Jump to content
WillFranklin

Major Senate Votes And Speeches That Make Biden A General Loser In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan

Recommended Posts

Biden votes as a corporate toady warmonger all his life and thinks he will not lose just like Hilary.

 

NAFTA, Iraq War, Bankruptcy Bill, cuts to entitlements proposed by Biden in the Senate, yet we are supposed to vote for that? Not even me in purple NC.

 

I am going to research and post these details now.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477059-sanders-unloads-on-biden-as-battle-for-iowa-intensifies

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unloaded on former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday night, intensifying a battle between two top contenders for the Democratic nomination with the Iowa caucuses less than a month away.

 

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Sanders attacked Biden’s record on foreign policy, trade and entitlements and questioned Biden’s electability in key Midwestern states. 

The new attacks come just 28 days before the Iowa caucuses.

 

Polling has been sparse in recent weeks, but both Biden and Sanders look strong in the final stretch, with polls finding them jockeying for a top finish alongside former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

 

On Monday night, Sanders ripped Biden for voting to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002. Sanders voted against the measure.

 

“Joe Biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in Iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said.

 

That issue has come to the forefront of the Democratic primary in recent days after President Trump ordered a military strike that killed a top Iranian military commander. A CNN poll from late November found Biden with a 34-point lead over his closest rival on the question of who Democratic voters trust the most on foreign policy.

 

Sanders also ripped Biden for voting for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying that deal had cost the U.S. “millions of jobs.”

 

The electability argument has been central to Biden’s pitch, but Sanders argued that Biden’s record on trade would make him unelectable in the key battlegrounds that Democrats must win back to take the White House.

 

“Do you think that’s going to play well in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania?” Sanders asked.

Sanders is also looking to cut into Biden’s big lead among older voters, and on Monday night he accused Biden of supporting cuts to entitlement programs that many seniors rely on.

 

“Joe Biden has been on the floor of the Senate talking about the need to cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid,” Sanders said.

 

And Sanders accused Biden of pushing “a bankruptcy bill that has caused enormous problems for working families.”

 

Warren has also clashed with Biden over his support for a 2005 bankruptcy bill that critics said favored the credit card companies.

 

Some centrist Democrats have become alarmed by Sanders’s aggressive tone in the stretch run to Iowa and are pointing to remarks he made on Sunday about how he had not attacked his rivals.

 

“You have not heard me disparage any of the candidates. Do you? I don’t,” Sanders said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with NAFTA.

 

Biden was a YES!

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/biden-s-nafta-vote-is-a-liability-in-the-rust-belt

 

Joe Biden has emerged as the Democratic front-runner thanks to a perception that his working-class roots and chummy relations with labor leaders make him the likeliest candidate to take back the Upper Midwest and beat Donald Trump. But that scenario is complicated by the former vice president’s decades-long record of backing free-trade deals that have helped hollow out the manufacturing core in several important electoral states.

 
 

From his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement as a Delaware senator to his backing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden played a key role over the last 30 years in advancing a trade agenda that’s now being reassessed by many experts and early proponents as its costs, including job losses, are becoming clearer.

 
 
 

Biden’s record on trade is already drawing attacks from the left and right. Besides Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a former House member, Biden is the only one of the 22 Democrats running for president who voted for Nafta. The 1993 pact reduced barriers with Mexico and Canada, increasing trade and economic growth in all three countries. But it also led to an exodus of U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico and hurt wages for U.S. workers who held on to their jobs. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump pilloried Nafta as a “disaster” and “the worst trade deal ever,” a message his top advisers believe was pivotal in helping him carry critical Rust Belt states once considered Democratic strongholds.

 
 

“Nafta still resonates in the industrial Midwest and Rust Belt,” says Stanley Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster who recently conducted focus groups on trade in Michigan and Wisconsin. “There’s still a lot of anger because it symbolizes, for many people, the indifference about the outsourcing of jobs and the favoring of elite economic interests in international trade agreements.”

 

Just as with issues of criminal justice, busing, and his behavior toward women, Biden’s record on trade has left him vulnerable to shifts in voters’ attitudes, as the long-term effects of U.S. policies have become apparent.

