-- almost instantly as a democrat. michael bloomberg would have to do it donald trump did, parlayed success he has billed as a thatessman into the places want to make sure the economy is continuing to grow. and states, ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan. michael bloomberg has created tens of thousands of jobs over the course of his lifetime. that is a story the american people like and he's an outsider. i think it would be a very competitive race and a race that wouldn't require enormous amount of time fundraising. it would literally just be on the campaign trail the entire time. you have a much longer race because you wouldn't have all of these guys out racing money of these just raising money at -- out raisingps money at these small clips. >> take a look at this chart on your screen. the rate of people 65 and older filing for bankruptcy is three

times what it was in 1991 according to a new study by the consumer bankruptcy project. ilf illinois program and law behavior codirector. what is this consumer bankruptcy project? why are you looking at this? guest: it is a research collaboration run by myself and the professor at the university , we have aia irvine long-running research study. we survey people who file bankruptcy. .e collect their court records it gives us an insight on the bankruptcy system, filing a crib see, an insight on what is happening in american households. host: the question is why, why

are we seeing this trend? there's lots of reasons. , we can in our paper document the trends happened. we ask people why they filed bankruptcy. people over the age of 65 will .ell us they have medical debt a lot of bankruptcy filers have that. we see income decline, which is not surprising. one thing that stands out with is aver 65 population third say one of the reasons they file bankruptcy is they try to help out a family member or close friend financially. thatis a fairly big number is different than the under 65

population. research, ther retirement crisis in america, our taper well in that water research about shifting of risked individuals. costss more out-of-pocket associated with health care. less financial security with retirement. what we see in our paper, the roots of it are set long before people get to retirement age and aey arrive, and they are just financial problem away from bankruptcy court. post: we want to hear stories about this. 65 and over, (202) 748-8000. and 64,the ages of 32 (202) 748-8001.

taking your questions and .omments according to the near times story about your study, three in five said an unmanageable legal expense played a role. how much of older people's income is going toward medical expenses? that is hard to say. it there is from individual to individual. what we see in bankruptcy court is it is not just income. a lot of credit card debt is due to medical expenses. there's a lot of hidden medical expenses. two thirds cited a drop in income as well. >> right. that is of course what you would see across the board.

the roots of these problems, long before bankruptcy court. financial disaster away from a bankruptcy filing. financial disaster pushes into a bankruptcy filing. trenddoes this rising track with people living longer? is this a natural outcome of people living longer? >> yes and no. the yes is a small part of what we are saying but the trend is so large it can't be explained just by the aging population.

this,crease, i looked at the increase in people over the age of 65 over the study, i forget the exact number. a two and ag at half point increase. host: these older people, don't they rely on medicare to pay them? medicare to the extent you have medicare coverage, but medicare doesn't cover everything. doesn't prevent you from -- let me rephrase. medicare doesn't help you if you are still working and not able to work a cousin of your medical problems. when we ask people about their medical problems we ask two

separate questions. what about medical debts and lost income? the two thirds figure was a combination. host: we are asking viewers to call in and let us know what you think of this. if you're 65 and older we want to hear your stories. ray, you are first. good morning. caller: good morning. companyo work for a car moving cars at an airport. asked himf mine, i one morning, he was 91 years old. he was -- i asked why he was there. he said if i don't work, they will take my house. i can't afford this. here is a caviar.

marine. world war ii look at him, not being able to afford health care. he can't afford taxes on his house. these teachers, it was because of the school tax. i live in pennsylvania. this is what is going on. -- obamacare. let's get this straight. if you couldn't afford the premiums the government is going to subsidize you. it is not affordable if you have to be subsidized. take what he said about unions and health care. how does that fit in to what you look at the data? guest: we have a fair number of people in the study. one of the things i could say,

none of this happens without people returning surveys and a difficult time in their life. we are always appreciative of the people in our study. we have so many people in the study. the story this caller arestrates is that there lots of reasons people get into financial distress. the two thirds figure of the medical problems, one third of them are not citing that. the stories are varied and diverse. lots of different reasons. good morning to you. caller: good morning. bank rep see a few years back. mine was for medical. i worked for banks. we were responsible.

