General Discussion

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

102. What if it is an engineering construction company that takes US employees and goes overseas to build

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 11:51 AM

Apr 2015

a bridge, build hospitals, and the like? Those people earn good money and come back here and spend it on housing, cars, etc., that create more jobs here.

You act like everyone in this country is an unskilled, uneducated fool, with jobs that can be performed by another fool almost anywhere.

I have news for you, there are lots of skilled, educated people (if just by training, rather than formal education) whose job isn't transferable overseas who depend on trade for a good paying job.

We can figure out ways to help someone who will never earn over minimum wage and actually loses their job to Mexico or somewhere (Mexicans are darn glad to get that job).

What's amazing to me is all the people who complain about their jobs, low pay, etc., until they think they might lose it.

There are a lot of in-inefficiencies moving jobs overseas that impede corporations from doing so. Requiring other countries to improve their wages, environmental standards, etc. -- even if just a little bit -- provides additional disincentives.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

125 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

FT is NOT about "trusting President Obama". FT is NOT just about the TPP. [View all] Faryn Balyncd Apr 2015 OP

I think that if it means giving up power, then congress will not pass it. notadmblnd Apr 2015 #1

the oligarchs are salivating HereSince1628 Apr 2015 #5

Jeb Loves Obama billhicks76 Apr 2015 #32

I bet he likes Hillary also! pocoloco Apr 2015 #44

Yes. Sad But True billhicks76 Apr 2015 #69

OMG!!! NanceGreggs Apr 2015 #76

No. I Know Reality billhicks76 Apr 2015 #111

Of course he loves Obama. The Obama Administration decided not to indict his brother totodeinhere Apr 2015 #108

Bill Covered Up For Bush Sr billhicks76 Apr 2015 #112

If it gives them more free time, less worries, bvar22 Apr 2015 #16

yep. The unitary executive isn't about our president or theirs, Volaris Apr 2015 #29

"Unitary executive" is a fancy, ambiguous way for saying "king", imo deutsey Apr 2015 #90

I have to admit, you have a point. notadmblnd Apr 2015 #39

Some members of Congress did sue over Libya but the court dismissed the lawsuit merrily Apr 2015 #84

Very rich and powerful people are behind it. Congress will see their POV. merrily Apr 2015 #54

That's what the IWR was, and the same types jumped on it. Marr Apr 2015 #98

Yep. I suppose it's fruitless to point out to those trusting souls that cali Apr 2015 #2

"It's kind of formulaic at this point." delrem Apr 2015 #41

I will trust Obama 4now Apr 2015 #3

Then trust him right off the cliff just like workers did with Clinton and all his trade disasters. Elwood P Dowd Apr 2015 #6

And some people will continue to spout nonsense 4now Apr 2015 #10

Millions of lost jobs, declining wages, & 8 trillion dollars in trade deficits the past 30 years Elwood P Dowd Apr 2015 #14

And all of that sulphurdunn Apr 2015 #20

That is hyperbolic nonsense. And I spelled it correctly too. BreakfastClub Apr 2015 #123

..... Skittles Apr 2015 #82

"Trusting Obama" means also trusting the next President, who may not be a Dem. n/t winter is coming Apr 2015 #7

You mean like the vast majority of congressional dems? cali Apr 2015 #13

"the vast majority of congressional dems?" 4now Apr 2015 #15

yes. the estimate is that only around 20 or so in the house support it cali Apr 2015 #17

No list of this "vast majorty"? 4now Apr 2015 #18

look, I'll give you links tomorrow cali Apr 2015 #19

No big deal. I just thought you might have a link 4now Apr 2015 #22

Please tell me what we get from this deal, that helps us QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #51

Our best chance to defeat this is a coalition of Tea Party Republicans and totodeinhere Apr 2015 #116

-- IDemo Apr 2015 #38

What he hell do we gain from the TPP, currencies can still be manipulated QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #46

What axe to grind do you assume ordinary people have? merrily Apr 2015 #55

How astute n/t arcane1 Apr 2015 #62

Great, and once Congress hands over its power to negotiate Trade Agreements to Obama, sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #67

....! KoKo Apr 2015 #115

Do you have any reason for supporting Fast Track and the TPP besodes JDPriestly Apr 2015 #80

Excellent points that I would hope is a concern even to Obama's most diehard fans DJ13 Apr 2015 #4

President Obama SamKnause Apr 2015 #8

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that when we sign 'free trade' deals Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #33

I watched it. One thing that stood out for me was this "dig into it and find out for yourself." How jwirr Apr 2015 #42

I watched as well. SamKnause Apr 2015 #49

That 75,000 is questionable math. It assumes a Korean car bought is a portion of an American job l Hoyt Apr 2015 #81

It's the corporations who are greedy, not Americans dreamnightwind Apr 2015 #101

What if it is an engineering construction company that takes US employees and goes overseas to build Hoyt Apr 2015 #102

Thanks for revealing where you are coming from dreamnightwind Apr 2015 #103

Shows your thought process. I'm for creating additional disincentives, and the TPP does that. Hoyt Apr 2015 #104

I see, you think that's what this treaty is about dreamnightwind Apr 2015 #106

It is one aspect. The agreement covers a lot of ground. Are you really that obtuse? Hoyt Apr 2015 #107

He is very apt at laughing SamKnause Apr 2015 #52

Not to mention that the average TV viewer is not accustomed to reading treaties and desn't merrily Apr 2015 #65

