Republicans are more anti-trade than Democrats

[MrWonka]

Poll: Americans prefer low prices to items "Made in the USA" - CBS News

Republicans (35 percent) are more likely than Democrats (22 percent) to say free trade agreements are bad for the economy.

Interesting as Paul Krugman made a similar argument recently and got attacked by Bernie supporters and right wingers as being crazy, but this poll seems to back that claim up quite well.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...de-labor-and-politics.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1

The reality is that most of the people losing manufacturing jobs in this country are blue collar white men in relatively rural areas. Maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise that Trump is doing so well with his anti-trade stances. This just kind of goes to show what democrats have long said that huge chunks of the republican voting block are the ones hurt the most by their policies. Too bad Republicans just rope them in with guns and god.

 

[Kal'Stang]

First, that NYT article was nothing but an opinion puff peace that is clearly anti-republican. Obvious in the first paragraph...

Republicans, who claim to stand for free markets, are likely to nominate a crude protectionist, leaving Democrats, with their skepticism about untrammeled markets, as the de facto defenders of relatively open trade.

Ones a "defender" the other is a "crude protectionist" said as if its a dirty word.

Aside from that.... I don't know about the economy...but it certainly has put a lot of people out of a job which can't be good.

 

[MrWonka]

Ones a "defender" the other is a "crude protectionist" said as if its a dirty word.

This is done to point out hypocrisy among republicans. They often refer to those who are anti-free trade as "protectionists" using the word as a pejorative. When in reality they themselves are generally the more protectionist.

Aside from that.... I don't know about the economy...but it certainly has put a lot of people out of a job which can't be good.

If so many people were "put out of a job" how come we have 95% employment today with employment situations continuing to improve for the last 40 consecutive months?

 

[Fletch]

The reality is that most of the people losing manufacturing jobs in this country are blue collar white men in relatively rural areas. Maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise that Trump is doing so well with his anti-trade stances. This just kind of goes to show what democrats have long said that huge chunks of the republican voting block are the ones hurt the most by their policies. Too bad Republicans just rope them in with guns and god.

If so many people were "put out of a job" how come we have 95% employment today with employment situations continuing to improve for the last 40 consecutive months?

So which is it? Republican trade policies hurt or they don't? You seem to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.

 

[MrWonka]

So which is it? Republican trade policies hurt or they don't? You seem to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.

Free Trade is generally a good thing, however if it's not balanced out properly to insure that decent high paying jobs remain and that the workers who suffered are supported and retrained it can be a bad thing.

Democrats by and large are not anti-trade as a whole, we just want to make sure that investments are being made in local economies to balance things out and insure that the people who get screwed are protected. We also want to make sure that those we trade with have basic rights for their workers so that we are not buying products made with essentially slave labor.

The Republican establishment on the other hand simply wants free trade to insure massive profits for their millionaire donors while doing everything in their power to cut off assistance to the workers they hurt.

Calling Trade agreements "Republican policy" is inaccurate at best. As shown above more republicans are against them than democrats.

 

[Kal'Stang]

This is done to point out hypocrisy among republicans. They often refer to those who are anti-free trade as "protectionists" using the word as a pejorative. When in reality they themselves are generally the more protectionist.

No, it was done as a partisan attack.

If so many people were "put out of a job" how come we have 95% employment today with employment situations continuing to improve for the last 40 consecutive months?

:roll: Oh yes, employment numbers that the government hands out will always tell the whole story huh? Tell that to the thousands of people that have lost their jobs due to the companies moving their factories over seas or down to Mexico or other countries where they can pay employees a few cents on the dollar. People that were once making 15-30/hr now making 7.25-10/hr because they lost their jobs due to free-trade agreements. Which has only lined the pockets of the rich even more.

 

[gavinfielder]

If so many people were "put out of a job" how come we have 95% employment today with employment situations continuing to improve for the last 40 consecutive months?

5% unemployment, even if it were appropriately measured or accurate, does not mean 95% employment.

The labor force participation rate is 62%. It's worth noting that that's a stagnant number at an all-time low.

Calling Trade agreements "Republican policy" is inaccurate at best. As shown above more republicans are against them than democrats.

A tepid analysis.

The political ground around free trade has been shifting very rapidly the last decade. Up until recently, everyone was for free trade. The Clintons were practically the standard bearer. Still are, really, but it's so unpopular Hillary has to hide it now.

 

[iguanaman]

No, it was done as a partisan attack.



:roll: Oh yes, employment numbers that the government hands out will always tell the whole story huh? Tell that to the thousands of people that have lost their jobs due to the companies moving their factories over seas or down to Mexico or other countries where they can pay employees a few cents on the dollar. People that were once making 15-30/hr now making 7.25-10/hr because they lost their jobs due to free-trade agreements. Which has only lined the pockets of the rich even more.

Because polls have a liberal bias? Are you denying the polls or what? Lining the pockets of the rich is suddenly something the Republicans are against? That has been their goal since Reagan.

 

[iguanaman]

5% unemployment, even if it were appropriately measured or accurate, does not mean 95% employment.

