Bubba drove the NAFTA bus nationalize the fed Apr 2015 #20
Oh NOES! Is this where I apologize for campaigning for Obama? Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #26
The reasons given for the TPP remind me of a nursery rhyme. zeemike Apr 2015 #13
Kicked Enthusiast Apr 2015 #14
When and where and under what circumstances did Sanders say that? Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #15
Sanders should also give links and context when called for to support a bold conclusion. Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #25
WTF is that supposed to mean? That Sanders really did not say it? Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #27
K & R L0oniX Apr 2015 #21
Until shown otherwise, Sen. Sanders is correct. chknltl Apr 2015 #28
The irony is delicious. We condemned China for being communist. Now we condemn China for Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #32
+1 yup. n/t jtuck004 Apr 2015 #33
China is still governed by the Communist Party. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #75
N/T needed AuntPatsy Apr 2015 #35
K and R bigwillq Apr 2015 #39
K & R !!! WillyT Apr 2015 #40
OP, poor thread title. blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #44
How did Bill get it sooo wrong?! Dont call me Shirley Apr 2015 #46
So, how do they get away with it... PosterChild Apr 2015 #47
Bill Clinton, nor Barack Obama are Social Democrats .. they're Corporate Demorcats. YOHABLO Apr 2015 #48
I think jeb bush was quoted a week back claiming obama was the most liberal prez EVAR redruddyred Apr 2015 #53
We need you, Bernie! Run! mother earth Apr 2015 #49
Selling our food is selling our future. SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2015 #50
Good info. thanks... I remember the notion that the jobs that were being shipped out of this midnight Apr 2015 #55
But the trade deficit is not a measure of the quantity or quality of opportunities. greyl Apr 2015 #56
K & R AzDar Apr 2015 #58
Any idea if Sec. Clinton has a comment on this? Motown_Johnny Apr 2015 #59
Did we ever find out when and where Sanders said this? Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #60
Well, there's this from his twitter feed progree Apr 2015 #73
Thanks. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #74
and ... whoomp!! There it is. Hiraeth Apr 2015 #72

BeyondGeography

(39,374 posts)
2. This is supposed to be decision week for Bernie, right?
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 01:50 PM
Apr 2015

I think he promised an answer on running by the end of April.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
65. Meh. There's wiggle room.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:30 AM
Apr 2015

Originally, Hillary promised one around in January 2015, then July 2015, then April 2015.

A lot of factors affect the date of announcement.

aikoaiko

(34,170 posts)
5. Are we selling more to China regardless if they are selling more to us?
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 01:56 PM
Apr 2015

The trade deficit could go up, but we could still be selling more to China, right?

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
8. Of course we are selling more to China,
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:48 PM
Apr 2015

since before the trade deals, we were not selling anything to them. But that is not the point. The point is that we were told that if we opened up the market to a country the size of China, we would open up a vast untapped market for our goods. That is not what happened.

Here is the export and import info on China by year:

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

erronis

(15,297 posts)
18. Stop it with the facts, damn it!
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:41 PM
Apr 2015

It would have been nice to see pretty graphics on a year-by-year basis but it doesn't take more than a few scrolls down the page to see that the "Giant Sucking Sound" is getting louder every year.

aikoaiko

(34,170 posts)
29. Isnt that two different things, is my point.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:00 PM
Apr 2015

Clinton promised more exports to China and that happened.

He didn't promise a trade gap reduction.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)
43. That would have been a devious promise
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 06:11 PM
Apr 2015

if we are going to focus on the exact wording without including the rest of what we were told about the benefits to the US.

"I promise that I will not punch you." "I didn't say that I wouldn't kick you or bite you or shoot you." Doesn't matter much if you make me feel safer, but are just playing word games.

From what I see of our production and exports, we are exporting raw materials to China, and they are refining them and shipping them back to us as finished products. So increasing exports to China is a sleazy way to sell us something.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
71. I'm glad you could explain it. I was at a loss for words.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:35 AM
Apr 2015

"Good grief" was all I managed.

As if Americans hearing "we'll sell more of out things" are not intended to have visions of a booming economy in the USA and all that comes with that.

Now, we're supposed to parse every word and phrase six ways to Sunday like Frank Luntz meets Newt Gingrich.