me, i had a hernia mesh they advertise on tv. it ravaged my body. much am just pretty resolute right now. , what did you hear about medical costs? it is it prescription drugs, a procedure? what could be the tipping point for folks filing bankruptcy due to medical expenses? guest: i wish our data made that distinction. -- the prescription drugs, the medical procedure. that from our to study. a large number, they have

medical problems. it is a classic story. people arriving with medical debt. then they have the debt but they are not able to work. that double win me drives them into bankruptcy court. there is usually more than one reason. i thought the caller's story was classic of a bankruptcy filing. seniorsw long are before they debt sought bankruptcy? guest: great question. ,nother thing we have seen people are waiting longer to file bankruptcy.

more than 50% of people wait more than two years. that figure has been on the rise. the seniors are just like all other bankruptcy filings. attempts tot of stay out of bankruptcy court, to cope with their financial distress. half.dian, over more than half of the people are waiting more than two years to file bankruptcy. they struggle for two years before bankruptcy. what is it like? what is the process? >> the first thing is to find a lawyer.

bankruptcy is a complex law. best legal solution? if you're going to think about filing bankruptcy you should consult with a lawyer. in consultation come up with a plan that sometimes my not involve filing bankruptcy but often would. there are two primary types of bankruptcy. , you pay your creditors out of your existing assets. there is also a chapter 13 bankruptcy. you pay out of your future income. you keep your assets.

that is the sort of thing that they will sort through. host: which are more seniors using? guest: about two thirds of all our chapter seven. that is true for seniors. two thirds of cases are chapter 13's. good morning. .edical and millennials the medical is it because of medical problems, it was due to the following into obamacare. i have been self employed. i'm 67. i am in texas. we skated by having to get obamacare because the state -- they puto have it off in texas.

-- they allowed states to make that decision. that ran out on us a year and a half ago. we had the coverage going up and up. nothing was available except for one company. obamacare only. 35,000 for premiums with a $12,000 deductible 5000 out-of-pocket on regular drug stuff. $40,000 for standard health care. we didn't want to.

i have always had insurance. didn't want to get into pre-existing conditions. host: why not medicare? guest: i just got into medicare. even at that you are still paying money. i am self-employed. folks, if your income was such that you didn't get subsidies, you got killed by obamacare. most just don't realize. you were talking about the cadillac tax. the majority of obamacare did not go into effect. mentioned when obamacare went into effect. the corporations never were forced to make the decision about having to cover their employees or pay the penalty. and the 2009w,

house committee meeting, they clearly understood 110 million people. host: i don't want to go to too far down this road. let me ask you about that year. did you need to see a doctor and you just did not want to pay the cost? trying to avoid the expenses? caller: i am overweight but the healthiest overweight dude in our area. we are very healthy but insurance. it is not about health care. the insurance is so expensive. even if we could ask then -- afford it there was not a doctor we could see in our county. , that wase paying for the only reason we were paying what we were paying. ok.:

guest: not all insurance plans are created equal. what we see in our data are whole with health insurance have substantial medical debts. a lot of that shows up because that is what the hospital or doctor will take. that becomes unsustainable. problem and you are in bankruptcy court. see in other research viewers find on the internet about self-employed persons in bankruptcy. they will tell you their income is notoriously cyclical. boom and bust. financiale these , that isat a bust time

when we are seeing people show up in bankruptcy court. , itstories from this caller is consistent with the data. one of the things that would drive them to bankruptcy court is aggressive debt collection. what laws could be changed? guest: that is a great question. i have thought about that. i don't oversell that this is a matter of better social security or medicare. certainly that would help. no question that would help. said earlier the reason the problems we are seeing are not because somebody is getting to age 65. areproblems we are seeing

