Cruz Switches Vote on TPA, but Measure Passes After Obama Twists Democrat Arms<br>Jeff Sessions: They Won the Vote, But Lost America

Cruz Switches Vote on TPA, but Measure Passes After Obama Twists Democrat Arms
Jeff Sessions: They Won the Vote, But Lost America

Breaking News: You're their voters, but you're not their constituency.

Jeff Sessions has a must-read statement at the Weekly Standard.

Americans increasingly believe that their country isn't serving its own citizens. They need look no further than a bipartisan vote of Congress that will transfer congressional power to the Executive Branch and, in turn, to a transnational Pacific Union and the global interests who will help write its rules.
The same routine plays out over and again. We are told a massive bill must be passed, all the business lobbyists and leaders tell how grand it will be, but that it must be rushed through before the voters spoil the plan. As with Obamacare and the Gang of Eight, the politicians meet with the consultants to craft the talking points--not based on what the bill actually does, but what they hope people will believe it does. And when ordinary Americans who never asked for the plan, who don't want the plan, who want no part of the plan, resist, they are scorned, mocked, and heaped with condescension.
Washington broke arms and heads to get that 60th vote--not one to spare--to impose on the American people a plan which imperils their jobs, wages, and control over their own affairs. It is remarkable that so much energy has been expended on advancing the things Americans oppose, and preventing the things Americans want.
For instance: thousands of loyal Americans have been laid off and forced to train the foreign workers brought in to fill their jobs--at Disney, at Southern California Edison, across the country. Does Washington rush to their defense? No, the politicians and the lobbyists rush to move legislation that would double or triple the very program responsible for replacing them.
This 'econometarian' ideology holds that if a company can increase its bottom line --whether by insourcing foreign workers or outsourcing production--then it's always a win, never a downside.
President Obama, and allies in Congress, have won this fast-track vote. But, in exchange, they may find that they are losing something far greater: the trust of the American people. Americans have a fundamental, decent, and just demand: that the people they elect defend their interests. And every issue to come before us in the coming months will have to pass this test: does this strengthen, or weaken, the position of the everyday, loyal American citizen?

Mike Flynn, who needs your vote and needs your support, came out against the bill two weeks ago:

This trade deal, which would impact at least 40 percent of the U.S. economy, may in fact be good for our future prosperity. At the very least, a deal of this size warrants a vigorous public debate. The secrecy around its provisions, however, does not instill great confidence.
In the early 90s, the debate over granting the president "fast-track" authority to negotiate the NAFTA trade agreement occupied political discussion for months. Billionaire Ross Perot even made opposition to the deal a center piece of his independent run for the White House. The public didn't just debate the "fast-track" provision, but had a robust discussion of the underlying trade deal itself.
No matter what one feels about the outcome of the NAFTA debate, there was at least a full public debate of the merits of the proposed trade deal. The political discourse of the country was much improved by the months-long back and forth.
In politics today, sadly, we don't debate issues as much as the theater around those issues. Giving Obama expanded powers to negotiate a deal virtually no one has read is not the same as supporting free trade. Having real concerns about a mammoth agreement binding 12 nations to a sweeping rewrite of international law that is negotiated in the dark doesn't make one a protectionist.
Whether Obamacare or Dodd-Frank, the U.S. is already reeling from the unforeseen consequences of thousand-page legislation rushed through Congress with little scrutiny of exact legislative language.
As a party, Republicans ran three national campaigns against the idea of passing sweeping legislation no one had read and checking Obama's tendency to grant himself powers beyond the Constitutional limits. The House GOP even sued Obama over his expanded use of executive powers.
And yet, the House GOP is now leading the legislative push to grant Obama an entirely new set of executive powers. Just this year, Republicans were rightly criticizing Obama for conducting negotiations over Iran's nuclear program in secret.
The drama this week surrounding the TPP isn't about Republicans and Democrats as much as it is about Washington and the rest of the country. The political and ruling class in Washington wants to be left alone to govern the country as it sees fit, without the hassle of engaging the public in the discussion.

This is what it's all about. We're not just talking about losing a vote -- we are talking about losing the idea of America itself, where the public actually gets to weigh in on major measures allegedly passed in its name.

This is why I think Mike Flynn could be a game-changer. He gets it. Not many do. Sure, some do. The guys in the Freedom Caucus -- and Flynn has the endorsements of Rep. Louie Gohmert and Rep. Steve King. (And Steven Moore, and Dave Bossie of Citizens United, and more.)

But they are small in number and they are, distressingly, easily demagogued.

They need allies, and they need a voice.

This is why I mentioned that Flynn was a genius. Not to brag on him. But because I think we are at a critical moment when our voices are barely heard at all, and thus we need an especially clever voice to help those few in Congress fighting this fight.

You think you're getting any help from Obama's Transportation Secretary's son?

What's frustrating is that we have another David Brat situation here -- another real, committed philosophical conservative, opposed to another statist Establishment crash test dummy.

And once again, just as in Brat's case, the people you'd expect to maybe say something are being quiet again.

Brat pulled that out, by some miracle.

I don't know if we as a movement can just Hope for Miracles. I think, maybe, at some point, we actually have to do something to help ourselves, too.

Mike's new video is here.

Posted by: Ace at 05:01 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 yep, the Sessions piece brought tears to my eyes

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 23, 2015 05:00 PM (qCMvj)

2 Wow, betrayed again.

This is my shocked face *_*

Posted by: nnptcgrad at June 23, 2015 05:02 PM (iF4ab)

3 How are they going to lose the "trust of the American people"?

NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS OR CARES

It's Duggars and Confederate Flags all the way down.

Posted by: Mega at June 23, 2015 05:03 PM (9Du4t)

4 Yep. Was happy to cast a vote for Dave Brat here in VA 7. In the primary it was really a 'flip the bird' at totally SQRL Eric Cantor. By the general, I saw a true conservative in Brat and gladly supported him. Hope there are more to come to see if some way we can control true liberals like Boehner and McConnell.

Posted by: VA conservative at June 23, 2015 05:04 PM (+pZwg)

5 The arguments for free trade are almost exactly the same for open borders.

The GOP has been for free trade for a while, so this isn't exactly a betrayal.

I've always been skeptical of the benefit of free trade for the American economy.

Even if you want to make a case for economic efficiency with low trade barriers, I think most Americans would agree the United States is more than just an economic trading zone. We have a culture and way of life to protect.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:04 PM (bI9xE)

6 I don't know if we as a movement can just Hope for Miracles. I think, maybe, at some point, we actually have to do something to help ourselves, too.

*looks at CAR-15*

Not yet.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:04 PM (CFcIt)

7 We are no longer a sovereign nation.

Or a serious one.

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 23, 2015 05:05 PM (PcuwQ)

8 I wish I could give Cruz credit for the flip, but this is clearly another one of those votes that senators got to vote they needed so long as the bill passed.

Posted by: Methos at June 23, 2015 05:05 PM (ZbV+0)

9 Thank that moron of Enzi for this one. Asshole.

Posted by: Lark at June 23, 2015 05:05 PM (66L5r)

10 Un-fucking-believable. Opposition party? WTF? W. T. F.???

How much is big business paying off our boys in the GOP to ram this thing through? Lots, no doubt. Fucking traitors.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 23, 2015 05:06 PM (so+oy)

11 We have a culture and way of life to protect.
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:04 PM (bI9xE)

Heh!! You guys crack me up.

Posted by: The Left at June 23, 2015 05:06 PM (CFcIt)

12 Pshaw, you think LaHood's a statist bureaucrat? Try my rep, Barbara Comstock. She ran as a conservative.

She's a Republican in the sense that I'm Kate Upton.

Posted by: pep at June 23, 2015 05:07 PM (LAe3v)

13 Can we import flags now?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 23, 2015 05:08 PM (W5DcG)

14 We have a culture and way of life to protect.

lololololololololol

Posted by: The mutifaceted freqk show that is the left at June 23, 2015 05:08 PM (ZbV+0)

15 Heh!! You guys crack me up.

Posted by: The Left

Laugh it up now, monkey boy.

Posted by: The inevitable boot in the face at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (LAe3v)

16 I will say this though in the spirit of intellectual honesty.

There was never a real battle between protectionist trade policies vs free trade until Obama pushed this trade deal. It reminds me a little of of the individual mandate for health insurance. It was a conservative idea until it wasn't because it was in ObamaCare

We need to have a set of ideal more than just the opposite of what Obama wants moving forward. if this was a Republican President, almost no conservatives would oppose it.

I personally think the GOP needs to reexamine its commitment to free trade and be a more populist party that looks out for the working class, whether it's with trade or immigration.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (bI9xE)

17 Ace, his fists closed

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (evdj2)

18 If the MFM won't raise this topic constantly (like they do with, say, shootings or gasoline prices) then the masses WILL NOT pay any attention.

The isssue will die out. The only question that remains is will The G.O.P. survive this set of politicians.

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 23, 2015 05:10 PM (xptlg)

19 So Cruz was for it before he was against it?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:10 PM (AkOaV)

20 We've gone from "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" to "We have to pass it, and we still won't know what's in it." Who knew that Mitch McConnell was even more ignorant and corrupt than Nancy Pelosi?

Posted by: Furious George at June 23, 2015 05:11 PM (UlJ3l)

21 I put Sessions piece on Twitter earlier!

Posted by: Carol at June 23, 2015 05:11 PM (sj3Ax)

22 Open the borders. Bring in the brainiacs.

Posted by: Larry Kudlow at June 23, 2015 05:12 PM (W5DcG)

23 The Democratically Controlled US Senate

Posted by: AoSHQ Stylebook at June 23, 2015 05:12 PM (evdj2)

24 The GOP has been for free trade for a while, so this isn't exactly a betrayal.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:04 PM (bI9xE)

there was so much hidden in this bill, it wasn't just trade

more executive branch power aka dictatorship lite

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 23, 2015 05:13 PM (qCMvj)

25 The thing is...#TPA isn't free trade.

Obama's going to make a shitty deal, fully of crony capitalist shit for his shitty donors and rich friends.

A "trade deal" is ipso facto not "free trade".

Posted by: AmishDude at June 23, 2015 05:13 PM (b65cm)

26 >>>Can we import flags now?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 23, 2015 05:08 PM (W5DcG)<<<

We'll be delivering/planting some very very soon.

Posted by: China at June 23, 2015 05:13 PM (u9UUM)

27
Is time speeding up?

cuz this sh*t seems to be comming at us faster.....

Posted by: Yo! at June 23, 2015 05:13 PM (q+zA9)

28 Mike Enzi flipped - Didn't Drew support him over Liz Cheney?

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:14 PM (gmeXX)

29 The bill has nothing to do with free trade. It has everything to do with if you think Obama would negotiate an agreement in the best interests of the American people.

Does McConnell think that, does Boehner?

I don't.

Posted by: Ken at June 23, 2015 05:14 PM (LXJ1e)

30 A "trade deal" is ipso facto not "free trade".

-----

Very true.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:14 PM (gmeXX)

31 I remember when Mike Flynn beat the hell out of John Boehner, aka the Candy Man, for taking childrens on one-on-one "camping trips" in his back yard.
Mike Flynn gets results.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 23, 2015 05:14 PM (qg8UT)

32 Congress just used Sophistry to Amend the Constitution.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

This is not a POWER of the Constitution, it is a REQUIRMENT of the Constitution.

ergo, they are TRAITORS... as they are destroying the very Constitution they SWORE to uphold.

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 23, 2015 05:14 PM (qh617)

33 I suspect that Cruz is a phony. He was given the okay to switch as they found they had enough without him.

Happens all the time.

I'm believing more and more that Cruz is a pandering blowhard.

