How South Carolina’s Congressmen Voted On “Obamatrade”

TALE OF THE TAPE …  || By FITSNEWS || The U.S. House of Representatives cast a pair of critical votes on Friday related to president Barack Obama‘s crony capitalist trade push (a.k.a. “Obamatrade“). The result?  A mixed bag … leaving the future of this massive deal (which would impact up…


|| By FITSNEWS || The U.S. House of Representatives cast a pair of critical votes on Friday related to president Barack Obama‘s crony capitalist trade push (a.k.a. “Obamatrade“).

The result?  A mixed bag … leaving the future of this massive deal (which would impact up to forty percent of the world’s economy) up in the air.

The first vote was on a so-called “trade adjustment assistance” (TAA) provision favored by Democrats as part of the Pacific Rim pact.  This measure – which says all you need to know about the secretive deal – would have created a costly new government program aimed at helping American workers who lost their jobs as a result of Obamatrade’s passage.

That provision failed by a 302-126 margin.

Five of South Carolina’s seven congressmen – Jeff Duncan, Trey Gowdy, Mick Mulvaney, Tom Rice and Mark Sanford – voted against this provision.  Only two of them – Jim Clyburn (the lone Democrat in the delegation) and Joe Wilson – voted for it.

The next vote addressed whether to give Obama’s administration so-called “trade promotion authority” (TPA, or “fast track” negotiating authority) to conduct the trade deal.  This provision would let Obama continue drafting the agreement in secret – forbidding Congress from debating it, amending it or even overseeing it once it had been approved.

That measure passed by a narrow 219-211 margin.

Unfortunately, only three South Carolina congressmen – Clyburn, Duncan and Mulvaney – voted against this provision.

The rest of the delegation – including so-called “conservatives” Trey Gowdy and Mark Sanford – voted for it.  Their votes were critical, too.  Had all of the Palmetto State’s so-called “conservative” delegation opposed this provision, then the chamber would have deadlocked.

Duncan has been rock solid in opposing Obamatrade from the beginning.  Mulvaney has waffled, but ultimately came down on the right side of the vote.

Sanford?  His support of Obamatrade is the latest in a lengthening list of ideological betrayals.

Wilson?  He voted wrong on both counts … something prospective primary opponents will no doubt be taking note of.

Which reminds us: While the mainstream media continues to refer to this as a “free trade” deal – we’ve exposed how in reality it is anything but.  It’s government picking winners and losers – with the biggest losers being Americans with jobs.

Unfortunately, Obamatrade isn’t dead yet.  Liberal U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner has scheduled another round of votes for next week.


Related posts


Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell

‘Murdaugh Murders’ Saga: Trial Could Last Into March

Will Folks


Jim June 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm

The Wilsons can always be counted to side with the status quo. They like power and they are always looking to be close to it.

You Know My Name June 13, 2015 at 3:00 pm

Yep! Joe goes out and blows about “jobs, the military, and maybe God and Country” every two years. The damned fools in his district believe it and vote him back in. For two more years he does next to nothing but get drunk and watch his wallet somehow grow fatter. Repeat…

RogueElephant June 14, 2015 at 8:35 am

In the twenty years I have known Joe I have never seen him even drink a beer. Have I missed something or is this more liberal lies to further an agenda ,?

festus June 14, 2015 at 11:03 am

Why Rogue-what else do liberals do but LIE?

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 12:01 pm

Well, what does he do? Freeze it and eat it? … :-)

RogueElephant June 13, 2015 at 3:48 pm

From what I can gather on this bill, there is nothing that any working person in the USA will benefit from . So , no one should vote for any of it. Then I turn around and the politicians that should vote for it are voting against it and the ones that should be voting against it are voting for it. It is put forward by the Obummer administration that has a record of doing everything to destroy our once great country. There is no way I would vote for it. Looks to me like Joe is listening to Boehner instead of his constituents.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 8:42 am

I have had a similar opinion, but after a tiny big of research, I am starting to the form the opinion, this is an effort to put an end to the one-sided relationship with China. It does not appear that it affects the tariffs in place with China, but allows US to negotiate with other TPP member countries.

festus June 14, 2015 at 10:02 am

As usual you are correct. Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to restrict immigration. We could find ourselves back in the era before the 1920s when there were no restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping Obama achieve this goal.

It is NOT about free or competitive trade.

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:58 am

There were also some bits about global worming and a tiny bit about BummerCare (generic drugs) and g’ment bureaucracy building in there …

Good bye “free” trade, hello cronyism is the serious side of that can of worms.

festus June 15, 2015 at 10:48 am

Excellent post.Some scary things in there.

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:52 am

Dittos and amen, brother.

~Get Real June 13, 2015 at 4:43 pm

This Is How Little It Cost Goldman To Bribe America’s Senators To Fast Track Obama’s TPP Bill | Tyler Durden | 05/31/2015

It took just a few days after the stunning defeat of Obama’s attempt to fast-track the Trans Pacific Partnership bill in the Senate at the hands of his own Democratic party, before everything returned back to normal and the TPP fast-track was promptly passed. Why? The simple answer: money. Or rather, even more money.

Because while the actual contents of the TPP may be highly confidential, and their public dissemination may lead to prison time for the “perpetrator” of such illegal transparency, we now know just how much it cost corporations to bribe the Senate to do the bidding of the “people.” In the Supreme Court sense, of course, in which corporations are “people.”

