Will Dems continue to shift right on workers/trade?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

We've got Dems in this very forum who support race-to-the-bottom free trade, a position unthinkable 30 years ago. Give it some time, and Dems will capitulate to neoliberal thinking on that issue.  

You smart. Think good.

[Abolish ICE]

The OP is a weird guy.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

We've got Dems in this very forum who support race-to-the-bottom free trade, a position unthinkable 30 years ago. Give it some time, and Dems will capitulate to neoliberal thinking on that issue. 

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

Also your example still fails because I haven't seen any Democrats here endorse right to work.

What party passed right to work in Missouri? What party helped work to repeal it?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Also your example still fails because I haven't seen any,Democrats here endorse right to work.

The only one who comes to mind that might support RTW is Blairite/Michael Bloomberg.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

The OP is a weird guy.

[Jeffster]

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

We've got Dems in this very forum who support race-to-the-bottom free trade, a position unthinkable 30 years ago. Give it some time, and Dems will capitulate to neoliberal thinking on that issue. 

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

Also your example still fails because I haven't seen any,Democrats here endorse right to work.

What party passed right to work in Missouri? What party helped work to repeal it?

I don't believe OP said they support RTW today. Only with the way the party is moving it might happen in the future. If they become reliant on the tech industry money, and those guys are very anti-union, I wouldn't be surprised either. Probably not as soon as the 2020's, but eventually I could see it happen.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I'm not sure you're aware of this, given you enjoy living in denial, but free trade agreements are generally beneficial to the American public and to American workers. Protectionism might help special interests, but it hurts America and American workers as a whole. The Democrat's current free trade stance is a shift towards economic reality and economic justice.

Depressed wages, sending jobs overseas, and right-to-work laws...hmm, is that the definition of "beneficial...to American workers" nowadays?

Making up bullsh**t "side effects" isn't. Free trade agreements expose American workers to competition, yes, and there are some industries where our high labor standards mean that we can't be strongly competitive in that industry without government protection or subsidies. But it also more importantly let us export advanced goods and services across the world, generating a tremendous amount of wealth for both sides. Wishing for protectionism to bring manufacturing jobs is wishing for most Americans to abandon enjoyable high-level work for jobs that are simply worse out of misplaced nostalgia for an America that never was.

Do you support labor unions or do you think a company should be allowed to hire scab labor and undercut their own workers? Do you support a livable minimum wage, or do you think companies should be allowed to hire workers at sub-minimum wages? Do you support forcing companies to abide by environmental regulations, or do you think companies should be able to dump chemicals and poison the air? Do you support rules regarding child labor, workplace safety, and human rights, or do you think companies should be allowed to flout those rules?

Why are some of you red avatars too stupid to see that when you open up free trade with countries that don't have those same standards as us that it will allow companies to undercut us in those areas. You are creating a race to the bottom. So it seems to me either you don't really care about those things, and are only interested in the selfish exploitation of the worlds poor for your own gain, or you are retarded. So which is it?

Hmm, if only there was a trade agreement with a bunch of countries where we enforced higher labor standards. Some sort of pact, maybe. Maybe with countries in the pacific. A Trans-Pacific Pact.

TPP wouldn't have stopped the member countries from using mostly Chinese made parts and then dumping it it in the US. It was written behind closed doors without much input from labor unions and environmental groups. There was no enforcement of updated environmental regulations, and it allowed more companies to move shop to the other member countries. It was a big give away to the investor class.

1. By making the Chinese economy less competitive and Chinese leadership less likely to write the rules of trade in East and Southeast Asia, the Chinese regime will be under great internal and external pressure to liberalize its economy
2. Trade negotiations need to happen behind closed doors if you want anything meaningful to get done.
3. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the "TPP includes the most robust enforceable environment commitments of any trade agreement in history".[91] The USTR notes that the TPP requires signatories to fulfill their obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to protect and conserve iconic species.[91] According to the USTR, TPP is the first trade agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, such as those that contribute to overfishing.[91] The USTR asserts that TPP signatories are required to "combat illegal fishing", "promote sustainable fisheries management practices", and "protect wetlands and important natural areas", "combat wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing

[Jeffster]

I'm not sure you're aware of this, given you enjoy living in denial, but free trade agreements are generally beneficial to the American public and to American workers. Protectionism might help special interests, but it hurts America and American workers as a whole. The Democrat's current free trade stance is a shift towards economic reality and economic justice.