Posted by: Jakee308 at June 23, 2015 05:15 PM (x3GpS)

34
Tillis - Yea

Thanks Thom!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 23, 2015 05:15 PM (kdS6q)

35 How y'all been! I'm back!

Posted by: That Giant Sucking Sound at June 23, 2015 05:15 PM (hKyl0)

36 We've decided to self-identify as Democrats.

Posted by: GOP monkeys, fucking a football at June 23, 2015 05:15 PM (u9UUM)

37 We, the Boned.

Posted by: Cranky J Anne at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (zhriN)

38 Sorry, I expect the response to a 'secret' bill to be a flat 'no.'

Did Cruz change his vote because he knew passage was arranged for?

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (xpPRn)

39
Also: The Profile in Courage Award goes to Lee and Coaker for dodging the vote

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (kdS6q)

40 This is not a POWER of the Constitution, it is a REQUIRMENT of the Constitution.

----

On procedural issues, anyone should have standing at the court. Either it was in compliance with Constitution procedures or it was not. If it was - move on. If it was not - it cannot stand.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (gmeXX)

41 there was so much hidden in this bill, it wasn't just trade

more executive branch power aka dictatorship lite
Posted by: artisanal 'ette

What bothers me if, even if you worship at the altar of free trade, would it really have killed us to wait until the next President to pass it? It's not like trade would shut down in the mean time.

I honsestly think the Koch Bros are screwing the GOP by making it a corporatist party. Their two big issues are amnesty and free trade and they'll shower GOP candidates and leadership with money that go along.

What's funny is the Left thinks they are devils but they are helping them in many ways.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (bI9xE)

42 The one good thing about it being exactly 60 votes, every Senator cast the deciding vote. When this turns out to be expected clusterfuck, beat them on the head with that at every townhall and campaign event.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (evdj2)

43 The GOP has been for free trade for a while, so this isn't exactly a betrayal.

It's almost cute you think that it takes 1,000 pages of single space text that no one is allowed to see is about "free trade."

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (c/Ipt)

44 Ace,
Brat ran under the radar & beat Cantor! I heard him on Levin twice & knew he'd win.

Flynn has to. call Mark Levin!

Posted by: Carol at June 23, 2015 05:17 PM (sj3Ax)

45 Alright Nip.

Where did Thom comedown on this?

Posted by: Golfman at June 23, 2015 05:17 PM (48QDY)

46 Did Cruz change his vote because he knew passage was arranged for?

-----

I would assume so until proven otherwise. I like Cruz - but he is a politician. This happens all the time. I'm certainly not ready to let this one incident cause me to write Cruz off - but I do think it is worrisome.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:17 PM (gmeXX)

47
Did Cruz change his vote because he knew passage was arranged for?
Posted by: Erasmus Hodag

No! Of course not.

Here, have a soccer ball and a teddy bear.

Posted by: Sen Ted LCF Cruz

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 23, 2015 05:18 PM (kdS6q)

48 And Cruz has shown his true colors, he's also made some noises regarding Amnesty and then this flip flop

I no longer trust him, I feel like I'm getting played (by a Canadian no less)

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:18 PM (bI9xE)

49 Mike Flynn gets it but can he articulate it, can he weather the corruption of the GOPe moneymen and committeeman?

I thought Cruz was incorruptible but I was wrong.

Posted by: Kreplach at June 23, 2015 05:18 PM (mqYFN)

50 Mike Flynn, who needs your vote and needs your support

No voter ID in Illinois, right?
I'll need an address to register at.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 23, 2015 05:18 PM (ZKzrr)

51 11 We have a culture and way of life to protect.
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:04 PM (bI9xE)
Heh!! You guys crack me up.

Me too

Posted by: Teh F*cking GOPe at June 23, 2015 05:18 PM (hKyl0)

52 when does Dancing With The Stars come back?

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (pZtrP)

53 On procedural issues, anyone should have standing at the court. Either it was in compliance with Constitution procedures or it was not. If it was - move on. If it was not - it cannot stand.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (gmeXX)

Except you must show that you have been directly harmed, or you don't have standing...

Which will take YEARS to show...

and even then... as per other lawsuits... won't stop a damn thing...

(note, the NSA is still spying on us, even after the Kabuki theatre with the Patriot Act...).

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (qh617)

54 I honsestly think the Koch Bros are screwing the GOP by making it a corporatist party. Their two big issues are amnesty and free trade and they'll shower GOP candidates and leadership with money that go along.

What's funny is the Left thinks they are devils but they are helping them in many ways.
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (bI9xE)

Anything else you'd like to advise us on?

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (CFcIt)

55 Waiting for Moo Moo to show up and tell us why we're socon idiots for opposing giving a free hand to a black president.

That won't convince black voters to vote GOP!!!!

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (8ZskC)

56 if this was a Republican President, almost no conservatives would oppose it.

I personally think the GOP needs to reexamine its commitment to free trade and be a more populist party that looks out for the working class, whether it's with trade or immigration.
Posted by: Kal
__________________

Interesting thought. However, I disagree with your statement that " if this was a Republican President, almost no conservatives would oppose it."

I would amend that to " if this was a Republican President, almost no Republican legislators would oppose it."

This was the problem with George W. Bush and Tom "We've Trimmed Every Ounce of Fat From the Budget" Delay and the rest of the GOP in Washington.

Posted by: Furious George at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (UlJ3l)

57 Looks like a banner week for Obama..... Race "war" free reign trade, and most assuredly Gay marriage!

Posted by: donna at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (Bn6aD)

58 (Jump to Bottom of Page)

Posted by Ace at 05:01 PM Comments

****

Threadwinnah!!

Posted by: Muldoon, a solid man at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (mvenn)

59 Maybe the chicoms will let us see the Trade Bill?

Posted by: Garrett at June 23, 2015 05:19 PM (O6riq)

60 It's almost cute you think that it takes 1,000 pages of single space text that no one is allowed to see is about "free trade."

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale

Why do you think so many Republicans and conservatives are behind it?

Even Rush Limbaugh supports it.

I know it's a popular meme that Republicans secretly love Obama and want to give him more power, but the reason this is getting passed is because the GOP is the Free Trade Party

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:20 PM (bI9xE)

61
I know it's a popular meme that Republicans secretly love Obama and want to give him more power, but the reason this is getting passed is because the GOP is the Free Trade Party

Well bless your heart....

Posted by: donna at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (Bn6aD)

62 Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (bI9xE)

Obama himself said this needed to pass so he could 'help the environment'....

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (qh617)

63 Kal, your concern is noted.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (8ZskC)

64 Doom. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM. *points bony finger at all present*

Posted by: Mr. Death at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (sCHw2)

65 Will we know what is in the Trans Pacific Partnership pact before it is passed by congress?

Probably not.

Posted by: Quotous Loo at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (CSrQA)

66 I feel like I'm getting played (by a Canadian no less)
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:18 PM (bI9xE)

Well... this just gets better and better.....

*concern noted*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (CFcIt)

67 She's a Republican in the sense that I'm Kate Upton.

Posted by: pep at June 23, 2015 05:07 PM (LAe3v)

Show us your boobehs.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (Vf5rR)

68 I'll repeat this:

We don't have a representative republic at all. We have lords who mean to rule over us and who are as--if not more--cruel and indifferent as Parliament in 1775.

They mean to tax and bleed us dry.
They mean to run their officers and agents throughout our land, to herry, harass and oppress.
They mean to scour liberty, freedom and free will from every nook and cranny.
They mean to drive us and divide us by class and creed.
They mean to enrich themselves and their criminal conspirators upon the public treasury.
They mean to feed us scraps while fattening their families.
They mean to destroy the security of our homes and our country while they sit in comfort.

Our Founding Fathers had a better claim upon representation than we do today.

There were 558 members of Parliament up to 1801*. That represented some 7.75 million in the UK and some 5.3 million in the US.**

So, 13.05 million.***

23,387 citizens per member. Let that sink in: Each represented no more people than a small city today.

We have 435 in the House and some 315 million people.

724,137 citizens per member of Congress.

That's representation?

We do not have anywhere near the representation our Founding Fathers did.

*That's the nearest to 1775 I could find.
**Yes, there were other colonies. If you want to find the number for all, you do the math.
***Suppose we work back, what would have to be the population of all the British colonies to equal today's level of representation in the US? The 558 representatives for all their colonies worldwide?
404 million in all the British colonies. The world population in 1801 was estimated to be only 1 billion.

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (ZvKdv)

69 Cruz is a skunk. Always thought that. But then again so are the vast majority of them.

Posted by: Mega at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (9Du4t)

70 Thanks Ace. Sent Flynn money.
Sending Boehner and McConnell the finger.

Posted by: Starbucks Race Expert at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (7GI9v)

71 I personally think the GOP needs to reexamine its commitment to free trade and be a more populist party that looks out for the working class, whether it's with trade or immigration.
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (bI9xE)

No, free trade is a wonderful thing.

I do not know whats in this massive secret bill, but I doubt it has anything to do with "free trade"

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (AkOaV)

72 63 Kal, your concern is noted.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (8ZskC)

*tips beer to Monitor*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (CFcIt)

73 People keep trying to sell secret bargains and centralization of power and cronyism as "free trade," it's just not what those words mean.

In other words, lies are the currency of the day.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (bLnSU)

74 I get the sense this started with TARP. I supported TARP at the time but now that we know what's happened since, maybe "pass this bill and give $700 billion to the banks" was chum in the water.

Posted by: bjk at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (x2rNW)

75 Except you must show that you have been directly harmed, or you don't have standing...

----

Yes - but that is a court created construct. In my sane world, a violation of procedure would be an assumed de facto harm. No showing of actual harm necessary. This would be somewhat extra constitutional, as there is nothing in the Constitution that expressly grants the Court this power, but let the Congress and the Executive defend themselves. The people should be able to defend the people's branch.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (gmeXX)

76 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (kff5f)

77 Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (kff5f)

78 I'll provide a nice wave for that containerized shipping.

** SMOD not responsible for final delivery, contents may be disturbed during shipping **

Posted by: SMOD at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (DL2i+)

79 It was a *conservative* idea until it wasn't because it was in ObamaCare

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (bI9xE)

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (Vf5rR)

80 It would have been worth voting this bill down purely as a setback to Obama if nothing else.

It would have been incredibly humiliating for Obama and made him once again look impotent

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (bI9xE)

81 >>> Will we know what is in the Trans Pacific Partnership pact before it is passed by congress? <<<

You'll know all you ever wanted to know about it at our next destination!

Now, if you'll just come with me? Peacefully?

Posted by: Conductor #123 to DemoKKKrat Fun-Camp #A6 at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (sCHw2)

82 Did we ever get a definitive answer as to whether they can identify us for supporting Flynn if we keep the donation below $200?

Posted by: Kensington at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (7Kbxu)

83
DRUDGE:
Republicans give him the power

Posted by: Yo! at June 23, 2015 05:24 PM (q+zA9)

84 Ask yourself: Would Obama be in favor of FREE trade?

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:24 PM (xpPRn)

85 I know it's a popular meme that Republicans secretly love Obama and want to give him more power

In the last year, they've given Obama a blank check on increasing the debt, a Cromnibus that funded all of his domestic priorities, they funded Executive Amnesty, they fully funded Obamacare and promised to save it if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, they have rubber-stamped all of his appointments, and now they've approved a trade bill that reportedly includes massive concessions of power to the executive bureaucracy.

What do you got in favor of your proposition that Republicans "don't" secretly love Obama and want to give him more power?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 23, 2015 05:24 PM (c/Ipt)

86 Why do you think so many Republicans and conservatives are behind it?

Even Rush Limbaugh supports it.