According to an analysis by the Guardian, fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. The US Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – the fast-tracking bill – by a 65-33 margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to a close.

Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, the chart below {chart at original site} (based on data from the following spreadsheet) shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate.

The result: it took a paltry $1.15 million in bribes to get everyone in the Senate on the same page. And the biggest shocker: with a total of $195,550 in “donations”, or more than double the second largest donor UPS, was none other than Goldman Sachs.

The summary findings:

Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.

The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.

The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.

Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.

Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. (In a comment to the Guardian Portman’s office said: “Senator Portman is not a vocal proponent of TPP – he has said it’s still being negotiated and if and when an agreement is reached he will review it carefully.”) He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country.

Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.

Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.

For the entire article and the chart mentioned above: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-30/how-little-it-cost-bribe-senates-fast-tracking-obamas-tpp-bill

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:48 am

Mm mm … Usually, one can count on the republicans to stay bought.

In this case the democrats and the unions are right for all of the wrong reasons … But we can take it as a temporary win.

Fortunately, with Ted Cruz is going down in flames, the get-along-go-along crowd may see this as a sign …

(Too bad about Cruz. He would have killed the Hildabeast in any debate.)

TIKi June 13, 2015 at 4:51 pm

Sanford spent the last several days positing other peoples arguments on Facebook hoping to justify his own upcoming pro-TPA vote. This, even though the commenters to his posts were overwhelmingly against the whole fast-track argument, secrecy, hidden agendas, open-ended free-for-all that is TPA. They urged him to vote, “NO”.
We’ve been noticing that his fall back mantra these days is, “…well it was a tough call for any conservative, I prayed on it, but it benefits my State…”. (Ex-IM Bank, and so on) With his mask off, the Sanford crafted mystique gone, his past behavior has become the most useful predictor of his future behavior. We now know he means, “I’m a fiscal conservative to the extent it will get me elected, the devil answered my prayers, and my State benefiting sounds good to the voter, but is a long shot… however, I most definitely will benefit”.

K.Mann June 13, 2015 at 5:23 pm

The TAA was a re-autherization bill, actually, and its vote preceded the TPA vote. That is a very important detail because the Senate version of the bill had TAA and TPA linked together; so that without the TAA passing, the TPA alone could go to the president for his signature.
It pretty obvious that it did not matter how Gowdy, Sanford, or Rice voted on TPA because it was dead in the water after TAA went down the tubes… TAA + TPA => TPP.
Those guys knew that. Everybody in the chambers knew that. Heck, they probably would have all gone home early if there were not other bills and issues pending.

SYNTwist June 13, 2015 at 6:48 pm

I think you do a great job Karen, but when we elect representatives, we actually expect them to represent us and not speculate whether someone else is voting or not voting. We would prefer to see their votes, v. taking the easy way out.

Festus June 13, 2015 at 6:58 pm

Great post. Thank you for TRYING to explain the votes of GREAT and GODLY elected officials like Gowdy,Sanford and Rice.

Joe Wilson will always be ‘da’ man for calling Obama out as the liar he is.

Mark Sanford June 15, 2015 at 12:50 pm

Nothing godly about cheating on your wife and breaking up your family.

fred farkel June 13, 2015 at 10:27 pm

Everyone except Duncan!!!!!!!!!!

Bible Thumper June 13, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Anyone anyone against TPA or TPP is against “freer trade”. There is no “Free Trade”. Free Trade doesn’t exist anymore than the perfect circle exist.

South Carolina is positioned to benefit the most. When NAFTA was passed, South Carolina was dependent on domestic textiles. Very little exports. We suffered greatly, but we couldn’t continue to subsidize textiles with tarriffs and become competitive. Now exports have more than tripled and even out textile exports have grown.
South Carolina is ranked 24th by population, but 16th in exports.
I found a beautiful website.


In the “Table Display” section under “Additional Data” change “Dollar change” to “Percent change” and check the compute box.
I changed the from year to 1999 and left to year at 2014.
In the “Map Display” change show from “2014” to “1999 to 2004 percent change”.
Now go to bottom and click “Go”.

The map displays color coded ranking in percent change “of exports for 1999 to 2004.

See Table below map. From 1999 to 2014 SC has a 315% change in exports and is the 5th “state” in rank.

Go to the next to last column and click heading to sort by 2004.

In the Table South Carolina is now ranked 16th with exports totaling $29,703,976,546 in the next to last column. That is more than $14,000 per SC worker.

I also went back to settings and changed from year to 2010 to correspond to Haley’s administration and 2013. You have to reset the “Map Display” each time.
Haley is ranked 7th with a 46% change.
SC 2013 – 2014 is ranked 6th with a 13% change. (Didn’t include territories)

SYNTwist June 13, 2015 at 6:46 pm

I don’t understand this comment “We suffered greatly, but we couldn’t continue to subsidize textiles with tarriffs and become competitive. Now exports have more than tripled and even our textile exports have grown 57.5% since 1999.”

Tariffs are not a subsidy to my knowledge, rather a tax on the importer to make it a level playing field – a comparison of apples to apples, oranges to oranges and definitely banana’s to banana’s.

FYI – the link appears to be broken.

Bible Thumper June 13, 2015 at 7:44 pm

I corrected link and added two more instructions. Let me know if it works.

If you raise the costs to importers with tariffs then that is in effect a subsidy which is paid by consumers in either passed on tariffs or higher priced domestic products. If an imported has a competitive advantage then the fair thing is for them to produce it.

