Clinton says U.S. must boost manufacturing, broaden health care

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Associated Press

Clinton says U.S. must boost manufacturing, broaden health care
6/9/2007, 12:26 p.m. EDT
By DAVID AGUILAR
The Associated Press

DETROIT (AP) — Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that the U.S. is ready for change but it must reinvest in manufacturing, education and universal health care.

The Democratic senator from New York said as president, she would reduce the nation's reliance on foreign creditors, reopen diplomatic relations worldwide and bring troops home from Iraq.

"If we don't have a strong manufacturing base in our economy, it won't be long until we don't have a strong economy," she said.

Clinton made her remarks during a 90-minute presentation attended by about 700 union members and their families. The morning session was part of an ongoing national AFL-CIO campaign in which union members meet Democratic presidential candidates in town-hall style formats.



Read more: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1181407751257460.xml&storylist=mibusiness

[napi21]

1. I agree with her, but I'd like to hear just what kind of investments

she's talking about.

Personally, I'd like to hear a candidate say they were going to revise NAFTA< CAFTA and our other trade agreements. That MAY already be in all the Dems minds but something that just shouldn't be said until AFTER elected! I firmly believe Deans downfall was the morning he said "I will break up the media monopoly." From THAT day the shine was taken off the apple and Dean was trashed by the media therafter!

[silverojo]

86. If Hillary wants to strengthen manufacturing

She needs to work to destroy NAFTA and similar agreements that her husband signed.

Also, stiff penalties for closing down shop in this country and re-opening in another country would do a lot of stop these greedy corporate bastards. :mad:

[ikojo]

91. AMEN Silverojo!!!

Her husband and Al Gore fought to get NAFTA passed and now working Americans are suffering for it.

[mod mom]

100. Will she DENOUNCE HER PAST TIES TO FREE TRADE & NAFTA?

or is this campaign rhetoric? (like how * said he was against nation building and for compassionate conservatism)

[jellybeancurse]

2. Whats so special about manufacturing?

I've taken numerous economics classes and it seems to me that our comparative advantage doth not lie in manufacturing products any more. The obvious exception being new technologies. We are service and information based economy. According to the DoL we are talking about 13,523 out of 139,270 employed people. While thats not a small number of people I don't think our entire economy hinges on those 13.5 million people. We've had a steadily declining manufacturing base and the economy is doing relatively well and unemployment is down*. There are obvious problems with the economy but I don't think our economy lives and breaths by those 13.5 million. Thoughts?

*I haven't taken into account the people not seeking work or discouraged workers.

[brentspeak]

7. You've taken numerous economics classes...and yet you have no idea what you're talking about

"We are a service and information based economy"

We are devolving into a service-based economy. I'm not sure what you mean by an "information based" economy.

We've had a steadily declining manufacturing base and the economy is doing relatively well and unemployment is down*.

Define what you mean by "the economy is doing relatively well and unemployment is down". Leave out all the McJobs in your unemployment numbers, and take into account only full-time, permanent jobs with benefits, then you can start dealing with reliable unemployment figures. Everything else is padding.

"There are obvious problems with the economy but I don't think our economy lives and breaths by those 13.5 million."

Your post doesn't make it clear at all what you mean by "13.5 million people". In any case, assuming you're talking about manufacturing jobs, much of the nation does rely on having a solid manufacturing base. When a Ford plant shuts down, for example, not only do the x-thousands of Ford workers lose their jobs, but the entire geographical area suffers: local businesses which distribute parts to Ford go under; local businesses which provide basic services to Ford go under; local Main Streets became ghost towns; etc.

[jellybeancurse]

13. Apologies for not being very clear

but I was genuinely curious for an intelligent response with numbers and I get the two posts below which either a) question my age ( by extension my intelligence?) and b) a sarcastic pity story about how foreigners stole our jobs.

In response to your post, information wasn't a good word admittedly , I meant service (financial, consulting, health care, transportation, IT, retail, etc) jobs. Again from the DoL I see the numbers as having 6.7 million unemployed and 145 million employed. Of those 145M it has 114M of that is service industry compared to 14M in manufacturing. My point was that manufacturing isn't the backbone of the American economy as implied in the article. If I am wrong please set me straight. I don't think your characterization of our economy as "devolving" into service based is fair. I would argue we are evolving into a service based system where manufacturing domestically is less important and already is to a huge extent.

Also, and this is more for the people who posted below, with regard to aggregate welfare the country as a whole is better off when we get more cheaply produced goods (relative to domestic production costs). Thats just a fact. Consumers (i.e, us) are better off, there may be people that lose jobs due to production of some good (lets say Ford car parts) by moving it to China and as a whole consumers of those car parts are better off. The people that made them here in the US are worse off yeah, absolutely, and we should do everything to help them out to either get new jobs or go back to school, but as a whole consumers are better off.

Ok, my only point was that manufacturing is not the backbone of the current 2007 American economy. If I am wrong please provide some numbers or something. I really don't understand that anger and just plain mean response I got. Sorry for the length!

[brentspeak]

17. Uh, no. Consumers are NOT "better off" because production is moved to China

They are universally much worse off. Being stuck with cheaply-made junk that breaks after no more than 6-months solid use is not what I would call being "better off".

[jellybeancurse]

20. Yes they are and I'm not talking about McDonald's toys here

Where do you buy products that last for up to 6 months (of solid use!)and then break, because I need to start shopping there?! Also, I don't mean cheap in the sense that something is poorly manufactured. I mean that the foreign wage rate to produce is lower than the domestic wage rate to produce.

Consumers are better off as a whole when they are able to acquire goods at lower prices.

[Donnachaidh]

30. WHY would anyone argue with a new poster that has a DISABLED profile?

Enjoy your stay on DU. :sarcasm:

[jellybeancurse]

32. Again another post

that has nothing to do with my original question. If I'm wrong please correct me with some sort of evidence. For a supposedly more enlightened atmosphere than those loons over at freeperville, no one here seems to want a friendly discussion. So far its been name calling, sarcasm, and irrelevant issues.

Wasn't aware my profile was disable (not that that matters). For what its worth it says FL, USA and thanks for the warm welcome! :hi:

[Psephos]

98. Having a disabled profile is irrelevant; privacy is a valid concern

Some of the best and longest-tenured people on DU have disabled their profiles. Sniping on the poster and not the post suggests your own arguments could use a little more gym-time, and it's not very good karma, either, especially on a prog/lib site.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

[ProudDad]

75. For instance

I have yet to get a DVD player/recorder that lasts over a year and a half -- some are nearly DOA out of the box.