I know it's a popular meme that Republicans secretly love Obama and want to give him more power, but the reason this is getting passed is because the GOP is the Free Trade Party
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:20 PM (bI9xE)

Your costume is having a high-speed come apart.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:24 PM (CFcIt)

87 Screw the GOP, bunch of traitors.

Posted by: Draki at June 23, 2015 05:24 PM (TPjYk)

88 So fucking Rubio is still a yes for TPP? That fucking guy, he's almost as bad as Jeb.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:24 PM (Iv/Hw)

89 No, free trade is a wonderful thing.

I do not know whats in this massive secret bill, but I doubt it has anything to do with "free trade"

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (AkOaV)

Yeah.... free trade is great... that's why our industrial sector stayed dominant...

Posted by: BB Wolf at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (qh617)

90 We're going to need your votes next year! Give us the White House and larger majorities in Congress, and we'll put an end to this stuff!

Posted by: The GOP Establishment at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (7Kbxu)

91 "I think, maybe, at some point, we actually have to do something to help ourselves, too."

Sieze government buildings, armories, key communication centers, transport choke points, power faciliites and close all public institutions.

Then proceed to phase 2.

Insurgency isn't hard, but it takes commitment.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (axT/F)

92 It was a *conservative* idea until it wasn't because it was in ObamaCare

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (bI9xE)

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Posted by: flounder

The Heritage Foundation pushed it and then flip flopped when Obama adopted it

Newt Gingrich singed all sorts of praises about the individual mandate because it was supposed to solve the free rider problem.

The problem with the individual mandate is that it morphed into a backdoor way to institute universal health care because nobody could then opt out

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (bI9xE)

93 Yet another Republican sell out to Obama. Why did I go down and vote last time?

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (GpgJl)

94 Don't these people know you're already broken up?

Posted by: Liberty Mutual whiny boy at June 23, 2015 05:26 PM (W5DcG)

95
Why do you think so many Republicans and conservatives are behind it?

All that you need is a ticket

Come on, big boy

ten cents -- a dance

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 23, 2015 05:26 PM (kdS6q)

96 Anyone got a link for the voting?

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 23, 2015 05:26 PM (9mTYi)

97 >>> Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:09 PM (bI9xE) <<<

You could REALLY help me out here if you point out who the more, shall we say, "difficult" ones here are. We'll work out the Cer Papita bonuses for you, later, IYKWIMAITYD. *winks*

Posted by: Conductor #123 to DemoKKKrat Fun-Camp #A6 at June 23, 2015 05:26 PM (sCHw2)

98 What bothers me if, even if you worship at the altar of free trade, would it really have killed us to wait until the next President to pass it? It's not like trade would shut down in the mean time.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (bI9xE)

I agree.

I would be happy if the government shut down until the elections were over.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 23, 2015 05:26 PM (qCMvj)

99 I would be happy if the government shut down until the elections were over.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 23, 2015 05:26 PM (qCMvj)

In 2040.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (kff5f)

100 93 Yet another Republican sell out to Obama. Why did I go down and vote last time?
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (GpgJl)

No other choice, Vic.

We're out of options.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (CFcIt)

101 and Rubio could have boosted his 2016 campaign by switching to no.

So, it stands as Cruz is ok. Maybe Perry.

Surprisingly, Trump has the best platform of any GOP pol in the race.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (Iv/Hw)

102 Supporting Mike Flynn is probably a good way to stick to Boner.

Posted by: Draki at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (TPjYk)

103 35 years of Government "shut down" might *just* be enough for us to fix things.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (kff5f)

104 We'll work out the Cer Papita bonuses for you, later, IYKWIMAITYD. *winks*
Posted by: Conductor #123 to DemoKKKrat Fun-Camp #A6

It was 15% iirc.

Posted by: George Soros at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (tgnRB)

105 LDC. Thanks.

Nip is noticeably absent. No doubt consoling the last of the NC furniture workers.

Posted by: Golfman at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (48QDY)

106 Yet another Republican sell out to Obama. Why did I go down and vote last time? Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM

Because you heard the bell, tovarich....

Posted by: Pavlov teh Puppy Guy at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (P8YHq)

107 Been awhile since we've seen the "Heritage Foundation invented Obamacare!" copypasta.

Hrm.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (ZKzrr)

108 The Heritage Foundation pushed it and then flip flopped when Obama adopted it

Newt Gingrich singed all sorts of praises about the individual mandate because it was supposed to solve the free rider problem.

------

Something is not conservative just because it was promoted by someone or some group who may or may not happen to be conservative.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (gmeXX)

109 if only the GOP had a majority in both legislative houses, so they could block bullshit like this....

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (pZtrP)

110 In 2040.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM (kff5f)

BAM!!!

Posted by: Emeril Lagasse at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (CFcIt)

111 Any Republican who voted for this POS needs to be primaried.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (GpgJl)

112 Kate Upton?

Posted by: Weasel at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (e3bId)

113 Eh, I'm gone for a week and come back to find out #WASTF.

Still.

I suppose I should be glad for some sort of permanence and stability in life.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (eEb+d)

114 Surprisingly, Trump has the best platform of any GOP pol in the race.

----

At least it is an honest platform. Whatever is best for Trump.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (gmeXX)

115 The only conservative individual mandate is "Pay for it yourself or you don't get it."

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (xpPRn)

116 Posted by: RoyalOil at June 23, 2015 05:21 PM (ZvKdv)

Spot on.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (Vf5rR)

117 112
Kate Upton?

Posted by: Weasel at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (e3bId)

?!

Posted by: Draki at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (TPjYk)

118 Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:22 PM (gmeXX)

No. It's not.

If it's against the law, then it's criminal and the State has standing.

If it's not against the law then it's a civil tort and a tort requires that damage of some sort was done.

For their to be damage there must be someone who was damaged.

many cases (some very recently concerning popular bloggers) have been thrown out because no damage could be shown.

That also applies if there is no one damaged. To have standing you must have been damaged somehow.

Regrettably having the Congress pass bills that some disagree with is not a tort unless there is damage and then only those damaged my sue for redress.

Long, long legal history for this.

Posted by: Jakee308 at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (x3GpS)

119 Did Cruz switch when it was clear it would pass so he could then say he voted against it?

Posted by: Doomed at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (bGLSw)

120 Any Republican who voted for this POS needs to be primaried.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:28 PM (GpgJl)

This.

It's time to shed the Republicans like they did the Whigs before them. If they won't be the party of personal liberty, then someone new needs to come along.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:30 PM (kff5f)

121 111 Any Republican who voted for this POS needs to be primaried.

Conservatives will never when in the GOP. It's time for a new party. It's been time for close to a decade.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 23, 2015 05:30 PM (1LOcx)

122 I honsestly think the Koch Bros are screwing the GOP by making it a corporatist party. Their two big issues are amnesty and free trade and they'll shower GOP candidates and leadership with money that go along.
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:16 PM (bI9xE)

The KOCH Brothers?!

What do they have to do with anything?

They're libertarians who funded insurgency campaigns against incumbents. The GOPe hates them...

uhhhh?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:30 PM (AkOaV)

123 Newt Gingrich singed all sorts of praises about the individual mandate because it was supposed to solve the free rider problem.

The "Free Rider" problem was created by Congress when they passed a law that required hospitals to provide free medical care to people who didn't intend to pay for it.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 23, 2015 05:30 PM (c/Ipt)

124 I'm a conservative that opposes both free trade and open borders.

Both are destroying the working class.

If you want to think that makes me a closet liberal, so be it, but it's indisputable that the GOP leadership got behind this because they believe in free trade.

The other theories about why they pushed for this are frankly pretty stupid.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:30 PM (bI9xE)

125 119 Did Cruz switch when it was clear it would pass so he could then say he voted against it?

At this point there's no reason to trust any Republican.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 23, 2015 05:31 PM (1LOcx)

126 119 Did Cruz switch when it was clear it would pass so he could then say he voted against it?
Posted by: Doomed at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (bGLSw)

Possibly. TBD.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:31 PM (CFcIt)

127 No. It's not.

-----

So facial challenges should not be brought?

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:31 PM (gmeXX)

128 117 mentioned @ 67 and further upstream.

Posted by: Weasel at June 23, 2015 05:31 PM (e3bId)

129 The "Free Rider" problem was created by Congress when they passed a law that required hospitals to provide free medical care to people who didn't intend to pay for it.

EMTALA. 1986.

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:31 PM (xpPRn)

130 Even Rush Limbaugh supports it.

I know it's a popular meme that Republicans secretly love Obama and want to give him more power, but the reason this is getting passed is because the GOP is the Free Trade Party
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:20 PM (bI9xE)

Uh, I haven't heard Rush endorse it. Granted, I don't listen to him all the time, but he seemed to do the opposite of endorse it the other day when I was in the car.

And if the GOP was for free trade, that'd be great.

But they're not and this isn't a "free trade bill."

Free trade requires no bill. You just trade. Freely. Low tariffs. Requires no / few treaties or anything.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (AkOaV)

131 "The "Free Rider" problem was created by Congress when they passed a law
that required hospitals to provide free medical care to people who
didn't intend to pay for it. "

so fix that by repealing the first, stupid law, not by passing moar st00pid laws.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (pZtrP)

132 So, it stands as Cruz is ok. Maybe Perry.
Surprisingly, Trump has the best platform of any GOP pol in the race.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:27 PM

Cruz is not "okay," IMO. Unless you like a good dose of illegals with your unfree free trade.

Perry, maybe. And yes, Trump is saying the right things, but not being one of the Cool Kids in the eyes of the GOPe (and, let's face it, for not exactly coming off as committed to putting actions behind his mouth), he's got as much chance of getting nominated as Professor Irwin Corey.

Posted by: MrScribbler at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (P8YHq)

133 Cruz's explanation over at breitbart the other day, when explained why he flipped helped me to better understand.

I'm still on his side.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (qCMvj)

134 119 Did Cruz switch when it was clear it would pass so he could then say he voted against it?
Posted by: Doomed at June 23, 2015 05:29 PM (bGLSw)

Possibly. TBD.

***********

it only passed with 60. Not much of a margin.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (Iv/Hw)

135
Did Cruz switch when it was clear it would pass so he could then say he voted against it?
Posted by: Doomed

No! Off course not.

BTW -- anyone know how to get a dead gay hooker out of a bathtub?

Posted by: Ted LCF Cruz

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (kdS6q)

136 "At this point there's no reason to trust any Republican."

After what they did to Palin, there hasn't been for some time. More and more the possible POTUS candidates appear corrupted, compromised or otherwise "gotten to."

But then I gave up making flesh my arm quite awhile back.

Posted by: Doomed at June 23, 2015 05:33 PM (bGLSw)

137
Poe's Law, an internet adage :

without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.

Posted by: Quotous Loo at June 23, 2015 05:34 PM (CSrQA)

138 Regrettably having the Congress pass bills that some disagree with is not a tort unless there is damage and then only those damaged my sue for redress.

-----

I didn't say a challenge based on disagreement should be brought without standing. I said that the people should have standing to bring a procedural challenge. The people should be able to protect the peoples branch.

I'm not sure why this is different than facial challenges.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:34 PM (gmeXX)

139 The Heritage Foundation pushed it and then flip flopped when Obama adopted it

Newt Gingrich singed all sorts of praises about the individual mandate because it was supposed to solve the free rider problem.

The problem with the individual mandate is that it morphed into a
backdoor way to institute universal health care because nobody could
then opt out

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:25 PM (bI9xE)

That still does not make a mandate to participate in a marketplace a conservative ideal.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:34 PM (Vf5rR)

140 The KOCH Brothers?!

What do they have to do with anything?

They're libertarians who funded insurgency campaigns against incumbents. The GOPe hates them...

uhhhh?
Posted by: mynewhandle

You don't think the Koch Bros are rabid supporters of free trade and open borders?

Have you ever looked at the Libertarian Party Platform? One of the Koch Bros ran for President as a Libertarian.

I usually support their small government stance, but they are big amnesty supporters.