New Democrats need to hand out Politician to English dictionaries at every campaign stop.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
31. Wow, it jumps up (or, rather, down) like crazy after 2001!
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:01 PM
Apr 2015

It's really clear when presented that way. Thanks for the link!!

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
37. We sell very little to China, in way of goods
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:24 PM
Apr 2015

We sell them capital. That is, we give them our money for their stuff.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
54. We are being treated like a colony. We revolted from Great Britain because they wanted
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:56 PM
Apr 2015

to take our resources and manufacture goods that they sold back to us. They wanted to tax goods that we made so their goods would be cheaper. It's time for another revolution not another "Frackin Free Trade Agreement."

merrily

(45,251 posts)
63. I heard on Charlie Rose--didn't verify--one new millionaire in China EVERY WEEK.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:17 AM
Apr 2015

Las Vegas casino owner, building casinos in China or wanting to. I did not pay close attention.

So, yeah, they are getting the money to buy, like the USA did after the Depression, and then some.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
6. And because that was wrong, we have to do this TPP to offset China's influence in the region
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 01:56 PM
Apr 2015

See how it all works? We make a stupid decision, and a few years later when everybody has forgotten we did it, we attempt to repair it by making yet another stupid decision. And we blame the first stupid decision.

Sen. Sanders in spot on in his observation, but a trade agreement that excludes China is not the solution to a spiraling trade deficit with China.

aggiesal

(8,916 posts)
36. TPP = SHAFTA
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:22 PM
Apr 2015

[font color=red size=10]S[/font]outhern
[font color=red size=10]H[/font]emisphere
[font color=red size=10]A[/font]sian
[font color=red size=10]F[/font]ree
[font color=red size=10]T[/font]rade
[font color=red size=10]A[/font]greement

As heard on the Thom Hartmann show.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
7. Maybe Obama is just following Vortigern's lead.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:23 PM
Apr 2015

The Picts had proven a thorn in the side of the burgeoning Romano-Celt kingdom by raiding the British coast from their homeland in what is now Scotland. The 5th century warlord known as Vortigern ("Great King&quot sought help against the Picts, and in AD 449 invited the Germanic twins Hengist and Horsa to come to Britain and rid the land of the pernicious Picts. The twins had other plans, however, and usurped the throne from Vortigern and established their own kingdoms.

Maybe Obama is trying the same gambit: the Chinese economy is threatening America, so he is inviting international corporations to come deal with the Chinese and provide economic security to the U.S.. However, like Hengist and Horsa, I imagine the corporations have a different end-game in mind.

gordianot

(15,238 posts)
11. Interesting historical citation but have questions?
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:07 PM
Apr 2015

China has expressed interest in joining TPP as a financial reform. If that happens what is the outcome? Since this is all being negotiated in secret how does China know? At this juncture I do not think anyone knows for certain what is on the table including Bernie Sanders. Anyone's guess?

gordianot

(15,238 posts)
41. Yes I have seen that the more I research the more confusing.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 05:59 PM
Apr 2015

Maybe on purpose? I see no positive scenarios or good spin.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
42. That's the big red flag, IMHO.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 06:07 PM
Apr 2015

If the benefits to ordinary Americans are real, then there should be some detailed explanations available as to why.

But there aren't.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
64. Hengist and Horsa? You sure it wasn't Hans and Franz?
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:28 AM
Apr 2015

Look at you, getting all first millennium.

I loved the story, but I missed a significant part of the point. How does inviting corporations to deal with the Chinese make the USA more economically secure?

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
76. The claimed rationale behind the TPP is that it is needed to compete with the Chinese.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:54 PM
Apr 2015

I think Obama believes that the TPP provisions that grant so many benefits to international corporations will give them what they need to keep the Chinese at bay.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
16. And under the bus goes Bill Clinton.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:34 PM
Apr 2015

Do you people understand exactly how much you are acting like the Tea Party?

"Not pure enough! Get the fuck out!"

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
20. Bubba drove the NAFTA bus
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:46 PM
Apr 2015

right over the middle class

Not pure enough!