Depressed wages, sending jobs overseas, and right-to-work laws...hmm, is that the definition of "beneficial...to American workers" nowadays?

Making up bullsh**t "side effects" isn't. Free trade agreements expose American workers to competition, yes, and there are some industries where our high labor standards mean that we can't be strongly competitive in that industry without government protection or subsidies. But it also more importantly let us export advanced goods and services across the world, generating a tremendous amount of wealth for both sides. Wishing for protectionism to bring manufacturing jobs is wishing for most Americans to abandon enjoyable high-level work for jobs that are simply worse out of misplaced nostalgia for an America that never was.

Do you support labor unions or do you think a company should be allowed to hire scab labor and undercut their own workers? Do you support a livable minimum wage, or do you think companies should be allowed to hire workers at sub-minimum wages? Do you support forcing companies to abide by environmental regulations, or do you think companies should be able to dump chemicals and poison the air? Do you support rules regarding child labor, workplace safety, and human rights, or do you think companies should be allowed to flout those rules?

Why are some of you red avatars too stupid to see that when you open up free trade with countries that don't have those same standards as us that it will allow companies to undercut us in those areas. You are creating a race to the bottom. So it seems to me either you don't really care about those things, and are only interested in the selfish exploitation of the worlds poor for your own gain, or you are retarded. So which is it?

Hmm, if only there was a trade agreement with a bunch of countries where we enforced higher labor standards. Some sort of pact, maybe. Maybe with countries in the pacific. A Trans-Pacific Pact.

TPP wouldn't have stopped the member countries from using mostly Chinese made parts and then dumping it it in the US. It was written behind closed doors without much input from labor unions and environmental groups. There was no enforcement of updated environmental regulations, and it allowed more companies to move shop to the other member countries. It was a big give away to the investor class.

1. By making the Chinese economy less competitive and Chinese leadership less likely to write the rules of trade in East and Southeast Asia, the Chinese regime will be under great internal and external pressure to liberalize its economy
2. Trade negotiations need to happen behind closed doors if you want anything meaningful to get done.
3. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the "TPP includes the most robust enforceable environment commitments of any trade agreement in history".[91] The USTR notes that the TPP requires signatories to fulfill their obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to protect and conserve iconic species.[91] According to the USTR, TPP is the first trade agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, such as those that contribute to overfishing.[91] The USTR asserts that TPP signatories are required to "combat illegal fishing", "promote sustainable fisheries management practices", and "protect wetlands and important natural areas", "combat wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing

1. If China is still selling their parts to the member states to then be shipped to the US markets, it doesn't cut them out and force them to liberalize. They're still engaging in trade.
2. Sure, we just need to take their word for it and then push it through Congress without second guessing it, because they know what's best for us. Please.
3. From the office of the person negotiating it, of course they'd make it seem like the best thing ever. Meanwhile all I'm seeing is protections for endangered species, an important part certainly, but not the only issue when discussing environmental regulations.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Guess what evil neoliberal worker hating union buster called tariffs "the road to ruin"? Was it Ronald Reagan?

Nope, FDR.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I'm not sure you're aware of this, given you enjoy living in denial, but free trade agreements are generally beneficial to the American public and to American workers. Protectionism might help special interests, but it hurts America and American workers as a whole. The Democrat's current free trade stance is a shift towards economic reality and economic justice.

Depressed wages, sending jobs overseas, and right-to-work laws...hmm, is that the definition of "beneficial...to American workers" nowadays?

Making up bullsh**t "side effects" isn't. Free trade agreements expose American workers to competition, yes, and there are some industries where our high labor standards mean that we can't be strongly competitive in that industry without government protection or subsidies. But it also more importantly let us export advanced goods and services across the world, generating a tremendous amount of wealth for both sides. Wishing for protectionism to bring manufacturing jobs is wishing for most Americans to abandon enjoyable high-level work for jobs that are simply worse out of misplaced nostalgia for an America that never was.

Do you support labor unions or do you think a company should be allowed to hire scab labor and undercut their own workers? Do you support a livable minimum wage, or do you think companies should be allowed to hire workers at sub-minimum wages? Do you support forcing companies to abide by environmental regulations, or do you think companies should be able to dump chemicals and poison the air? Do you support rules regarding child labor, workplace safety, and human rights, or do you think companies should be allowed to flout those rules?