Here's an article in Breitbart about their pro-amnesty push
http://tinyurl.com/pjf92h7

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:34 PM (bI9xE)

141
BTW -- the name and shame roll call of the vote:

blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-votes-to-advance-trade-promotion-authority/

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 23, 2015 05:35 PM (kdS6q)

142 "The Heritage Foundation pushed it and then flip flopped when Obama adopted it"
Wrong. One person at Hritage wrote it and he was hardly a ranking member. His idea was ignored by Heritage, but it did allow others to grab it and claim Heritage supported it.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 23, 2015 05:35 PM (0x/TW)

143 80 It would have been worth voting this bill down purely as a setback to Obama if nothing else.

It would have been incredibly humiliating for Obama and made him once again look impotent
Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:23 PM (bI9xE)

Point of order:

Is this an act of a "Moby" or is there a better word to describe someone who pretends to agree with you in an effort to get you to change your opinion? Maybe a German word?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:35 PM (AkOaV)

144 Also: all trolls are Average Joe, who socks cock by choice.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 23, 2015 05:35 PM (kff5f)

145 Richard Burr-NC, Yea
Thom Tillis-NC Yea

Fcukers.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 23, 2015 05:36 PM (9mTYi)

146 Cruz is not "okay," IMO. Unless you like a good dose of illegals with your unfree free trade.

Perry, maybe. And yes, Trump is saying the right things, but not being one of the Cool Kids in the eyes of the GOPe (and, let's face it, for not exactly coming off as committed to putting actions behind his mouth), he's got as much chance of getting nominated as Professor Irwin Corey.

********

Primary season is going to hurt a lot of GOP consultancy.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:36 PM (Iv/Hw)

147 "The Heritage Foundation pushed it and then flip flopped when Obama adopted it"
Wrong. One person at Hritage wrote it and he was hardly a ranking member. His idea was ignored by Heritage, but it did allow others to grab it and claim Heritage supported it.

-----

Not that I really care, but did that guy really write it as a mandate backed by taxes or was it that we should encourage more private insurance?

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (gmeXX)

148 The list is at
http://tinyurl.com/obqh6zo

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (9mTYi)

149 Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:35 PM (AkOaV)

Not German, Norwegian.

Quisling.

Posted by: Jakee308 at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (x3GpS)

150 129
The "Free Rider" problem was created by Congress when they passed a
law that required hospitals to provide free medical care to people who
didn't intend to pay for it.

EMTALA. 1986.

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:31 PM (xpPRn)

Not exactly true. The hospitals only have to provide "emergency care". The lawyers will determine what is an emergency. Most hospitals will cover anything though just to keep the lawyers off their back.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (GpgJl)

151 132

And yes, Trump is saying the right things, but not being one of
the Cool Kids in the eyes of the GOPe (and, let's face it, for not
exactly coming off as committed to putting actions behind his mouth),
he's got as much chance of getting nominated as Professor Irwin Corey.

Posted by: MrScribbler

The same was said about TFG.
And yet, there he sits in the White House, in his second term no less.

Not an endorsement of Trump, yet stranger things have happened, much to our detriment. IMHO you could do much worse, at least he's got his own money to run on.

Posted by: Gmac- Pulling in feelers in preperation... at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (4CRfK)

152 It would have been worth voting this bill down purely as a setback to Obama if nothing else.

It would have been incredibly humiliating for Obama and made him once again look impotent

********8

I know, right?

How can any senator be so obtuse so as to not see tide turn on this.

Even if it's the best law to ever pass ever...so the fuck what?

It's in secret. It's Obama's signature turd drop from above with no warning legislative style.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (Iv/Hw)

153 124 I'm a conservative that opposes both free trade and open borders.

Let's just say you intersperse you posts with selected LIbEral talking points. Some of it, reads like it could almost come from Democrat Underground.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:38 PM (CFcIt)

154 121
Any Republican who voted for this POS needs to be primaried.

I'd happily primary my two dem Senators, Cantwell and Murray. But, alas, I would not trust my fellow citizens to not install out and out socialists in their place.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:38 PM (Vf5rR)

155 Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:34 PM (bI9xE)

They believe in free trade and free association -- including the free flow of labor. I think Charles Koch even acknowledged that the "free flow of labor" cannot work when you have a welfare state.

That's a big stretch from being "open borders" or for this faux - "Free Trade" bill.

And again, they have little influence over the GOPe. They have money, so they get courted, but they (clearly) get routinely ignored.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:38 PM (AkOaV)

156 one great reason to stay here in #Failifornia is that i never again have to hold my nose in a Presidential election...

the GOPe can eat my used corn.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:38 PM (pZtrP)

157 I don't know if we as a movement can just Hope for Miracles.

But can we hope for Miracle Whip on a Tijuana Brass album cover?

Posted by: zombie at June 23, 2015 05:38 PM (jBuUi)

158 But, alas, I would not trust my fellow citizens to not install out and out socialists in their place.

Posted by: flounder

Alas, at this stage of the game, I don't think it much matters who gets installed.

Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 23, 2015 05:39 PM (/Ho8c)

159 they're getting a payoff somehow.

And it's not in votes.

They're either heading off a scandal or being handed a bundle.

Posted by: Jakee308 at June 23, 2015 05:39 PM (x3GpS)

160 I was shocked to read Trump's speech.

I wanted to mock.

Instead, I was left with impression that this guy gets it.

I hate to break it to you but a liberal in sheep's clothing doesn't have tongue to mimic conservative speech. They'd be all socon liberal scare projection.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:39 PM (Iv/Hw)

161 Is this an act of a "Moby" or is there a better word to describe someone who pretends to agree with you in an effort to get you to change your opinion? Maybe a German word?
Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:35 PM (AkOaV)

They should have sent a season pro. Rookies get ate up around here.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:39 PM (CFcIt)

162 it's indisputable that the GOP leadership got behind this because they believe in free trade.

The other theories about why they pushed for this are frankly pretty stupid.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:30 PM (bI9xE)

Disputed. We can't know it is free trade, if we can't know what's in it. Imputing a motive to GOP leadership based on ignorance is not advised.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:40 PM (Vf5rR)

163 Look at the pictures of the leadership. they're laughing and glad handing each other.

They do not see this as costing them anything.

Posted by: Jakee308 at June 23, 2015 05:40 PM (x3GpS)

164 Free trade requires no bill. You just trade. Freely. Low tariffs. Requires no / few treaties or anything.
Posted by: mynewhandle

The problem with that strategy is other countries then have no incentive to allow us to have access to their markets unless we have a treaty forcing them to. It has to be quid pro quo

I don't have an issue with trade, in fact I would be fine with lower trade barriers with certain 1st world nations, but the idea of any country including hostile one like China gets the same access as say Great Britain is slitting our own throats and making our manufacturing sector have a race to the bottom until there's no jobs left and everyone is on food stamps.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:40 PM (bI9xE)

165 Not that I really care, but did that guy really write it as a mandate backed by taxes or was it that we should encourage more private insurance?
Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (gmeXX)

It was a "think tank" piece at a, you know, think tank, about how to "fix" Hillary!'s disastrous HillaryCare program (that never happened).

The solution was to require everyone to buy health insurance otherwise people would simply opt out until they got sick, then call and get insurance from t he back of the ambulance.

Again, it started from the premise that HillaryCare would become law. Thankfully it didn't.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:41 PM (AkOaV)

166 t's indisputable that the GOP leadership got behind this because they believe in free trade.

***
free trade is great...BUT the protectionists have some points too. Not the least of which is that govt and economics exist for make benefit of the country, not to let US biz escape all US labor costs.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at June 23, 2015 05:41 PM (Iv/Hw)

167 "Any Republican who voted for this POS needs to be primaried."

If, as some of us fear, the GOP is as far gone down the road to statism as the Democrats, is there reason to disbelieve they'd have contingencies in place to deal with any primary threat -- which really is the only real threat remaining to their power?

(excluding the liberty tree one, that is, which they are convinced won't happen...and are probably right)

Posted by: Doomed at June 23, 2015 05:41 PM (bGLSw)

168 After what they did to Palin,

I'll never get over that.

Just despicable.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:41 PM (CFcIt)

169 "Breaking News: You're their voters, but you're not their constituency."

No matter whom you vote for, I will shoot my corruptacon ray gun at them and they will mutate into RINOs.

Posted by: George Sorrows at June 23, 2015 05:41 PM (6qR/9)

170 Free trade requires no bill. You just trade. Freely. Low tariffs. Requires no / few treaties or anything.
Posted by: mynewhandle

The problem with that strategy is other countries then have no incentive to allow us to have access to their markets unless we have a treaty forcing them to. It has to be quid pro quo

-----

My response is so what. I'll gladly take their products. If they want their citizens to pay more for superior products so be it. Eventually this will catch up with them. I agree you lose leverage in the short term. In the long term, you will prosper (my belief anyway).

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:42 PM (gmeXX)

171 "it's indisputable that the GOP leadership got behind this because they believe in free trade."

'free trade' doesn't need 1000 pages of text and a governing body: all you need is a buyer, a seller and a product.

this is just moar crony capitalism big brother government.

#HTH

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:42 PM (pZtrP)

172 67
She's a Republican in the sense that I'm Kate Upton.

Posted by: pep at June 23, 2015 05:07 PM (LAe3v)

Show us your boobehs.

Posted by: flounder[/oi]

Get used to disappointment.

Posted by: pep at June 23, 2015 05:42 PM (LAe3v)

173 The problem with that strategy is other countries then have no incentive to allow us to have access to their markets unless we have a treaty forcing them to. It has to be quid pro quo

I don't have an issue with trade, in fact I would be fine with lower trade barriers with certain 1st world nations, but the idea of any country including hostile one like China gets the same access as say Great Britain is slitting our own throats and making our manufacturing sector have a race to the bottom until there's no jobs left and everyone is on food stamps.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:40 PM (bI9xE)

Sigh.

Alas, econ 101 is no longer taught in schools. Read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (which used the same reasoning you're using) and how that worked out.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:43 PM (AkOaV)

174

Not exactly true. The hospitals only have to provide "emergency care". The lawyers will determine what is an emergency. Most hospitals will cover anything though just to keep the lawyers off their back.

True, it wasn't the original intent of the bill. But mission creep allowed it to be the 'ER buster' it's become.

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:43 PM (xpPRn)

175

Posted by: pep at June 23, 2015 05:43 PM (LAe3v)

176 @124 Kal

"Both are destroying the working class."

The working class? Your not a conserative, but posing as one. Why?

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 05:43 PM (axT/F)

177 Again, it started from the premise that HillaryCare would become law. Thankfully it didn't.
Posted by: mynewhandle

IOW, it was a hypothetical fix to a hypothetical law that never happened, yet somehow that gets twisted into "zomg the Heritage Foundation invented Obamacare" by semiliterate Sorosbots.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the Indestructible at June 23, 2015 05:43 PM (tgnRB)

178 which Tom Clancy novel had the trade bill where the US simply replicated other country's trade rules on their imports here?

*that* would be a decent "free trade" bill, and it wouldn't need to be 1000 pages long, or require a trans-national body to oversee it.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (pZtrP)

179 Secret bills. And the same shell game they shoved through before, that allows Obama to make policy and sets a high bar for Congress to 'veto' it-- a legalistic trick (and abandonment of their responsibilities) designed to keep their hands clean while they get what they wanted all along (and know they'd take blame for).

It's enough to oppose this on the corrupt process alone.

Posted by: Erasmus Hodag at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (xpPRn)

180 We're just having a bad day. Every day.

Posted by: bergerbilder at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (+jijM)

181 "The Heritage Foundation pushed it and then flip flopped when Obama adopted it"
Wrong. One person at Hritage wrote it and he was hardly a ranking member. His idea was ignored by Heritage, but it did allow others to grab it and claim Heritage supported it.
Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale

Here's a Wall Street Journal article where James Taranto who worked for the Heritage Foundation at the time said yes indeed, the Heritage Foundation did support an individual mandate as he worked there during the time.

http://tinyurl.com/n7ompw9

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (bI9xE)

182 the GOPe can eat my used corn.