You may need to study “Competitive Advantage.” Every country no matter how rich or poor; no matter what resources they have or lack; has competitive advantages. This is not my opinion, but by definition and economic theory. America has infrastructure, stable political system, fair judiciary, superior university system. We have the advantage in high skilled, high capital investment industries.

Everyone benefits in the long run from freer trade, but there are dislocations that are painful. Protecting industry from market force makes them weaker and more dependent on favors from government which hurt overall productivity. Increased productivity is the only way to raise overall incomes above inflation.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 8:31 am

The link is now working. I am familiar with Competitive Advantage – Marketing 101. My biggest gripe has been trade deficit with China:

“Why Is There a U.S. Trade Deficit with China?

Quite simply, China is able to produce goods that Americans want at the lowest cost. How does China keep prices so low? Most economists agree that China’s competitive pricing is a result of two factors:

A lower standard of living, which allows companies in China to pay lower wages to workers.

An exchange rate that is partially set to be always priced lower than the dollar.

However, this means that many American companies can’t compete with China’s low costs. As a result, many jobs are lost. From time to time, legislators try to impose tariffs or other forms of trade protectionism against China to bring jobs back.”


Having said that, China does not appear to be TPP member.

In addition to what is mentioned in the article above, China does not have the same regulations US has. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen recalls on products from China. Many of these are children’s toys. So, while it may be cheap on the front in, the multiple recalls or just tossing items altogether costs more.

TPP could possibly close the gap of that trade deficit. I don’t know everything there is to know about products from these countries, but anything that moves away from “made in China” could be a step in a better direction.

Time to actually break down and read all these documents. I favor tariffs at this point, particularly with China, so I find this comment very interesting: “President Obama reiterated the strategic significance of the TPP negotiations during his State of
the Union address to the 114th Congress, arguing that the United States would benefit from
developing the region’s trade rules as opposed to other regional actors, namely China.”


Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 9:57 am

Can’t reply fully now, but I should’ve used the term “comparative advantage” not “competitive advantage”.

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:26 am

When “most economists agree” it usually means most Gruberment economists.

I have a T-shirt: “Experts Agree! Everything Is Fine!” w/ picture of a smiling “house wife” in front of her TV.

festus June 14, 2015 at 11:52 am

“If a corporation feels that a government has impeded its ability to maximize profits, a suit is filed, outside the country being sued, and the case will be heard by an arbitration panel of trade lawyers, in a jurisdiction totally of the corporation’s choosing. Under ISDS, the dispute panel may only consider the ‘free trade’ values of the case. No other factors may be considered when deciding the case. This means that these corporate panels must disregard values of public health, civil liberties, environmental protection, or the rights of workers (e.g. working conditions) or any other Constitutionally protected liberties.

This is the end of representative government as we know and the commencement of oligarchic corporate control over every individual on the planet in which every life-sustaining resource on the planet can be denied for noncompliance.”



SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 9:24 am

Here is another interesting article:

Will China Join the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

“Those “high standards” have been a point of contention. The U.S. administration envisions the TPP as a sort of trend-setter for the next generation of trade agreements. Accordingly, the Obama administration has placed a heavy emphasis on the TPP being a “high-standard agreement” with an ambitious (and U.S.-friendly) definition of free trade and open markets. As it currently stands, China would not meet those standards.”


FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:20 am

Tariffs Are A Subsidy Of Government, but certainly not a subsidy or a “level playing field” of or for the citizenry.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 11:32 am

In the case of China, I agree to disagree. I posted this earlier, but worth reposting:

“Those “high standards” have been a point of contention. The U.S. administration envisions the TPP as a sort of trend-setter for the next generation of trade agreements. Accordingly, the Obama administration has placed a heavy emphasis on the TPP being a “high-standard agreement” with an ambitious (and U.S.-friendly) definition of free trade and open markets. As it currently stands, China would not meet those standards.”


Festus June 13, 2015 at 6:54 pm

You are defining the debate/vote TPA falsely.It has NOTHING to do with the barrage of numbers and statistics you are spewing on here.Just like your statistics on the economy and unemployment.

This has always been a potential vote of no confidence in Obama among Democrats. Obama’s argument has been all along that the country can trust him to deal alone on trade. Republicans supporting TPA offer a much different argument — that it’s not about trust since they can still torpedo the agreement in the Senate if they don’t like it. Democrats, though, have to go on trust because they have less influence over a ratification vote when it comes. And it’s becoming abundantly clear that Democrats simply have no confidence in Obama.

Bible Thumper June 13, 2015 at 7:09 pm

Your analysis of the politics is correct. But on policy the Democrats are wrong. If TPP is a bad treaty then Republicans and Democrats should join together to defeat it. They have 60 days to review it.

TroubleBaby June 13, 2015 at 11:23 pm

“There is no “Free Trade”. Free Trade doesn’t exist anymore than the perfect circle exist.”

When you say “Free Trade doesn’t exist”, I’m assuming you capitalizing “Free Trade” means you are referring to the bill I hope.

Because the reality is if you mean “free trade”, lower case, it very much CAN exist.

There is only one thing preventing it: Government

That is very different than the physical creation of an actual perfect circle.

Bible Thumper June 13, 2015 at 11:34 pm

“”free trade”, lower case, it very much CAN exist.
There is only one thing preventing it: Government.”
I admit it. You got.me. Now all we have to do is get rid of government.

TroubleBaby June 14, 2015 at 2:07 pm

Thank you for admitting it! It’s important to know what’s truly impossible to do versus just improbable.