 
 

Since Biden declared his candidacy on April 25, his most vocal critics on trade have been on the left. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who voted against Nafta as a congressman and is aiming to appeal to the same voters in the Upper Midwest, has repeatedly highlighted Biden’s history on trade. “It’s no secret that the most likely path to victory for Democrats in 2020 is to win the states Hillary Clinton won and then to add Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,” says Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to the Sanders campaign. “Nafta devastated all three of those states. That will be litigated in the Democratic primary—as it should be, because it will certainly be litigated in the general election.”

Other Democratic candidates are also likely to weigh in, reflecting the shift in sentiment against international trade deals within the party. In 2015, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who’s also running for president, spearheaded the effort to sideline the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the signature Obama-Biden trade initiative; she was so successful, even Clinton felt compelled to back away from it. Ohio Representative Tim Ryan, another presidential hopeful, has said, “There’s no question that over its 25-year history, Nafta has hurt American workers and industries.” On CNN last week, Ryan called a recent remark Biden had made downplaying the economic threat posed by China “stunningly out of touch.”

While most economists continue to assert the benefits of trade liberalization, a raft of recent scholarship has highlighted the fallout in U.S. industries hurt by the effects of globalization. One of the main drivers of job loss in the Upper Midwest was China’s emergence as a manufacturing superpower after it was admitted to the World Trade Organization in 2001, a move Biden and other Democrats supported.

An influential 2013 paper by economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson found that exposure to Chinese trade competition was responsible for the loss of roughly 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2007, many concentrated in regional industries such as the auto sector. Those findings were echoed in a 2016 paper, “The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment,” by Justin Pierce, a Federal Reserve economist, and Peter Schott, a professor at Yale School of Management, that linked China’s WTO entry to an 18% plunge in manufacturing jobs during the same period.

This displacement caused acute problems that continue to resonate. Many workers who lost their jobs struggled to find new ones or dropped out of the labor force altogether. “What we really gained a different appreciation of was how costly this was at the level of individuals and communities,” Autor said in 2017. Those costs extended beyond employment to encompass cultural and social effects, from a decline in family formation to an increase in the number of children living in poverty.

Although experts say factors such as technological advances and China’s evolution are bigger causes of workers’ dislocation, international trade deals have become the focal point of political wrath for those left behind. Democrats have been forced to adjust. Clinton’s pivot on TPP “was a big deal—a political reality that is in no small part demanded by the geography of the electoral college,” says Jared Bernstein, Biden’s chief economist in the White House and a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “If you want to reach voters who feel left behind by globalization, you can’t tell them with a straight face, ‘Don’t worry, this new trade deal will be a lot better for you than the last one." 

In the wake of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Nafta in particular has for many voters come to symbolize everything they dislike about the globalized economy and the effects they see it having on their lives. During 2016, Greenberg’s polling tracked an intensifying, bipartisan negative attitude toward past trade deals that moved the country from a net positive view in the spring to a net negative view leading into Election Day. This trend upended the basic consensus in favor of trade liberalization that was prevalent when Biden cast his Nafta vote nearly 30 years ago.

“Trump has managed to convince much of the GOP and also bring many of the anti-trade Democrats into the fold,” says Maury Obstfeld, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who served in the Obama administration. “Now, if you look at both the major parties, there’s a prevailing skepticism. It’s been a remarkable shift in the political landscape.”

 
 

As he adjusts to the new politics of trade, Biden should have several things working in his favor. He has long been a popular figure among members of organized labor, and his father, grandfather, and uncle all worked at a General Motors plant in Delaware that shut down in 2009. Democrats’ desire for a nominee who can beat Trump is also working in his favor, at least for the moment. An April 30 Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of Democrats say Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump next year.

While he’ll still have to defend his Nafta vote and other potentially troublesome stances, Biden can point to clear instances where he intervened to defend Midwest manufacturers, none more important than the Obama administration’s bailout of the auto companies during the 2008 financial crisis. “When I worked for Biden, he was constantly pushing me to find policies to help our manufacturers,” says Bernstein. “His support was instrumental in saving the auto industry, as well as in investing in manufacturers through tax credits and strengthening industrial unions.”