Where do I go to get one of these fucking things fixed? Oh yeah, I forgot, just like the disposable people of the U.S. we are expected to consume disposable "goods" to keep the ole' capitalist Juggernaut chugging along...

[MadHound]

96. The trouble is that advantage of having cheap Chinese goods,

Is more than overcome by the fact that working in the service sector pays much less than working in the manufacturing sector. People who were once making twenty dollars an hour in the auto industry are now making eight dollars an hour working as mall security. Gee, and for this we sixty dollar DVDs:eyes: Thanks, but I'd rather pay a few extra bucks if need be, and have a robust manufacturing sector. Not to mention the conditions that many of those foreign workers struggle under. Gee, what is our consumer frenzy funding? Child labor, slave labor, industrial practices not seen here since the turn of the twentieth century. Almost all of that cheap chinese crap that you buy comes complete with the blood of slave labor, and the the tears of child labor. You may be comfortable with that, but many people aren't.

In addition, devolving into a service/finance based economy is a sure sign that we're a power in decline. The British, Spanish and many other empires followed the same path we're on now, and it led to their demise. If you want a further, more in depth explanation on this I suggest that you read "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips for a complete review of the economic dangers of becoming a service/financial sector based economy.

[Kool Kitty]

87. The cheaply-made junk AND the poisoned food.

And toothpaste. And don't forget the lead in the vitamins. Yeah, the other poster is right. We are better off! Surely you can see that. :sarcasm:

[Acadia Blue]

21. That stuff about us being better off because of cheaper goods

sold is hooey.

Ross Perot knew that they were selling the Brooklyn bridge and the idiots bought it. Thanks to F.... Bill Clinton's and his DLC pigs NAFTA went through and that was step one to becomming just like Mexico: a nation of rich and poor. Bill and his will never be poor.

Gee so we can make low wages and all shop at the big box marts and the rich can all shop at the luxury shops. We can eat contaminated junk from China and the rich can eat clean food.

The Dems are selling us all down river with the insourcing too. I personally know a woman who has kids to support who was run out of landscaping by the cheap laborers. She is an American Black woman. Buch does not give a damn and the Dems either don't either or are dumb.

[jellybeancurse]

29. Seriously?

Ross Perot was wrong, see my post below. NAFTA was a overall great thing for the US economy. Hear that "giant sucking sound"? Yeah me either.

Secondly, no one makes people shop at those stores, no one is making them eat junk food. Of course the government and business could do more to help workers that get displaced by manufacturing/outsourcing, and maybe thats the issue we should be debating.

To learn more about how all this stuff works please read this...

http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch80/T80-0.php

[Odin2005]

42. Looks like you've been brainwashed by the corporatists.

[Peace Patriot]

43. NAFTA was great for the CEOs and top investors of global predator corporations,

and horrible for everyone else. It has resulted in the outsourcing of millions and millions of jobs, the wholesale removal of our manufacturing capability to other countries, and the depression of wages and harm to labor power, here and abroad, as well as horrible impacts on agriculture and food production, here and abroad. A big corp goes to Mexico for the cheap wages, then, when the Mexican workers get uppity, and ask for $3/hr instead of $2/hr, the corp up and moves to Cambodia, where they can get away with paying 25 cents/hr. Meanwhile, the community in the U.S. whose labor force created that corp's profits and viability in the first place, is summarily blighted. They used OUR tax-supported roads, airports, educational system, fire and emergency infrastructure, hospitals, product safety laws, court system, and healthy, well-educated, productive work force to build themselves a corporate empire, then, "Fuck you, America! On to Mexico, Cambodia, India..."

"Free trade" (global corporate piracy) disempowers everybody below the CEO/big investor class. The financial benefit to the U.S. is strictly limited to the rich and super-rich. And THAT impact has ripples we often don't even consider--for instance, larding the super-rich with MORE money to buy our government and oppress us politically.

And the combination of NAFTA/CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the Bilderberg Group, the G-8, and World Bank/IMF policy--all completely dominated by global corporate predators who have loyalty to no one--has been absolutely devastating in every way, within the U.S., within the western hemisphere and worldwide. Who do you think is pushing poor peasants in Mexico off their little five acre plots that feed their families and villages, into urban squalor, and thence to the U.S. in desperate search for the hardest, lowest paid jobs? U.S. Ag, and Exxon and Chevron--invited in by rightwing corporatist governments. That's how it works. They are impoverishing EVERYONE, to benefit the richest. Among their goals: a) to bust the labor movement, and turn us all into slave labor; b) to destroy the great American middle class as a generator of political opposition to Corporate Rule--in short, to destroy democracy here, especially, and also everywhere else (--they support rightwing government and fascist military juntas everywhere on earth); c) to make us all dependent on slave labor jobs, corporate food, and corporate propaganda, and to inure us to corporate resource wars, with our soldiers as their cannon fodder.

And they operate in pretty much the same way in every country, including here, beginning under Clinton (after Reagan laid the initial groundwork--elimination of the progressive tax, busting the Air Traffic Controllers' union, degrading environmental protections, etc.): They split off a segment of the middle class, and catapult them into super-riches (upper-middle class), and thus create an advocacy group for the Corporate Rulers, which pervades the corporate media and the political establishment, creating a propaganda machine. But upward mobility is frozen for the poor and the rest of the middle class. The poor quickly become dirt poor, and the middle class quickly starts losing ground. Soon there are just two classes, the very rich and a vast population of the poor and dirt poor. A third class exists above the very rich--the billionaire CEOs who are running things, who have no loyalty to, and no connection with, any national population. They are worldwide Robber Barons, whom no one can control, and who consider national governments and democracies as mere pawns in their games. It is these latter who designed NAFTA, the WTO and all the other institutions of their global power. We have NOTHING to say about it. Nothing!

And it is the height of hypocrisy for Hillary Clinton to NOW start talking about U.S. manufacturing and jobs. It was her husband who promised, in his 1992 campaign, that he would NEVER sign NAFTA without labor and environmental protections. Once in office, he couldn't wait to sign NAFTA without such protections! That's what the Seattle '99 anti-WTO protest was about--it was about the LACK OF DEMOCRACY in these decisions. Clinton lying to the voters about this, and betraying the labor and environmental movements, and the American people, by peremptorily signing NAFTA with no democratic input is the exact same M.O. as the WTO and all these other institutions. Global corporate predators decide. Not us.