Chris Matthews was the moderator. Enough said. He did not ask much. Just made fun of the jwirr Apr 2015 #94

Was Obama still making Matthews' leg tingle? Also, Matthews wife is running as a Dem. merrily Apr 2015 #121

Remember when he did that with the public option? merrily Apr 2015 #64

There is that bully pulpit! Enthusiast Apr 2015 #86

Exactly. SamKnause Apr 2015 #87

+1, it comes out for the important stuff. Marr Apr 2015 #100

k/r Thomas Jefferson nationalize the fed Apr 2015 #9

Thank you, I was just going to do this, so thanks for saving me the sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #11

In effect, passing fast track this time could be giving Bush that power. stillwaiting Apr 2015 #47

They may trust Obama, we all may do that, but he is not going to be President for life. sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #50

I've been seeing that a lot lately. merrily Apr 2015 #58

You are very welcome. SamKnause Apr 2015 #89

Obama cannot be a credible negotiator without TPA. tritsofme Apr 2015 #12

You fail to consider that the TPP only deals with trade issues in 5 of the 29 chapters. stillwaiting Apr 2015 #48

What does this agreement do for us? QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #53

Why worry about the Constitution? merrily Apr 2015 #59

There is no constitutional conflict with TPA. tritsofme Apr 2015 #71

Riiiiight. merrily Apr 2015 #73

Congress agrees to give the president an up or down vote. tritsofme Apr 2015 #75

The Constitution does not set it up that way. merrily Apr 2015 #77

You don't explain why TPA causes conflict. tritsofme Apr 2015 #79

Then you are okay with Congress playing no role in legislation that affects the people of this sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #97

You don't appear to understand what TPA is or how it works. tritsofme Apr 2015 #109

I'll take the word of credible organizations and most of our best Democrats, who refused to give sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #110

Pretty simple, if it is bad deal with bad provisions, Congress should reject it. tritsofme Apr 2015 #113

+1.. Hoyt Apr 2015 #74

You ignore the "fast" part of fast track. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #85

That artificial timeline is itself artificial. tritsofme Apr 2015 #117

I believe you're incorrect about the effect of TPA. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #118

Who would enforce the timeline? The Sargent in Arms? tritsofme Apr 2015 #119

There's an official Parliamentarian who makes rulings. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #120

From a general process standpoint, I agree with you. However the ruling from the parlementarian is tritsofme Apr 2015 #125

Would SCOTUS even allow it? After all they did strike the Line Item Veto Act back in 1998 cstanleytech Apr 2015 #21

There are no constitutional issues with TPA, this is just a paranoid rant. tritsofme Apr 2015 #23

So it was the law of the land that the president didnt have to get approval from congress cstanleytech Apr 2015 #25

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about right now. tritsofme Apr 2015 #28

I apologize if I misread it then as I thought it was an attempt to take some of the power cstanleytech Apr 2015 #31

Limited Debate, No Amendments, only a yes or no vote with no input QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #56

If it is a bad deal, they can say no. tritsofme Apr 2015 #72

And how good have those 32 years been.... daleanime Apr 2015 #30

Pretty damn godawful. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #36

A Republican Congress and a Republican SCOTUS are going to fight the rich and powerful? merrily Apr 2015 #60

k ibewlu606 Apr 2015 #24

Come back soon...it's so nice when you leave! tritsofme Apr 2015 #26

To the Greatest Page. Re: "Trust" and politicians: woo me with science Apr 2015 #27

I hate the TPA, and the TPP, but I love Hillary, they are not one and the same QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #61

Well stated...Thank You! KoKo Apr 2015 #91

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Apr 2015 #34

K&R. I agree. I don't want any of the Fast Trade. Corporations already have too much power. Overseas Apr 2015 #35

Free trade, my ass. GeorgeGist Apr 2015 #37

Obama's history shows he cannot be trusted to do the right thing without being severely pushed by us blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #40

MSNBC just delivered an infomercial for the TPP raindaddy Apr 2015 #43

Lawrence O'Donnell had a pro-TPP propaganda segment. myrna minx Apr 2015 #57

Obama's taking care of us, everything he's done has been for the middle class. raindaddy Apr 2015 #68

Normally I refute "third" way BS with links and footnotes, but after the Chris Matthews interview myrna minx Apr 2015 #70

MSNBC is establishment. That's what MSNBC told Cenk when the Obama WH complained merrily Apr 2015 #63

....! KoKo Apr 2015 #114

K&R n/t Oilwellian Apr 2015 #45

Lesson learned - I do not trust 840high Apr 2015 #66

K & R Duppers Apr 2015 #78

Politics is not supposed to be about faith in a charismatic leader. That would be religion. merrily Apr 2015 #83

Wish I could have rec'd a hundred times! TexasMommaWithAHat Apr 2015 #88

.....! Recommend for exposure and for most of the infomative, intelligent comments. KoKo Apr 2015 #92

Democracy? What an amazing concept - TBF Apr 2015 #93

K&R raouldukelives Apr 2015 #95

reminds me of how in CA a lot of county measures fail because they only got 66.2% of the vote MisterP Apr 2015 #96

Bet you $5 there are 'with FT authority' and 'without FT authority' versions of this deal. /nt Marr Apr 2015 #99

It sounds like a completely separate question treestar Apr 2015 #105

When congress is full of a bunch of RW loons then.. DCBob Apr 2015 #122

Very good point davidpdx Apr 2015 #124