Quote:That's not communist. That's part of the democrat platform.
Kleptocrat, the perfect combination of the two.
Quote:The secrecy is a big issue. If it's great for America, why keep the details in a locked room that only those on the list are permitted to see?
The inability for congress to amend trade deals negotiated by the president takes the typical congressional add-ons out of the equation. If they don't like the deal, they can vote it down. But, they can't add amendments that have nothing to do with the deal, which is how a lot of these types of deals get tainted. If the president negotiates a trade deal with a nation to lower tariffs on imports of raw material in exchange for a similar agreement for the finished product, it can wind up having all sorts of amendments tacked on for pet projects in order to get congressional support. So, you'll see farm subsidies, or highway projects in certain congressional districts added to trade legislation as a way of securing votes. This takes that out of the equation. If there's something so objectionable in the deal negotiated by the administration (regardless of party), congress can still shoot it down.
Republicans have always supported free trade. What's actually surprising here is that they're in agreement with Obama on this one, and it was the democrats who ended up putting the brakes on this process for now.
Personally, I find it impossible to have a real opinion on the deal because we're not getting any actual information about the TPA or the other pieces to this. They're saying that the actual trade deal will have a 60 day window where it will be available for review before congress votes on it. Those who have read it are, for the most part saying it's pretty much a boilerplate trade deal. We'll see.
From the bit of research that I've done regarding this, you are correct.
I actually like the idea of those in congress not being able to add the "pork" to bills. However, God forbid should there ever be a situation like President Obama's first two years where a single party controlled not only the Presidency, but both houses of Congress as well. That's what leads to disasters like Obamacare.
I'm still suspicious and skeptical when the hard right is in agreement with President Obama.
Quote:Perhaps his view that "wealth needs to be redistributed" is a communist point of view. You know the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need". The whole idea of "wealth distribution" and "income inequality".
Quote:That's not communist. That's part of the democrat platform.
That is a communist tenant and I do agree that it's the democrat and/or "progressive" platform. The idea to "take from those who have earned" and give it to a bunch of freeloaders is a horrible and communist idea.
Quote:From the bit of research that I've done regarding this, you are correct.
I actually like the idea of those in congress not being able to add the "pork" to bills. However, God forbid should there ever be a situation like President Obama's first two years where a single party controlled not only the Presidency, but both houses of Congress as well. That's what leads to disasters like Obamacare.
I'm still suspicious and skeptical when the hard right is in agreement with President Obama.
The hard right? Boehner, McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Grahm are not the hard right lol.
Quote:The hard right? Boehner, McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Grahm are not the hard right lol.
Wait are saying Lindsey Graham is a replipuke and not a demicrap?
Quote:The hard right? Boehner, McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Grahm are not the hard right lol.
I don't think they can get hard if they wanted too. Well, Graham maybe, if the hard right candidate came along.
Quote:The hard right? Boehner, McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Grahm are not the hard right lol.
OK, I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have referred to them as the "establishment GOP leadership". Either way, I still don't get how they can be on the same side as The President.
Quote:It's not his quotes, it's his actions. Increasing taxes on those most able to pay (from each according to ability). Doubling food stamp payouts, pandering to illegals, and increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid (to each according to need).
I'm not sure what you consider "conservative" but Obama is nowhere close. If you are talking about Obama's colluding with corporations, that's not conservative. You might make a case for his military action in Libya as being conservative in a general sense, but my "Marxist" statement referred to his economics and general elitist government control over the population. I don't think Karl Marx was into foreign policy.
Not a single conservative voted for the ACA. Even the RINOs declined. The ACA had some parts that were proposed by the Heritage foundation, but the final package was far from conservative. Increasing Medicaid and taxing medical equipment were clearly not conservative.
My imagination evidently trumps your fantasy. I don't know what you think Obama had to do with something like "doubling food stamp payouts" or whatever else you are accusing him of, but it's simply not the case irl.
Quote:Perhaps his view that "wealth needs to be redistributed" is a communist point of view. You know the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need". The whole idea of "wealth distribution" and "income inequality".
So what about wealth redistribution republicans are for? You are against that as well, right?
Also, a progressive tax has been standard and deemed equitable by both conservatives and liberals for quite some time. not sure you can consider that communist...
Quote:So what about wealth redistribution republicans are for? You are against that as well, right?
Also, a progressive tax has been standard and deemed equitable by both conservatives and liberals for quite some time. not sure you can consider that communist...
I certainly am against any kind of "redistribution" at all, especially when it comes to economics. We don't "distribute" in this country we "earn".
I very much don't like our current tax system, and would love to see something like the Fair Tax Act one day become law. However, it will never gain ground because it does something that is vital to today's politicians. It takes power away from them and returns it to the people.
Would I call our current "progressive" tax system communist? Not really, but it is used in some ways that are communist in my point of view. To threaten to raise taxes on higher achievers (higher income earners) is in no way fair, especially when lower income people pay virtually no tax or a negative tax.
Quote:I certainly am against any kind of "redistribution" at all, especially when it comes to economics. We don't "distribute" in this country we "earn".
I very much don't like our current tax system, and would love to see something like the Fair Tax Act one day become law. However, it will never gain ground because it does something that is vital to today's politicians. It takes power away from them and returns it to the people.
Would I call our current "progressive" tax system communist? Not really, but it is used in some ways that are communist in my point of view. To threaten to raise taxes on higher achievers (higher income earners) is in no way fair, especially when lower income people pay virtually no tax or a negative tax.
Won't someone please think about the wealthy? They are truly struggling
/cue Sarah Mclachlan
Quote:Won't someone please think about the wealthy? They are truly struggling
/cue Sarah Mclachlan
Yes, you're right. Someone having more than someone else is a pefrectly good reason to steal from them.
Quote:Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased the amount each person on food stamps received, and lowered the eligibility requirements so that more people were receiving them.
To each according to need.
You are talking about the recovery act which saved us from the Great Recession caused by Bush.
But yea, to each according to need to save the world's economy from the travesty that was Bush's economic policy. Got it.
Quote:Won't someone please think about the wealthy? They are truly struggling
/cue Sarah Mclachlan
Last time I checked, income status in this country doesn't include making certain rules for anyone. Don't like the fact that some have made huge sums of money and are wealthy? Why not do what it takes to do the same thing yourself rather than "steal" from them? Our laws are supposed to apply equally across the board whether you talk about social status, income, etc.
Contrary to what the left talking points are, there are many in this country that are "wealthy" through their own hard work.
Quote:Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased the amount each person on food stamps received, and lowered the eligibility requirements so that more people were receiving them.
To each according to need.
So that's bad, in your book? I know what you're trying to say, but I'm sorry, social programs are not a horrible thing.
Especially when wages have stayed stagnant, productive has increased, and profits have skyrocketed. So much for supply side economics...
Food Stamps also doubled under Bush.
Meanwhile Corporate Welfare still outspends Social Welfare.
Quote:Yes, you're right. Someone having more than someone else is a pefrectly good reason to steal from them.
Someone who called for stealing the natural resources of another country attempting to call other people for "stealing". Never stop being an adorable hypocrite. It's entertaining.