NAFTA was a watershed for the Democratic Party. It split our party into two groups with antithetical interests: The rich and would-be rich of the upper crust--the politicians, the DLCers, the bureaucrats and some other professionals, who have well-paying corporate or government jobs, with benefits--and the poor and middle class, the blue collar workers and lower echelon white collar workers, the pensioners, the elderly, the jobless, and the bulk of most minority populations, who are losing what little they have, and many who already have nothing. This latter group--the majority of Americans--have virtually NO representation in Washington DC.

This pattern has held true in almost every South American country. That's why many of the new leftist (majorityist) democracy movements and governments in that region are attacking the corrupt, entrenched political party structure, in which, no matter whom they elect, the poor stay poor, or get poorer. The corrupt, entrenched political party structure that INVITED global corporate piracy ("free trade"/NAFTA) into their countries, to loot the country's resources, and consign most of its workers to slave labor conditions, and that furthermore has tossed millions of peasants off their land, so that they can't even feed themselves any more.

We're heading that way--toward becoming a "banana republic" ourselves. And it's not just Bush's fault!

One thing we need to ask ourselves, re: Hillary: Why should we believe her promises any more than Bill's promises regarding labor and environmental protections in NAFTA? Is anything she says about it believable?

It's kind of like if Jeb ran for President pledging peace in the Middle East. Would you believe him?

[jellybeancurse]

48. Blah blah blah

All rhetoric, no numbers. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just ranting doesn't make it so. Convince me.

[ikojo]

94. Awesome, awesome post.

Seems some don't like to hear the truth.

[angryxyouth]

45. Actually I did hear that giant sucking sound!!

I use to work in the film industry in Philadelphia. I lost about 70% of my set work to Canada. I spoke to a guy yesterday who was in the garment mill business. That went away. The Canadian dollar now is worth more then the greenback. This did not happen by itself.

[jellybeancurse]

49. Its not Canada's fault its more competitive

[ProudDad]

76. christ on a bicycle

an article by a cheer globalist leading ECONOMIST.

Gee, I wonder what his take will be. :sarcasm:

Economists are ONLY concerned, as is the capitalist oligarchy that owns this country, in maximizing profits.

Where are concerns like degradation of the environment, the spiritual death of people being moved from good paying union jobs to McJobs in your wonderful service economy, or even folks like me and most of my co-workers for the last 10 years in the IT and COMPUTER business who have watched our jobs get outsourced and our incomes cut in half in this prick's cosmology?

The GDP is a bullshit statistic. As Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". You're promulgating the worst of those and obviously don't understand the pain that causes real people in their real lives.

[Psephos]

101. "the spiritual death of people being moved from good paying union jobs"

Umm, what kind of car do you drive, Dad?

[ikojo]

93. My mom shops at Wal-Mart not because of the

outstanding quality of their products and service, but because she is POOR. She depends upon her social security as her income. They have cheap generic drugs that she can afford as well as cheaper food. It may not be the best quality but it IS food.

My oldest sister shops at Wal-Mart for the same reason. She has one kid at home and her lazy good for little husband has not worked in the last five years, so it's her income that barely pays the bills.

MOST Americans are struggling mightily to barely get by. We don't hear those stories on the TV because of a cultural streak running a mile wide that holds people are poor because they made bad choices and didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Let's also not forget the Calvinst belief, still strong in many parts of the US that holds one is poor because one has fallen out of God's favor.

[treestar]

37. But of course it is, do you pay the most you can for anything you buy?

NAFTA hurts the Mexicans way more than the U.S. The U.S. has corn subsidies which undercut the price of Mexican corn and drive them off their land. As a result, they come north to where the food is, so to speak.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/23/cornfueled_migration.php

Losing manufacturing jobs is, on DU, too assumed to be a net loss without looking further - we at least need to determine if there isn't a net gain somewhere else. Americans are still rich in comparison to the world, so it's hard to go for the idea they are suffering at the hands of the third world.

[jellybeancurse]

51. I agree with your last couple of sentences

People want to acquire the most goods for the lowest price. By virtue of goods costing more its less money that can be spent on other things. I really didn't think that was a controversial point. My original thought I was wanted people to comment on was that manufacturing isn't the foundation of the current US economy. Oh well.

Corn and sugar (farm subsidies in general) are a huge problem. Its not fair to Mexicans, Canadians, or any other country trying to export agricultural products and it only delays the inevitable transition that our farm communities are going to have to make, unless they can compete through better technology, productivity, etc...

[barb162]

68. You got that straight.

American citizens / American workers are being sold down the river on this crap.
PS A friend of mine had a landscaping business...same thing happened to him.

[ikojo]

92. Service sector jobs such as CNAs, restaurant

servers, cleaning people, security guards (the private police force of the nation, accountable to no one other than their boss), drivers of all types and store clerks tend not to pay well or deliver benefits such as a retirement plan, vacation time or health insurance. Is this what kind of country we wish to become?

[crud76]

97. FYI

quote: I meant service (financial, consulting, health care, transportation, IT, retail, etc) jobs.

These are also some of the very jobs that are being offshored to India right as we speak. It's not just blue collar people who are being hung out to dry any more.

[Oakland]

9. How old are you? n/t

[madrchsod]

10. we don`t need good paying manufacturing jobs any more

those new service and info jobs are really great! ya walmart pays way over a living wage and benefits? wow can`t get any better. info jobs well those jobs pay so much that we ship them overseas so they can share our wealth! sorry i used to have really good jobs that paid enough to buy new a car, house,go on vacations,you know those good middle class blue collar dream..but since the mid 70`s someone decided that we make to much and the asians and mexicans could make everything so much cheaper! wow their governments gave money to those companies to make sure my generation could`t make anymore money than we did in 1970-2. well after watching my industry go down the drain i figured no one gives a shit if we make anything any more and you just proved my point. i`m sure those 13.5 really appreciate your thoughts about their welfare.
maybe economic professors should be subjected to their theory of worth

[jellybeancurse]

14. Wow.

1) Overall those Mexicans and Asians you are talking about are better off now that those jobs are there.
2) Americans are better off by being able to get goods more cheaply.
3) Please do not assume I do not care about these people. I care as much as anyone, I was just making the point that manufacturing is not the foundation of our economy as it stands today. Its service based.
4)Apparently having gone to school makes me less intelligent? Nice try.
5) We don't need good paying manufacturing jobs. So lets just keep these jobs here because these people can't do anything else (except work at Walmart according to you) and charge consumers as a whole more as a drain on the business and the market. Great idea. Even if we were to subsidize these companies that cannot compete they would still fail eventually and those people would be out of a job anyway. If you want I can point you to the relevant academic articles.

