j_b

Although there is no federal minimum wage in Germany and Sweden, trade unions negotiate minimum compensations by economic sector. It works because unions are strong and they are accepted as necessary partners for all negotiations regarding working conditions. Your brand of union busting combined with the lack of of a minimum wage would lead us toward slave labor. except that the main reason for paying non-living wages isn't for lack of profit but for maximizing profit. that's rich coming from someone who otherwise stigmatizes transfer recipients. Paying people a living wage is certainly more valorizing and conducive to positive dynamics toward self-sustenance than handing out welfare. look who is touting corporate welfare

Yep. It's perfectly logical that science deniers would believe that 40 years of deregulation, privatizations, and drowning of the state in the proverbial bathtub sanctioned by economic depression should be followed by more tax cuts, deregulation, privatizations, etc.

You just know it must be opposite day when the psychopaths who gave us 8 years of Bush policies, followed by 3 years of constant obstructionism to avoid any sanction of wall street crooks, try to bludgeon their critics by calling them extremists.

"McCain calls U.S. economy 'fundamentally sound' on same day Lehman Brothers declared bankrupt" LOLZ dimwits

Yet, next week (as in previous weeks) you'll claim BO is a "shoshalist". Are you getting mixed up in your talking points or is it really the wingnutia party line to claim that "shoshalists" are the same old as you can get?

small, medium or large?

Well worth watching in its entirety: [video:youtube]v=4PQrz8F0dBI

Obama On Agriculture: “I will work to maintain the American farmer’s competitiveness around the world, and ensure the growth of family farms. My pro-American trade agenda will ensure the interests of farmers and ranchers are not traded off in favor of other industries. I will work to ensure that all trade agreements contain strong and enforceable labor, environmental, and health and safety standards so American farmers are able to compete on a level playing field. I will instruct the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to negotiate agreements that grant American products access commensurate to access provided foreign products to the U.S. market, and I will examine existing U.S. trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA to ensure they do not undermine U.S. farmers.12 Obama On Labor and Environmental Standards: “I strongly support the inclusion of meaningful, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all trade agreements. As president, I will work to ensure that the U.S. again leads the world in ensuring that consumer products produced across the world are done in a manner that supports workers, not undermines them.”13 Obama On Global Warming and Trade Agreements: “The U.S. must lead efforts to combat climate change, but the only effective solution to this global problem will require the development and enforcement of an equitable global agreement that includes the participation of all our major trading partners. I will take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that policies designed to reduce global warming pollution are not constrained by trade agreements.”14 Obama on Health Care and Trade Agreements: “I am committed to signing a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term of office. I will instruct my USTR appointee to examine any existing WTO regulations, as well as proposed policies put forward by the outgoing Bush Administration, to ensure that these are no existing trade regulations that will affect implementation of this goal.”15

Selected Campaign Statements By President Barack Obama on U.S. Trade and Globalization Policy Example Obama On the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and NAFTA Expansion: “One of the first things I’ll do as President will be to call the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and work with them to fix NAFTA. We’ll add binding obligations to protect the right to collective bargaining and other core labor standards recognized by the International Labor Organization. And I will add enforceable measures to NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), CAFTA [Central America Free Trade Agreement] and other Free Trade Agreements (FTA’s) currently in effect. Similarly, we should add binding environmental standards so that companies from one country cannot gain an economic advantage by destroying the environment. And we should amend NAFTA to make clear that fair laws and regulations written to protect citizens in any of the three countries cannot be overridden simply at the request of foreign investors.”1 “I voted against CAFTA and never supported NAFTA. NAFTA’s shortcomings were evident when signed and we must now amend the agreement to fix them. While NAFTA gave broad rights to investors, it paid only lip service to the rights of labor and the importance of environmental protection. Ten years later CAFTA – the Central American Free Trade Agreement – had many of the same problems, which is why I voted against it. We must add binding obligations to the NAFTA agreement to protect the right to collective bargaining and other core labor standards recognized by the International Labor Organization. Similarly, we must add binding environmental standards so that companies from one country cannot gain an economic advantage by destroying the environment. And we should amend NAFTA to make clear that fair laws and regulations written to protect citizens in any of the three countries cannot be overridden simply at the request of foreign investors.”2 3 years later spent not changing an iota of NAFTA: Obama Pushes Huge Free Trade Deals to Wednesday Vote

Not only a coward but a liar too. But hey, it's not like we are covering new ground.

don't forget to wipe the drool off your chin

you have the eloquence of a coward who won't commit to anything beside smearing your opponents.

things would be BETTER if bible spice and grandpa had won in '08? 99% of you libtards LOVED BO when he was running, and touted his programs. If it wasn't for that, then you might have a point. ??? Liberals did love Obama the candidate because he was saying almost all the right things. Would you expect liberals not to love a pres candidate who claims he'll fight for what they want? how does it mean that McCain, who said all the things liberals didn't want and joined GOP obstructionism during the last 3 years, would have been better?

So you got "tricked" by Barry's "artful deceit". Is that it? Your defense, then, is that you are a feckless, gullible moron?! I personally didn't get tricked but many people did and being tricked by 'artful deceit' isn't a sign of gullibility or of being a moron. In turn, being tricked by blatant deceit and blatant stupidity is gullible and moronic.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to discussions on this board since before Obama's election. So campaigning on 'hope and change' and saying all the right things that progressives wanted to hear, then doing pretty much the exact opposite as soon as assuming the presidency is a sign of idiocy according to you? Sorry to disappoint but in the reality based world, people who successfully deceive huge numbers of people are far from being idiots. Unethical, yes, but not idiots. You are in fact wrong on all counts. The least of which is that voting for McCain would have been better. So, will you answer my question now?

I am having trouble finding the logical link between your 2 sentences. Could you spell it out for me?

???? this is what I said: "my own question assumed that the answer to your 'who did you vote for?' was "hope and change" to which, you answered something about cooters and sauerkraut.

dude, I have answered your question.

Now that we dispensed with the obligatory silly quips, can you tell us how voting for artful deceit would be similar to voting for blatant doubling down on what brought us where we are today?

more high school "humor" from douchebag

Clearly, reading isn't the same as understanding since my own question assumed that the answer to your 'who did you vote for?' was "hope and change"

The standard for silly and irrelevant personal attacks thinks that correcting someone on grammar is petty? LOLZ

Beside the usual niceties, I see that you have no answer to my question.

How is voting for a) an artful demagogue who says all the right things similar to voting for b) a fucking moron who declares he wants to double down on increasing inequality and cutting government revenue?

Rockfall, may be? Huber may have a good point.