Republicans are more anti-trade than Democrats

[countryboy]

You really don't understand that you positions on the two subjects are direct contradictions of each other do you? Free trade is just an extension of the free market to places outside the United States. When the government blocks free trade it is meddling in the free market to artificially prop up local labor at the expense of consumers.

As I said, you are purposefully mischaracterizing the conservative position for the purpose of propagandizing. But you knew that.

 

[iguanaman]

So you are saying that, because they were for it, and others went along with it, we cannot agree that free trade (not fair trade mind you) is biting us in the ass, and we'd rather continue on than changing it to profit our country, our working people, our poor?
When will the finger pointing stop in favor or actual change for the better?
Of course people rather buy cheap goods than Made in USA? Why? We don't have jobs to afford higher prices. It is like asking "what was first, the chicken or the egg?"

Sure, we can set up trade barriers but they will be reciprocated and we will lose exports. I believe the problem is our laws have made outsourcing too lucrative, profitable and easy. We need to eliminate the tax breaks for moving jobs out and require retraining for all displaced workers before starting a trade war. Historically, trade wars have not worked out favorably.

 

[Fenton]

California has an economy that rivals Russia. There are about 1000 new companies starting up every single day. Last year there was 5 times more venture capital spent in California than in any other state in the country. California didn't "lose" jobs to Texas it sent jobs to Texas because Texan's are dumb enough to take **** wages to do them. Currently Texas has a 4.4% unemployment rate compared to California at 5.4%. So with all Texas' tax cuts, and corporate giveaways they still only manged a 1% improvement in employment. Meanwhile the just under 95% of Californians who want a job and have one are making almost double the wages that Texans are.

Lol.....

Wages are higher in California ? So is cost of living. In fact when cost of living is taken into consideration California has the Nations highest poverty rate

Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee

They also have the Nations highest child poverty rate and are home to 1/3 of the Nations welfare recipients.

 

[MrWonka]

As I said, you are purposefully mischaracterizing the conservative position for the purpose of propagandizing. But you knew that.

Yeah, see you keep saying that, but then you provide zero evidence to contradict my assessment of the conservative position. You can't claim you support a free market, while being against free trade.

 

[iguanaman]

As I said, you are purposefully mischaracterizing the conservative position for the purpose of propagandizing. But you knew that.

Enlighten me then. What is the conservative position on trade?

 

[MrWonka]

Lol.....
Wages are higher in California ? So is cost of living.

So since the cost of living is lower in Cambodia than it is in Texas does that mean you think Cambodia is a better place to live than Texas? Cost of living is driven by competition for resources. It's a good thing. It means people really really want to live in California. Competition for property drives up the value.

In fact when cost of living is taken into consideration California has the Nations highest poverty rate

Emphasis on "when cost of living is taken into account." As pointed out to you already a high cost of living is a good thing. All this points out is that even though many people are struggling to compete in California they still wont leave the state because they love it there so much. They'd rather struggle financially for awhile in a great state like California than get stuck in a **** hole like Texas at all.

Using these same types of calculations there are actually significantly fewer people in poverty in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Lithuania than there are in the U.S. Would you rather live in one of those countries than the America?

home to 1/3 of the Nations welfare recipients.

As has already been pointed out to you, California is huge, therefore it has a ton of almost everything.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So since the cost of living is lower in Cambodia than it is in Texas does that mean you think Cambodia is a better place to live than Texas? Cost of living is driven by competition for resources. It's a good thing. It means people really really want to live in California. Competition for property drives up the value.


Emphasis on "when cost of living is taken into account." As pointed out to you already a high cost of living is a good thing. All this points out is that even though many people are struggling to compete in California they still wont leave the state because they love it there so much. They'd rather struggle financially for awhile in a great state like California than get stuck in a **** hole like Texas at all.

Using these same types of calculations there are actually significantly fewer people in poverty in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Lithuania than there are in the U.S. Would you rather live in one of those countries than the America?



As has already been pointed out to you, California is huge, therefore it has a ton of almost everything.

Perhaps you are confusing property value with property cost (price?). IMHO, property value is feature driven - the size of lot/structure, proximity to desired amenities, services and/or employment. Suburban living in (most of) Texas for the same type of residential property (of similar value?) is usually available at a lower cost than in (most of) California.

 

[MrWonka]

Perhaps you are confusing property value with property cost (price?). IMH OPINION, property value is feature driven - the size of lot/structure, proximity to desired amenities, services and/or employment. Suburban living in (most of) Texas for the same type of residential property (of similar value?) is usually available at a lower cost than in (most of) California.

Just wanted to clear up something you glossed over there.