100 years ago I assure you close to 100% of the people in the world thought it would be impossible to go to the moon, grow limbs in a laboratory, etc.

If told “improbable” instead, they would have remembered that nuance.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 8:58 am

BT, one thing you are not factoring in your analysis. Look at SC exports for 2014 and compare them to say 2013 or earlier. You will notice the exports to China are going down and exports to other countries are moving up. From my understanding, China will still be subject to tariffs, they are not a member of TPP. A better framed debate is it allows us to move away from the one-sided relationship with China. We import far more from them than export last I read. It is also noteworthy that many US jobs have gone to China, for reasons I posted on another link. China does not play fair. I see this as an opportunity to do business with countries that are more like US. I still have a lot of reading to do….

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:34 am

Under any kind of TPP type deal, tariffs and taxes on everyone including the Chinese will go up. There are no winners with TPP type deals Except Bigger Government. … Check out NAFTA, RAFTA, SHAFTA and any other state dept./ commerce dept. / taxsucker generated trade deals.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 11:41 am

Bigger Government? I have heard many arguments against TPA, TPP and the other T’s but not the case of where it is growing government. From what I see it is a case of trading with partners. Again, I notice conflicting information. On the one hand you disagree with tariffs and on the other you disagree with eliminating them for TPP members. Are you for or against tariffs? If you are oppose tariffs, with no trade agreement in place (i.e. TPP), then be prepared for more jobs to be shipped to China.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 11:55 am

“Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

Elimination of tariffs and commercially-meaningful market access for U.S. products exported to TPP countries; and Provisions that address longstanding non-tariff barriers, including import licensing requirements and other restrictions.”


Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 2:23 pm

Our comments are getting buried in weeds of this thread. I responded at the newest end of the thread.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 2:32 pm

I need to dig that up. They are getting buried.

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 11:16 am

Mmmmm … And when Boeing gets production up a bit more, South Carolina is going to be doing even better, export wise.

I’m tellen’ ya, South Carolina is positioned very nicely for a brighter economic future. … If you can just keep you local greedhead poli-wogs under control and stop all of this whining about increasing taxes.

euwe max June 13, 2015 at 6:26 pm

That immobilizing grab on the arm from behind while whispering into his ear over his shoulder is kinda…

Bible Thumper June 13, 2015 at 6:31 pm

Boehner is a brother. Orange is the new black.

You Know My Name June 14, 2015 at 2:55 am

I thought Boner was trying to stick his tongue in Obama’s ear. They are both wearing green ties. Is that like a friendship ring or something?

Silvio Dante June 14, 2015 at 1:09 pm

Or St. Patrick’s Day

No TPP June 13, 2015 at 8:27 pm

TPP would be another disaster for America just like NAFTA. There are still people suffering today because of NAFTA. South Carolina was one of the hardest hit. People lost their jobs and then lost all they have and may never recover. It is ridiculous for something like this to be coming up again

DanaWShelto June 14, 2015 at 9:52 am

The Job Search Site on the Net @mk31



festus June 14, 2015 at 10:13 am

Yes.For many reasons. Lack of transparency is ONE:

“I can tell you that Elizabeth Warren is right about her criticism of the trade deal. We should be very concerned about what’s hidden in this trade deal—and particularly how the Obama administration is keeping information secret even from those of us who are supposed to provide advice.

So-called “cleared advisors” like me are prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches. The government has created a perfect Catch 22: The law prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen, allowing the president to criticize us for not being specific. Instead of simply admitting that he disagrees with me—and with many other cleared advisors—about the merits of the TPP, the president instead pretends that our specific, pointed criticisms don’t exist.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068.html#ixzz3d2svt8sO

FastEddy23 June 14, 2015 at 10:55 am

Truth: Any Gruberment “deal” that inserts bureaucracy into international trade activities is always going to be a net negative for small businesses, job creation … even tax revenues and disproportionate “wealth distribution” …

Free Trade Happens. Capital flows. Money moves. Goods and services are bought and sold internationally. Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand re-balances continuously and without end.

When governments seek to “guide” or manipulate or otherwise regulate perceived or real inequities then costs increase, taxes get assessed, payoffs can happen … and the economic balances change Elsewhere.

No TPP: you are correct, NAFTA did and still is killing jobs in the USA and until Gruberment gets is grubby mits off of those effected trade deals, NAFTA will continue to kill jobs on all sides of those borders.

Better than NAFTA? Better than TPP (or whatever)? … Unrestrained trade, internationally and locally. … How is that “hope and change” working for ya?

shifty henry June 14, 2015 at 9:10 am

Just for fun and the misspelled words are clues! Hint – each of the 3 missing words have the same letters.

I don’t misspell, as others _ _ _ _,
But allways right each _ _ _ _ rite;
So I _ _ _ _ resounding hoops
At other righters’ speling bloops!

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 10:25 am

This little puzzle is going to drive me crazy. I have several hours of mowing ahead and I can myself rehearsing this puzzle over and over, giving he brain something to chew on – it’s like a song you just can’t get out of your heard :)

TontoBubbaGoldstein June 14, 2015 at 10:54 am

Hint: Don’t let the puzzle take up too much T*I*M*E.

