You dont have a leg to stand on with this nonsense.

Under Trumps terms in this instance, the federal fucking government did not bailout Carrier..

NEXT...

 

Shut the fuck up....

 

Whoa there kid, lets get some facts out here first.

Reagan proposed this to Congress for other reasons, to assist our neighboring country in relieving its debt, while also attempting to challenge the emerging unified market in Europe and an East Asia market dominated by Japan.

What Clinton done was nothing as to what Reagan was proposing, as usual, this is what the left does.

Clinton rejected some very vitol protectionist policies that caused a spiral affect in losing over a million jobs.

Trade deficits is the problem here, foreseen by some, and neglected by others.

NAFTA needs to be reformed by someone that understand the business concepts, and career politicians are incapable of understanding any mechanics of, well, much of anything.

NEXT...

 

I'm not sure where you were trying to head with this, it doesnt matter.

I have already stated the facts about the federal fucking government interferring in the healthcare/insurance business.

After the facts have been seen and realized by the American people, ACA has not improved, has not made it more affordable, has not eased access to, or done much of anything that it was sold to people as proposing to do.

Business are stopping to participate in the exchanges, deductibles are sky mother fucking high, families can not afford them, doctors are selective with new patients, the red tape is phenominal now, furthermore, people are 'forced' to buy health insurance, the federal fucking government is not 'forcing' me to buy Carrier products, a product that can be sold across state lines, yet today, the federal fucking governemnt is 'forcing' me to buy a product that can't be sold across state lines.

NEXT...

 

AGREED.

 

Good point, in fact it is the basis for any good business man/woman's ethics credo.

Any deal or transaction, that does not benefit both (all) parties, is unsustainable.

 

As Trump said....''they're eating our lunch..laughing at us''.

 

This makes no sense......
Corn prices have been going up because at that same time we where buying up tons of it to make Ethanol.



http://www.agmrc.org/renewable-ener...d-corn-prices-are-the-relationships-changing/

 

Not sure if NAFTA helps Mexico's economy, but it is terrible for their environment.

The report by the Sierra Club and other groups in Canada and Mexico, released on the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, summarizes more than 100 nonprofit, government and scholarly studies of NAFTA, and draws a damning picture.

Perhaps hardest hit is Mexico, according to the report, where expanded trade in agricultural products came at the expense of smaller farmers, who couldn’t compete with a surge in pesticide-heavy factory farms. Small farmers resorted to cutting down forests to farm more land, and still failed. A boom in mining came at the expense of local landowners, with subsequent industrial pollution.

While the trade deal was billed as lifting all boats, the report argues that many of those displaced famers became undocumented migrants in the United States.

In Canada, while the improved access to markets meant that exports to the U.S. soared by more than 200 percent from 1994 to 2008, wages stagnated. In the petroleum industry, Canada was contracted to continue shipping a certain amount of oil to the U.S., encouraging development of the high-cost tar sands in Alberta at the expense of alternative energy.

Even in the U.S. — beyond the impact on jobs — NAFTA has meant pollution and obedience to foreign concerns. The report highlights Mexican trucking as the prime example. In spite of concerns over the safety and pollution of Mexican rigs, the Bush and Obama administrations have been forced to try and accommodate the vehicles from the south.

The report estimates that a significant jump in pollution can be linked to NAFTA, with greenhouse gas emissions in the region increasing from 7 billion metric tons in 1990 to about 8.3 billion in 2005.

The groups that contributed to the report want the White House to consider NAFTA’s lessons as it weighs new trade deals with Pacific nations and Europe, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the U.S. and 11 other nations.

“Nearly 20 years into NAFTA and the evidence is in,” Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, said in a statement. “NAFTA led to an expansion of deforestation and unsustainable water use in order to support export-oriented agriculture. It gave massive rights to corporations to challenge environmental and climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. It expanded exports in dirty fossil fuels in a time when we should be moving beyond these outdated fuels and investing in clean energy. Governments must take a page out of the history books and stop negotiating trade pacts that gut protections for our air, water, land, workers, and communities.”

 

What about actual health care? Isn't that commerce? And isn't healthcare insurance commerce? Answer those simple questions Ace.

First I am proving beyond reasonable doubt that you are simply a raving hypocrite that changes your positions and beliefs 180 degrees depending on the political party. If the Democrats do it its terrible, socialist, communist and unconstitutional. But if Trump and the Republicans do it its just fine and the right thing to do. You are just that phony. It doesn't matter what is being done. The only thing matters is WHO is doing it.

Second you are great at pushing the PR Hack talking points of the day but none of what you are saying about the ACA is actually backed up by the facts.

Poll: Only about 1 in 4 want Donald Trump to repeal Obamacare

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-only-about-1-in-4-want-donald-trump-to-repeal-obamacare/

And finally I am not going to debate the ACA and other individual policies. My task here is proving you and many other posters on this thread are simple hypocrites who will make up any and all excuses for whatever Trump does even when it directly contradicts what you have been saying for eight years since President Obama got elected.