Strangely enough, Trump, who has done so much to toxify the politics of trade, may inadvertently help Biden overcome his apostasies. Trump has polarized public opinion on trade, causing Democrats to express a more favorable view toward free trade than in the past. A May 3 Marquette University Law School poll of Wisconsin voters found that more than three times as many Democrats say free trade is a “good thing” rather than a “bad thing” (66% vs. 19%), up sharply from the result in 2016 (48% vs. 36%). Independents and even Republicans also express moderately more favorable views.

 

“Trump’s amazing power to persuade is partly to bring his own party around to positions they didn’t hold before—tariffs is an example—but also to propel Democrats away from him, even if it means supporting free trade,” says Charles Franklin, the director of the Marquette poll. But he’s also skeptical that these results signify a true reassessment of Democrats’ feelings about trade and its effects. “I’m confident this is a reaction against Trump,” he says. The evidence: Asked about free-trade agreements, a large plurality of respondents still say they “cost”—rather than “create”—jobs.

“If Trump pushes the message that ‘Joe Biden voted to send your jobs to Mexico,’ there’s a good chance you’ll see a receptive audience,” Franklin says. “The trick for Biden will be playing up the positive economic value of free trade. He’ll have to walk a real tightrope to balance that with the effect on lost jobs.”

So far, Biden has said little about trade, choosing instead to signal his solidarity with workers by kicking off his presidential campaign at a Pittsburgh union hall, surrounded by firefighters. Despite his early stumble on China, his advisers say he’s prepared to weather attacks on his trade record, wherever they come from, and roll out a plan of his own. That will likely include calls for better worker and environmental protections—and a multilateral approach to getting tougher on China, to contrast with Trump’s volatile solo style.

But he’s standing by his Nafta vote. “Fair trade is important,” Biden told the Associated Press on Monday. “Not free trade. Fair trade. And I think that back in the time during the Clinton administration, it made sense at the moment.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next is BANKRUPTCY law.

 

No sooner than I posted this thread, Warren proposes a reversal of Biden's DESTRUCTION!

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/warren-takes-shot-at-biden-with-new-bankruptcy-plan-095493

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wants to make it easier for Americans to go through bankruptcy, unveiling a plan Tuesday that she cast as a way to reverse the damage wrought by a 2005 law championed by her presidential rival Joe Biden.

 

That law, which imposed new requirements on filing for personal bankruptcy and limited the kinds of debts that can be forgiven, “made the 2008 financial crisis significantly worse,” Warren wrote in a Medium post announcing her plan.

 

The plan would eliminate a means test included in the 15-year-old law that required people making more than their state’s median income to go through Chapter 13 bankruptcy, a longer and costlier process than Chapter 7.

 

Warren would replace the two chapters, giving distressed borrowers the chance to either surrender their property to have their debt discharged, along the lines of Chapter 7, or choose from a “menu of options” to restructure specific debts while continuing to pay down others outside bankruptcy.

 

Student loan debts would be dischargeable; under current law, those loans are only forgiven in cases where they are found to cause “undue hardship” for the borrower.

 

Filers who select a prepayment plan, meanwhile, would be able to set aside more money to cover normal costs under her proposal, which would also allow borrowers to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy. And the plan would eliminate the 2005 requirement that borrowers get pre-filing credit counseling.

 

 
Warren and Biden have long been at odds over bankruptcy. As a U.S. senator from Delaware, Biden was one of the marquee Democrats to support the 2005 Republican legislation meant to crack down on soaring bankruptcy rates.

 

Warren, then a Harvard law professor who made her name in bankruptcy law, had lobbied against the bill for years, arguing that lenders were at fault and borrowers shouldn’t be punished.

 

“I lost that fight in 2005, and working families paid the price,” Warren wrote Tuesday.

 

“There are still serious problems with our bankruptcy laws today, thanks in large part to that bad 2005 bill,” she added. “That’s why I’m announcing my plan to repeal the harmful provisions in the 2005 bankruptcy bill and overhaul consumer bankruptcy rules in this country to give Americans a better chance of getting back on their feet.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden is dropping like a rock in Iowa.