[brentspeak]

18. Your name wouldn't be Thomas Friedman, would it?

I hate Thomas Friedman, as I do all neoliberals.

[jellybeancurse]

19. Ouch! I'm insulted

Thomas Friedman never met someone else's idea he couldn't rename and claim as his own.

Why all the hostility? I want a genuine response and so far all I get is ad hominem attacks.

[HughBeaumont]

103. Because you're not exactly espousing progressive values.

Nor do you get what's called a Tchotchke Economy: where the price of toys becomes cheaper and cheaper to distract from the huge problem of the necessities (housing, higher education, health care, etc) being priced further and further out of reach. Cheap toys, but with less good-paying, no padding jobs, higher home prices, no benefits, taxes continually being shifted away from those that REALLY need to pay them and AREN'T paying their fair share, a soaring trade deficit and national debt . . . er, where exactly do you think this is all going to lead?

Should you yell TIMBER or should I?

Or maybe you should just read my journal on why the unbridled corporatist model you're so in love with sucks the balls of the dead for the 99% of the planet that DOESN'T have a 7 to 11 figure net worth?

And NAFTA was NOT good for the working classes or the environments for all nations involved. It elevated only the robber barons.

[Acadia Blue]

22. Wrong. Americans who are making lower wages are not better

off being able to get shoddy cheap goods manufactured by slave labor in China. You really don't know all the facts about what is going on in the sweat shops in the third world. Do you know about the Mariana Islands story????? Its the type of thing that is going on.

[jellybeancurse]

27. Last time im going to say this

by "cheaper" i do not mean poorly constructed goods. I am referring to the wage rate relative to production foreign and domestic. For example, its "cheaper" to produce a widget in Mexico than it is to produce a widget in the US.

From an economic stand point, consumers are better off when goods costs less. Period. No debate. Its Econ 101 material here.

I am not making a moral call on slave labor or sweat shops. Those are horrible, but thats not what we are talking about here. I've been involved in efforts to curb the illegal practices in the Maquiladoras for a long time so please do not lecture me about being ignorant of the plight of 3rd World workers. Yes, I know all about Mariana Island.

[Thor_MN]

31. Consumers are better off with goods that are not made cheaply

Yes, I know, you want to try to say that the goods are made for a lower price. Unfortunately, you gloss over the issue that they are also of lesser quality. If one could actually make the same quality product for a lower price, it would be good for consumers. In reality, the products are made with low quality, sometimes toxic, materials.

I have owned three ice choppers. For those of you not from colder areas, it is a simple metal blade on a long handle - think of a long handle shovel with a 6 inch wide, flat blade - for breaking ice off a sidewalk. The first two were pieces of crap made in China and are now broken. The one that I now have and use was made in the US - before I was born. It was my grandfather's and with the sale of my grandparent's house it became mine.

So just how is it better for me to be able to buy a product that breaks after a year of use, as opposed to a product that has stood up to over fifty years of use and abuse? I'm going to be using it in a couple hours to edge my sister's diveway. The way I see it, a foreign made ice chopper would need to be sold at 1/50th the price of mine to be an equal deal.

[jellybeancurse]

33. Thank you

No sarcasm, you are the first person who talked to me like a normal human being, not some sort of social deviant. Many thanks!

Why aren't consumers better off when they pay less for goods?

Quality of products may have gone down over time as a whole, due to the material being used (most things are plastic these days as opposed to metal and wood in your ice chopper case) and mass production. Also, quality of a good usually goes up over time as better products enter the market. So I agree that a lot of foreign made crap is junk when their industries first get started, but if the quality is so bad and "cheap" then why don't more high quality products enter the market? Are they not competitive (relative to wage rate of production)?

[koopie57]

41. It disagree that consumers are better off paying less for goods

For example, pet owners who fed their pets bad food.

Your arguments sound valid with all the numbers and "book learn'n" but you show no evidence that you are listening to others. The reason they ask for your age is cuz younger people in their first year of college tend to not understand the realities of the real world.

For example. In my office there are a group of six medical transcriptions/secretaries who have worked for a combined total of 70+ years who had everything running top notch. Our doctors were often complimented by other doctors about us. And it was a lot of fun. A new graduate entered and "fixed" it. You also can't tell her anything neither. So our quality has gone down, people are getting rashes, the doctors understand and tried to talk to her, but she won't listen. So on paper her graphs appear to say that production is up, but she looks ridiculous standing up and bragging about our good effort.

Basically numbers, graphs and cart don't show what really is going on.

By the way, I humbly suggest to you that you do not come here, insult posters with 1,000+ posts and think you are sounding intellectual. I guarantee there is more knowledge in most of these posters who have lived through the charts and graphs than you would really want to get into it with. Besides, I think there is a book on etiquette out there somewhere that might be a good read at some point.

[jellybeancurse]

50. ........

Forgive me, but my first post to this thread was simply asking a question and rather politely I might add. It wasn't until your charmed "1000+ posts" people began with a rather rude response without even answering my question that I became defensive. Take a look.

No evidence I have been listening to others? The only responsible person was Thor and I eagerly read what he wrote. He may very well be correct about quality of goods decreasing with newly industrialized manufacturers, but that was not the point I was trying to make.

Seriously, so consumers are better off when they pay more for goods? Thats ridiculous. Could you please provide me with some real world experience, which is assumed I lack, that I am wrong?

Might I humbly suggest you review the material before I'm attacked for no reason. All I wanted was an intelligent response and I come up empty handed.

[koopie57]

55. of course they are better off

the more people having good paying jobs, the more people who can afford to pay a little more for goods and services. Everyone pays a little more which keeps more people working at good paying jobs.

Can you show me a situation where paying less for cheap goods makes an economy stronger?

Less money.
Less quality.
Throw away society making our environment more toxic.
Using up our natural resources more quickly.
And like it or not, manufacturing jobs are very important to a powerful economy. If you want real world proof of that, just ask those who have lost their jobs cuz they were sent overseas.

I did read what you wrote and it was the same old thing in each post, statistics and bits and pieces of books you've read and complaints about other posters.

