reACTIONary
reACTIONary's JournalPanama Papers prove Mr. Sanders was wrong about a trade pact with Panama
The Panama Papers prove Mr. Sanders was wrong about a trade pact with Panama
http://wapo.st/23j3sZK
The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal... hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole.
It looks like the Obama administration’s diplomacy resulted in real progress, and that if anyone’s entitled to say “I told you so” about that, it would be Ms. Clinton.
Mr. Sanders peddles fiction on free trade
Mr. Sanders’s populist rhetoric doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. His insistence, for example, that the North American Free Trade Agreement led to 800,000 job losses ignores analyses from unbiased sources such as the Congressional Research Service. “In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics,” a 2015 CRS analysis found.
Blaming freer trade for the loss of manufacturing jobs fails to tell the much bigger story of economic transformation that has swept the world over the past several decades. Technological change, automation, productivity improvements and other factors have eliminated old-school manufacturing jobs all over the world. Mr. Sanders cannot bring back the U.S. economy of the 1960s, and it would be harmful to try.
http://wapo.st/2247Nfo
Du'er needs some mac advice . ..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1371083Du'er needs some computer help and support...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1371083Over 40? No donuts for you!
Retire or DIE, boomer!
http://www.aarp.org/disrupt-aging/stories/ideas/info-2016/no-donuts-for-you-video.html
Indeed, You did not...
.... so I'm deleting my comment.
However, i will leave you with some interesting assessments from today's wapo concerning Hillary's ability to govern vs sander's .
Sanders’s all-purpose argument is to call for a “political revolution” that will vanquish the dark interests standing between the nation and his vision. His campaign is not about governing in the real world of trade-offs and constraints. Which is to say, it is not about governing at all. It is increasingly worrying that large numbers of Democrats appear to believe otherwise.
Bernie Sanders’s angry, unrealistic call for ‘revolution’ http://wapo.st/1SrBsg5
On issue after issue, Clinton proposes incremental solutions that take into account our political system as it is: sharply divided along ideological lines and warped by gerrymandering and virtually unfettered campaign contributions. Sanders proposes dramatic solutions that will only be possible when power is wrested from “big money” interests that refuse to do “what the American people want them to.”
Will Democrats choose evolution — or revolution? http://wapo.st/1P0LceT
Hillary Clinton, enough with your ‘plans’ already http://wapo.st/1SsFKE4
I have a squert gun!
What exactly are the Oregon Arsonists guilty of?
According to the typical news article they claim to have lit the fires to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
Acording to the Justice Department:
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
No, FDR was not....
.... a socialist of any sort. He ran against FOUR socialists in 1932. He never called himself a socialist and anyone who did was just trying to smear him.
FDR was a liberal welfare statist, and a capitalistic reformer. If you believe in reform within a market based capitalistic system , it does you no good to characterize yourself (or others) as socialist.
And Denmark is not socialist:
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," /Denmark's prime minister/ said, "therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.... The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens."
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders
Eugene Debbs was a socialist; FDR was no Eugene Debbs.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Jun 5, 2011, 07:28 PMNumber of posts: 5,770