 

People are on to his garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, once again, we'll wait and see how they vote in the Iowa caucuses 

which we all know to be rudimentary unique compared to the big states

because, well, they got lots and lots and extravagant lots of time to forge

citizen groups, exactly. 

 

Exactly, well meaning, well ventured citizen groups who hoe AND TILL

the land.

 

The Iowan knows you got to break up the soil, hoe it, she is a hoe 

so is him, those weeds and all the residual, you got to break em up

vigorously with a lot of elbow grease before you go deeper and

Till. 

 

I would say Tilling the land, an Iowan farmer who will not be named,

once said to me, is considerably much more of a deep composting

extract that you only get when you rotate the fields, say one year

you grow spinach and soy which extracts nitrogen from the rich organic soil compared

to the winter wheat which combined with various life forces such 

as worms and various other insect/ bacteria that eats such stuff

builds back the nitrogen into the soil - yeah,

No corn, chickens, hens, roaming, maybe a free roaming  cow

possibly toss in a pig - no bagging of the leafs, no bagging 

whatsoever, she is crazy this farmer In that I believe her when 

she sings about the lost taste in the Iowan tomato that is no more

whose crows sing indifferent tune because they intuitively do know

and regale about such

 

Here in Iowa, you take stock. You say, they will screw us, and the land,

either which way we vote, they understand corporate greed (Monsanto)

like a nerd used to use a protractor to understand angles and actually

comprehend how you might say, someday design an infrastructure

that could be efficient and useful - yeah, basic capitalism mixed

with farming and old style covered bridges for affect.

 

So you first start off with a Biden, you know he's available,

has been for years. Pete a few farms over has got one, a lot 

of good that got them in a good year, and then you Till deeper

and say, no, that ain't the same as peat moss. 

I mean you can pretend, but structurally Biden and Mayor Pete,

don't come anywhere close to Peat Moss to be sure.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

say what you want about the seed

laid down in the Iowa caucuses

thus shown in their archive

after and before fore square

 

It is a debate they have seemingly

not debated in any other state in the union

because the election cycle 

does not allow any true debate

elsewhere

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 10:26 AM, WillFranklin said:

Let's start with NAFTA.

 

Biden was a YES!

 

NAFTA was good for most Americans.

 

From Wikipedia:

Most economic analyses indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen, but has harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition. Economists hold that withdrawing from NAFTA or renegotiating NAFTA in a way that reestablishes trade barriers would adversely affect the U.S. economy and cost jobs.

 

If anything, trade should be free-er, not less free. For example, Canadian barriers to dairy products should be removed.

 

From Business Insider:

The most affected workers were college dropouts working in industries that depended heavily on tariff protections in place prior to NAFTA.

 

We should educating people and lifting them up, not making tariff protections that make goods more expensive for everyone. That's not good for people, not right and not efficient.

 

I'm a supporter of the original NAFTA. Trump only screwed with it to make it worse and put his name in it, a$$hølê that he is.

 

Sanders was always wrong about NAFTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laripu said:

 

NAFTA was good for most Americans.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

 

 

If anything, trade should be free-er, not less free. For example, Canadian barriers to dairy products should be removed.

 

From Business Insider:

 

 

 

We should educating people and lifting them up, not making tariff protections that make goods more expensive for everyone. That's not good for people, not right and not efficient.

 

I'm a supporter of the original NAFTA. Trump only screwed with it to make it worse and put his name in it, a$$hølê that he is.

 

Sanders was always wrong about NAFTA.

 

Do you know any working class people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:16 AM, WillFranklin said:

Biden votes as a corporate toady warmonger all his life and thinks he will not lose just like Hilary.

 

NAFTA, Iraq War, Bankruptcy Bill, cuts to entitlements proposed by Biden in the Senate, yet we are supposed to vote for that? Not even me in purple NC.

 

I am going to research and post these details now.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477059-sanders-unloads-on-biden-as-battle-for-iowa-intensifies

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unloaded on former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday night, intensifying a battle between two top contenders for the Democratic nomination with the Iowa caucuses less than a month away.