much earlier. the result of lots of different policy decisions made. shifting of risk on individuals happening bit by bit leading to data we are seeing in our study and also other studies by lots of other people. i don't think it is a matter of having one or two laws change. i think this is a matter of a national conversation about policies and what risks we expect individuals to bear. host: what risks are people being forced to bear that they did not before? isst: so, a great example retirement plan. the pension plans, the shift from defined benefit plans to

defined contribution plans. used to, they would pay a certain amount. now the employer is more likely to be put -- putting the certain amount into an account. if the stock market is going up. if you are statistically living the life expectancy that fund is set for. it is possible the market could go down. ofical again, the rise higher co-pays and deductibles putting more risk on individuals when they have an illness, even things like the way we finance higher education. one of the things we see, people saying i'm in bankruptcy because

i helped a family member or close friend financially. some of that is educational debt. host: thomas, good morning. caller: good morning. know, this problem is only going to get worse. the problem is going to be exacerbated by creating jobs right now, they are all part-time. attachednot benefits to them. no health care benefits. i was watching yesterday, y'all had a guy on talking about an average company, for a company providing health care for yearyees, it is $14,000 a per employee for health care. i blame -- i want to put the blame on the republican party of

this country. years it is 25, 30 like when obama was trying to get the aca set up. they wanted to have a public option with people that did not afford health care or could not get health care, like the guy in texas said he could not get it, if he had the public option he could have got on medicare. that would have covered it. i live here in florida. roadve a house across the that rents out to a vacation rental. i talk to people in canada. they say we are the stupidest people on earth for putting up with what we are putting up with. you were talking about the risk put on to the patient. it has. the other end is the profits of the insurance companies are

continuing to rise. point, this trend will get worse. his prediction. do you agree? i would like to think not. i'm a believer in conversations like this. that that will help. also, it worries me whether we are going to have the political will to have the conversations we need to have. the conversations keep going back to larger issues. that is a fair point. our studies, the bankruptcy courts are a window into what is happening more broadly.

i have been overwhelmed by the .eaction of the study something happening in the corner of the court system. happeningto what is in the broader society, a window into what is happening to other american households. the, kansas. hello diane. caller: i want to explain something from a different. i am retired. i did everything right. freet into retirement debt . own my house. no credit card bills. i had a good job. for security based on a good income, i had a pension plan. sounds great.

everything is right. here is what is happening. i got real numbers for you. medicaren't understand . it is complicated. -- youn't understand have to have a supplement policy. b, the best medicare supplement i can get. of $2752 aa total year. i had extra drug expenses because part he doesn't pay very well. that was $2000 a year. and my outpatient drug cost, these are regular 4700 $82 a year.

but i have had quite a few tests done and seen six different doctors. my out-of-pocket was zero. everything was covered. that youve to know have to have all three parts of medicare and get good supplemental insurance. me,er two, what is killing what i am worried about our .roperty taxes another gentleman mentioned earlier. my property taxes are $5,000 a year. i'm a single person. they are going up constantly. which means just my property expenses my medical are $9,752 a year. a 401(k).ension and

i have social security. into my 401(k) i get $52,000 a year, before local income taxes, any taxes, which we have here. what i'm saying is i think i set myself up as well as a hearse and can be set up but i am starting to look ahead that things are going to get unmanageable and i can't imagine withe retiring with debt, house payments thinking they can make it. it is going to get worse, especially because people don't have to find pension benefit plans anymore. you pay your bills, how much spending money do you have?

gosh.: that varies. i might have stuff. can't tell you by the month. i can give you what i paid out in those fixed expenses. i am not in poverty. i'm doing fine. i'm a single woman. host: but you were worried about the future. how old are you? caller: i'm 71. host: you respond. guest: i was thinking your colors are doing a great job of telling the story in the paper. the idea that somebody at 71 who has done everything right should have anxiety about financial future and the description of the callers situation, she is right.