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 10:55 am

You beat me by seconds. See above.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 11:05 am

Thank you! Ha! I kept going back to “will”, but couldn’t spell that with the misspelled words and it didn’t fit in all places.

shifty henry June 14, 2015 at 11:25 am

OK, here are two more good ones — (knock yourself out!)
Here is an easy test for time-wasting. Three words are missing, and each word has the same letters—- [ D.R.A.E.N.E ]

‘Twould much _ _ _ _ _ _ you to me if, when I
Have _ _ _ _ _ _ my fatal moment, and must die,
You”d share one well _ _ _ _ _ _ drink, and pray there are
Some more to come across that final bar.

Again, each missing word uses the same letters—- [ R.B.E.S.A ]


Sweet Molly MacDougal, in labor,
Warned her sister, “It hurts like a _ _ _ _ _ ,
Sin _ _ _ _ _ a high price,
So a girl should think twice
What she _ _ _ _ _ on the _ _ _ _ _ for a neighbor.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 10:46 pm

Hmmm…think I have the 2nd one, saw both at same time. Second is BEARS?

I’ll work on first tomorrow if I can, unless I figure it out in the next 5 minutes or less – bedtime. Nite Shifty!

shifty henry June 14, 2015 at 11:33 pm

BEARS is correct, but I better give you the last word because it is Scottish and uncommon to us…BRAES.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 10:48 pm

Hmmm….first one neared?

shifty henry June 14, 2015 at 11:36 pm

OK, the secret to getting the missing words is — “the misspelled words are the clues!”

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 10:53 am

Same rules as above.

I could make another rime, but I’ll save it for some other _ _ _ _.

shifty henry June 15, 2015 at 8:29 am

OK, “rime” is similar to the three missing words – try saying the riddle aloud….

Bible Thumper June 15, 2015 at 8:40 am

I don’t misspell, as others mite,
But allways right each item rite;
So I emit resounding hoops
At other righters’ speling bloops!

shifty henry June 15, 2015 at 8:42 am


SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 8:53 am

I would never have guessed that! I didn’t realize the words were different in each line. Nicely done.

shifty henry June 14, 2015 at 9:18 am

Keith Koffler. “White House Dossier”



I’ve decided not to work today.

It’s a bit of a perilous decision, because this is a job where if you don’t
work, you really can’t survive very long. Readers have lots of other options.
It’s basically a job where I eat what I kill, every day.

But I feel comfortable not working today because I know I have help:

The road outside my window.

The road, which was built by Obama – or someone like him – brings me all the stuff I need to do my job. Because I’m not really responsible for my business. The road is.

So I’m going to spend today with my feet up on the table – until my wife
makes me take them off – and stare out the window, watching the road
do its work.

And then, after lunch, I’m going to go over to the sink, and run the faucet.

Because I want to remind myself I don’t send the water to my house.
Other people do this. These people, combining their efforts within a
public utility, get me the water I use to bathe myself and make my coffee. And I know full well that without soap and caffeine, I would never have
been able to build this blog.

And then I’m going to go over to the computer and surf for awhile on the
Internet, which was invented for me by DARPA and Al Gore. The Internet brings my readers to me.

Why should I bust my back for 12 hours today when I have all this beneficence working for me?

Actually, I’ve decided to spend several days doing nothing, letting all these
gifts from the government work their magic.

And then, after a week of this, I’m going to head to the unemployment office
and sign up to start getting more gifts from the government.

RogueElephant June 14, 2015 at 7:06 pm

If we all did this it wouldn’t take long for the liberals to complain about not having anything. In the Republican Creed , one of the last lines is “enjoy the benefit of my creation.” That is the direct opposite of the Dim view of the world. They enjoy the benefit of someone else’s’ creation.

Rocky June 15, 2015 at 8:38 am

Thank goodness Hillary is poor.She will understand what it is like not to have any money.

Rocky June 15, 2015 at 8:34 am

Funny stuff.I attended the Nike LGBT event in Oregon this weekend.I was NOT in Dallas.

Rocky Verdad June 15, 2015 at 9:27 am

Morning Flip! Nice that you were finally able to come out the closet.

Festus June 15, 2015 at 9:43 am

Stop hacking calling me out!I’m totally the real Rocky!

9" June 14, 2015 at 11:09 am

Boner Boy is Huckleberry Hound Dog .Joe Wilson is hot. ‘Obamatrade’ don’t mean shit.Ornette Coleman died.Fuck you.//https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRWfRsb4dU8

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 2:17 pm


I found more interesting trade data. Many complain about China’s unfair trade policies. How has South Carolina done in its trade with China?

For a state that’s 24th in population, SC is ranked 8th in exports to China in 2014. SC in 2014 exported $4,231,382,949 of goods to China. SC exports have grown 2,943% from 1999 to 2014. Incredible! Twenty-nine times! SC is ranked seventh in growth of trade with China. From 2010 to 3014 exports to China grew 96%. That is after a 13% drop from 2013 to 2014. It’s also down for the first quarter of 2015.

TPA expired in 2007 and no more trade agreements have been passed since 2011. (It was grandfathered in) Who is America’s greatest threat to our trade? Not China, but Mexico. Mexico is a threat not because of their imports to the US, but because they are gaining, from the US, exports to the rest of the world. “Mexico holds more free trade agreements than any other country in the world” – Wikipedia. Of the 10 last new auto assembly plants announced in North America, eight are in Mexico. The other two are in SC. Most importantly, those free trade agreements are with Japan and the European Union. These are prime customers for the expensive or upscale products SC produces. Gas turbines, commercial planes, BMW’s and soon Volvo’s. Most believe that the EU subsidizes Airbus far more the the US does Boeing. Freer trade with the EU might correct that imbalance. TPA is good for SC and good for America.


SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 2:41 pm

BT – you are doing the same thing everyone else is – flip flopping. Go look at the link you provided yesterday. It shows SC exports to China from 2013 – 2014 are significantly less, while overall exports are higher. The difference is exports to other countries have grown.

China has done nothing but wreak havoc on SC industries in the past (textile and plastics, among other industries I can’t even name right now, but I will find them). How you can defend that is beyond me. Look at the deficit between imports/exports with China. That is huge! If you support TPA/TPP, then China is a starting point. If your support is simply to claim some kind of allegiance to Gov. Haley, and use the data to your advantage – you are missing the ship and no one is going to support that simply for Gov. Haley.

In the big picture, when Republican and Democrats disagree, that is what draws attention for me. That is usually a sign the system is working as it should. I will not give Gov. Haley credit for TPA/TPP or any other T. I do appreciate the work she has done to bring jobs to SC, but it is very possible that this agreement is what allowed that to.

I am of the strong opinion you are using the data to support Gov. Haley. When it is a simple fact of the data, that you provided, you now resort to en.m.wikipedia????

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 4:04 pm

This is a complex subject. Yes, overall SC exports are up, while for 2014, Chinese exports are down but look at the last three years.
2012 $3,249,014,112
2013 $4,872,847,539
2014 $4,231,382,949

2014 is still the 2nd highest year ever and 30% higher than 2012. They are still one of SC’s largest trade partners.

Maybe exporters found better opportunities with other countries beside China. Maybe 2013 was unusually high because of a Chinese government order of gas turbines from GE.

Another issue I haven’t addressed is the trade deficit. First, we are wealthier than most, so we buy more than them. We buy from them because they have the comparative advantage or because of the interference of trade regulations.

Let’s assume they have a comparative advantage. If forced to buy the same product domestically we keep that money in circulation in the country. If those Americans were not otherwise employed, then we pay more but hire Americans and are probably better off. But suppose buying American causes resources to be diverted from an activity that we have a comparative advantage to produce goods that are cheaper or better from over seas. In that case America is worse off. That’s what tariffs and trade barriers do. They divert capital and labor resources to activities that are inefficient because we don’t have the comparative advantage.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 4:17 pm

Considering factors from 2012, it might be fair to say they want in on the agreement. It is a known fact from reading Diplomat.com. Yes, there are parts of China, that want to be recognized as their own country (Beijing? Admittedly my geography is lacking). Not sure if they were part of the Volvo agreement?????

“Participating countries set the goal of wrapping up negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments have caused negotiations to continue into the present,[7] with the last round meeting in Ottawa from 3–12 July 2014.[8][9]Implementation of the TPP is one of the primary goals of the trade agenda of the Obama administration in the United States of America.”


I promise I am walking away for at least an hour. LOL

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 4:18 pm

Be back not sooner than 5:20

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 5:55 pm

While we are assuming, and I think, if you truly support Gov. Haley, then you might agree, but let’s assume – she is somewhat of a visionary, she will not give credit to the Democrats that SC demands she sides against, but she can make deals knowing what the Democrats have proposed. TPA/TPP is not new. It is only relevant so much now because election year is closing in. One theory I have, is that she knew the deal was coming and countries vying for leverage. As any smart politician/investor would, she piggy backed that program. So far it is good for SC. I applaud her. She found a way to work the system to our advantage and yet maintain her TP position, for the good of SC. Difficult to do that. She outsmarted the fox in the henhouse.

On the other side, I would not be optimistic about China signing onto any agreement unless forced. Why would they? What incentive do they have? That we are a large importer? Sure. But they are not going to allow us to be a large exporter. They have sided with Russia. They side with anyone that will help them. There is no alliance nor allegiance there. They could care less about US. I may regret saying this later, but I think I’d prefer a deal with Russia to China. They are more like us. They side with China to get our attention. And China sides with them to make trade agreements.

Bottom line, of your concerns, I think Haley was/is a visionary. She watches legislation. She makes savvy business decisions, the best for SC. But even under her leadership the exports to China are declining, while exports to other countries are growing. She was on the front end. Good for her. Good for SC.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 2:58 pm

Of note, using the first link. Exports from SC during 2013 worldwide:

2013 26,253,429,862 2014 29,703,976,546
Exports to China: 2013 4,872,847,539 2014 4,231,382,949
A significant reduction to exports to China 2013 v. 2014. 641,464,590.

Here is the link, not sure if it will take you directly to page to see where the difference is made, but it isn’t from China. http://tse.export.gov/TSE/MapDisplay.aspx

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Lastly, I know the formatting is terrible, trying to copy paste from a site and no idea what it will look like on this page until I post it, so please pardon the edits. Here is a snapshot of exports to Mexico (using your link):

2013 1,837,456,614 2014 2,115,217,057

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 3:06 pm

Exports to China are greater. 2014 $4,231,382,949

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 3:10 pm

Of course they are greater, but they screw us every chance they get! With crappy product, that we do not consider safe, especially not for our children. They will flood the market with products that are below costs to gain market share. How can they do that? Government subsidies. That is exactly IMO one of the many reasons for tariffs on China. No way in hell I would agree to remove tariffs from China – it is a horribly unequal playing field. I have worked for companies competing with China – they make, ship and sell product WITH tariffs, cheaper than most of our manufacturers can make them, in certain markets.