 

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Sanders attacked Biden’s record on foreign policy, trade and entitlements and questioned Biden’s electability in key Midwestern states. 

The new attacks come just 28 days before the Iowa caucuses.

 

Polling has been sparse in recent weeks, but both Biden and Sanders look strong in the final stretch, with polls finding them jockeying for a top finish alongside former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

 

On Monday night, Sanders ripped Biden for voting to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002. Sanders voted against the measure.

 

“Joe Biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in Iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said.

 

That issue has come to the forefront of the Democratic primary in recent days after President Trump ordered a military strike that killed a top Iranian military commander. A CNN poll from late November found Biden with a 34-point lead over his closest rival on the question of who Democratic voters trust the most on foreign policy.

 

Sanders also ripped Biden for voting for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying that deal had cost the U.S. “millions of jobs.”

 

The electability argument has been central to Biden’s pitch, but Sanders argued that Biden’s record on trade would make him unelectable in the key battlegrounds that Democrats must win back to take the White House.

 

“Do you think that’s going to play well in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania?” Sanders asked.

Sanders is also looking to cut into Biden’s big lead among older voters, and on Monday night he accused Biden of supporting cuts to entitlement programs that many seniors rely on.

 

“Joe Biden has been on the floor of the Senate talking about the need to cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid,” Sanders said.

 

And Sanders accused Biden of pushing “a bankruptcy bill that has caused enormous problems for working families.”

 

Warren has also clashed with Biden over his support for a 2005 bankruptcy bill that critics said favored the credit card companies.

 

Some centrist Democrats have become alarmed by Sanders’s aggressive tone in the stretch run to Iowa and are pointing to remarks he made on Sunday about how he had not attacked his rivals.

 

“You have not heard me disparage any of the candidates. Do you? I don’t,” Sanders said.

 

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:35 AM, WillFranklin said:

Next is BANKRUPTCY law.

 

No sooner than I posted this thread, Warren proposes a reversal of Biden's DESTRUCTION!

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/warren-takes-shot-at-biden-with-new-bankruptcy-plan-095493

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wants to make it easier for Americans to go through bankruptcy, unveiling a plan Tuesday that she cast as a way to reverse the damage wrought by a 2005 law championed by her presidential rival Joe Biden.

 

That law, which imposed new requirements on filing for personal bankruptcy and limited the kinds of debts that can be forgiven, “made the 2008 financial crisis significantly worse,” Warren wrote in a Medium post announcing her plan.

 

The plan would eliminate a means test included in the 15-year-old law that required people making more than their state’s median income to go through Chapter 13 bankruptcy, a longer and costlier process than Chapter 7.

 

Warren would replace the two chapters, giving distressed borrowers the chance to either surrender their property to have their debt discharged, along the lines of Chapter 7, or choose from a “menu of options” to restructure specific debts while continuing to pay down others outside bankruptcy.

 

Student loan debts would be dischargeable; under current law, those loans are only forgiven in cases where they are found to cause “undue hardship” for the borrower.

 

Filers who select a prepayment plan, meanwhile, would be able to set aside more money to cover normal costs under her proposal, which would also allow borrowers to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy. And the plan would eliminate the 2005 requirement that borrowers get pre-filing credit counseling.

 

 
Warren and Biden have long been at odds over bankruptcy. As a U.S. senator from Delaware, Biden was one of the marquee Democrats to support the 2005 Republican legislation meant to crack down on soaring bankruptcy rates.

 

Warren, then a Harvard law professor who made her name in bankruptcy law, had lobbied against the bill for years, arguing that lenders were at fault and borrowers shouldn’t be punished.

 

“I lost that fight in 2005, and working families paid the price,” Warren wrote Tuesday.

 

“There are still serious problems with our bankruptcy laws today, thanks in large part to that bad 2005 bill,” she added. “That’s why I’m announcing my plan to repeal the harmful provisions in the 2005 bankruptcy bill and overhaul consumer bankruptcy rules in this country to give Americans a better chance of getting back on their feet.”

bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 7:39 PM, merrill said:

bump

 

Thanks.


The corporate toady warmongers really want Biden but he would lose the General.