I take it that you have made your post count in only a few days. If you think people were being rude to you in this thread, you better grow thicker skin cuz you are in for a rude awakening.

Welcome and relax a little. Have some fun too.

:silly:

[jellybeancurse]

57. Better pulled from a book than from fantasy land

It was the same thing in each post because no one answered the question! My original question, was that am I wrong in saying that manufacturing jobs do not make up the base of the US economy, by that I mean manufacturing jobs don't make up a plurality of employed people. Ergo, Hillary is wrong to say that manufacturing jobs are the "backbone" of the US economy. Thats it!

All that other stuff about quality is just missing the point. I've made the semantic difference in another post by what is meant by "cheaper" already. For example, if I pay less for a car am I better off? Yes. This is removed from how the car was made, who made it, what parts, what quality, etc... thats just irrelevant to the point I was making. Anyway, I'll drop it as it appears to not be constructive.

Long time haunter, recently started posting. My skin is pretty thick, I was just amused at the response I got.

[ProudDad]

77. Mein Kampf

was a book.

That doesn't make it right.

[treestar]

38. Americas are better off than the people you mention in China, though

Those individuals are not going to get better jobs until their economy develops. So in essence you're (unintentionally) saying third world people should be made even more uncomfortable and have it even harder, so Americans don't lost the highest 10% of their already much greater comforts.

It's just capitalism at work, and Americans have to get used to the idea they are not special just for being Americans. If we make a toy in China and the same toy comes from America, at a higher price, who is going to pay more for the exact same thing just because an America made it?

We can't expect the world to go along with the idea American labor is inherently superior and worth paying extra for on no other ground than that the worker was American. We aren't that worshipped in the world.

I think reality requires us to adjust somewhat. Just plain reality. In the end, we will do all right - unless we kick ourselves down with illogical reasoning.

[jellybeancurse]

52. Are we agreeing?

Well, I mean farmers in China are making more money in those awful conditions in the cities than living out on some small farm. Its a crappy truth. Thats why something like 100M farmers move to the cities every year from rural China. I don't think I was saying 3rd world people should be made to suffer. If I did it was inadvertent. The sweat shops are horrible. We should do everything we can to raise labor standards and end slave labor practices. I hope I don't give the impression that I was defending that stuff. However, whats the alternative to not working in a crappy industrial job? Starving?

[Kool Kitty]

88. Don't forget child labor practices, too.

I find that appalling.

[LeFleur1]

74. Americans Are Better Off...

...because goods are made with slave labor, then shipped to the US.

I don't see it. Prices for goods has gone up, not down.
The only evidence I have concerning that is daily living. When I go shopping I find that nothing has gone down in price. I think the CEOs are stuffing their pockets with the money saved by using slave labor. The savings are not coming down the pipe to the consumer. It's all a bunch of hooey. They made up the 'the American consumer is better off' mantra to cover their asses while they take American jobs to places where the worker is not protected against their greedy actions.

[AzDar]

82. All true... not to mention unsafe, if not deadly ,imports from China ,

and the undeniable fact that while the average American worker's productivity has sharply increased in the past 8 years,wages remain stagnant.

[karynnj]

102. Those points are not all true - though they were the points used to sell NAFTA in the first place

In reality, promised side agreements did not happen. It was though that globalization was going to continue with or without trade agreements. Many thought that the trade agreements themselves could be used to establish rules - to protect workers and the environment - that would not exist in the underdeveloped countries otherwise.

In hearings in the Commerce committee, both for the confirmation of Portman and the CAFTA hearings, Senator Kerry read from reports that showed that the effect on the Mexicans of NAFTA was negative. He also repeated some comments from Catholic bishops in those areas speaking of how the lack of worker and environmental agreements have led to the poor Mexicans being even less well off. For CAFTA, which he opposed, he tried to get an amendment giving workers more rights - but it was defeated 10-10 in committee.

Your analysis seems to suggest that the country is better off when the markets are competely free. It is true that the costs at stores like Wall Mart etc are lower, but it is not clear that the families where one or more person might have worked at a store eliminated by WalMart might be in worse shape. The people who OWN WallMart have earned a huge fortune, but most employees are making less with fewer benefits than before WalMart and every supplier is making less. This is a case where every individual doing what is best for them creates a solution that is not the best for everyone.

[Oak2004]

39. The reason people have developed a contempt for economists

is precisely because of your claims that the American economy is doing "well".

The American "economy" might be doing well, if by economy you mean the limited number of measures cherry-picked by economists.

However the middle class is disappearing, the American Dream of upward mobility has evaporated, and the poor are becoming poorer. Countless Americans are homeless, many are going hungry. The American people demonstrated in poll after poll that they think the economy sucks. The economists (and that tiny percentage of ultra-wealthy who have seen their income rise) say it's never been better.

One is forced to conclude that economists are not looking at the right metrics these days. And it's a fact that economists do not take into account other measures such as long term damage to the ecology that an economy depends upon. As Al Gore points out, under the current metrics, if a country clear cut its forests in one year it would have a very big boost in its GNP. That it would have lost something that cannot be replaced (except perhaps in many lifetimes), whose absence has a negative impact on the watershed (affecting agricultural yields), on the weather, the climate, etc., simply isn't accounted for, anywhere.

Furthermore evidence is mounting that what is happening to the US is exactly what happens, in practice and contrary to theory, when a nation embraces free trade. The economies that have grown in recent decades (Asian, mostly) practice some degree of protectionism. The ones that have embarked on programs of free trade and privatization have declined.

Economics isn't a hard science (though it would like to pretend to be one), it's a social science, imprecise and subject to large biases introduced through political and ideological considerations. It is ideology that shaped the choice of metrics that show a "strong economy", contrary to the actual reality experienced by the majority of Americans. Hard science or soft science, if the facts on the ground contradict the theory, it's the theory, not the facts, that must be discarded.

There's long been far more than one point of view in economics, and far from all economists agree with the point of view that teaches free trade as dogma and which dominates American econ textbooks today. It's time to look at many of the other theories whose predictions concerning the impact of free trade (and environmental depredations) more closely resemble ground truth.

(BTW, you know that "service and information economy" you are touting? It's being outsourced, too.)

[ryanmuegge]

70. Awesome post.

http://harpers.org/archive/2005/06/0080592 (a good article regarding much of what has been discussed in this thread)

Free trade is an unquestionable dogma if you believe the corporate ministers of information in the media.