she should not have anxiety. she should not be worried. she obviously has some worries. it is understandable. story is thek that story of the paper. when we started you asked why we do this. it tells us about the bankruptcy system and what is happening in american households. host: dan. caller: as a physician, let me put it this way. the problem is too many pigs at the trough. someone started a business to he would keep going as long as he was making profits, the sale of whatever he is doing. now everything is a corporate level.

these people ask an excel a tory and then the end result is there are so many people taking income from every system a person uses someone on a fixed income cannot keep up with the curve and expenses. they fall behind. we have to decide at which point do we consider the service growth ford a entrepreneurial advancement unbearable. , they're working for corporations that depends on entrepreneurs and the right of profit they make.

host: we understand the point. we have to decide if we are going to have people on asked incomes, fixed expenses. point.stand the we don't have fixed expenses. the expenses keep going up. i think that ties in well with the theme of the paper. people are arriving at retirement age on a fixed income. expenses rise. what we see in our paper is expenses spike. there is a big medical debt. there is some sort of financial crisis. they end up in bankruptcy court. saying,your callers are it is exactly with what the

paper's findings are. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i want to reiterate what diane said. we planned well. we downsized. we did everything so we could end up being with our fixed income. comfortable. not extravagant but comfortable. $10,000 inlost income. a lot of windows do not understand when your husband dies your going to lose social security and a good portion of his pension, which lists face it, men get more than women do. you end up behind the eight ball because you are losing that income. then you discover everybody else wants more money am especially school taxes.

my school taxes are the same as diane's on a house that is worth $170,000. i'm paying $5,000 a year in taxes. we planned. , becauselot of women of the area i am in, a low , they are spending almost half of their social security just to keep in their houses. just to keep the roof over their heads. the school taxes are becoming astronomical. host: you are talking about property taxes. caller: yes. your taxes are divided into two parts. municipal, which goes to the government, which i'm thankful for and understand we are living in a poor area, let's keep taxes down.

because of thes, underfunding of the pension plans in pennsylvania they are rising astronomically. it is going to get worse because we are behind making sure that the pension plans are paid for. don't know what is going to happen to a lot of these elderly women that, they are trying to just keep the roof over their heads. i look at the future and wonder homecan afford my little someday because of taxes. well.er, i did i planned for having a good part b and part d so i would not have a lot of health care issues. in the future, i'm paying more than i have.

we will go to jim. caller: i wanted to ask the professor a couple of questions. here in pennsylvania the lady from kansas was speaking about property taxes. my wife and i are thinking about selling our house because property taxes here, everywhere you look. they go up and up. i was reminded by a neighbor people that rent, you don't have these property taxes. we are thinking about so we don't have to go into bankruptcy, selling the house. it is a good time to sell the house in pennsylvania, and becoming renters. i wanted to let that out there. what is the correlation between here in pennsylvania, there is a , we are up tobt

$21 trillion of debt. when you look at the big debt hanging over all americans, how does that filtered down an impact individual bankruptcies? don't go pay a lawyer. can you do a bankruptcy on that? >> we will get some answers. let me take those questions in order. guest: national debt come i don't think it does at all to be honest. trends.d bankruptcy aat drives trends is you need

fancy computer and statistics to conclude people who file bankruptcy have debt. filing trends are in consumer debt. as debt goes up and down bankruptcy filings go up. i think in the near future bankruptcy filings are going to go up as well. i think that is probably not a great idea. bankruptcy is not a cookie-cutter legal proceeding. what is best for you in a bankruptcy proceeding depends on your goals and financial situation and what assets you have, what state you are in. people ifggest to

they are thinking about filing bankruptcy, a lot of local jurisdictions have pro bono services that might be able to provide an attorney. low bono services. but i really strongly urge people to try to use a lawyer if you're going to file bankruptcy. bankruptcy is not just something you can try. you have one shot at it. if it does not go well you have used up your shot at a fresh start. caller: i got caught up in a

situation that has not been mentioned yet. i had a well paying job. i had the start of 401(k)s. get in my 401(k), getting some priests it is raise, 165, with the addition, than the bottom fell out. i thought i was secure. the value of my house came down. highis the reason why, how that it was.