Posted by: redc1c4

What about us Dems? Can we have some, too?

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at June 23, 2015 05:47 PM (VAsIq)

183 "Both are destroying the working class."

*Looks behind*

Oh, ..... heh ..... a Bernie Sanders sticker.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:47 PM (CFcIt)

184 At least the Democrat party stands for something, even if it's awful. The LOP (Lame Old Party) just stands for itself.

Posted by: SFGoth at June 23, 2015 05:48 PM (IKZm3)

185 Where are these moby trolls coming from? It used to be such a quite corner here.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 05:48 PM (axT/F)

186 151 132

And yes, Trump is saying the right things, but not being one of
the Cool Kids in the eyes of the GOPe (and, let's face it, for not
exactly coming off as committed to putting actions behind his mouth),
he's got as much chance of getting nominated as Professor Irwin Corey.

Posted by: MrScribbler

The same was said about TFG.
And yet, there he sits in the White House, in his second term no less.

Posted by: Gmac- Pulling in feelers in preperation... at June 23, 2015 05:37 PM (4CRfK)

____________

Huh? Dude, people were saying Obama would would be the next POTUS in 2004 after he gave that big DNC speech. It wasn't a slam dunk for him to beat Hillary in 2008 but it wasn't some 1000:1 chance either.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 23, 2015 05:48 PM (0LHZx)

187 Here's a Wall Street Journal article where James
Taranto who worked for the Heritage Foundation at the time said yes
indeed, the Heritage Foundation did support an individual mandate as he
worked there during the time.

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (bI9xE)

Alas, still does render the concept of a mandate to participate in a market a conservative ideal.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:48 PM (Vf5rR)

188 "What about us Dems? Can we have some, too?"

nope: i'm using a different corner these days: you can just starve to death.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:49 PM (pZtrP)

189 What about us Dems? Can we have some, too?
Posted by: Bawney Fwank

Funny, I had you pegged as a used beer man, Bawney.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the Indestructible at June 23, 2015 05:50 PM (tgnRB)

190 Where are these moby trolls coming from?

At least it's not Yector.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 23, 2015 05:50 PM (ZKzrr)

191 >>Is this an act of a "Moby" or is there a better word to describe someone who pretends to agree with you in an effort to get you to change your opinion? Maybe a German word?

Fahrvergn�gen

Posted by: JackStraw at June 23, 2015 05:50 PM (g1DWB)

192
I think the time is now for some sort of massive movement of civil disobedience on a national level. I don't know how, or who will lead it (if it will even have "leaders") or the logistics of it, let alone the consequences to the people disobeying an evil, unjust, tyranny hiding behind the veneer of law.
It has now been painfully demonstrated, as Ace notes, that elections have no consequences and that our country is being dismantled from within and without by those driven by ideology and those seeing to make a buck off the destruction.

All I know is this cannot stand. It must not stand. And we need some action. NOW.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (St6BJ)

193 And this is why senators rarely become presidents.

Posted by: Soona at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (P25Hh)

194 Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (bI9xE)

...Okay.

Like Newt said, it was advanced in reaction to HillaryCare.

I wasn't aware that it was originally floated in '88, but I fail to see how that makes any difference.

It was never pushed by anyone (except as a hypothetical fix to a hypothetical law which never happened) and was written by two people who were associated with a think tank.

I'm sure you're aware of what think tanks do, right?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (AkOaV)

195 There's a huge difference between:

a)Let's force people to buy insurance, with their own money, in a free marert

vs

b) Let's give people free insurance, paid for by the govt with tax dollars in a closed market.

Heritage proposed a, Obama implemented b.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (0LHZx)

196 Dumb question: did the congressmen read the bill before voting for it? If so, why didn't any of the conservative ones leak the contents of it?

Posted by: Caitlyn Jenner at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (6qR/9)

197 Why am I wasting my time re-fighting 5 year old battles with a Moby about something I don't care about?

Yeesh, it has been a long day!

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (AkOaV)

198 At least it's not Yector.
Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 23, 2015 05:50 PM (ZKzrr)

True......

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (CFcIt)

199 Obamacare was not a Heritage proposal.
American Prospect
http://preview.tinyurl.com/oqyvqoq

The Heritage individual mandate thing is buried in a .pdf. Not sure yet if I will bother.

Posted by: Quotous Loo at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (CSrQA)

200 I'm sure you're aware of what think tanks do, right?

Provide ammo for enemies?

Posted by: rickb223 at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (YHB4K)

201 Posted by: pep at June 23, 2015 05:43 PM

Soon....

Posted by: The Barrel at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (h4vJk)

202 196 Dumb question: did the congressmen read the bill before voting for it? If so, why didn't any of the conservative ones leak the contents of it?
Posted by: Caitlyn Jenner at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (6qR/9)

Thus far, the final trade agreement is still secret.

This vote was just them voting on circumventing the constitution to make it easier to pass the final bill.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (AkOaV)

203 "But, in exchange, they may find that they are losing something far greater: the trust of the American people."

I love Jeff Sessions but have to ask: does it matter? Do they care? Obama seems only to accrue power with his contempt. It's truly a phenomenal political formula -- success through lies and contempt. He is the only "lame duck" president in history who has been able to excite the opposition party into frenzies of support for bills wildly, obviously and utterly inimical to American interests (and their interests). At this point in his presidency Bush was a worn-out shell of himself. Obama is actually GAINING power in his final two years. Obama keeps finding rejuvenation in totally fraudulent, unwanted and unwarranted legislation, and the GOP keeps tripping over themselves to help him find it. Amazing.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (s/yC1)

204 183 "Both are destroying the working class."

*Looks behind*

Oh, ..... heh ..... a Bernie Sanders sticker.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World

What about a Pat Buchanan bumper sticker instead?

Bernie Sanders is for open borders, it's more members of the Free Shit Army

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (bI9xE)

205 Funny, I had you pegged as a used beer man, Bawney.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the Indestructible

I'm getting older. Can't affowd to be picky anymow.

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (VAsIq)

206 178
which Tom Clancy novel had the trade bill where the US simply replicated other country's trade rules on their imports here?

*that*
would be a decent "free trade" bill, and it wouldn't need to be 1000
pages long, or require a trans-national body to oversee it.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 23, 2015 05:46 PM (pZtrP)

Debt of Honor?

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (GpgJl)

207 196 Dumb question: did the congressmen read the bill before voting for it? If so, why didn't any of the conservative ones leak the contents of it?
Posted by: Caitlyn Jenner at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (6qR/9)

________

Who has time to read bills? Between attending fundraisers, fucking hookers/secretaries and and laundering bribe money.....there's only so many hours in the day for a Congressman.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 23, 2015 05:53 PM (0LHZx)

208 Provide ammo for enemies?
Posted by: rickb223 at June 23, 2015 05:52 PM (YHB4K)

Exactly.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:53 PM (AkOaV)

209 197 Why am I wasting my time re-fighting 5 year old battles with a Moby about something I don't care about?

Yeesh, it has been a long day!
Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:51 PM (AkOaV)

Because, like most of us, you can't help it.

Fuck it, Miller Time.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizzaro World at June 23, 2015 05:53 PM (CFcIt)

210 Alas, still does render the concept of a mandate to participate in a market a conservative ideal.

I think it's a form of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Which is a shame.

SWIDT?

Posted by: Fezzik at June 23, 2015 05:53 PM (rwI+c)

211 Funny, I had you pegged as a used beer man, Bawney.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the Indestructible at June 23, 2015 05:50 PM (tgnRB)
-------------------------------------------
Give piss a chance!

Posted by: Barney Frank at June 23, 2015 05:54 PM (6qR/9)

212
The solution was to require everyone to buy health insurance otherwise people would simply opt out until they got sick, then call and get insurance from t he back of the ambulance.

Again, it started from the premise that HillaryCare would become law. Thankfully it didn't.

But doesn't all the caterwauling about "pre Existing Conditions" essentially mean that people can"opt out until they got sick, then call and get insurance from the back of the ambulance", anyway?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 23, 2015 05:54 PM (GsebS)

213 I think the time is now for some sort of massive movement of civil
disobedience on a national level. I don't know how, or who will lead it
(if it will even have "leaders") or the logistics of it, let alone the
consequences to the people disobeying an evil, unjust, tyranny hiding
behind the veneer of law.

It has now been painfully demonstrated, as Ace notes, that elections
have no consequences and that our country is being dismantled from
within and without by those driven by ideology and those seeing to make a
buck off the destruction.

All I know is this cannot stand. It must not stand. And we need some action. NOW.

* * *

That much, they have to be expecting, and will no doubt make very public examples of such, probably trumped up and thoroughly falsified.

Just pointing it out. If they are all THIS far gone, they have all angles covered.

Posted by: Doomed at June 23, 2015 05:55 PM (bGLSw)

214 nood

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 23, 2015 05:55 PM (GpgJl)

215 dammit

Posted by: Grump928(C) makes the allusions at June 23, 2015 05:55 PM (rwI+c)

216 Posted by: Fezzik at June 23, 2015 05:53 PM (rwI+c)

I was told there'd be no latin!

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 05:55 PM (AkOaV)

217 None dare call it treason.

With record number of people unemployed but not looking, record number of people on disability osha must not be looking, makes me take an empirical look at how the previous free trade treaties have worked for US.

Welfare for large corporations, import export bank what is not to like.

Posted by: just saying at June 23, 2015 05:55 PM (wkuqO)

218 Hey, fellow conservatives. I know you may think that this trade deal is "whack," and I distrust those bozos at Jefferson High, I mean, the Congressional Republicans just as much as you do. But I'm here to tell you, this trade deal is "phat," you hear what I'm saying, Holmes?

Posted by: Kal Kan at June 23, 2015 05:56 PM (c/Ipt)

219 This vote was just them voting on circumventing the constitution to make it easier to pass the final bill.

-----

This is what a facial challenge should allow. If TPP is given an up or down vote and it passes by 51%, anyone should be able to bring a facial challenge that it was not properly passed under the Senate's treaty power as it did not obtain the consent of 2/3 of the Senate. The people should be able to enforce the procedural rules that apply to the people's house.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 05:56 PM (gmeXX)

220 Heritage Foundation "The Case Against Obamacare."

I don't see a date. It's a pdf download. Don't know how big it is.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/48493jy

Posted by: Quotous Loo at June 23, 2015 05:56 PM (CSrQA)

221 SWIDT?

Posted by: Fezzik at June 23, 2015 05:53 PM (rwI+c)

. . . aside from the fact that the senseless article makes the case against it being a conservative ideal. Let's argue a technical point about whether HF put their brand on a study or proposal.

Posted by: flounder at June 23, 2015 05:57 PM (Vf5rR)

222 @164 Kal

"..and making our manufacturing sector have a race to the bottom until there's no jobs left and everyone is on food stamps."

Where have you been for the last 7 years? Obama and the democrats are fully responsible. Don't you agree?

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 05:57 PM (axT/F)

223 Trump's speech.
impression that this guy gets it.

Drop a turd in sand you'll get an impression.
His only selling point is his expertise at screwing his creditors. Since we owe the debt to ourselves this isn't going to be useful.

Posted by: DaveA at June 23, 2015 05:57 PM (DL2i+)

224 I wonder what other sleeping, hidden mandates are in this bill. How much of our country's sovereignty have we relinquished now? I'm thinking somewhere, small occult phrases or sentences will give the preezy powers to declare degrees of gun control, energy use, etc.

Posted by: Soona at June 23, 2015 05:59 PM (P25Hh)

225 Like Newt said, it was advanced in reaction to HillaryCare.

I wasn't aware that it was originally floated in '88, but I fail to see how that makes any difference.