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 3:14 pm

That’s why you have trade agreements. To solve those issues. Poison dog food. Drywall that causes corrosion of wiring and pipes. China is the “wild west” of commerce. We need a trade agreement than establishes law and order.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 3:19 pm

I don’t disagree that we do, but they need to be brought up to standard and it needs to be a level playing field. They lie, cheat and steal. I know they are looking out for what is best for their people and they are lacking food. But I agree with Graham in a couple regards, even though I do disagree with him horribly on defense. I think he is right about a pathway to citizenship, I also agree that China manipulates their currency.

Did you read the article I posted earlier from the diplomat.com? I absolutely agree with Obama

“Those “high standards” have been a point of contention. The U.S. administration envisions the TPP as a sort of trend-setter for the next generation of trade agreements. Accordingly, the Obama administration has placed a heavy emphasis on the TPP being a “high-standard agreement” with an ambitious (and U.S.-friendly) definition of free trade and open markets. As it currently stands, China would not meet those standards.”

There is more to read at the end of the article.


Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 3:40 pm

I can’t keep up with you. I am reading the diplomat article.
Currency manipulation is difficult because even the US does it. Every time Janet Yellen makes a statement about interest rates, the currency rises or falls. Britain can control their currency and has done pretty good. Greece can’t, and has had a ruff time. I want China to unpeg their currency, but there are many ways to manipulate it and not all of them are against American interest.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 3:46 pm

I know – I am a little too passionate about it. I have had experience trading with China, even working for companies that sell their products. Take your time – I will take a break and we can talk later – I need to catch my breath and relax. I did waaaay to much reading this a.m.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 3:43 pm

I need to go cool off a bit – you should not have forced me to read this to comment….ha! j/k. I am glad you did a lot of research, but there is more to be done, using your own tools. I didn’t look at this in a biased fashion – if there was any bias, it would be to dispute any reason for TPA/TPP. Once I started REALLY digging, I see a different side of the numbers and an agreement that could be good, contrary to my initial thoughts.

I hate doing business with China – I don’t blame them, I would do the same in their situation, but in our situation, I prefer to do business with those more like us. You know, the ones we hope won’t kill us to make a $. Most of their children toys have BPA. Maybe they have changed that in recent years, but their guidelines are make money at any cost. Again, I don’t fault them, I would just prefer to do business with countries that are more like us. I believe that is what TPP is about, based on my limited knowledge.

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm

There are good players and bad players in China. We need to strengthen the good ones and weaken the bad ones. Remember, China is investing $500,000,000 in SC at Volvo. That is something Ford and GM would never do.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 3:26 pm

I posted the same number above for exports to China – that number is significantly less than 2013. Reporting, in hopes you “might” see it.

Of note, using the first link. Exports from SC during 2013 worldwide:

2013 – 26,253,429,862
2014 – 29,703,976,546

Exports to China:

2013 – 4,872,847,539
2014 – 4,231,382,949

A significant reduction to exports to China 2013 v. 2014. 641,464,590.

Here is the link, not sure if it will take you directly to page to see where the difference is made, but it isn’t from China. http://tse.export.gov/TSE/MapD

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 8:57 pm

You’ve created a monster by telling me about the website? That would assume I couldn’t find it on my own.

All you did was encourage me to dig in enough to have an honest debate. I used your numbers v. finding another source. I used a site that you trust to validate the numbers. I backed into your numbers to see where you are coming from and then I looked at the numbers with an open mind.

I guess the real monster here is having an open mind? One honest enough to look at the data, analyze it honestly, to the best of my ability, using the same data – a source provided by you, to discuss a point objectively.

I can see how that might make me a monster – facts are in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Bible Thumper June 14, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Sorry. I always forget to use a smiley face. ;-)

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 9:06 pm


SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 9:08 pm

Yeah – smiley’s, winks etc lessen the blow ;)

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 9:29 am

Not to belabor the point, but to include this tidbit of information, on why I believe China needs to change their methods of doing business before becoming a TPP member, I found this interesting, yes, left leaning site, but there are other sources that say very similar:

“In 2012, the United States imposed duties of roughly 24 to 36 percent on imported panels made from Chinese solar cells — the final major parts that are assembled into completed modules — after concluding that Chinese solar companies had received unfair subsidies from their government and dumped products on the American market below costs.”

and here: “companies were selling products below the cost of manufacture and that the Chinese companies were benefiting from unfair subsidies from their government.”



SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 2:31 pm

Commenting on this topic reminds when I was a young girl with -4.75 vision. The trees were nothing more than a beautiful green blur. I never saw more than that green blur until my mid-teens. At that time, I got glasses for the first time in my life. Reminds me of actually reading TPA, TPP and the other T’s (more specifically the former). Knowledge is enlightening, removes that blur.

My first pair of glasses, I remember walking outside and the trees were not only a beautiful green blur, but I noticed all the leaves, the branches, the distinct lines down the leaves, the shape of trees/leaves, the way they blended and bended toward the sun. For the first time, I fully saw the beauty of nature at work.

RogueElephant June 14, 2015 at 7:22 pm

I can concur with you on that. I recently had a cataract removed. For the first time in I don’t know how long the trees actually had defined leaves on them. It had built up over many years and I hadn’t payed it any attention.

