HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JDPriestly » Journal
Page: 1

JDPriestly

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Dec 6, 2003, 04:15 AM
Number of posts: 57,936

Journal Archives

Right off, I see problems.

She wants to shift the cost of social programs like leave for new mothers onto employers. That will be hard to get through Congress.

Then she favors "free" trade, which thus far is one of the main reasons for the decline of the middle class.

She supports free trade agreements, which she's said is more important than defense in establishing global leadership.


. . . .

Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009-2013. . . . . She drafted the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and pried open Chinese markets to U.S. companies

. . . .

Create the American Retirement Account to allow tax-deferred contributions of up to $5,000 per year. The first $1000 contributed into any retirement account will be eligible for dollar-to-dollar tax credits. (Source: HillaryClinton.com, Issues)



http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Hillary_Economy.htm

SO THE TRUTH IS OUT: HILLARY TAKES CREDIT FOR DRAFTING THE TPP.

In addition, the retirement savings account will just result in more retirement money being gobbled up by the fraud, greed and sharp money "managers" on Wall Street. We need to raise the cap on contributions to Social Security and strengthen that system.

Maybe Hillary wants to be managing the private investments in her Wall Street accounts when she is in her late 80s and 90s, but I don't. I want strong Social Security.

It looks like she also will raise taxes or impose financial costs on the members of the middle class who own small businesses and also on larger corporations to pay for her social programs.

Programs like family leave for new mothers, free tuition for college education (Hillary limits it to free community college education) and pre-school education have to be paid for.

Hillary is being, again, dishonest about the fact that the burden for these programs will fall on the middle class under her proposals. She says she won't raise taxes on the middle class, but the middle class will still pay for her proposals because she is not adequately raising taxes on the very, very rich. She can't. They are funding her campaign.

Sanders is being honest with us. He is telling us what programs he wants to provide and how he will pay for them.

Let's put Hillary on notice that she needs to do that too.

And it is interesting how Hillary has lied about her role in the negotiations of the TPP. When convenient, she says the agreement does not meet her standards.

But from this article, we now know that she negotiated it. She has taken credit for the TPPP.

Hillary. Who in the world is falling for those vague statements.

If other countries like Hungary and Austria (used to have this kind of leave)

can afford to pay for it, certainly we can.

We already pay for it in lost income for mothers who do stay home and costs of infant care for mothers who work.

The minimum wage is $7.25 going up to $15 in Los Angeles in a few years.

The cost of a full time baby-sitter for one week for one baby at $8 per hour is going to be at least $320 per week. That for 12 weeks would be $3,840.

The mother would probably be paid not her full salary but a stipend that was standard. Employers could also be required to pay the cost of the leave. There are two possibilities right there, probably more.

Perhaps the amount paid to the mother during her leave would be reduced to a standard rate that Congress would agree upon.

My guesses based on my experience living in countries in which this leave is routine. I did not, by the way, live in Hungary. But I know they at least used to have it. So do countries like Sweden, and most of the countries that are democracies.

More on this issue:

When Australia passed a parental leave law in 2010, it left the U.S. as the only industrialized nation not to mandate paid leave for mothers of newborns. Most of the rest of the world has paid maternity leave policies, too; Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea are the only other countries that do not. Many countries give new fathers paid time off as well or allow parents to share paid leave.

. . . .

The U.S. joins Lesotho, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea as the only countries that do not mandate paid maternity leave. Most countries insure at least three months of paid leave for new mothers, and many give fathers benefits too.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html

There is a chart at that website. In Brazil (a poorer country than the US), new mothers get 100% of their pay for 120 days of leave.

In China, new moms get 90 days at 100% of pay.

Nasty, mean old Russia gives 140 days at 100% of pay.

Even Saudi Arabia gives 50% of your pay for this kind of leave.

It's a disgrace that we do not have this leave. The cost is bound to be something we can afford.

Good Heavens. How penny wise and pound foolish can we be.

The relationship between mother and baby that is established in the first days and weeks of life after birth is utterly essential. It's value in human terms cannot be measured in money.

The baby has lived for about 9 months within the body of the mother. It knows the mothers smell, the gait of her walk, her voice. And then suddenly it is torn into a world that is new. New mothers should have time with their babies so that the babies can cross over into our world from the protected haven of the womb. This precious, irreplaceable time is probably even more important to adoptive mothers than to natural birth mothers.