It was never pushed by anyone (except as a hypothetical fix to a hypothetical law which never happened) and was written by two people who were associated with a think tank.

I'm sure you're aware of what think tanks do, right?
Posted by: mynewhandle

My only point there was that some conservatives embraced the idea of a mandate and then decided it was not so conservative after all. but only AFTER it was in ObamaCare. Heritage and Newt Gingrich were some examples.

I think there are parallels with this trade bill

I never heard a peep about Fast Track from conservatives until Obama pushed it

I think the GOP could win a lot of voters over by opposing Amnesty, opposing expanding guest worker visas, and putting more limits on countries like China getting unlimited access to our markets.

Too many people feel the GOP only serves the Chamber of Commerce crowd and I'm one of them

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:59 PM (bI9xE)

226 "Even if you want to make a case for economic efficiency with low trade
barriers, I think most Americans would agree the United States is more
than just an economic trading zone. We have a culture and way of life
to protect."

That nails it. The effects of one-sided free trade agreements (who benefits more from access to the other party's market - Cambodia or the US?) have hollowed out our own job market, along with promiscuous immigration. A country's manufacturing base is an element of independence and war-making ability, and hence national security. Our willingness to educate foreigners at institutions funded by our taxpayers - particularly without reciprocation (e.g. years-long commitments to working for US companies, at minimum) - is another self-defeating short-sighted policy, in essence educating our childrens' competitors.

I'd gladly pay twice as much for my cell phone, clothing, housewares, etc... if it meant preserving American economic hegemony from the cheap, sell-out siren song of "globalization."

When you're by far the top dog economically, "globalization" amounts to the rest of the world draining us down to a squalid standard of living that's an average of have-nots to our haves. The Cato Institute and Kevin Williamson, both of whom I respect on most other issues, can talk a good game on how cheaper goods benefit the working class, but I still think we come out on the shorter end if you dig down into the economics, and there are many other dimensions than economics to be considered as well.

Free trade works with countries who have a rough disparity in political and economic freedom as well as levels of development and per capita income. The further that skews, the more disadvantages we are from such arrangements.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:01 PM (WIOql)

227 Wrong Kal
Here are the facts
http://tinyurl.com/pmctn78

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 23, 2015 06:01 PM (+aCe4)

228 @190 HR braucht ein Bier

Caught the last half of his act. He slanders, provokes and runs away. Boring stuff. Like listening to an imam talk about Jews.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 06:02 PM (axT/F)

229 Rough parity, not disparity - thx phone.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:02 PM (WIOql)

230
I think the GOP could win a lot of voters over by opposing Amnesty, opposing expanding guest worker visas, and putting more limits on countries like China getting unlimited access to our markets.

Too many people feel the GOP only serves the Chamber of Commerce crowd and I'm one of them

And most of us would heartily agree.

Interestingly, Red China is *not* one of the TPP countries.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 23, 2015 06:04 PM (GsebS)

231 Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:01 PM (WIOql)

Trade and immigration need not be linked. One can rationally be for free trade but against open borders. Unlike you, I do not want to spend more for my cell phone, TV or any other commodity that can be produced cheaply in some other country. America will not become rich by producing goods that can be produced cheaper elsewhere. We will become rich by producing goods that other countries cannot produce.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:05 PM (gmeXX)

232 Kal, Heritage did not support the "individual mandate" you are speaking of.
See ther link in my 227 post.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 23, 2015 06:06 PM (+aCe4)

233 227 Wrong Kal
Here are the facts
http://tinyurl.com/pmctn78
Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale

I think I will take the word of james taranto who is a respected, conservative writer for the Wall Street Journal that worked at the Heritage Foundation at the time that yes, they did indeed push the idea of an Individual Mandate.

The title of the WSJ piece is

Heritage Rewrites History
http://tinyurl.com/p6rdfrd

Here's the thing, I actually support the Heritage Foundation 99% of the time, I just think they badly flubbed it on that issue

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 06:06 PM (bI9xE)

234 I think the GOP could win a lot of voters over by opposing Amnesty, opposing expanding guest worker visas, and putting more limits on countries like China getting unlimited access to our markets.

-------

On this I agree. And sometimes politics should trump prinicples. Not all principles are the same. Perhaps then they aren't principles and just policy preferences.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:07 PM (gmeXX)

235 "Americans increasingly believe that their country isn't serving its own citizens."

Holy cow! For realz? I guess I should have noticed that all the candidates are courting illegal aliens while telling American citizens to F'off without even the slightest hint of worry or embarrassment.

If only some genius could have told us this would happen when the oligarchy and their establishment hacks INSTALLED the Usurper.

Oh, well. Enjoy the suck. You own it now.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:09 PM (uAejz)

236 Friendly refresher, since there still seems to be spoke confusion--

TPP - The trade agreement that is still being negotiated. Obama is keeping the drafts secret from the public.

TPA - "Fast track". This allows TtPP to pass or fail with a simple majority vote and disallows amendments. This just passed Congress.

TAA - A worker assistance program that was to pass with TPA in order to secure Dem votes. In an attempt to derail TPA, Dems allowed it to fail to pass in the House.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 23, 2015 06:10 PM (BL2iu)

237 Kal, did you not read the link? Again, Hertitage did not support the "individual mandate" you are claiming they did.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 23, 2015 06:11 PM (+aCe4)

238 Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 05:59 PM (bI9xE)

Because 99.99% of us hadn't heard about some obscure heritage paper from the late '80s.

Forcing someone to buy something from a company is in no way conservative.

As for Fast Track... I, personally, was not engaged politically during the NAFTA debates, but I am willing to bet you can find plenty of R's at the time who opposed giving Clinton "fast track" on a bill.

2/3s for a treaty is specifically in the constitution.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 23, 2015 06:12 PM (AkOaV)

239 Yes, another "We have to pass it to see what's in it" bill. What can possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Old Blue at June 23, 2015 06:12 PM (9iR5/)

240 "Wrong Kal. Here are the facts"

Heritage can spin all it wants on the subject but captive markets are at least strongly suspect in free society.

It's a tendentious "package deal" argument to say that mandatory health coverage protects "the other guy" in the way that auto insurance does. You can buy uninsured motorist coverage in the auto market.

At best, the Heritage argument amounts to "cost-sharing" between the hospitals and every household, forcing private citizens to pay for "uninsured coverage" for health care providers. It's corporate welfare. I'm all for getting rid of any requirement that hospitals provide care to the indigent if the choice is between scrapping those altruism-on-steroids policies and a health care mandate.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:12 PM (WIOql)

241 Wow, that Canadian, Cuban running for President as a NON-NBC sure is a good guy.

I mean, he would never be part of the Global Kabuki theater.

Just lay back and enjoy your Rapey Tuesday tards.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:14 PM (uAejz)

242 Somebody remind me again why I'm the prick for keeping my kids out of the military, and thus out of any fashion of service to this government and this country.

Posted by: ScoggDog at June 23, 2015 06:16 PM (sdG82)

243 Listening to today's show on Rush 24/7, he just trashed the "trade bill" and called the ExIM bank "corporate welfare". So if you're still here Moby, go suck a chode with your retarded-ass Media Matters talking points.

Posted by: Prince Ludwig the Indestructible at June 23, 2015 06:16 PM (tgnRB)

244 TPP - The trade agreement that is still being negotiated. Obama is keeping the drafts secret from the public.

TPA - "Fast track". This allows TtPP to pass or fail with a simple majority vote and disallows amendments. This just passed Congress.

------

From a Constitutional perspective, both TPP and TPA are meaningless votes.

TPP - Power Obama and every President already has.

TPA - Senate requires 2/3 approval for trade deal (which is a treaty). House and Senate cannot amend the Constitution to do away with this.

But from a practical and political standpoint, this is huge.

At some point, the Court must strike down TPP if it is passed with a simple up or down vote in the Senate (unless it gets 2/3). There will be someone who has standing.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:16 PM (gmeXX)

245 @191 JackStraw

"Maybe a German word?"

There is - Kleines Mistst�ck

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 06:16 PM (axT/F)

246 237 Kal, did you not read the link? Again, Hertitage did not support the "individual mandate" you are claiming they did.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale

Did you read my link?

Heritage Rewrites History
http://tinyurl.com/p6rdfrd

What is your response? Why would Taranto lie about this?

What' worse is in your article, the guy admits he DID push the mandate as a fellow working for Heritage:

"The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market....

Posted by: Kal at June 23, 2015 06:21 PM (bI9xE)

247 @192 J.J. Sefton

As long as those social security checks clear ano those EBT and WIC cards function, you will not get a peep.

The human condition is predictible and easy to manipulate for awhile.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at June 23, 2015 06:21 PM (axT/F)

248 "We will become rich by producing goods that other countries cannot produce."

That's Cato/homo-economicus 101, but it's magical thinking. Is there something in the water here that makes all of our children super-smart snowflakes who will naturally become the information-managers while the rest of the planet acts as worker bees? I understand education and technology can bend the curve in our favor, but you're asking for more than a bend.

How much of the American economy is based on information vs. cheap service jobs, administrative make-work and financial services (aka geopolitical check-kiting)? 40%+ of American business profits are based on the finance industry and investment now.

The degree of malinvestment in human capital (e.g. education) as well as financial capital that has been driven by the desire for cheap consumer goods on credit has weakened our overall economic strength over the decades.

You can argue economies of scale, competition and efficiency all you like but the inescapable conclusion is that American middle-class standards of living have been grossly eroded by globalization in the last half-century, and we should be discussing ways to counter that rather than accepting the global "bronze mean" as an inevitable, much less a desirable, economic or social outcome.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:23 PM (WIOql)

249 "Heritage Rewrites History"

Hey, the Cato Institute rewrote the Natural Born Citizen clause and people here just loved it.

It's always fun watching the tards hang their own nooses while disparaging those who inform them that they are about to hang themselves.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:27 PM (uAejz)

250
248"We will become rich by producing goods that other countries cannot produce."

That's Cato/homo-economicus 101, but it's magical thinking. Is there something in the water here that makes all of our children super-smart snowflakes who will naturally become the information-managers while the rest of the planet acts as worker bees? I understand education and technology can bend the curve in our favor, but you're asking for more than a bend.

How much of the American economy is based on information vs. cheap service jobs, administrative make-work and financial services (aka geopolitical check-kiting)? 40%+ of American business profits are based on the finance industry and investment now.

The degree of malinvestment in human capital (e.g. education) as well as financial capital that has been driven by the desire for cheap consumer goods on credit has weakened our overall economic strength over the decades.

You can argue economies of scale, competition and efficiency all you like but the inescapable conclusion is that American middle-class standards of living have been grossly eroded by globalization in the last half-century, and we should be discussing ways to counter that rather than accepting the global "bronze mean" as an inevitable, much less a desirable, economic or social outcome.

THIS. Those who are goo-goo for globalism need a reality check. National security and national soverignty do outweigh making a quick buck.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 23, 2015 06:27 PM (GsebS)

251 Is there something in the water here that makes all of our children super-smart snowflakes who will naturally become the information-managers while the rest of the planet acts as worker bees?

------

Yes there is something in the water. There is a reason that Great Britian and the US have prospered for the past 400 years in ways that other countries have not. The world is going to do business here in the US so long as the business and legal and monetary environment are the best in the world (and for at least 2/3 they are).

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:28 PM (gmeXX)

252 "Hey, the Cato Institute rewrote the Natural Born Citizen clause and people here just loved it."

Because Cato did X does not mean Heritage is Y.

It's always fun watching people who incessantly argue for double standards demand irrational levels of consistency from their opponents. These teeny-bopper level syllogisms (you guys drink why can't I smoke pot) demonstrate that the Left is about arrested adolescence masquerading as high-mindedness.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:30 PM (WIOql)

253
Yes there is something in the water. There is a reason that Great Britian and the US have prospered for the past 400 years in ways that other countries have not. The world is going to do business here in the US so long as the business and legal and monetary environment are the best in the world (and for at least 2/3 they are).