Here's some "Party" Purity for ya



"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."- President Barack Obama

During an interview with Noticias Univision 23, the network's Miami affiliate newscast, Obama pushed back against the accusation made in some corners of south Florida's Cuban-American and Venezuelan communities that he wants to instill a socialist economic system in the U.S.

chknltl

(10,558 posts)
28. Until shown otherwise, Sen. Sanders is correct.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:57 PM
Apr 2015

This shows me that Bill Clinton was wrong. I see nowhere in this OP that Senator Sanders is in agreement with Bill Clinton regarding Clinton's statement.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
32. The irony is delicious. We condemned China for being communist. Now we condemn China for
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:02 PM
Apr 2015

being better capitalists than we are.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
75. China is still governed by the Communist Party.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:16 PM
Apr 2015

China is a one-party state, with real power lying with the Chinese Communist party. The country is governed under the constitution of 1982 as amended, the fifth constitution since the accession of the Communists in 1949. The unicameral legislature is the National People's Congress (NPC), consisting of deputies who are indirectly elected to terms of five years. The NPC decides on national economic strategy, elects or removes high officeholders, and can change China's constitution; it normally follows the directives of the Communist party's politburo. The executive branch consists of the president, who is head of state, and the premier, who is head of government. The president is elected by the NPC for a five-year term and and is eligible for reelection. The premier is nominated by the president and approved by the NPC. Administratively, the country is divided into 22 provinces, five autonomous regions, and four municipalities. Despite the concentration of power in the Communist party, the central government's control over the provinces and local governments is limited, and they are often able to act with relative impunity in many areas.

Read more: China: Government http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/china-government.html#ixzz3YcZkIuOk

China has experienced tremendous economic growth since the late 1970s. In large part as a result of economic liberalization policies, the gross domestic product (GDP) increased tenfold between 1978 and 2006, and foreign investment soared during the 1990s. In 2007 China passed Germany to become the world's third-largest economy, and in 2010 it passed Japan to become the second-largest. These gains obscure, however, the fact that per capita wealth is still significantly less than that of many smaller economies. China's challenge in the early 21st cent. will be to balance its largely centralized political system with an increasingly decentralized economic system and increase domestic consumption to diminish its economy's great dependence on exports for growth.

Agriculture is by far the leading occupation, involving almost 50% of the population, although extensive rough, high terrain and large arid areas—especially in the west and north—limit cultivation to only about 15% of the land surface. Since the late 1970s, China has decollectivized agriculture, yielding tremendous gains in production. Even with these improvements, agriculture accounts for only 12% of the nation's GDP. Despite initial gains in farmers' incomes in the early 1980s, taxes and fees have increasingly made farming an unprofitable occupation, and because the state owns all land, farmers have at times been easily evicted when croplands are sought by developers. Additional land reforms adopted in 2008 allow farmers to transfer land use rights.



Read more: China: Economy http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/china-economy.html#ixzz3Yca2WCVO

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
47. So, how do they get away with it...
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:41 PM
Apr 2015

Since the dollars have to come back to the US to be worth anything? Well, basically , they GIVE us the dollars back, for nothing in return.

What they do is peg the yuan to just below the exchange rate that would prevail if trade were balanced. To keep the control the exchange rate they buy US Treasury bonds. For about next to nothing in interset, at times negative interest. In other words, they ship us a whole lot of stuff, then give us our money back.

Ultimately this won't work out good for them. The danger here is that when things unwind, their economy could crash and, given the interdependent global economy it could cause a lot of collateral damage.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to enter into some sort of a regional trade deal with them and to start putting some pressure on them to move away from this gambit.

 

redruddyred

(1,615 posts)
53. I think jeb bush was quoted a week back claiming obama was the most liberal prez EVAR
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:16 PM
Apr 2015

what alternate reality is he living in.

midnight

(26,624 posts)
55. Good info. thanks... I remember the notion that the jobs that were being shipped out of this
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:57 PM
Apr 2015

country would be replaced with jobs that were not even aware of. We some how were going to magically create jobs.

greyl

(22,990 posts)
56. But the trade deficit is not a measure of the quantity or quality of opportunities.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:13 AM
Apr 2015

Did Bill say Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China would reduce the trade deficit?

progree

(10,908 posts)
73. Well, there's this from his twitter feed
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:25 AM
Apr 2015

Well, there is this twitter from https://twitter.com/SenSanders

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/591982757808484352

You can also see it on the twitter feed on the left side of Sander's senate website, and scroll down to April 25.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bernie Sanders: Wrong!