The labor force participation rate is 62%. It's worth noting that that's a stagnant number at an all-time low.

A tepid analysis.

The political ground around free trade has been shifting very rapidly the last decade. Up until recently, everyone was for free trade. The Clintons were practically the standard bearer. Still are, really, but it's so unpopular Hillary has to hide it now.

LOL Now Democrats are the standard bearer of free trade? That is comically false. Name one Republican (Trump is not) that was/is against any free trade agreements? You do know that H.W. Bush signed NAFTA first and it was initiated under Reagan. 3/4's of House Dems were against the NAFTA agreement under Clinton.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19930830&id=vn5UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_44DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6965,4078955&hl=en

 

[MrWonka]

5% unemployment, even if it were appropriately measured or accurate, does not mean 95% employment.

The labor force participation rate is 62%. It's worth noting that that's a stagnant number at an all-time low.

Even the labor force participation rate(aka the new goal post conservatives wanted to use when the unemployment rate we've used for decades looked too good under Obama) has been coming back. That's why unemployment when from 4.9% back up to 5.0% nationally this month. More people came back into the labor force. Considering we are still recovering from one of the worst economic disasters in history our economy is looking very good right now.

The political ground around free trade has been shifting very rapidly the last decade. Up until recently, everyone was for free trade. The Clintons were practically the standard bearer. Still are, really, but it's so unpopular Hillary has to hide it now.

It's a delicate balance. Unions generally don't like free trade because it hurts their bargaining power, yet Democrats are generally far more supportive of Unions because we know them to be beneficial for the workers as a whole. Democrats want what is best for both consumers and workers, but the reality is most consumers are workers.

It's easier for Republicans because they only seem to care about corporate profits. The problem they have is that only about 5% of the population truly benefits from their policies yet they have to con millions more into voting for them in order to have a chance at holding office. Unfortunately for them Trump has stolen their Gods and Guns people and then also went anti-trade as well. This has left the establishment republicans with nothing but the wealthy to support them, and that's not a winning combination.

 

[sangha]

First, that NYT article was nothing but an opinion puff peace that is clearly anti-republican. Obvious in the first paragraph...



Ones a "defender" the other is a "crude protectionist" said as if its a dirty word.

Aside from that.... I don't know about the economy...but it certainly has put a lot of people out of a job which can't be good.

I don't think you're reading Krugman correctly. He has been a vocal advocate of free trade for many years and has been critical of the DNC for being anti free trade in the past. IOW, he has always been critical of protectionists, which Trump most certainly is. And as far as "crude" goes, do you have any doubt that Trump *is* crude?

Because his use of the word "crude" is not referring to republicans - he's clearly referring to Trump.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because polls have a liberal bias? Are you denying the polls or what? Lining the pockets of the rich is suddenly something the Republicans are against? That has been their goal since Reagan.

1: Polls that are conducted by the media often are biased so I don't even bother to look at them. Doesn't matter to me whether its a liberal rag or a conservative rag.

2: I'm not Republican so can't speak for them.

 

[MrWonka]

Name one Republican (Trump is not) that was/is against any free trade agreements?

The point here is that there is a clear divide between the establishment types that generally get into office and the masses of republican voters. You say Trump is not a republican, but the reality is he's getting close to 50% of republican voters to support him. So if those people aren't republicans than what is the real republican party even made out of? It's just a bunch of rich ****s looking out for profits that have been coning millions of dumb racist white southerners into voting against their own best interests for decades.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't think you're reading Krugman correctly. He has been a vocal advocate of free trade for many years and has been critical of the DNC for being anti free trade in the past. IOW, he has always been critical of protectionists, which Trump most certainly is. And as far as "crude" goes, do you have any doubt that Trump *is* crude?

Because his use of the word "crude" is not referring to republicans - he's clearly referring to Trump.

That might be more believable if the first word in that sentence hadn't been "Republicans". Or do you think that Krugman wasn't trying to make an implication there?

 

[MrWonka]

People that were once making 15-30/hr now making 7.25-10/hr

So then how about we raise the minimum wage up closer to $15/hour?

 

[iguanaman]

1: Polls that are conducted by the media often are biased so I don't even bother to look at them. Doesn't matter to me whether its a liberal rag or a conservative rag.

2: I'm not Republican so can't speak for them.

That's either a cop out or you have been living in a cave for 35 years. You have never voted for a Republican?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That might be more believable if the first word in that sentence hadn't been "Republicans". Or do you think that Krugman wasn't trying to make an implication there?

FFS...you don't understand economics....or English:

"Republicans, who claim to stand for free markets, are likely to nominate a crude protectionist..."

It is a clear reference to Trump being a protectionist, a crude one.

Cmon man.

 

[faithful_servant]

Poll: Americans prefer low prices to items "Made in the USA" - CBS News



Interesting as Paul Krugman made a similar argument recently and got attacked by Bernie supporters and right wingers as being crazy, but this poll seems to back that claim up quite well.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...de-labor-and-politics.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1

The reality is that most of the people losing manufacturing jobs in this country are blue collar white men in relatively rural areas. Maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise that Trump is doing so well with his anti-trade stances. This just kind of goes to show what democrats have long said that huge chunks of the republican voting block are the ones hurt the most by their policies. Too bad Republicans just rope them in with guns and god.