 

So, if that's the case, then isn't it a good thing that Trump is calling all sides back to the bargaining taable? It gives Mexico a chance to state their case about the horrible agreement signed into law by Bill Clinton, that he praised so highly.

 

Yes, sunshine, they are both Commerce, now that I have answered your question, and....I have thoroughly explained that the federal fucking governement is in control to regulate ''interstate'' commerce, healthcare insurance is not interstate.

So, I am eagerly awaiting with bells on to see what you pull out of your hat for a response to the answer that I provided.

You can claim that I'm a fool and I can live with that, you can claim that I am a 'PR hack', and I can also live with that, but to claim that I'm a hypocrite, that doesn't settle too easy.

Trump is not yet in office, what ever Trump does now, is not official, not until Congress states that is official, is it actually official.

I do not know the details of the Carrier deal, because Congress has not yet made the details available, do you know why?, because Trump is not yet in office.

So, I can logically claim, you... have some butthurt still, I'm sorry that you do, yet I'll also have you know, I'm laughing my mother fucking ass off at you.

Yes, everything that I say that is negative about ACA, it is fact based, and you know it is, because you dont want to talk about it.

Damn, you and I were doing so good, just all the way up to the time that you brought in another worthless poll...

Psst, the polls have not reflected the public for over 6 years now, nor, have they been correct.

Listen now, lets get to the bottom of this right now, what do ya say?.

Provide the class, exactly what you are claiming about my hipocracy, and take a good gander at it, then decide if your correct about your assumptions of me.

 

Score another one (or 10,000) for the the President-elect.


US Steel wants to accelerate investments, bring back jobs, CEO says

US Steel CEO: "All we've been looking for is fairness"

12/7/16


United States Steel would like to accelerate its investments and hire back laid-off employees now that Donald Trump will be occupying the Oval Office, CEO Mario Longhi told CNBC on Wednesday.

"We already structured to do some things, but when you see in the near future improvement to the tax laws, improvements to regulation, those two things by themselves may be a significant driver to what we're going to do," he said in an interview with CNBC's "Power Lunch."

In addition, the belief that the U.S. economy can grow at least 3.5 percent also adds to what the company can do, Longhi noted.

"I'd be more than happy to bring back the employees we've been forced to lay off during that depressive period," he said, which could be close to 10,000 jobs.

Shares of the Pittsburgh-based company have soared about 80 percent since Trump's stunning victory on Nov. 8. Investors appear to be betting on increased infrastructure spending, which the president-elect has promised, as well as further restrictions on China-produced steel.

Corporate America is also cheering Trump's promises of less regulation. Longhi said regulation has a role to play, but believes it "has to be done smartly."

"When you get into some situations where we're being asked to control some substances in water that are far lower than what nature naturally offers, that's irrational," he said.

"There was a point in time in the past couple years that I was having to hire more lawyers to try to interpret these new regulations than I was hiring … engineers. That doesn't make any sense."

 

Trump snub? Wal-Mart announces $1.3 billion investment in Mexico, creating 10,000 new jobs

 

Gotta love the Trump "un supporters"WalMart, a US based company with stores worldwide, announces real new growth in Mexico.

This, Trump "un supporters" seem to be saying, is a slap in the face to Trump's goal of bringing US jobs back to the US.

In fact, WalMart has invested $2.6 Billion in Mexico in the last 4 years. Where, Shooter must ask, were the elitists and their moans about jobs when this "travesty" was going on? Hypocrite, much?

Walmart welcomes 4 million shoppers daily at its Mexican stores, has 28,000 suppliers and employs more than 200,000 people.

Loureiro (CEO of WalMart Mexico) stressed that the new investment "was generated by profits obtained in Mexico," appearing to quell any doubts about any transfer of jobs or investment from the United States.

Shooter has to ask; in posting this thread, did Stumbler read the entire article, or just the part he could sensationalize?

 

It seems you're not doing to well in your own thread Stumbler, my condolences.

 

From your article:

Majorities in both parties don't like the mandate. Gee, I'm pretty sure that was the case BEFORE Democrats stuffed it down America's throat, along with Dirty Harry ScReid's little "reconciliation" maneuver.

I also notice that CBS "reported" on a poll, but couldn't be bothered providing a link to the actual poll results, which would HOPEFULLY show other relevent data, along with polling methodology.

"Trust us. Really. Just take our word for it."

 

OK but if you don't have those two things how do you pay for all the benefits the majority does like?


Just answer that very simple question for me.

 

Considering it's ridiculous to expect that someone who is young and healthy and rarely uses the service should pay as much as, if not more (depending) than, someone who is using the service on a frequent basis, then the people who are in favor of keeping those provisions would be enrolled in pools of customers that all have higher levels of service, which come with higher premiums.