Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:53 PM Jul 2012

Romney vs Obama ....On Free Trade Policy

ON EDIT:

Where is the difference? Does someone have information that would clarify Obama's position compared to Romneys?

-----------------
MITT ROMNEY CAMPAIGN WEBSITE--Issues and Answers:

Mitt's Plan

Mitt Romney believes that free trade is essential to restoring robust economic growth and creating jobs. We need to open new markets beyond our borders for American goods and services on terms that work for America.

Opening New Markets

Every president beginning with Ronald Reagan has recognized the power of open markets and pursued them on behalf of the United States. George W. Bush successfully negotiated eleven FTAs, encompassing sixteen countries. He also had the vision to commence negotiations with a number of allies around the Pacific Rim to expand significantly the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All told, these agreements have enabled people across the world to come together and build a better future. Economists estimate that the agreements have led to the creation of 5.4 million new American jobs and support a total of nearly 18 million jobs. Looking beyond just our FTA partners, our total exports support nearly 10 million American jobs. These are not just jobs; they’re good jobs, paying significantly above average, and more than one-third are in manufacturing.

Reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority
Complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Pursue new trade agreements with nations committed to free enterprise and open markets
Create the Reagan Economic Zone


MITT ROMNEY CAMPAIGN WEBSITE (issues and answers)

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/trade



-------------------------

(Press Release from Public Citizen re TPP)

June 18, 2012
Following Last Week’s Damaging Revelations About the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Obama Administration Expands Controversial Trade Deal


WASHINGTON D.C. – That the Obama administration would invite an additional country to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after last week’s leak of secret negotiating documents revealing the proposed pact’s threats is outrageous, Public Citizen said today.

Last week, after three years of closed-door negotiations, the text of the TPP Investment Chapter leaked, revealing that the Obama administration had agreed to submit the U.S. to the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals where foreign corporations would be empowered to challenge U.S. laws and demand unlimited compensation from the U.S. Treasury.

The revelation was met with criticism from the political left and right. However, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) refused to comment on the leaked chapter. Increasingly, members of Congress are raising concerns about the pact, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, who has been denied access even to the U.S. proposals to the TPP negotiations.

Following the growing criticism of the administration’s lack of transparency and the newly revealed substance of the TPP, instead of the administration reconsidering the many TPP provisions that would vastly expand corporate rights and privileges, the administration’s response was to add yet another country into TPP talks: Mexico. Meanwhile, reports out of New Zealand indicate that China also is pursuing entry into this so-called trade deal.


“The TPP model is fundamentally flawed: It’s hard to imagine who in this country would support it if they knew that it banned ‘Buy American’ procurements, limited Internet freedom a la SOPA (the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act) or created a two-track judicial system privileging corporations with a new ticket to raid our tax dollars,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “Adding more countries just expands the potential threats of corporate attacks that the TPP poses to people here and now also poses to Mexicans.”

“Via closed-door negotiations, U.S. officials are rewriting swaths of U.S. law that have nothing to do with trade, and in a move that will infuriate left and right alike, have agreed to submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals that can order unlimited payments of our tax dollars to foreign corporations that don’t want to comply with the same laws our domestic firms do,” Wallach said. “U.S. trade officials are secretly limiting Internet freedoms, restricting financial regulation, extending medicine patents and giving corporations a whole host of other powers.”

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2012/06/following-last-weeks-damaging-revelations-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-the-obama-administ.html

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

emulatorloo

(44,245 posts)
1. You are comparing a Proven Liar's Campaign Website to an allegedly "Leaked" draft document.
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:56 PM
Jul 2012

How do you know the "Leak" is accurate? Was it made up? Or if it is a real doc, is it the current draft or a discarded one?

How do you know Romney's campaign website is truthful? Romney lies about everything.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
5. Since no trade agreement has benefited workers in any nation since the 80's (if ever),
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:17 PM
Jul 2012

how do you suppose this one is any different? Whether the leaked docs are real or not, they are certainly typical of what has passed for political leadership for half a century.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
12. Not sure what that means, but I am pointing out that, in view of our recent history,
Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:13 AM
Jul 2012

this agreement isn't likely to be anything good for those of us that will have to live with it.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
3. Why do Americans other than big investors need another let's-send-jobs-to-foreign-countries
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:05 PM
Jul 2012

"free-trade" agreement?