I just can't believe that we in the supposedly richest country in the world do not already provide this leave to new parents.

I am appalled at the materialistic values in our country.


I'm all for civility, but the stakes are too high in this primary season to cause me to value

being polite over getting the right Democratic candidate.

You pointed your finger to the crucial issue in this primary season when you wrote:

Can't someone look at Hillary Clinton and see someone with a lifelong dedication to helping children, women, and the middle class? Someone who is obviously very smart and tough? Is John Lewis suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Is Howard Dean corrupt? Is Wendy Davis not thoughtful?

Can't someone look at Bernie Sanders and see a highly principled public servant who is focused on reversing the great inequalities in our society? Someone who is untouched by the dirty money that sloshes around our political system? Someone who is drawing huge crowds and who has made true-blue liberalism mainstream again?


This election is about the corruption in our government.

Bernie Sanders is the first candidate in my lifetime to strongly and positively oppose corruption. Not only is he opposing the corruption that our campaign finance customs and laws encourage, but he is living his opposition by refusing contributions over $2700 per person and campaigning without the backup of one or more superpacs.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, although strong on certain issues like women and children (Bernie is just as strong on those issues and stronger on the race and prison and many other issues) is mired in the corruption right up to her neck. She is taking the money from the wealthy, the Wall Street billionaires, anyone who will cough it up.

Bernie is, in my opinion, our last chance to maybe get clean government at least for a few years.

I want a Bernie appointee heading the Department of Justice. I want a Bernie appointee heading the Commerce Department, the Agriculture Department, the Labor Department, the Treasury and every other department in the government.

The TPP would not exist; it would not be a question to argue about in this election, were it not for the extreme corruption throughout our government.

We would not have gone to war in Iraq and would not be concerned about war in Syria were it not for the corruption in our government.

We would be dealing with climate change in a rational way and would have reduced our carbon emissions to far less than they are now had it not been for the extreme amount of corruption in our government -- and especially the influence of the oil and gas and coal industries.

I know it is troubling for nice people to come to a website like DU and find so many nasty posts, so much argument, so much turmoil.

But, I am a 72-year-old woman, and I tell you, the stakes have never in my life or the lives of my parents and grandparents been this high.

The industrial revolution, the advent of the automobile and all the wonderful inventions we enjoy -- hey, the internet and cell phones and medical advances, and on and on, have given us great lives, great opportunities but the energy we burn when we use those amenities are killing our planet.

And it is the corruption in our government that prevents us from dealing with the slow destruction of our planet that is happening as we type.

Corruption. That is the issue in this election.

You pointed to it yourself.

Hillary represents business as usual. Her huge financial backing, her big donors, they represent the polluters of the world, those who view the future of our planet as not their problem. There is no way that a candidate can amass the sums that Hillary has pulled together without taking from the polluters and the destroyers of our earth.

Corruption -- that is what I am voting against this primary season, and that is why I am voting for Bernie Sanders.

We each have to make up our own minds.

I have made my decision.

Not nearly enough to justify yet another give-away trade deal that helps corporations and hurts

the American people.

Your chart says it all.

BILL CLINTON signed NAFTA in 1994.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

BILL CLINTON also extended favored nation status to China in 1994.

Friday, May 27, 1994

Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge
By Ann Devroy
The Washington Post

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html

It was followed by the dot-com boom.

And then, three years after the signing of NAFTA and in spite of the dot.com boom, our manufacturing sector steadily declined.

Other important dates.

We joined GATT in 1948. All went well until the oil crises of the 1970s.

We joined the WTO in 1995,

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/usa_e.htm

For those who are interested, here is a list of the countries with which we have trade agreements:

The United States has free trade agreements in force with 20 countries. These are:

Australia
Bahrain
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Israel
Jordan
Korea
Mexico
Morocco
Nicaragua
Oman
Panama
Peru
Singapore


https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

More information on our free trade agreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements

1985 -- free trade agreement with Israel including Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements

We do not need another "free" trade agreement.

As your chart shows, there is a direct relationship between the decline in our industrial sector and the growth in the number of our trade agreements.

And with each trade agreement, we hide our consumption of dirty fuels and our contribution to the death of our planet.

No thanks to these dirty trade deals.

We can trade without "free" trade agreements. These agreements take the control over our trade out of the hands of the American people and into the hands of large multinational corporations. There is nothing "free" about them for the American people.

We do not want or need more trade agreements.





Go to Page: 1