But more to your point, there's really no difference between property value and cost. All the factors you've listed matter in California too, it's just that the proximity to Amenities, services and/or Employment are so great that they easily out weight size of lot/structure.

It's similar to where I live in Charleston, SC. The closer you get to the beach and or the down town area the higher the cost of housing is. I could easily buy a 3-4 bedroom house in the suburbs that are more inland for the same price that I'm renting a one bedroom apartment 10 minutes from the beach. That's not because there is something wrong with living nearer to the beach. It's precisely because so many people want to live close to it that raises the costs and value.

If beach front property isn't that important to you then you are more than happy to buy the cheaper home more inland, or in our case you are more than welcome to move from California to Texas. Clearly though that is relevant to millions of people who choose the beach instead.

 

[iguanaman]

Perhaps you are confusing property value with property cost (price?). IMHO, property value is feature driven - the size of lot/structure, proximity to desired amenities, services and/or employment. Suburban living in (most of) Texas for the same type of residential property (of similar value?) is usually available at a lower cost than in (most of) California.

Texas has a terrible climate, scorching hot and humid in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. Comparing it to California is laughable. You couldn't pay me enough to live in Texas.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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 would say the market has shown that to be true.

There have been thousands of jobs lost to off shore multinationals where the off shore product was terribly inferior. Two friends in Western New York had opened a business after college, making wooden furniture. They're stuff was top notch hardwood they kiln dried themselves. They reduced and reduced their lines of products until all they had left was cheap outdoor patio furniture.

In a short time came an exact copy of their design made in China and selling for 20% less. As customers were discovering the **** wouldn't stand up to WNY climate, my friends shut down their business. At their height they maybe employed 20 people, but multiply that a few hundred times across the country

 

[JasperL]

Sure, we can set up trade barriers but they will be reciprocated and we will lose exports. I believe the problem is our laws have made outsourcing too lucrative, profitable and easy. We need to eliminate the tax breaks for moving jobs out and require retraining for all displaced workers before starting a trade war. Historically, trade wars have not worked out favorably.

I've read recommendations like that many times, but I'm never sure how they'll actually work. What are these workers going to be trained to do? The original story is we'd offshore the labor intensive stuff like textiles (done, those jobs are ALL gone) and keep the high tech stuff, but almost all if not all of an iPhone/TVs/computers in general, etc. is made overseas, not here. So some guy making air conditioners loses his job to Mexico or China. What job will that training qualify that person to now perform that he can't perform now?

I'm not being combative or sarcastic - I've never seen the answer to that question.

And I don't really think tax breaks for moving jobs are going to do any good. I'm fine with eliminating them, but the real problem is wages at 1/10th the U.S. rate and lax environmental and labor force rules, and obviously no pesky unions or even the threat of them.

 

[Fearandloathing]

As I said, you are purposefully mischaracterizing the conservative position for the purpose of propagandizing. But you knew that.

From a Canadian and US' largest trading partner I say, 1) the two parties are about the same, and 2) Canada has far more trouble with the US under Republican administrations.

The greatest dispute/war we ever waged, the US-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute, began in the Reagan era. It came to a head in the Bush administration and was finally negotiated to an end, Canada got paid a whole of money, but lost 10,000 jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute

The one era where it looked like it might be resolved was in the personal friendship Jean Chretien has with Bill Clinton. As it stands now, Obama is committed to renewing the agreement that came out of the dispute; there are concerns here though that Republicans will block it if they have the presidency or a majority in congress.

Suddenly, Obama who angered Canada's oil patch, is now the go-to guy for lumber issues.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Just wanted to clear up something you glossed over there.

But more to your point, there's really no difference between property value and cost. All the factors you've listed matter in California too, it's just that the proximity to Amenities, services and/or Employment are so great that they easily out weight size of lot/structure.

It's similar to where I live in Charleston, SC. The closer you get to the beach and or the down town area the higher the cost of housing is. I could easily buy a 3-4 bedroom house in the suburbs that are more inland for the same price that I'm renting a one bedroom apartment 10 minutes from the beach. That's not because there is something wrong with living nearer to the beach. It's precisely because so many people want to live close to it that raises the costs and value.

If beach front property isn't that important to you then you are more than happy to buy the cheaper home more inland, or in our case you are more than welcome to move from California to Texas. Clearly though that is relevant to millions of people who choose the beach instead.

I chose to live in Texas and to become self employed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Texas has a terrible climate, scorching hot and humid in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. Comparing it to California is laughable. You couldn't pay me enough to live in Texas.

Where I live we basically have Summer and February. There are many snowbirds that spend their winters here in Texas just as their are many in Floriduh. You can afford plenty of air conditioning for the less than the cost of CA taxation.