Why are some of you red avatars too stupid to see that when you open up free trade with countries that don't have those same standards as us that it will allow companies to undercut us in those areas. You are creating a race to the bottom. So it seems to me either you don't really care about those things, and are only interested in the selfish exploitation of the worlds poor for your own gain, or you are retarded. So which is it?

Hmm, if only there was a trade agreement with a bunch of countries where we enforced higher labor standards. Some sort of pact, maybe. Maybe with countries in the pacific. A Trans-Pacific Pact.

TPP wouldn't have stopped the member countries from using mostly Chinese made parts and then dumping it it in the US. It was written behind closed doors without much input from labor unions and environmental groups. There was no enforcement of updated environmental regulations, and it allowed more companies to move shop to the other member countries. It was a big give away to the investor class.

1. By making the Chinese economy less competitive and Chinese leadership less likely to write the rules of trade in East and Southeast Asia, the Chinese regime will be under great internal and external pressure to liberalize its economy
2. Trade negotiations need to happen behind closed doors if you want anything meaningful to get done.
3. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the "TPP includes the most robust enforceable environment commitments of any trade agreement in history".[91] The USTR notes that the TPP requires signatories to fulfill their obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to protect and conserve iconic species.[91] According to the USTR, TPP is the first trade agreement to prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, such as those that contribute to overfishing.[91] The USTR asserts that TPP signatories are required to "combat illegal fishing", "promote sustainable fisheries management practices", and "protect wetlands and important natural areas", "combat wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing

1. If China is still selling their parts to the member states to then be shipped to the US markets, it doesn't cut them out and force them to liberalize. They're still engaging in trade.
2. Sure, we just need to take their word for it and then push it through Congress without second guessing it, because they know what's best for us. Please.
3. From the office of the person negotiating it, of course they'd make it seem like the best thing ever. Meanwhile all I'm seeing is protections for endangered species, an important part certainly, but not the only issue when discussing environmental regulations.

1. And incidentally making a profit for other countries and making it harder for China? What exactly were you expecting?
2. Trade deals are not something that should be negotiated by the general public and subjected to their whims.
3. What exactly do you feel is so urgently missing?

[Badger]

Tariffs are taxes, and bad taxes at that. They are regressive in application. They disrupt market-based calculations on production and marketing. They make doing business more costly.

The benefit goes to well-placed businesses that might have the best lobbyists -- quite possibly with business entities so inefficient that they should either do their manufacturing overseas or fold in bankruptcy.  

Same could be said against raising the minimum wage, or any type of new regulation on businesses.

Oh good God.....

Kind of answers original question though, doesn't it?

[Devout Centrist]

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

We've got Dems in this very forum who support race-to-the-bottom free trade, a position unthinkable 30 years ago. Give it some time, and Dems will capitulate to neoliberal thinking on that issue.  

haha wow, this is dumb

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Please point me to any prominent Democrats who support right to work.

We've got Dems in this very forum who support race-to-the-bottom free trade, a position unthinkable 30 years ago. Give it some time, and Dems will capitulate to neoliberal thinking on that issue. 

haha wow, this is dumb

insert comment about how this thread is a hot take that makes the Empty Quarter look like Antarctica here

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Guess what evil neoliberal worker hating union buster called tariffs "the road to ruin"? Was it Ronald Reagan?

Nope, FDR.

Will Democrats move rightward on tariffs, or will they embrace the principled leftist position of McKinley and Robert Taft

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Guess what evil neoliberal worker hating union buster called tariffs "the road to ruin"? Was it Ronald Reagan?

Nope, FDR.

Will Democrats move rightward on tariffs, or will they embrace the principled leftist position of McKinley and Robert Taft

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I can't think of a single protectionist Democratic President. Carter was probably closest.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I can't think of a single protectionist Democratic President. Carter was probably closest.

[PSOL]

Look the Democratic Party is essentially Rockefeller Republicans with an old Democratic wing at its closest fitted for now. You want protectionist Dems, well good for you in that the party is more susceptible to non astroturfed movements in this regard. Vote for dems you agree with and the will appear for your area.