On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 11:59:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 2:27:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 4:14:38 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

snip
I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are c=
apable of such discussion.
snip

It's called stool sample legislation -- you have to pass it
to see what's in it. If the TPP is such a good deal why
isn't the complete agreement [no secret protocols] posted on
the web in a searchable format such as pdf?

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

But, but, slow eddy says trust them.

BBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa

jon, even then, you can't really call Bill and Hillary pro- Wall Streeters, because the Clintons were actually in debt after they left the White House. If they are pro-Wall Street, then I don't see why. "Wall Street" rewards certain never came for the Clintons. Otherwise, they'd be worth billions.

This is just a case of people looking for someone to blame; for
nefarious purposes; for conspiratorial excuses for things they don't
understand.

There isn't a serious economist who thinks that free trade is bad.
There isn't a serious international observer who thinks you can
conduct trade negotiations in public. There isn't a serious US
politico who believes you could accomplish trade deals while allowing
Congress to amend already-negotiated agreements. Congress has the
power to approve or disapprove. That's all they need. That's all they
can handle.

When you're negotiating delicate trade agreements with 11 different
countries, all of whom have different economic needs and political
hurdles to jump in order to get a deal through, and Congress comes
along and says "no, you'll have to accept our rules for export
banking, or for documenting inspections, or for central-bank controls
of currency exchange," the trade negotiators would have to take those
things back to the table and negotiate them all over again. Which, of
course, means the deal is then dead.

This isn't a matter of "trusting" anyone with a blank check. It's a
matter of deciding whether you'll sign the check after it's written.
You can sign it, or you can refuse to. That's what fast-tracking is.
That's all it is.

Listening to the anti-trade clowns in Congress, you'd think they don't
know that. But they do know that. What they're counting on is that YOU
don't know that. Because their objective is to play off of your
ignorance for political gain. That's their game.

Well doubtlessly, big labor and the working class is going to side with Senators Warren and Sanders. I mean, that's a given.

Correct. Everyone with an interest will take the side that they think
gives them the greatest short-term gain.


(The democrats are made up of businessmen who want one thing and
working class people who want another. Businessmen who are
democrats - or so-called limousine liberals - are just a little
more working-class friendly, that's all)

The Democratic Party is too diverse to make
that characterization.

Not from a policy standpoint. Only unions (filled with working class people) and Businessmen (who donate to pressure groups) control its policy and priorities. Other groups in the democratic party have negligible effect.