 

[countryboy]

From a Canadian and US' largest trading partner I say, 1) the two parties are about the same, and 2) Canada has far more trouble with the US under Republican administrations.

The greatest dispute/war we ever waged, the US-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute, began in the Reagan era. It came to a head in the Bush administration and was finally negotiated to an end, Canada got paid a whole of money, but lost 10,000 jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute

The one era where it looked like it might be resolved was in the personal friendship Jean Chretien has with Bill Clinton. As it stands now, Obama is committed to renewing the agreement that came out of the dispute; there are concerns here though that Republicans will block it if they have the presidency or a majority in congress.

Suddenly, Obama who angered Canada's oil patch, is now the go-to guy for lumber issues.

For us, electing a democrat for POTUS just so we could have better Canada/USA relations, is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face. Not that I don't desire good relations with our neighbors to the North. And yes, it's the lesser of two weasels....er....weevils....er....evils. Don't know why I have suddenly developed a stuttering problem :shock: :mrgreen:

 

[Fenton]

So since the cost of living is lower in Cambodia than it is in Texas does that mean you think Cambodia is a better place to live than Texas? Cost of living is driven by competition for resources. It's a good thing. It means people really really want to live in California. Competition for property drives up the value.


Emphasis on "when cost of living is taken into account." As pointed out to you already a high cost of living is a good thing. All this points out is that even though many people are struggling to compete in California they still wont leave the state because they love it there so much. They'd rather struggle financially for awhile in a great state like California than get stuck in a **** hole like Texas at all.

Using these same types of calculations there are actually significantly fewer people in poverty in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Lithuania than there are in the U.S. Would you rather live in one of those countries than the America?



As has already been pointed out to you, California is huge, therefore it has a ton of almost everything.

Cambodia ?? Lol !!

Please try to focus. California and Texas are two AMERICAN border States with compable populations.

Texas is run by Conservatives and California is run by Progressives.

Texas has led the Nation in the last 8 years for private sector job creation, is the chosen location for hundreds of thousands of Obama's economic refugees, has a balanced budget and has a multi billion dollar surplus to boot.

And thanks to applying Supply side strategies that people like you claim DONT WORK, were also the chosen locations for Businesses

California is home to 1/3 of the Nations welfare recipients, has the highest unfunded pension liabilities in the Nation, and has the Highest child poverty rate in the Nation.

California is the expected end result of years of Progressive policies. A fiscal and economic basket case where the poor suffer the most.

A high cost of living is NOT a good thing when your poor and according to the article I just posted ( and you ignored ) there are allot of poor people in California

 

[fmw]

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.

To be clear, Trump is not anti-trade. He is against trade agreements that are not in the best interests of the U.S. That would be all of them because the trade agreements we have are designed to transfer wealth from Americans to other countries. They are an international version of the income redistribution concept domestically. He wants to fix them. So do I. That is the misconception you have.

In fact it is these trade agreements that have put us in the economic pickle we experience today. The idea should be to have trade agreements that contribute to the wealth of our society and our citizens.

Guns and god? Please knock it off.

 

[MrWonka]

Cambodia ?? Lol !!

Please try to focus. California and Texas are two AMERICAN border States with compable populations.

yes, and you're claiming Texas is awesome because it has low cost of living, and I'm pointing out there are lots of places with even lower costs of living, but for some reason you don't want to live in those places.

Texas is run by Conservatives and California is run by Progressives.

Texas has led the Nation in the last 8 years for private sector job creation, is the chosen location for hundreds of thousands of Obama's economic refugees, has a balanced budget and has a multi billion dollar surplus to boot.

And it is propped up almost entirely by oil revenues which is why it can afford to get by with the same failed ideas that are destroying states like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri.....

Dubi has an amazing economy too. Do you think that's caused by trickle down economics or could it possibly be pump it out of the ground economics?

And thanks to applying Supply side strategies that people like you claim DONT WORK, were also the chosen locations for Businesses

How come those strategies aren't working for Mississippi, Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennesse, Missouri...... It seems to me like Texas is the outlier here.

California is home to 1/3 of the Nations welfare recipients, has the highest unfunded pension liabilities in the Nation, and has the Highest child poverty rate in the Nation.

Do you think that by repeating this statistic it will some how become relevant at some point?

California is the expected end result of years of Progressive policies. A fiscal and economic basket case where the poor suffer the most.

Then how come Minnesota, Washington state, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.... are all doing so well despite also being incredibly progressive?