I knew from just seeing the title of this thread that it was going to be some dumb piece where someone takes one piece of evidence arrives at a conclusion totally unrelated to it. I was not wrong....

 

[iguanaman]

The point here is that there is a clear divide between the establishment types that generally get into office and the masses of republican voters. You say Trump is not a republican, but the reality is he's getting close to 50% of republican voters to support him. So if those people aren't republicans than what is the real republican party even made out of? It's just a bunch of rich ****s looking out for profits that have been coning millions of dumb racist white southerners into voting against their own best interests for decades.

I will only say that if the GOP gives up on shilling for rich folks they will have a lot of trouble raising money. Their finances have always been contingent on a pro business/lower tax rates for the rich agenda. Perhaps this is a big reason why they are resisting a Trump nomination so vehemently. But even Trump includes big tax cuts for the wealthy in his platform.

 

[gavinfielder]

Even the labor force participation rate(aka the new goal post conservatives wanted to use when the unemployment rate we've used for decades looked too good under Obama) has been coming back.

You really shouldn't hide behind a specious argument by making stuff up. That usually backfires.

It's a delicate balance. Unions generally don't like free trade because it hurts their bargaining power, yet Democrats are generally far more supportive of Unions because we know them to be beneficial for the workers as a whole. Democrats want what is best for both consumers and workers, but the reality is most consumers are workers.

It's easier for Republicans because they only seem to care about corporate profits. The problem they have is that only about 5% of the population truly benefits from their policies yet they have to con millions more into voting for them in order to have a chance at holding office. Unfortunately for them Trump has stolen their Gods and Guns people and then also went anti-trade as well. This has left the establishment republicans with nothing but the wealthy to support them, and that's not a winning combination.

You've gone from tepid to both tepid and hack. Free trade never had clear partisan boundaries like other issues. You're working on a paradigm of "all democrats are liberal" and "all republicans are neoliberal" and that's not just a flawed picture, it's flat out ignorant of recent political history. The Democratic party has been led by neoliberals for a long time--this is the New Democrat coalition, and together with its other major conservative faction (Blue Dogs), was firmly supportive of free trade.

 

[gavinfielder]

LOL Now Democrats are the standard bearer of free trade? That is comically false.

I didn't say they are, I said they were. The New Democrats were firmly free-trade, and both Clintons exemplify it.

The reason it's now changing is a function of bad economy plus political rhetoric (both from the far right and what many would see as the far left) that is changing public attitudes.

 

[iguanaman]

I didn't say they are, I said they were. The New Democrats were firmly free-trade, and both Clintons exemplify it.

It is HW Bush that truly exemplifies it as he negotiated the agreement and signed NAFTA 1st and it was the Reagan Admistration that proposed it. Republicans are the father and mother of free trade. Clinton just went along for the ride. Sort of like the banking deregulation from Phil Gramm.

 

[gavinfielder]

It is HW Bush that truly exemplifies it as he signed NAFTA 1st and it was the Reagan Admistration that proposed it. Republicans are the father and mother of free trade. Clinton just went along for the ride. Sort of like the banking deregulation from Phil Gramm.

And yet not only did Bill Clinton sign NAFTA, Hillary also calls the TPP the gold standard of free trade agreements.

 

[iguanaman]

And yet not only did Bill Clinton sign NAFTA, Hillary also calls the TPP the gold standard of free trade agreements.

Except she actually said that before it was finalized and later clarified it to mean she "hoped" it would be a gold standard and now opposes the final agreement. Not to mention as SOS her job was to support the Obama administrations views and they support TPP.

In her 2014 memoir Hard Choices, she wrote:

"Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say the TPP won’t be perfect -- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be -- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."

In fairness to Clinton, the TPP was still under negotiation when Clinton made the "gold standard" comment. The partners only finalized the deal this year. It’s quite possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department -- something Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill pointed out to us for this fact-check. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it’s hard for us to assess that ourselves. Also, as secretary of state, she spoke as a representative of the Obama administration, which was and remains wholeheartedly in favor of the deal.

Our ruling

Clinton said when she was secretary of state, she was reserving judgment but "hoped (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) would be the gold standard."

She’s twisting her 2012 remarks a bit. Clinton said, "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements," which is a more confident claim than if she had said she "hoped" it would meet that standard. This is in contrast to more recent comments where Clinton said she had concerns about the deal and that she ultimately opposes it.

The statement is distorting her previous comments. We rate it Half True.

What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the 'gold standard' | PolitiFact

 

[Fenton]

So then how about we raise the minimum wage up closer to $15/hour?

Jerry Brown Admits $15 Min Wage Bad; Signs Anyway - Breitbart

Hell, even Jerry Moonbeam Brown doesn't think the 15 dollar an hour makes any sense economically, but that didn't stop him from signing it