the penalties were that. i could not file unemployment. got tied up in debt. professor? guest: you asked about people struggling for bankruptcy. people go to great links to the incomeg interruption. the steps of the caller was trying to make, that is very common. we haven't talked about in our data, people tell us they go without. majority say they will -- they will skip doctors appointments.

to try and cope with financial distress. they will without food. basic things that people take for granted. people filing bankruptcy are irresponsible. i'm not going to suggest there is not ever and a large country the vast majority of people who end up in bankruptcy court have gone through lots of struggle. host: if our viewers want to learn more, credit slips.org. thank you for the

>> a live look inside the white house briefing room with -- room. sarah huckabee sanders any minute now. we will have it live for you right here on the span. -- on c-span. and as we wait for the press secretary to come out and get started, let's bring you a portion of this morning's washington journal.

the goal is to get the benefit of expanded trade center markets for exports without nafta's current incentives to outsource and ability for multinational corporations to attack our existing laws. food safety, the environment. and take taxpayer money. the so-called investor state tribunal. you get rid of the bad stuff. you add in the missing stuff and then you get the benefits of trade without the baggage. host: how close are we to that ideal in your mind in current renegotiation? what's very interesting and

sort of unexpected is that this administration with which groups like mine don't agree on really anything actually have an overlap in what we think is necessary to fix nafta. because democrats, progressives, consumer groups, environmental groups, unions have been saying for the whole 25 years of nafta that we need to get the outsourcing incentives out and thein something that stops poll of super low wages in mexico pulling jobs to outsource. so this administration, president trump ran and basically got elected in no small part in the key swing states in the midwest pledging to and outsourcing and to bring down the trade deficit. the thing is there are only so many things you can do to nafta to get that outcome. therefore though ironic it is the case that many of the things that this administration has demanded be done to change it are the very things that

progressives and unions and consumer groups have been demanding for the last 20 years. and some of that stuff has gotten into the agreement. host: do you think the negotiations are in a good place right now? a veryink we are in tense place in the negotiations for two reasons. for aave been going on year. the way the procedures under which nafta and congress operate there is a 90 day notice required. in order to have the agreement signed by the current president tomexico, there would have be that notice given to congress by the end of august. so there is literally like two weeks of the window left and if we get past the -- not, no sweat happens. of unknowns.ot -- who knows what happens? there are a lot of unknowns. you don't know what kind of congress is going to approve it against the vote is not happening until 2019 no matter

what. it's a little bit like russian roulette. what congress and my negotiating negotiated --i am i negotiating this for? canada basically has been on a sit-down straight -- strike. they have not been that engage in the negotiations. they seem to think that their choices are between a new nafta which kind of bizarrely they don't want given they are a sensible progressive government. or the old nafta. they say we would like the old nafta. we don't want the new nafta. i think the real choice is something like a new nafta or no nafta. the president keeps saying he's going to give notice and get the hell out. canada says, i think we won't join and see what happens. host: without being in the middle of a transition -- what about being in the middle of a transition in government in

mexico? >> they have an election with a very long lame-duck period. the swearing in of the new president is december 1. the election was in july. during that time the president has full powers. it's not like japan where there's a caretaker government. thursday authority. for the current president, pena nieto. to sign nafta. that's why the deadline gets so hot. you have to have this notice in the u.s. system in order for the day beyond the inauguration of the new president, the old president can still sign the agreement. the new president has said i will be a this table, i'm going to send my people. continue and a representative of the old government is sitting there at a ministerial level sand of the new government. they're both there with the u.s. officials. and they are trying to resolve the issue that ultimately the old president would sign if they

can do it into you weeks. it's an president would have to pass the bill. -- but to the new president would have to pass the bill. long would you expect congress to debate whatever deal does come together? what are your expectations of that process? >> one of the times i have been --e at span is to talk about c-span is to talk about fast-track. that's the special authority that just supplies trade agreements. however the fast-track process, we lost that fight. the process is in effect and so those are the rules that will control. that's why we can know in advance that if they get the deal done in the next two weeks it can be signed by the end of this year. but because of the fast-track process we are off the clock for there being a vote this year.