Actually, Britain is a cautionary tale for the USA, from Socialism to imperial overstretch to having a 5th column take over your academia.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 23, 2015 06:31 PM (GsebS)

254 "There is a reason that Great Britian and the US have prospered for the past 400 years in ways that other countries have not."

Yeah, because when you think of trillions dollar debts, depleted manufacturing bases, and a narcissistic grifting usurpers with global ambitions... you think of the founding fathers.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:33 PM (uAejz)

255 Im conservative- i will never vote republican again. Im finished with failure theater, I'm finished with being baldy and overtly lied to like a 5 year (my congressman wrote me a letter saying TPA INCREASES TRANSPARENCY and DECREASED Obama's power), I'm finished with guys who serve their corporate pay masters.

I'll just vote for the Trotskyites or american communists or something. At least there they honestly provide the communism. Done

Posted by: Nick at June 23, 2015 06:33 PM (1YIuX)

256 You can argue economies of scale, competition and efficiency all you like but the inescapable conclusion is that American middle-class standards of living have been grossly eroded by globalization in the last half-century, and we should be discussing ways to counter that rather than accepting the global "bronze mean" as an inevitable, much less a desirable, economic or social outcome.

THIS. Those who are goo-goo for globalism need a reality check. National security and national soverignty do outweigh making a quick buck.

-----

1. I'm not sure I agree with the premise that the middle-class standard of living has been grossly eroded. To be frank - that is simply not true. The middle class today lives a much richer life than the middle class of 30 years ago. I am open to arguments that we are creating an environment where it is more difficult to move into the middle class - though I'm not sure that has anything to do with "free trade." But our standard of living now is far superior than it was 30 years ago - for the poor, middle class and rich.

2. Generally speaking, what does free trade have to do with national security and national sovereignty? I'm not goo-goo for globalism. I'm goo-goo for being the strongest most prosperous country in the world and being confident enough that we are that we do not need to impose protectionist tariffs on products so that we are assured that our products are not subject to similar tariffs.

I'm not open border. I'm all for protecting IP and restricting the exportation of goods that may truly be in our national interest to not export (e.g., military).

But I do not want to pay more for my cell phone to ensure that our products are not subject to tariffs abroad.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:34 PM (gmeXX)

257 Actually, Britain is a cautionary tale for the USA, from Socialism to imperial overstretch to having a 5th column take over your academia.

-----

No doubt - but that has nothing to do with free trade.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:35 PM (gmeXX)

258 "It's always fun watching people who incessantly argue for double standards"

Wow. I'm not the one arguing for double standard. Just the opposite tard.

Your guilty conscience speaks. You own Obama and Cruz. You are the anti-Constituionalist not me.

They are cut from the same cloth, as you are.

You are the faux-intellectual here.

1+1 = 2 no matter how you deceive yourself. Enjoy the suck. You own it.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:37 PM (uAejz)

259 "Yes there is something in the water. There is a reason that Great
Britian and the US have prospered for the past 400 years in ways that
other countries have not."

They're both cruising on the fumes of past glory in that regard and globalization-fetishism is a major reason why. British prosperity is practically an oxymoron now and America's rushing headlong toward the same cliff.

You can't divorce economic and political freedom without consequences. The consequences to date are rising Chinese power, a parastic kleptocracy in Russia and third-world pseudo-states propped up by U.S. and European funding (ala the entire Mid-East). Despite the predictions of Cato et al, I don't see China as any more free than it was under Deng Xiaoping, Southeast Asia in general as more free than it was under colonialism, the Arab states under the Brits, etc... India's an exception because it has political freedom, and is a nation I'd be much more willing to engage in trade partnership with as a result.

And you're still not addressing the fact that the purchasing power of US workers has not appreciably increased since the 1970's beyond their home computer, TV selections or cell phones (e.g. homes, food, families) - all this while the educational expense to snowflake their children for world domination has shot up tenfold.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:38 PM (WIOql)

260 "But our standard of living now is far superior than it was 30 years ago - for the poor, middle class and rich.
"

In what regard? Consumer goods - your phone, your toaster, your computer, yes. Cars/travel, homes, educating your kids, insurance, etc... not so much - particularly if you discount for the effects of widespread government assistance, loans, grants, etc... in many of those costs.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:41 PM (WIOql)

261 And you're still not addressing the fact that the purchasing power of US workers has not appreciably increased since the 1970's beyond their home computer, TV selections or cell phones (e.g. homes, food, families) - all this while the educational expense to snowflake their children for world domination has shot up tenfold.

------

Education has shot-up. Is that because of free trade or because of government subsidization?

Health care has gone up - but health outcomes have noticably improved.

Food has gone down. Vehicle costs have gone down. Some entertainment costs have risen, but entertainment options have exploded.

Do you really believe that the middle class is less wealthy now than it was 30 years ago?

Purchasing power for most staple consumables has gone down.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:41 PM (gmeXX)

262 Do you really believe that the middle class is less wealthy now than it was 30 years ago?

Is this a trick question? At some point they become the lower class.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 06:43 PM (rwI+c)

263 Cars/travel, homes, educating your kids, insurance, etc... not so much -

------

Yes, yes, yes, probably not, yes.

Cars are much cheaper relatively speaking now. They are more luxurious, last longer, etc.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:44 PM (gmeXX)

264 FTR on "protectionism" I'm more in support of withdrawing government protections and benefits from transactions which occur with non-parity, non-free states than I am with imposing hard tariffs, and I'm more concerned with the freedom and political policy side of that equation than the level of development.

Mexico should not have free trade with the US because it's a narco-terrorist kleptocracy with no social mobility that deliberately exports illegals to the US - it's a multi-dimensional offender. Unless and until countries are in broad political agreement with the values that underpin our British and US free markets, we should not allow them to parasitically and vampirically ramp up the living standards of their apparatchiks and court favorites by transfusions of wealth from healthy free states to their sickly despotisms.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:45 PM (WIOql)

265 Do you really believe that the middle class is less wealthy now than it was 30 years ago?

Is this a trick question? At some point they become the lower class.

------

No. I'm not arguing that we should settle for the status quo. But I just don't buy the argument that we are poorer now than we are 30 years ago - and this somehow gets linked to why free trade is bad.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:45 PM (gmeXX)

266 Mexico should not have free trade with the US because it's a narco-terrorist kleptocracy with no social mobility that deliberately exports illegals to the US - it's a multi-dimensional offender.

------

That is fair. But would eliminating free trade with them stop the flow of illegals?

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:46 PM (gmeXX)

267 "Do you really believe that the middle class is less wealthy now than it was 30 years ago?"

Yes. It is less than 8 years ago. You obviously don't grocery shop.

Pull the plug on the artificial government assistance - and watch the Armageddon.

You must live in a bubble. 92-100 million Americans are unemployed. Most of them want jobs and are on the precipice.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:47 PM (uAejz)

268 Didn't they promise all would be revealed with this "shit sandwich" passed

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at June 23, 2015 06:49 PM (e8kgV)

269 Yes. It is less than 8 years ago. You obviously don't grocery shop.

------

8 is not 30. And yes I do grocery shop - and yes I have noticed that some food prices have risen in that time. Not sure that is in any way shape related to free trade or if it is related to other factors that I absolutely think should be addressed.

And I will admit to being in the Texas bubble.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:49 PM (gmeXX)

270 As I noted earlier, Global Trade helps everyone in general, but harms some in particular, many someones, millions in fact, millions of *our* citizens.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 06:51 PM (rwI+c)

271 "Education has shot-up. Is that because of free trade or because of government subsidization?"

You were the one who argued that the US will prosper under globalization because we'll be the smart guys directing the cheap foreign labor. The problem is that guys in Singapore seem a lot more interested in learning how to run businesses (and are succeeding at it) than our snowflakes with their abundant educational opportunities.

The idea that a world power's economic base can be predicated on information, high-tech and servicing is a) without precedent and b) suspect on its face.

Government subsidies have distorted the hell out of education, but the misallocation of educational efforts away from vocations and skilled labor toward the degree track don't stem solely from the student loan system. The same people who tell our kids they're too good to work a day job, let Paco and Abdul do that while "all of our kids should get a college degree" are the same elitist Eloi who push globalization, for parallel reasons.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:51 PM (WIOql)

272 "That is fair. But would eliminating free trade with them stop the flow of illegals?"

Starving the beast is better than feeding it. Would locking your door keep people from breaking into your house by the window?

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:53 PM (WIOql)

273 "And yes I have noticed that some food prices have risen in that time. Not sure that is in any way shape related to free trade"

And yet you used grocery prices for your argument.

Stop with your FAUX free trade. We could only hope to have FREE TRADE. We have crony capitalism propped up with government assistance.

Mark my words, when they pull the plug it's going to make the Great Depression seem like a minor hiccup.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 06:55 PM (uAejz)

274 You were the one who argued that the US will prosper under globalization because we'll be the smart guys directing the cheap foreign labor.

-----

I said no such thing.

Other than that I'm not sure I disagree with anything in your post. I think the US will prosper by producing the best, most industrious, goods possible. We are not going to prosper by producing commoditiezed goods more expensively than other countries can make.

I agree completely that government subsidies distort education. I think we absolutely should be promoting skilled labor. I think the free market would do this if the government got out of the way.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 06:56 PM (gmeXX)

275 "Do you really believe that the middle class is less wealthy now than it was 30 years ago?"

What were their savings levels 30 years ago? What were their prospects of passing on wealth and raising living standards over generations? Asset accumulation?

We've mortgaged their futures to marginally improve comfort levels at the consumerist margins. We've done the same thing with the country.

Is 18 trillion and climbing in (acknowledged) debt a sign that things are working out the way globalization was supposed to? Is the fact that we're a few years away from funding China's entire defense budget with debt servicing a feature or a bug?

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 06:57 PM (WIOql)

276 And yet you used grocery prices for your argument.

Stop with your FAUX free trade. We could only hope to have FREE TRADE. We have crony capitalism propped up with government assistance.

------

I also used 30 years and not 8. That's because short-term flucations do not eliminate long-term trends.

I'm not advocating faux free trade or crony capitalism. Though I'm not sure what you mean by the former.

My preference is simple. If we are going to have tariffs - fine - we have to raise revenue somewhere. But it should be applied equally to all. I don't want Congress dictating its preference.

And if you want to restrict trade with certain countries (e.g., China and Mexico) for human right reasons - fine - but let's just make it a hard embargo like we have (had) for Cuba.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:00 PM (gmeXX)

277 We are not going to prosper by producing commoditiezed goods more expensively than other countries can make.

I'm no longer sure that's true. At least when you overpay for a local commodity, the money stays in your own country. Let's imagine how much more prosperous we would be if we used our own oil all these years, rather than sending our dollars to a foreign cartel. Or if we paid twice as much for socks, but employed the marginal worker here.

Many of the lower class, who could have been comfortable factory workers and taxpayers, are on various forms of relief, and selling weed.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:01 PM (rwI+c)

278 Is 18 trillion and climbing in (acknowledged) debt a sign that things are working out the way globalization was supposed to? Is the fact that we're a few years away from funding China's entire defense budget with debt servicing a feature or a bug?

------

I think those are bad. I'm really not sure they are related to free trade. We do not have a $18 trillion dollar debt because of NAFTA. We have it because we spend more than taxes raise. I'm all for eliminating our debt.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:01 PM (gmeXX)

279 Like many ideas, "Free Trade" is perfect in concept, but if the vitality of your own country is the metric, not necessarily good in practice.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:03 PM (rwI+c)

280 "You were the one who argued that the US will prosper under globalization
because we'll be the smart guys directing the cheap foreign labor.
"
***
"I said no such thing.
"
-----------------------------

Then what did you mean by "We will become rich by producing goods that other countries cannot produce." Unless you're arguing we have some special resource base, you're arguing know-how. You're relying on us to provide the management and smarts while the coolies provide the labor. Too bad the coolies figured out they're just as good at providing the management smarts - often better - and while many did so at US universities, we don't, and never will, hold a monopoly on brains and innovation.