This, of course, isn't just an issue about jurisdiction and the power that multi-national corporations will be able to wield.

A primary purpose is to destroy what is left of American middle-class jobs and lower wages.

Here's the free-trade agreements that have been signed so far:
1994 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
2001 - Jordan – United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Chile - United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Singapore – United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Bahrain – United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Morocco - United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Oman – United States Free Trade Agreement
2007 - Peru – United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2005 - Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic)
2011 - Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Republic of Korea (South Korea) - United States Free Trade Agreement

What better way to destroy American jobs than to sign another wage-lowering "free-trade" agreement?

 

scheming daemons

(25,487 posts)
6. more false equivalency, the-two-parties-are-the-same bullshit
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jul 2012

FAIL

This is the stuff of trolls. Demoralize democrats for the election by cherrypicking issues where they sound the same and highlighting them. All for the purpose of keeping dems home on election day.

It is insidious and is intended to help the GOP by blurring the lines.


Fuck OPs like this.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
7. Trade is an issue that is important to voters of both parties.
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:59 PM
Jul 2012

One of the main reasons I voted for Obama was his promise to "fix" NAFTA.

Since NAFTA cost us jobs, why wouldn't any new Trade Policies be important to Democrats as well as Repugs?

If you don't know where your candidate stands on issues that are important to you then you are only a robot pushing a button for a name or a party.

I'd prefer to be an informed voter.

TheKentuckian

(25,034 posts)
10. The real FAIL is allowing shit like this to be passed into law
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:06 PM
Jul 2012

under the cover of politics in a veil of secrecy to be rubber stamped by a bunch of bought and paid for toadies of the global corporate elite.

Fundamentally destructive to our people, wildlife, water, land, air, and sovereignty do not go off the imaginary table and on to the next issue that allows a contrast.

This isn't a game that can be won on points, it doesn't matter what the score is on a check list if we are going to be fucked either way. Instead of pushing to change the defect, you have chosen to ignore, hide, compare, and minimize through rhetorical argument rather than in fact by deed.

The fucking FAIL is in the bad deals for "small people" not only here but around the globe, crumbs from the masters table don't even begin to pay up the losses and the lack of crumbs will make little difference in survival when they are all there is. Crumbs only encourage when one can hunt, dig, catch left overs, get in the trash, and otherwise find means for a principle substantive diet.

You can take the Turd Way Third World Railroad all day, every day but people that care about their country and its people for real are about stopping the train.

Selatius

(20,441 posts)
13. What's demoralizing is watching politicians on both sides abdicate on this issue.
Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:26 AM
Jul 2012

I am still waiting for Obama to renegotiate NAFTA like he said he would on the 2008 campaign trail.

You are entirely entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't say this is demoralizing Democrats. What's demoralizing Democrats is that any Democrat sitting in the White House would toss the working class voters under the bus by supporting policies that force American workers to compete with workers in other countries that are often paid less than a dollar per hour.

The OP has no responsibility for anybody being demoralized, excepting of course the people in power with the authority to enact and negotiate these self-destructive trade pacts.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
8. Obama famously abandoned his 2008 promise to renegotiate NAFTA within weeks of taking office.
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:06 PM
Jul 2012

There is no reason to believe that any promises re: TPP aren't tomorrow's "ponies".

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
9. That's the worry. If Wall Street can't be held accountable...then
Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:17 PM
Jul 2012

who will be in charge of this new vast sweeping trade bill. Many of us older Dems are more cautious about the implementation of promises.

Since NAFTA wasn't overseen or "fixed" then how can we assume what Obama or Romney says about protections in the TPP (since both support it) will be properly overseen and not have dreadful "unintended consequences," like NAFTA did in exporting jobs.

Plus look at what our "Trade" with China got us. Wall Mart Jobs and China Growth while our jobs and industries went in the crapper. Plus the Trade Deficit has helped bring down our economy along with the Wall Street Bankster Crookery.

Who will oversee?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Romney vs Obama ....On Fr...