Let's Say No to 'Fast Track' and Get on a 'Pro-American' Track

Christian Post ^ | May 12, 2015|8:59 amris | By Phyllis Schlafly , CP Op-Ed Contributor

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Congress, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), is preparing to betray American workers, and the grassroots should rise up and say, "No, you don't." The secretive underhanded deal is called Fast Track, and that's an appropriate title because, indeed, it puts Americans on a fast track to lower wages and fewer available jobs.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/lets-say-no-to-fast-track-and-get-on-a-pro-american-track-139015/#ylD1c6oBpMiKKJ67.99

[1rudeboy]

Give me an example.

[1rudeboy]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

--Ronald Reagan

[Democrat_media]

Yes .This Obama trade deal is not about trade but about giving Obama unlimited power to destroy America mostly by importing hundreds of millions of 3rd world immigrants . and Obama will. The socialist on this tread is trying to distract from that talking and spamming this tread about all kinds of ridiculous things , putting me down, lying etc. . This troll does all this to advance the Obama “trade” agenda which is really about the destruction of America and making every American poorer.

[1rudeboy]

Stop calling me a troll, newbie. I’ve been butting heads with Brigadiers and protectionists on FR since before you were born.

[1rudeboy]

And ping me when you engage in a personal attack. It’s considered proper FR etiquette, milkmouth.

[Theoria]

But, some think tanks predict that these trade agreements would help to prevent illegal immigration. They are often wrong, here is Heritage as a reference.

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized

'...The NAFTA also will offer Americans cheaper goods, and increase U.S. exports by making them more affordable for the rest of the world. Moreover, it will create an estimated 200,000 new jobs for Americans, reduce illegal immigration from Mexico, help tackle drug trafficking, strengthen Mexican democracy and human rights, and serve as a model for the rest of the world.'

[servantboy777]

We don’t even know what’s in it. How can we make an educated assessment w/o the facts? I urged my Senator to vote against this solely because of the lack of transparency.

I’ll have to follow up this week, but pretty sure John Cornyn voted “for” the TPP.

Why did I even bother voting republican?

[servantboy777]

My corporation, a large fortune 500 electronics outfit has been laying off American workers by the scores and bringing the new indentured servants...H1B’s from India.

American corporations do not hold allegiance to a country. The Almighty dollar is what they worship.

Many CEO’s would sell their mama for a buck and replace her with a Chinese/Indian lady if it served a purpose for them.

[1rudeboy]

So what? They assumed the same level of law enforcement. Fact of the matter is, NAFTA was not about illegal immigration, and never was. Does anyone here honestly believe we would not have an illegal immigration problem here now in the absence of NAFTA? If so, why?

[Theoria]

Sure. NAFTA has affected the lowest of the wage earners. Those workers fled North. Which was expected. Illegal immigration is drain to .gov resources, nor is their any political capital to cut such .gov spending.

Nor was there any reduction in illegal drugs. Those such former workers sought out other black market jobs and such, like drugs, and illegal trafficking. Mexico has become more unstable and the criminalized.

NAFTA was supposed to help to prevent such actions from occurring, and the rise of drugs and illegal immigration rose after the implementation of that. NAFTA pushers often mentioned it and pushed it. Just like Hertitage said NAFTA would help to reduce such blowbacks.

I'm guessing you are in academia. Do you have tenure?

[1rudeboy]

Nope, I'm a manufacturing worker. You're not staying focused . . . so some eggheads said NAFTA would reduce the incentive for illegal immigration (and other illegal stuff) as a side-effect. It didn't. So is the problem NAFTA, or the illegal activity?

[Theoria]

' So is the problem NAFTA, or the illegal activity?'

Both. The efficiency of both. They create incentives for activities related to each, ie wage and worker arbitrage, and the development into black market forces.

NAFTA and such trade agreements are tough[for lower wage earners(US side)], because they are so effective.

[1rudeboy]

So help me out here. NAFTA sucked (Perot-style) all of our jobs to Mexico, making Mexicans jump our border in search of them?

[Theoria]

Sure, our subsidized farm industry helped to put out 2 million Mexican farmers. They, being the least educated and such, couldn't make up the difference, and fled north. That is part of it.

[1rudeboy]

So help me out, again. The primary objective of U.S. foreign/trade policy is to keep subsistence farmers in other countries working?

[Theoria]

Nope. Our trade policies need to do what is in the best interest of the US. Nor does that mean companies and business interest. Kinda like we didn't really trade that much with the USSR and China back when we played the Communist are bad people.

[1rudeboy]

Of the countries in the following list, which are the most similar to Russia or China?

Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

[Theoria]

I never said they were.

But, having lived in Singapore and Malaysia. They stand out for their use of state investment and citizen priorities. Singapore and Malaysia prevent the ownership of private investment without local citizen ownership, nor is landed property allowed to be owned by foreigners. Singapore is a lovely fascist dream.

As for the others. Chile, Brunei, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam are noted for their state ownership as well. Good luck in Brunei, they are on par with Malaysia.

[1rudeboy]

And, illegal immigration?

[Theoria]

What about it?