[Odin2005]

40. Free Tradist BS

Our comparative advantage does not lie in manufacturing only because factory workers in the 3rd world get paid shit.

[jellybeancurse]

53. Whats the alternative?

So lets take back all the jobs we've outsourced or relocated to 3rd world countries. Some of them are really messed up places with slave labor, sweat shops, etc... However, that is by no means par for the course. So whats the alternative to letting those people not work in those low paying, relative to us that is, jobs (which incidentally is more than they were making by farming)? To deny them the opportunity to export and trade with us and the world might just condemn them to even more crushing poverty.

[Canuckistanian]

63. You didn't take the right courses

Manufacturing not important to America?

Where did you get your tuition money from?

[barb162]

69. ditto your comments.

Manufacturing creates more jobs and wealth around it than service jobs. We need to get manufactuering back here.

[barb162]

66. New tech is going to Asia too because of greedy corporations

"According to the DoL we are talking about 13,523 out of 139,270 employed people."

What the heck does this mean? WHere did you get your numbers? It's 10% of something.

The economy is not doing well. Asia just about owns all of our debt because we aren't producing dickshit here anymore and our greedy corporations are outsourcing US workers.

[eagler]

81. All one needs to do is look at how many of the things you buy

are no longer made here and that is the number of how many Americans are no longer producing those items or even more basic than that-Every dollar spent here is a dollar that stays here. Nothing too complicated about that. The problem is that we have been spoon fed SO much BS by globalists that we believe what we are told.















a

[sutz12]

3. Well, that is the right message....but the devil is in the details.

How do we keep jobs in the US?

How do we boost manufacturing?

How do we expand medical care?

Give us some details, Hil', give us some details.

[ryanmuegge]

65. I guess we're not worthy of specifics.

Either that, or they don't exist at all behind the empty rhetoric. I'm guessing it's the latter.

No one in Washington has any idea (nor do they have any interest) in boosting manufacturing or confronting the trade deficit.

[ProudDad]

78. Simple

withdraw from that fucking WTO.

Impose tariffs on imports that unfairly compete with a possible living wage here in the U.S.

Adjust the tax code to severely punish outsourcing traitors. Hell, punish any corporation or company that won't pay a living wage.

Pass HR676 - Universal Single Payer Health Care -- would do more than any other single thing to improve U.S. business' ability to compete.

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. That's rich, considering the legacy of NAFTA.

Pure doublespeak.

[IndianaGreen]

6. That sucking sound that Hillary is deaf to, are our jobs that went overseas

Hillary's support of neoliberal policies will only reduce what's left in manufacturing in our country.

Hillary will never criticize her husband's betrayal of the working class.

[madrchsod]

11. thats what really bothers me about her

she`s no more for the working class than when she was a young republican in high school...i never liked or trusted those girls

[Acadia Blue]

23. I don't want her to be president because of what she and her

hubby helped the pig republicans do to the middle class and the living wage working class. Pigs ...they are just pigs like the repiglicans.

They are taking the whole pie, not just their share.

[paulk]

25. what did Clinton do to the "middle class and living wage

working class"?

Wages increased and poverty decreased.

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

get some facts.

[jellybeancurse]

28. While there are some sectors of the economy that were hurt

generally speaking NAFTA was a massively good thing for the aggregate welfare of the country. Chapter 11/19 I can live without, but trade increased 129% with Mexico/Canada, 2 million jobs per year were created, US manufacturing actually went up (by a third!), and $200 billion a year was invested in domestic US manufacturing compared to the $2.2 billion in Mexico. The reason you see a decrease in manufacturing jobs is 1)lack of demand for US exports 2)2001 recession 3) increased productivity requiring fewer workers.

Free trade. Woo.

[paulk]

59. NAFTA hasn't been the complete disaster that most on this

board see it as. It does have it's problems, though, problems I hope will be addressed by a Dem President and Congress after 2008.

Too many on DU think that we can somehow put the globalization genie back in the bottle. Not going to happen. The best to hope for is a govt that helps to level the playing field, and to me that means getting the republicans out of office.

[ryanmuegge]

71. Keep dreaming about NAFTA being addressed. And ask the people in Mexico how wonderful NAFTA's been.

[paulk]

83. a vacuous reply from you.

If the Democrats get control in 2008, there will be changes made. Bookmark this post.

Mexico problem's don't begin and end with NAFTA.

[ProudDad]

79. Don't forget the flood

of folks immigrating here from Mexico because their indigenous economies were destroyed by a flood of cheap goods from the U.S.

Oh yeah: and Global Climate Change.

and the erosion of the Middle Class in the U.S.

And the fact that most of those were McJobs replacing living wage employment...

Oh, but those are inconvenient facts to globalist fundies.

[Maribelle]

36. You would see she is for the working class if you did your homework

While I personally favor Edwards, Hillary would do a better job for this country as president than Bush, his entire cabinet, all the republican candidates, and the full brood of servile and slavish followers rolled into one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Well that's Narrowing it Down

Anyone would do better than Bush.

[ryanmuegge]

64. Doing better than Bush? Like that's really saying anything positive.

So we should just be content with a candidate that's incrementally better than the worst president ever.

That's not very reassuring: hey, she's better than the worst President for the economic majority ever!

[Kool Kitty]

89. Ain't that the truth?

One of my cats would be a better President than Bush.

[Maribelle]

90. better than Bush, his entire cabinet, all the republican candidates, and the full brood .....

pulling merely one part of a phrase out of context is perhaps silly at best, but more than likely a trick to be argumentative, and surely a big negative in a debate

[HughBeaumont]

104. Read my journal. She is NOT for the working class.

AT all.

MAN.

And once again, a plant stand could do a better job than Bewsh. So please stop using that argument. I want someone to do a CORRECT job and inject a modicum of FAIRNESS into the economy. With Hillary, it will be business as usual.

[jellybeancurse]

16. Which legacy?

[bamacrat]

5. Let me say this loud so she can hear.. DUH!

Thats the obvious, but how. We have already moved so many jobs overseas, and not to mention the governments fear of funding education. Obviously they dont want the majority to be highly educated because then people wuld see how they are fucking us over.

[Acadia Blue]

24. you are so right.

[Oakland]

8. She's in Detroit, what else would she say.

BUT, she's lying through her teeth. Her agenda is another huge trade
deal but with Panama and Columbia next time. The Clintons are huge corporatists,
and anybody who thinks otherwise ought to stay away from people selling bridges.