You see you keep wanting to focus on Texas and California, but both states are actually very divergent from the norm. How come you don't want to talk about all the other conservative supply side states that are failing miserably across this country and have been for decades? How come you don't want to talk about all the more progressive states that are kicking ass economically and have been for decades? Why just those two states? By my count it seems that successful states following progressive economic policies vastly out number conservative ones, and conservative states taking an economic dump vastly out number progressive ones. If you were correct, shouldn't that be the other way around?

A high cost of living is NOT a good thing when your poor and according to the article I just posted ( and you ignored ) there are allot of poor people in California

I didn't ignore it, I explained it to you because you clearly don't understand what it says. You said there are a lot of poor people in California. That is false. The average person in California makes more money than their Texas Counterparts. However because so many people love the state so much that they continue to try and live above their means they are forced to live in what feels like relative poverty, but even in poverty their lives are better than most Texans.

 

[MrWonka]

To be clear, Trump is not anti-trade. He is against trade agreements that are not in the best interests of the U.S.

Sounds like a really nice and vague way of saying that he's anti-trade without explicitly stating that. But please oh seer of seers due tell us in detail what you think a trade agreement that was in the best interest of the U.S. might look like so that I may explain to you how it is in fact an anti-trade agreement.

 

[fmw]

Sounds like a really nice and vague way of saying that he's anti-trade without explicitly stating that. But please oh seer of seers due tell us in detail what you think a trade agreement that was in the best interest of the U.S. might look like so that I may explain to you how it is in fact an anti-trade agreement.

Waste of time. I don't care about feeding more to your partisan closed mind. I provided facts. You don't like them. Keep not liking them. It is fine with me.

 

[MrWonka]

Waste of time. I don't care about feeding more to your partisan closed mind. I provided facts. You don't like them. Keep not liking them. It is fine with me.

You provided no facts of any kind. You provided Trump talking points. You provided zero analysis of what a "good" trade deal would look like or how it would be accomplished.

 

[Fenton]

yes, and you're claiming Texas is awesome because it has low cost of living, and I'm pointing out there are lots of places with even lower costs of living, but for some reason you don't want to live in those places.


And it is propped up almost entirely by oil revenues which is why it can afford to get by with the same failed ideas that are destroying states like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri.....

Dubi has an amazing economy too. Do you think that's caused by trickle down economics or could it possibly be pump it out of the ground economics?



How come those strategies aren't working for Mississippi, Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennesse, Missouri...... It seems to me like Texas is the outlier here.


Do you think that by repeating this statistic it will some how become relevant at some point?


Then how come Minnesota, Washington state, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.... are all doing so well despite also being incredibly progressive?

You see you keep wanting to focus on Texas and California, but both states are actually very divergent from the norm. How come you don't want to talk about all the other conservative supply side states that are failing miserably across this country and have been for decades? How come you don't want to talk about all the more progressive states that are kicking ass economically and have been for decades? Why just those two states? By my count it seems that successful states following progressive economic policies vastly out number conservative ones, and conservative states taking an economic dump vastly out number progressive ones. If you were correct, shouldn't that be the other way around?


I didn't ignore it, I explained it to you because you clearly don't understand what it says. You said there are a lot of poor people in California. That is false. The average person in California makes more money than their Texas Counterparts. However because so many people love the state so much that they continue to try and live above their means they are forced to live in what feels like relative poverty, but even in poverty their lives are better than most Texans.

Actually Oil, even when it was valuable enough to justify new exploration was only 10% of Texas's GDP

Our economy is still growing despite the drop in prices

Silicon Valley represents 10 % of California's economy and isn't as volalitle as Oil. So whats Californias problem ?

Texas isn't a outlier, its a thorn in the side of the Progressive agenda because by example we negate so many of the lefts empty talking points

Texas shouldn't be as prosperous as it is according to toxic misinformation you people perpetuate

 

[Fearandloathing]

For us, electing a democrat for POTUS just so we could have better Canada/USA relations, is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face. Not that I don't desire good relations with our neighbors to the North. And yes, it's the lesser of two weasels....er....weevils....er....evils. Don't know why I have suddenly developed a stuttering problem :shock: :mrgreen:

Said by someone who has no concept of how deep are the trade relations.

I don't know why the right wing always blames Canada, but if you can't get along with Canada, you can't get along with anyone

 

[countryboy]

Said by someone who has no concept of how deep are the trade relations.

I don't know why the right wing always blames Canada, but if you can't get along with Canada, you can't get along with anyone

I did not blame Canada one iota.

 

[fmw]

You provided no facts of any kind. You provided Trump talking points. You provided zero analysis of what a "good" trade deal would look like or how it would be accomplished.

That's true. I refused to answer you.