 

They also try to blame Bernie for Hillary losing, but Hillary just sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAFTA was not good for US workers.

The NEO Liberal idea that companies could go outside the US for laborers that were cheap in order to sell back goods was not a great idea for the average US factory workers concerns.

It was also exploitative in regards to those workers in Mexico, regarding environmental pollution, not to mention problems with farming, big problems with land usage.

The idea that NAFTA was for the most part good for the US economy is absolute garbage!!!

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/

 

I am sorry that folks who vote in the US don't understand the economics behind NAFTA which was signed into law by Bill Clinton. US Trade laws for the most part don't seem to take into consideration the people who live here, the economy, nor the people who live in other countries, the economy. Sure, some can say, hey, we made life better for a lot of people who live in China, the economy. We did, they say, and we also made Don, Trump, we did. We made a lot of bad things in the economy. We made a lot of good things, the economy, that involved the people, the economy, certainly some of them at least. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They lied and they lied.Until the truth about history was no longer told.

They said, the truth about the civil war was about states rights and not about ending slavery. 

They stole black promise, the beginnings of self made progress, and they then obliterated any hope in the migration

from the South to the North. And then they said it was ignorance, they said it was moral decay. 

 

What I want to know is who are they, surely someone like Charles Bukowski is not a dignitary of history, and some would 

say that he is more than wayward in his captured prose. A drunkard, a free willing moron who got by surviving with any job he could

get, that even he knew would never last long because he hated civilization, he had a problem with being a civilian or with

just being a somebody that maybe might pay off in the future if only like a decent human being he could find a way 

to fall inline.

 

And yet, he could compare himself with the truth and about the lies that were told, that are still told, and still call himself caged,

which he must have been like so many, like so many you may have known.

And Jackson Brown and so many other too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden wanted to cut Social Security over and over.

 

It is all in the news.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 9:25 AM, WillFranklin said:

Biden wanted to cut Social Security over and over.

 

It is all in the news.

 

 

 

Bernie would have won here in Michigan. 

 

But no lets nominate someone that is more "electable". 

 

The Democratic Party is such a joke man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

Bernie would have won here in Michigan. 

 

But no lets nominate someone that is more "electable". 

 

The Democratic Party is such a joke man. 

 

 

Here comes Hillary and her pukes after Bernie.

 

They know there are no Cabinet appointments for them if Bernie wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillFranklin said:

 

 

Here comes Hillary and her pukes after Bernie.

 

They know there are no Cabinet appointments for them if Bernie wins.

 

There are probably no cabinet appointment for them unless Biden or Pete wins to be completely honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 1:20 AM, TheOldBarn said:

The idea that NAFTA was for the most part good for the US economy is absolute garbage!!!

 

That's not true and here's why.

 

NAFTA caused some gains and some losses. The losses were concentrated and therefore very noticeable. For example, a factories closed and many people lost their jobs. But the gains were diffuse and therefore hard to appreciate. For example, prices on many products dropped, making the economies of the three countries involved, as a whole, more efficient. People all over don't feel that benefit, but job losses are strongly felt by the people concerned.

 

What was supposed to happen was that people were supposed to be retrained and get educated for the coming new economy that in the early 90s was correctly predicted to be about information. Did that happen? Only a little, not nearly enough. What happened was that the majority of people laid off didn't do what was necessary to retrain. Instead they found lower paying service jobs.

 

That's not their fault, maybe they couldn't, maybe they weren't capable of that. I'm not capable of lots of jobs, so I guess it isn't reasonable to expect a manufacturing worker at age 40 to retrain as an IT worker. Some can, many just can't.

 

But wait ... NAFTA went into effect in Jan 1 1994. It's been 26 years. Very very many people have entered the job market since then, and many have aged out. What should have happened is that people should have adjusted to the new job conditions.

 

And there really are new job conditions. The economy changed just as predicted. At any time, there are many tech jobs going unfilled. To fill those jobs, companies are looking outside the country, and still can't fill them. There should be more Americans going into tech: if someone call understand a car's motor, they should be able to figure out how to work in IT. They may not be interested in it, but they could do the jobs. Are they afraid to look like nerds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...