SYNTwist June 14, 2015 at 7:31 pm

For anyone who has had vision problems, it is amazing! I am nearsighted, so as I get older my vision gets better, save the bi-focal issue. Doctor explained it – look at a graph, center is 20/20. It does not matter where you are on the graph, as you get older your vision moves to the right (far sighted). If you are near sighted, it moves slowly closer to the center starting around age 40. I went in for an eye exam, thinking mine had gotten worse – good grief, I was already blind without glasses, but couldn’t see clearly with them. Come to find out, my vision went from -4.75/4.50 to 3.75/3.5? One of the only advantages I have noticed after 40 – ha!

Rocky June 15, 2015 at 8:44 am

You and BT are way to smart for this forum.Have you considered writing a book together?
“Bloviations of the Babbling Progressives”?

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 8:51 am

LOL – I had to look that word up. Bloviations – interesting.

Flip's Age Is Showing June 15, 2015 at 9:24 am

Bloviating is a word Bill O’Reilly likes to utter. We all know his audience is retirement homes and other old fogie hangouts. Flip must be an old man who needs his Depends changed.

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 9:44 am

Many years ago I watched Bill O’Reilly on occasion. I’m sure he still has some interesting talking points, but at one time I started off as a Ron Paul fan. Everyone claimed Paul was not getting his fair share of media. I (among many others) sent letters to Bill O’Reilly requesting he interview Ron Paul fairly. He invited Ron Paul on his show. Ron Paul turned it down. I was fed up with both O’Reilly and Paul at that point. Even though O’Reilly did exactly what I asked him to do, I haven’t watched his show since.

Rocky Verdad June 15, 2015 at 9:31 am

Fake post by flip/pogo. He must be the stupid one to think we can’t see through his multiple fake accounts.

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 9:39 am

I wondered where that was coming from. He keeps trying to engage me, I wish he’d just get a life. Seems his life evolves around my comments, how sad that must be for him.

festus June 15, 2015 at 10:16 am

42 out of the 102 posts on this thread are YOURS! Just because someone else contributes an opinion doesn’t mean they are “engaging” you. I have “engaged” SEVERAL other contributors this weekend.

Get over yourself.

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 10:18 am

Contribute you opinion by all means, but why do you feel it is necessary to reply to me? You know we have nothing in common to talk about. Get over yourself!

festus June 15, 2015 at 10:20 am

To expose your dirty liberal lies.I will not rest until liars and perverts like you,Buzz,and Rocky are stopped from spreading liberal agenda.

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 10:22 am

You are barking up the wrong tree. Go find a real liberal to bash – start by looking at that man in the mirror.

festus jr. June 15, 2015 at 10:25 am

Fake “festus.”

festus June 15, 2015 at 10:44 am

Nice try Rocky!

Get Over Yourself June 15, 2015 at 10:29 am

How many times have you told us you were leaving FITS? Please, make good on your word for once you miserable troll. Get your attention addict fix somewhere else.

More Than Meets The Eye June 15, 2015 at 9:21 am

Decepticons only have to look like Autobots around election time.

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 11:41 am

Should we transform and rise up or roll out. I’m thinking it might be time to roll.

James June 15, 2015 at 9:39 am

Ok who forgot the rule. If Obama is for it we oppose it. Even if we supported it in the past, we oppose it now and lie about our position in the past. Why? because we hate Obama.

SYNTwist June 15, 2015 at 9:40 am

I apparently forgot that rule. I’ll keep that in mind for future reference (sarcasm) – ha!

Bible Thumper June 15, 2015 at 11:51 am

Democratic Corollary Obama rule. If Obama is for we are for it.

Most Republicans voted for TPA and Democrats against as expected. On TAA, Republicans vote against it because they view as unnecessary spending an a tax increase. It was Democrats who killed the whole bill by voting against TAA that helps workers displaced by trade. They would normally support this, but wanted to kill the TPA and found this as their only way to do so. They hardly hate the President. At least not openly.

SYNTwist June 16, 2015 at 11:59 am

I’m not sure I support TAA, due to funding, but … it was the Democrats who killed the bill IMO, more specifically Pelosi based on all that I have read. I don’t like the fact it piggy backs on IRS tax penalties, but not opposed to the training. Democrats voted against TAA because they don’t want TPA.

I don’t like the way TAA is funded, example, we received a tax notice we owe $5. Hired a professional accountant to file taxes. Not sure where that $5 is coming from and not a big deal, but what would the penalties be on that to support TAA? I don’t favor expanding IRS, but where is the money going to come from?

Looks like TAA has potential to kill the bill. I haven’t read anything since Pelosi took the floor and Clinton backed her.

FastEddy23 June 15, 2015 at 8:08 pm

Now that much of the arm waving and shouting has subsided, please pay a bit of attention to this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PJWLt1TmAy4

Free Trade Happens.

ELCID June 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm

Joe Wilson is just a GOP flunky working directly for the KOCH Brothers.
It’s time we voted him out. He doesn’t represent Lexington County Citizens or anybody else other than himself.

We’ll be waiting for him next time and make sure he’s shown for what he is:
A Traitor to the SC workers, and all US Citizens.

Clyburn too. The Obama Flunky stooge needs to go too.
I hope the People over in Sumter take notice of this gangster’s sell out.

SYNTwist June 16, 2015 at 12:19 pm

I swear this site is like crack! I’m not a Joe Wilson nor Clyburn fan, however, more specifically in the case of Clyburn – I can see why SC needs him. When politics move too quick to the left or the right, or is unevenly balanced – that is a sure sign bad things will happen. I honestly can’t stand most of what comes out of Clyburn’s mouth, however, he does add some balance to he hard right that I can appreciate.


Leave a Comment