[liberal N proud]

12. McDonald's can only manufacture as many hamburgers that people can eat.

Most other manufacturing has been shipped to China.

[ohio2007]

35. pretty much the way I see it also unless Hillary is willing to saber rattle with China

deny influx of pacific rim productswith a nice hefty TARRIF...China will do the same of whtever manufactured good we could still compete against

[viat0r]

15. File this one under NO SHIT!

I love it when politicians state the obvious like its som new thing they came up with. And wheres the big bs plan thats going to make everything better?

[nealmhughes]

26. I think she is going to announce a huge scientific discovery soon: air is mostly Nitrogen

with 20% more or less of Oxygen.

[Maribelle]

34. Your post speaks for itself ...

15. File this one under NO SHIT!

it represents prima facie evidence of why rubber-stampers had control of congress all these years and why the corrupt bush administration continues to destory this nation

democrats need to give up on the garbage talk against democratic candidates and concentrate on constructive activities

or go post for the freepers, as they love this stuff

[Peace Patriot]

44. Mirabelle, I agree, we need to stop talking about the vital issues of our day,

and vetting the candidates for their proposals, and the sincerity of their proposals, and resign ourselves, for the moment, to the DLC/Diebold/ES&S machine that will choose our candidate for us anyway, and instead, concentrate on restoring transparent vote counting, and on initiating publicly financed elections, so that future Americans might have a chance to recover from all this, once this country is thoroughly looted by the global corporate predators and war profiteers who are running things now, and they have gone on to greener pastures (Mars maybe?).

I don't normally engage in any discussions about Hillary--or of the other presidential candidates--for this reason: I don't think we will have a choice with regard to who the candidate is. If the Pukes can't get a Nazi populist thing going, and can't get enough viability to be Diebolded into office, then the powers-that-be will pick the Most Corporatist, Most Warmongering Democrat. And it sure looks like it's gonna be Hillary. (--although watch out for Dodd, a real snake-in-the-grass, who may be the Bilderberg Group's stealth candidate).

So why talk about it? We DON'T HAVE transparent vote counting. We have 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting, with the code owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations---something the Democrats in Congress voted for in even greater numbers than they voted to give away their war powers to Bush.

But I felt I had to comment on this--Hillary talking about U.S. manufacturing and jobs--because her husband was such a liar and a hypocrite on this subject in particular.

Personally, I feel that we must develop a strategy to restore democracy in this country based on truth and reality. We are going to get fucked over time and again, if we do not. "Vote" for Hillary. Don't "vote" for Hillary. It doesn't matter. What really matters is if you can get your local registrar or state election officials to count our votes in a way that everyone can see and understand. What matters is creating strong progressive grass roots organizations and networks--as they have done in the great democracy movement in South America--to overcome total corporate control our TV/radio airwaves, among other things. We need also to build strong grass roots food and energy networks, for their own sakes, and in case of dire meltdown of the economy. We need to think beyond the next election. We need to think long term. We need to think of the next generation, and the tools they will have, or won't have, to throw off the Corporate Rulers, who are as oppressive of the human mind, and human rights, as any institution since the Medieval Church (and bear a great similarity to it).

Your caveat--stop criticizing Democratic candidates and concentrate on constructive activities--seems aimed at shutting down what it is a vitally important political discussion, and highly appropriate in this pre-primary period, leading to our supposed choice of candidates to champion the Democratic Party cause. This is a vetting process--or it used to be, in the old Republic--when the political system was in working order, and the peoples' votes were counted in full view of everybody. My advice is quite different. This discussion, which would be important in the old days, is pretty much a waste of breath now. We need to concentrate on more fundamental things, like how our votes are being counted. Money and non-transparent vote counting have taken away our choices. The best we can do now is to try to outvote the machines--a worthy endeavor, and one in need of passion, and energy, on behalf of a candidate--and passion and energy come in part from one's belief in the candidate's policies (and the sincerity of those policies). And I realize that the candidates stand in for larger issues and trends. People argue the issues out, by advocating for one candidate or another. I am not saying don't do it. I'm just saying that it's pretty much an empty exercise when CEO's at the G-8 are right now determining your future, and you have no say whatsoever in their considerations, as you will not have a say in who leads this country. We might outvote the machines in some Congressional races (as we did in '06). They will not permit us to do so in the presidential race--primary or general.

The only real possibility of throwing off their calculations, and overwhelming the machines, is if Al Gore runs. I think he has that potential. But none of these other candidates do. So I wouldn't advise putting much energy into these kinds of discussion. The fundamentals are missing: transparent vote counting, a free press. We need to work on the fundamentals.

[paulk]

46. it's the old "no difference between the two parties" argument. that

worked so well back in 2000, when no doubt you were trashing Gore (for being a Republican lite/ DLC sellout corporitist) instead of endorsing him like you are now.

[Peace Patriot]

58. I voted for Gore and also Clinton. And there is a difference between "trashing" someone

and legitimately criticizing someone, even strongly criticizing someone, on issues of vital importance. You want me to shut up? That's not a very good way to solve problems. Pre-primary is the time for vetting candidates and vigorously arguing the issues. And even when someone becomes THE candidate, by Diebold/ES&S magic or some other means, and even when they become president, the criticism should not stop. It is LACK OF adequate criticism--of give and take between politicians and citizens--that is one of our biggest problems.

You want us all just to be cheerleaders for whoever has enough money to run for president? Just because they have a "D" in front of their names? That's not a democracy. That's a football game.

As for Gore, I didn't say I was in agreement with everything he's ever done or advocated. I said I thought he could beat the machines. An opinion on electability is quite different from a full endorsement. I very much approve of his positive vision of a green economy, and I think it is sincere. His speeches on lawful and ethical government--including subjects like torture and the Iraq War--have been very impressive. From his analysis of global warming and its causes, and the obstacles to solving it--one of the big ones being oil corporations--I gather he's done some thinking about the corporate rulers, but he hasn't said anything that I know of about NAFTA. I'm waiting for him to condemn non-transparent vote counting by rightwing Bushite corporations before I endorse him and start becoming enthusiastic.