I'm an old-school Objectivist myself and I know the whole cant of the free market position. But I recognize globalization for a package deal of good and bad ideas, a one-way ratchet for the more prosperous nation, and I recognize that the idea that we're going to manage and innovate our way out of the "from each, to each" trade and political arrangements we've saddled our kids with as magical, not logical, thinking.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 07:03 PM (WIOql)

281 Let's imagine how much more prosperous we would be if we used our own oil all these years, rather than sending our dollars to a foreign cartel. Or if we paid twice as much for socks, but employed the marginal worker here.

------

I certainly agree with your first premise. Not with the second. We absolutely should exploit our own resources. I just do not understand how it follows that we (as a society) become richer by paying more for a good like socks.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:03 PM (gmeXX)

282

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 07:05 PM (uAejz)

283 I just do not understand how it follows that we (as a society) become richer by paying more for a good like socks.

It keeps the money here. It lifts all marginal boats. We are a nation of varying talents. There could be jobs for the sweepers of floors, rather than relief and welfare.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:05 PM (rwI+c)

284 Then what did you mean by "We will become rich by producing goods that other countries cannot produce."

------

I mean this. The world needs goods like tractors and locomotives that we produce very well. We have skilled labor to do it. The world also needs TVs and cell phones. We can produce those too. They may even be better products, but only marginally better. The reality is China can produce them cheaper. Let them. We'll keep producing and inventing the next products.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:07 PM (gmeXX)

285 "We have it because we spend more than taxes raise."

That happens because we've raised generations to kick the can down the road, hide the decline and act as if socializing a logical problem changes the logic (ala giving money to government results in a multiplier, giving jobs to illegals raises living standards, and outsourcing produces net gains for workers). All of these things are counter-intuitive at best and I'm just not sold on the idea that the numbers back up any of these Pollyanna assumptions.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 07:08 PM (WIOql)

286 We'll keep producing and inventing the next products.

At best, we will keep inventing them, maybe. They will be produced where the cost + shipping + any tariffs are cheapest. Steve Jobs benefits, I benefit, line workers do not.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:09 PM (rwI+c)

287 Anyway - agree to disagree. I realize a lot of this is theoretical. TPP - whatever it is - I'm sure will not be a real free trade deal. It will be written in a way that benefits some industries over others. I am in no way in favor of that.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:09 PM (gmeXX)

288 I have enjoyed the discussion. Good night.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:10 PM (gmeXX)

289 "
I just do not understand how it follows that we (as a society) become richer by paying more for a good like socks.'

***

"We'll keep producing and inventing the next products.
"

================

What do you do with the American kids who are better suited to make socks than turbines? If there were no public education or social safety net costs involved with them, we'd have a more interesting argument to discuss. As is, we're paying for our own kids to be either unemployed or under-employed while we export their jobs and import their competition. That doesn't seem smart or efficient.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 07:11 PM (WIOql)

290 I have enjoyed the discussion. Good night.

Good night. I have to admit my thinking on this has evolved 180 degrees over the years. When I was young and the world was our oyster, I was all for the "Free Trade" because stuff! With 30 plus years of watching it's effects, I have flipped.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:12 PM (rwI+c)

291 "I also used 30 years and not 8."

Yeah, I got it the first time and I would have thought that you'd have figured out the artificial environment we've been in since congress, Bush, and the usurping pResident Obama spent trillions of dollars - unseen in history - on Tarp, Obamacare and destroying our country.

The last 8 years have been whacked beyond belief. That anyone still thinks the old rules apply...guess again.

We haven't experienced free trade in any form since, at a minimum,...NAFTA.

You are still on the good side of the collapse.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 07:13 PM (uAejz)

292 Ok - one final comment.

Perhaps my thinking will change too. I'm open to arguments. In fact I'm very open to arguments that we should not do any business with China based on their one-child policy. But either we shut the door completely or we open it up.

Regarding our children. I think it is a huge mistake for America to promise that education is the be all end all. And making many children go through 4 years of college (or more) seems to be a complete waste and misallocation of resources.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:15 PM (gmeXX)

293 Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 07:13 PM (uAejz)

-----

Just for the record. I've never supported Obamacare or Tarp.

Anyway - now for real good night. Or at least good bye for a while.

Posted by: SH at June 23, 2015 07:16 PM (gmeXX)

294 I'm for what's best for US. To quote Sooth, the rest of the world and the transnationalists can go horsefuck.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:17 PM (rwI+c)

295 "I have flipped."

Same. Randian laissez faire free trade would work to everyone's benefit if the participants all recognized the necessary ground rules - individual rights including property rights, rule of law and non-intervention/subsidization for starters. And it helps where the nations involved have some rough parity in per capita wealth, a functional middle class, social mobility, etc - all of which stem from those political values.

As things stand, I look at Rand's world as an ideal for someday, not as a policy guide for today. Much like foreign policy, the world has chosen to operate by the law of the jungle and might makes right economically, and we should do the same unless and until a given trading partner demonstrates their bona fides. Right now that's Canada, Australia, and not much else.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 07:20 PM (WIOql)

296 "Anyway - now for real good night. Or at least good bye for a while."

Goodnight to you too. Nothing personal. I know you presenting your opinion in good faith.

Posted by: Birthers are right at June 23, 2015 07:22 PM (uAejz)

297 Kevin Williams piles on.
http://tinyurl.com/pv2skb9

Posted by: Strictly from apathy at June 23, 2015 07:23 PM (8n+U+)

298 Kal, yes, the people at heritage wrote something... for which they got roundly pounded. Being a space being and all, I'm sure you've forgotten that.

You know, the good thing about being a stubborn mule is you remember the original arguments that went into things. For instance, Iraq wasn't about WMD per se but rather the re-negging on a cease fire. Now, the dialogue got changed to that but its not where it started.

---

Heritage put out something that many Rs try to do... a half way measure that some how pacifies the population but without going full socialist. Its happened before, it'll happen again.

However, the chewing out that Heritage got for that was enormous. Its not a conservative idea... its a conservative idea subject to the restriction that we're being imposed on to do something market flavored.

This would be like saying, if we made waffles with gravy we'd add sugar and flour rather than rare cow blood.

Posted by: Former Mass Resident at June 23, 2015 07:24 PM (/lYhj)

299 The one thing a free society does have going for it in spades is innovation.

That said, I'll riff some more from Steyn's themes - what major innovations outside of consumer electronics have really taken place since the era of globalization began? It does us no good to have an advantage if we're unable or unwilling to use it, and our present stifling culture of bureaucratized, amused-to-death self-flagellation and Other worship seems to have drained at least our will, if not our ability, to innovate.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 07:26 PM (WIOql)

300 I noticed from Kal's quote (too lazy and indifferent to follow the link) that Tarantino said that 'Presuming National or Near National Health Insurance, you need something to prevent free riders.' Not that mandated insurance was a good in itself.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:28 PM (rwI+c)

301 and Former Mass Resident makes the point better than me.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:29 PM (rwI+c)

302 The fundamental thing that's starting to disappear... why does a country exist in the first place? This country was founded on that a nation state was by and of and for the people. It wasn't yet another arrangement of the interests and proclivities of the higher echelon.

In the end, the United States should exist for its people... which is why I can be free trade without being pro-immigrant and/or pro-open borders. If its people do not benefit then why bring in more people? Quality control, folks!

That being said, bringing in certain people for certain reasons is often a benefit to society. However, you can't extract that and say that bringing in all people for niche needs is a benefit to society which is what we've done.

A modern nation exists for its people... not the other way around. That's the old way of the world.

Posted by: Former Mass Resident at June 23, 2015 07:30 PM (/lYhj)

303 If its people do not benefit then why bring in more people?

Yep. And the same can be said of "Free Trade". It's an objective of the transnationalist, because hey, they can live in Paris if they want to, and not in a small southern town like Monroeville Alabama where a third of the inhabitants work at the Vanity Fair mill.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2015 07:33 PM (rwI+c)

304 /sock

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 23, 2015 07:34 PM (c/Ipt)

305 "Kevin Williams piles on."

I've responded respectfully to similar opinions he's expressed on the subject in the past.

Trade agreements in general mean that Washington is somehow dictating what we buy and sell, self-serving declarations that they're "free trade" agreements aside.

I'd rather see Washington withhold government services and protections as a trade policy rather than affirmatively imposing tariffs. You can do business with whomever you like, but don't look to our courts, military etc... if your despotic trade partner screws you over - and that applies whether you own the multinational or just bought something online. I'd also support a much more robust voluntary "Buy American" movement. I'm more reluctant, but could find justification, for tax credits for companies that employ Americans vs. foreign labor as well.

Most importantly, I'm for vast deregulation of American business and labor to both prime the innovation pump and lower overhead costs - both of which result in real, not socially-enforced, competitive advantage.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 23, 2015 07:34 PM (WIOql)

306 Bi-partisan PAC dedicated to primarying every traitorous dog who voted for it.

Hit them with ads left and right and burn their precious coffers to cinders.

Posted by: Za toshokan'in at June 23, 2015 08:18 PM (6jUB7)

307 SocietyIsToBlame, Grump928, SH, Birthers Were Right and (yes) Kal, this has been a great discussion.

Posted by: LadyS at June 23, 2015 08:41 PM (xYNhJ)

308 Neither Lee nor Corker voted. That would be two potential Nays that could have stopped this bill. This was a fixed vote, more fixed than usual. Fait accompli when Boehner colluded with "the opposition" in the House.

The GOP wanted this bill more than the Democrats. It has its handprints, footprints, and teeth marks all over it. Even the Tea Party wing endorsed it almost en toto.

Dead party. Sorry, Ace. No one in the GOP is getting my financial support anymore. Almost all won't be getting my vote. Been screwed over too many times. I'm tapped out.

If Flynn runs on the UKUSIP (or other) ticket, then I'll support him. But I am officially (as possible) anti-Democrat and anti-Republican. They are ultimately interchangeable and have been for decades. I'm done with this game.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 23, 2015 08:58 PM (1CroS)

309 I have concluded that Cruz's vote change one hour before the vote was called was AFTER he found out it had the required 60 votes to pass.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at June 24, 2015 03:51 AM (GpgJl)

310 Don't bother with meaningless gestures like sending money to worthless political candidates. If voting could fix our mess, it'd be outlawed.

Save your money for weapons, supplies and bribes. Only war will solve our problems. Anything less will fail.

Posted by: HempRopeAndStreetlight at June 24, 2015 10:21 PM (Q1BEs)

311 A game changer? Really?

This "game" ain't about to change until a whole bunch of treasonous snakes are dancing at the end of a taught rope.

And that's not likely to happen, because they can always chuck a few shiny baubles at the people who might otherwise be building the gallows.

Posted by: Owen at June 25, 2015 10:52 AM (/VLYY)

312 All your votez are belong to us!

Seriously kids, the vote thing is done. Gird yourselves there is manly work ahead and if you're squeamish even slightly then step aside.

Also I'd recommend some slip resistant soled shoes. The black ones for restaurants work good, you can get them at Work n Gear. Safety first, tyranny last.

Posted by: Tom at June 25, 2015 08:17 PM (kbL7m)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0437 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0157 seconds, 321 records returned.
Page size 190 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.

Cruz Switches Vote on TPA, but Measure Passes After Obama Twists Democrat ArmsJeff Sessions: They Won the Vote, But Lost America

Comments

Cruz Switches Vote on TPA, but Measure Passes After Obama Twists Democrat Arms
Jeff Sessions: They Won the Vote, But Lost America