a) It's not all bad

b) It's not all good

c) It is way more complicated than most people in rcm can understand, though most have opinions. The same holds true for most politicians.

d) Anything this complicated should NEVER have the words "fast track" appearing in the same sentence.

e) what was defeated this week is the "fast track," and that's a good thing.. As F. George said, this is not nearly over. Again, I'm not sure that it should or should not be. I only hope that it gets some very serious discussion before a decision is made. I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are capable of such discussion.

jpb

On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

a) It's not all bad

b) It's not all good

c) It is way more complicated than most people in rcm can understand, though most have opinions. The same holds true for most politicians.

d) Anything this complicated should NEVER have the words "fast track" appearing in the same sentence.

e) what was defeated this week is the "fast track," and that's a good thing. As F. George said, this is not nearly over. Again, I'm not sure that it should or should not be. I only hope that it gets some very serious discussion before a decision is made. I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are capable of such discussion.

jpb

I agree with all of the above. But the idea behind fast-track is that
allowing legislators to amend agreements absolutely destroys any
chance they'll ever be passed by the other parties to an agreement.
Once those things are worked out in negotiations, that's as far as
everyone will go Trying to amend them after that will kill them with
a thousand cuts. Straight up-or-down votes are the only possible way
to get legislative approval and approval by the various parties to the
negotiation.

Researching our trade with China about 12 years ago, I got a good
taste of how complicated these things are; how many misconceptions the
public holds about them; and how many compromises have to be made in
order to get an agreement that produces a net benefit to all parties.

I admire Elizabeth Warren for many of her positions, but what she's
doing now will, almost without question, hurt both our economy and
overall employment in the US. Our economy is too advanced and
developed for us to have much chance at domestic replacement, should
we hamper trade. And her proposals will hamper trade. We now face up
to 40% tariffs with some Asian countries, which would be reduced to
zero with TPP. Without an agreement, we're trading with shackles on
our legs and no way to take them off.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 7:07:59 AM UTC-7, rangerssuck wrote:
a) It's not all bad

b) It's not all good

c) It is way more complicated than most people in rcm can understand, though most have opinions. The same holds true for most politicians.

d) Anything this complicated should NEVER have the words "fast track" appearing in the same sentence.

e) what was defeated this week is the "fast track," and that's a good thing. As F. George said, this is not nearly over. Again, I'm not sure that it should or should not be. I only hope that it gets some very serious discussion before a decision is made. I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are capable of such discussion.

jpb


It's clear to me that neither you or "slow eddy" learned anything from Ross Perot.

From the above link:

"Bernie Sanders has gotten a bigger bounce from announcing his campaign than many expected. Sanders is not a fringe candidate. He will likely be the top challenger to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic field, as the Democratic primary looks like it will feature two strong voices debating the issues in 2016."

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?


--
Unka' George

"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"

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?


--
Unka' George

"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

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..

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.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-7, 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.


There is no longer any place Hillary Clinton can hide. She's a puppet of big Wall St. banks and she's a hypocrite:

http://tinyurl.com/pz5wexg

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-7, 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.

--
Ed Huntress


slow eddy is a brain dead moron who learned nothing from NAFTA or from Ross Perot.

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.

(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)

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 2:36:22 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-7, 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.


There is no longer any place Hillary Clinton can hide. She's
a puppet of big Wall St. banks and she's a hypocrite:

Was Bernie ever $10 million dollars in debt? The Clinton's were. Now, jon, I'd agree with you *if* the Clintons hadn't been in as much as $10 million in debt. No "friend of Wall Street ever fits that description.
--------------------------------------------------
"the couple had no more than $2 million in assets, but perhaps as much as $10 million in debt"

--http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/12/dead-broke-a-deep-dive-into-the-clintons-finances/

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.

And public opinion this issue -- trade agreements -- is far removed
from party affiliations. Recent polls show that small majorities of
both Repubicans and Democrats think that foreign trade is favorable to
the US, and the comparative percentages for each party swing back and
forth over time. Regarding TPP, overall public opinion has swung
sharply upward since it's been on the table:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181886/ma...ign-trade.aspx

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-7, 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.

(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)


Largest contributor to Bernie Sanders is the machinist union. :)

Largest contributors to Hillary Clinton are big Wall St. banks that needs to be broken up.

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:03:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 2:36:22 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-7, 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.


There is no longer any place Hillary Clinton can hide. She's
a puppet of big Wall St. banks and she's a hypocrite:

Was Bernie ever $10 million dollars in debt? The Clinton's were. Now, jon, I'd agree with you *if* the Clintons hadn't been in as much as $10 million in debt. No "friend of Wall Street ever fits that description.
--------------------------------------------------
"the couple had no more than $2 million in assets, but perhaps as much as $10 million in debt"

--http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/12/dead-broke-a-deep-dive-into-the-clintons-finances/


America has had all it can take of either a Clinton or a Bush.

It's time for voters to take America back from the 1%.

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.

On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.

I realize you're not a fan of conservative points of view, but you
might want to share your thoughts with these guys:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...mocratic-party

They say it's divided among four power sources: Big lawyers (tort
lawyers); Big Green environmentalists; Big labor (roughly half of them
are government employees unions, but they have most of the power); and
Big Insiders (personal wealth and foundation grants). Not so much Big
Business per se; they still tend to hang with the Republicans.

The thing is, despite the Examiner's claims, these groups often are at
odds on policy matters. The context in which we're talking about it
here -- the TPP agreement -- doesn't seem to have any big, natural
advocates within the Democratic Party. There aren't enough economists.
g

The other part of the context -- Warren and Sanders -- are unlikely to
be influenced much by any of the special interests. But they appear to
be unrealistic in what they think can be accomplished by fighting TPP.

A trade agreement among those parties, or most of them, is going to
happen. The only question is whether its policy leaders will be the
US, Canada, Japan and Australia; or China.

At this point, it's our choice. Before long, it won't be.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:05:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
They say it's divided among four power sources: Big lawyers (tort
lawyers); Big Green environmentalists; Big labor (roughly half of them
are government employees unions, but they have most of the power); and
Big Insiders (personal wealth and foundation grants). Not so much Big
Business per se; they still tend to hang with the Republicans.
/snip

Interesting rediscovery of a Marxist technique call
"Interest Group Analysis." AFAIK first developed/elaborated
in post WW1 Germany
http://tinyurl.com/ll75jcp

http://tinyurl.com/l3yfg7f


--
Unka' George

"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"