Look, I've been a loyal Democrat, activist and contributor for over 40 years. My first campaign was for JFK in 1960, and my first vote for president was for LBJ, who advertised himself as "the peace candidate." A million deaths later, in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, I learned to be skeptical about Democratic politicians. Still kept voting for them, still kept hoping. But I'll be damned if I'll shut up now. SOMETHING'S WRONG! And if you can't see it, I pity you. Our government, our society, our democracy are very sick, indeed. We have lost many rights. We have almost no sources of reliable information. We cannot trust anything our government says or does. I believe we are suffering a fascist coup, and now have a sort of delusional political culture which is no longer responsive to the people of this country. When I look at the Republicans, I see a criminal gang. When I look at the Democrats, I see a mixed bag of that gang's enablers--of people who have no intention of undoing the fascist gains that the Bush Junta has pioneered on behalf of global corporate predators--and of others who are genuinely concerned and doing their best, and still others who are afraid and under God knows what kind of pressures. I also see a lot of corruption, both criminal and systemic. And I DON'T see anybody who can rally the country for the kinds of reforms we need, to save this country from meltdown--nor anybody besides Gore and Kucinich, who are even able to analyze the situation adequately.

A little health care here, a little minimum wage hike there. I mean, come on. We have a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT! Our reputation in the world is ruined. China and Saudi Arabia are holding our debt paper. The Bushites are borrowing against Social Security and the government pension system--to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and a senseless, horrible war. Millions and millions of jobs have been outsourced--as well as large amounts of manufacturing and services. Our IRS tax forms are being processed in India, for godssakes! I think we are not far from massive breadlines and economic collapse--at least for the poor and middle classes. The well-to-do live on another planet--or rather in a global world--and I'm sure have long since put their money in foreign investment and foreign financial institutions. This meltdown is going to hurt US--the hard working people of this country, who are the real creators of all the wealth at the top, and those least able to survive--the elderly, the poor, the poorly educated, children.

We need an FDR! None of the current candidates has that stature, from what I can see. Maybe Al Gore does. I'm not altogether certain about him either--though I believe he has the right idea, a fundamental re-thinking of the WAY that the economy is structured and the resources it depends upon. But mostly I feel that the American people themselves must awaken and take responsibility for reclaiming their democracy and holding politicians accountable. The American people are vastly unhappy and very worried, but I don't think they've quite figured out the lengths these Corporate Rulers have gone to, to prevent us from being able to control our own government. We DON'T HAVE any effective control of our government any more. And I don't think "electing a Democrat" is going to change that at all--unless and until the people start taking back their democracy from the war profiteering corporations, starting with transparent, PUBLIC vote counting. THEN we will start getting the leadership and the ideas we need.

[ryanmuegge]

67. There are differences. They're just more incremental than we would like

The American public was overwhelmingly against NAFTA, judging by polling data from that time. The politicians failed to represent us.

Certainly, anyone would have been better than Bush.

[diamidue]

80. exactly! ! n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. Bravo Kenda Kirby

Bravo!!!

You write: Your caveat--stop criticizing Democratic candidates and concentrate on constructive activities--seems aimed at shutting down what it is a vitally important political discussion, and highly appropriate in this pre-primary period, leading to our supposed choice of candidates to champion the Democratic Party cause.

:toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :party: O8) :thumbsup: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot:

[Maribelle]

85. My caveat --

give up on the garbage talk against democratic candidates and concentrate on constructive activities

was targeted for the dirty talk in the post I responded to, which I considered garbage.

Constructive criticism, honest criticism is not only healthy, but to a large extent or degree helps produce some of the finest things on earth.
In science, in the computer industry, the peer review process is a vital benchmark in development methodologies. And that's exactly what I meant by constructive activities. And that's exactly what I believe democrats should be focusing on.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Are You Really So Naive

........all this crap about Democratic 'unity'.

Get a clue........we are a :) diverse:) political party that doesn't rely on the party line of our leadership to think. We do that all on our own.

[Lost4words]

108. Welcome to DU viatOr!

:hi: 8643

[Neshanic]

47. Her saying "Boost manufacturing" is akin to Judy Garland telling the gang to "put on a play" like

those old Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland movies.

Note to the triangulator...we don't make much anymore.

[WatchWhatISay]

54. Broaden?

Not nearly enough? Nothing less than real universal health care for all. No tinkering with the present system, no nibbling around the edges. I'll vote for the candidate who is anti-war and pro-universal health care.

And it would also help if they rescinded all laws passed since January 20th, 2000.

[EFerrari]

56. HIllary, you are YEARS too late. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

61. Hillary is trying to Overcompensate for Her "SICKO" Academy Award Winning

............performance in Michael Moore's movie.

[Born Free]

99. Michael Moore's movie

Looks like he did it again....hope a lot of people watch it

On the economics, it seems to me, most are more interested in short term gains rather than long term. For example, if a company can produce a product cheaper by using methods that cause pollution it may be beneficial in the short term but cause long term consequences. The same can be said of anything that cause significant job loses - short term, the lower prices are beneficial, but long term it causes more harm. Todays economy is driven for todays best results, even though the things done for today may be detrimental to future generations. We need leadership that can guide America into decision making that will be reasonable for future generations as well as today- not trade off one for the other. Universal health care is one such way, by keeping Americans healthy we save money in the future and have a better, more productive, creative, etc. workforce.

[nodehopper]

72. yeah, she means mandatory for-profit health care. whatever.

[bikebloke]

73. Sarkozy is jumping on the outsourcing bandwagon.

I was just listening to Scare-kozy speaking live on France24. He was using the american example of using China for their manufacturing. The French better wake up before it's too late.

[ikojo]

95. The French will wake up much sooner than

Americans did that is for sure. Outsourcing made the news only after white collar jobs began going to India in mass numbers. Only after it affected well off white folk, for the most part, did the corporate media take a little notice. When auto manufacturing jobs were being sent out of the US or to non union states in the south, those folks losing their jobs were told to go back to school (and pay for it how?) and improve their "skill sets."

I can't believe someone like Sarkozy got into the leadership in France. I thought they were smarter than Americans.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

109. Michael moore was ahead of everyone in predicting this.

With "Roger and Me" about the layoff of 30,000 GM workers in Flint, Michigan. It destroyed the town. Then the city fathers built a big convention center/hotel, who were convinced it would revitalize the economy. It went bankrupt, because there was no wage base to support it.

[NoodleyAppendage]

105. I will NEVER vote for this corporate syncophant. I'm done with political dynasties.

Corporate power combined with wealthy political dynasties = the end of representative democracy.

J

[Lost4words]

107. Me too, I am tired of being lied to.

[Lost4words]

106. Yea like they have done so much for or rather to us!

After todays SC decision on church and state, all thats left is the obituary.

Democracy in the USA, RIP!