2019, it would work in they give the notice. they signed before december 1. now there's a signed agreement. there are another set of processes that have to happen. for folks who want to get down into the weeds on this, they can go to our website. trade watch.org. there is a timeline. there are more than 100 days for the government to have to do an assessment. then there has to be an incrementing bill written that has nonnormal markups. there is an on markup which is kind of like a congressional kabuki dance. sit for a number of days. once it's in congress, no amendment and limited debate. right through congress and its guaranteed vote. forhe senate procedures filibuster don't apply. there are literally 60 days. as athrough the house mandatory vote. once it's in it really goes

fast. we invite viewers to join in this discussion. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. .ndependents 202-748-8002 tom is in harrisburg, pennsylvania. independent. extra waiting -- thanks for waiting. caller: i'm an independent child protectionist. i have called this program before. i want to congratulate you for saying that the media what to say which is that everything trump ran on his robe. i was a former democrat for 30 years. the first time i heard the term america first was in the 80's when it came out of the mouth of the rev. jessee jackson.

there's nothing wrong -- president trump said the trade war is over. it's over. we lost. the boat has sailed. -- to say that $1 trillion trade deficit is actually good. that's what she said. there's nothing wrong with the trade deficit. that's crazy talk. the only thing i heard bad about the soybean. is -- i have never seen a soybean. it's time to start attacking the american worker and instituting fair trade. it is the case that the u.s. government has actually jobsfied 960,000 american lost to nafta and imports under

nafta. that is almost certainly undercount. the incentives to outsource jobs in nafta are intentional device. it's not an act of god to get the result we did. it's not even natural competition. we have put our thumb on the scale with the companies who helped write the nafta put in the things they wanted it would be good for them without having to think about what would be good for working people. outthing the caller points about the trade deficit. the trade deficit does matter. it matters because trade affects the composition of jobs available in the economy. it doesn't affect the total number as much as other things. but it affects the actual composition and therefore the wages available for people of a similar education level. that means even if your job is outsourced from that trade downwardhere's

pressure on your wages because the people who get outsourced are then competing for the jobs that can't be outsourced. so in areas where the number of jobs are increasing service sector areas that can't be out source, wages are still flat as a matter of just how all the people computing out for even the growing number because the highway jobs -- higher wage jobs are outsourced. the department of labor has done a study. last year was they found what for workers whose jobs were lost to trade just about 50% of them took a pay cut when they did find a new job. one quarter of them took more than a 25% pay cut. that is our trade affect on income inequality. that race to the bottom of wages. folks who have a job or two or three are hardly able to make ends meet. host: our last guest pointed out that there has been no net job loss in the united states since

nafta was implemented back in 1994. some jobs have been lost but other jobs have been created. >> that's exactly what i was getting at the total number of jobs has to do with monetary policy or interest rates. the kinds and quality of the jobs and therefore the wages is the issue. worker productivity since nafta has almost doubled. onthe past from world war ii worker productivity goes up, so do wages. wages have been pretty much flat. in real terms we are still at 1970's level wages. relative to the productivity gains wages are flat and that's the trade affect. the way trade is, the theory of why more trade is good is side.ly on the import

the theory is that on the export side basically whatever our balance is is our balance. when things are imported side. in some people lose their jobs but we all get cheaper stuff. you basically have to help support the people who don't get in a fitted. but we are all benefiting from the cheaper imports. the problem is that at this point under our current trade in some policies the loss in wages now outweighs the benefits of getting cheaper goods. and who says so? professor sanderson. the grandfather of macroeconomics. the guy who is the champion of free trade. nobel prize-winning economist who made the formula for modern economics analysis that proves mathematically that even if some people lose their jobs we are all better off. he wrote a paper just before he died in 2001 where he could show mathematically we are now losing more in wages from outsourcing than we are gaining in cheaper goods from imports. host: michael, democrat. good morning. what i'm trying to get

administration tearing up all of these agreements before he's got anything in place? china is going to other people. the world is still moving. we're still over here. come talk to us. i don't understand. why are you tearing stuff up when you ain't got a plan in place? >> the question of sequencing is a very smart one. with respect i think you're mainly thinking about the tariffs. because nafta isn't torn up yet. they're renegotiating it. we are living under the current nafta. that's why we are having more jobs out every week to mexico. corporate taxose on our domestic laws every week. the old nafta is alive and well. over here they are trying to renegotiate and get a nafta to

replace the old one. i suspect what you are about is actually the tariffs and the fights we are having with china over how their policies are giving us this huge job killing trade deficit. we haven't ripped up any trade agreements. the one from 2000 that i fought against is still in place. we are doing are called trade enforcement actions. statues that. allow the assessment about whether another country is unfairly conducting its trade with us. anher they are violating agreement or doing something that isn't covered by an agreement. so the sanctions that we have put in place basically are not from ripping up the trade agreement but rather an enforcement mechanism. other countries get just off and they give or tariffs back. back-and-forth witches, we

are still here. where are we going to sell our stuff? that the consequence of the other country saying, here it is back. i with all your friends at once. even in texas the strongest fighter of texas is not going to pick a fight where he's punching in all directions at all the time. that is the problem. we have managed to pick a fight with a lot of countries at the same time. host: what about the transpacific partnership? -- i don'teement know if you could call that ripping it up. congress, that agreement got signed by president obama and sat there and there was no majority in congress enacted the year. president trump came and boxed it up and. -- buried it. it was a moldering courts already. -- corpse already.

that agreement is that agreement. let's get agreement with those countries, but not this one. we're going to have more jobs out sourcing and import of a food -- unsafe food and down pressure president trump got to dance in its grave. guest: morally cash wondering if your -- i'm wondering if you're just heard of clyde. not outright protectionism . it is somewhere in the middle be it -- i thought it might

our president might look at. brave to doper this. who travelservative in the circles of all the say this is not make sense with what we are about to do with china. lot of his friends and colleagues treated him like a skunk at a picnic. the man was right and he has been right all along. i highly recommend his books. if you search his name in google, about the tpp, you can see some smart things he wrote from a conservative perspective about, yes, we need an agreement with those countries but this agreement, foreseeably is going

to cause more damage than good. host: four folks are googling your name, what is public citizens global trade watch? guest: public citizen is a consumer organization, founded by ralph nader in 1972. if you're not a member, consider joining. we have members across the country, 500,000. we do not take any government or corporate money. we are the citizens lobby. we are the voice of the people in washington. we do advocacy research, litigation. we have a variety of divisions, some have to do with good doctors and safe medicine, some in the supreme court on behalf of the rights of citizens, we work on trade. global trade watch is a division

of make sure that they corporations are not having the only say in what policy should be. host: citizen/org.trade. tony is in apple valley, california. democrat. good morning. are you there? caller: my comment -- the subject is nafta, correct? host: sure. caller: i have always opposed it because it is not done very well at all. i am glad they're talking about bringing it all back. also with the trade -- tariffs -- i think it should be what trump is saying. i have been a democrat all my life. six presidents back. i am going to change parties.

what is going on with the scandals and so on, whatever, on how the fbi has been behind, trying to protect hillary and possibly some other politicians besides -- it angry's me to see what is going on. the fake news -- you know, i switched channels from every general, i say aloud, my best common sense tells me and from what i just have seen, the democrats are in big trouble and they deserve every bit of what they end up getting simply because of what they have done >>