Oh Shit, there goes more jobs now.. Free trade BS. More manufacturing gone out the

[glowing]

door... Why keep pushing these shitty trade deals.. I've never seen Korea have a problem selling their cheap shit here as it is, flooding our market with more cheap shit isn't going to help any Americans out. We won't have 1 damn manufacturing company left when these politicians are finished ripping this country apart for the price of campaign donations. Stop with this fucked up Free Trade crap.

[CakeGrrl]

1. The idea is to move AMERICAN products OUTWARD into foreign markets.

[DFab420]

4. lol but if they buy American products that must mean they are taking our jobs too!!! AHHH!H!!!!!

:rofl::

[high density]

10. Right, because populations of cheap labor have lots of money to buy our stuff

It's just more and more income redistribution up to the most wealthy among us.

[ThomCat]

12. That was the goal of NAFTA too.

Clinton promised that it was going to be great for American workers too.

Obama is giving us 3 more NAFTAs, and he knows it. But this is what his corporate backers want, and he has never yet failed to support whatever his corporate backers want. So his base, the people who need help most, are going to be sacrificed yet again, and he won't come out and admit that this is what's happening again either.

[Union Scribe]

31. It's what Einstein said about insanity

Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Actually, nevermind, it's more like what I say about sycophants: They'll buy into anything if the right person says it. I've watched DUers support war, free trade, education reform, the Patriot Act, etc etc. Something tells me those weren't popular things here before Obama.

[Hawkowl]

32. Please elaborate on "American products"

Seriously, pray tell what manufactured products does the US export anymore? We do export agricultural products and raw materials, like many other third world countries. What is our product of competitive advantage that would boost exports under this 18th century "free trade" policy?

[ThomCat]

41. Big corporate Agribusiness, primarily. We feed the world.

Under NAFTA, we flooded Mexico with heavily tax-subsidized cheap corn and other produce that drove their farmers bankrupt. They couldn't compete, and they had to sell their farms when they couldn't sell their crops.

Big Agribusiness now owns those farms. The wealth of diversity that used to be found in Mexican produce is now gone. Thousands of smaller varieties of corn, for example, are now no longer grown anywhere.

Some of those farmers now work as tenants for the big corporations. Many of them left the fields and moved to the cities, or became undocumented immigrants here in the US searching for work.

The same thing is going to happen in with these free trade agreements. The speculation is that it will start with South Korea, because they have the most agricultural wealth tied up in family farms for our agricultural industry to take. We are going to export our heavily subsidized crops over there to drive their farmers out of their own local markets and drive them bankrupt.

But that will create massive unemployment there, and disrupt their economy, and contract the world food supply, which will drive up food prices again right after they go bankrupt. All of this could even crash the global economy if it is severe enough. Remember that we had to pay to prevent the Mexican economy from imploding because that would have triggered a global meltdown.

So expect us to be exporting crops, and expect food to get expensive here, and expect that we will have another economic crisis where we have to bail out one, two, or maybe all three of these countries.

If any jobs actually get created, we're going to need the additional tax revenue from those jobs to survive what's coming.

[Hawkowl]

42. Excellent!

I couldn't have said it better myself! Another good example of our exports is Haiti. It used to be food self sufficient but, as you detailed, big American agri-business forced itself in, undercut the local farmers. This forced them all into the cities looking for work which didn't exist. Then US firms set up sweatshops to employ the locals paying poverty wages. This concentration of people ended up KILLING a large segment of the population via the earthquake. You may thank Bill Clinton.

The entire hemisphere is replete with ugly examples of "free trade". Free to enslave our southern neighbors. Free to ship our plants and jobs abroad. Free to destroy our tax base. Free to destroy the world--Except for RECORD PROFITS!!! (Which are now made off shore and corporations don't have to pay taxes on them).

Good job Obama!

[scentopine]

40. The American products they want to "move OUTWARD" are made in China and India ...

this is a ruse to bypass investment in USA while exploiting slave labor in Asia with cash going directly into CEO pockets.

Not a single trade agreement has resulted in net job increase in USA. All of them have negative impact on American workers.

We should be taxing the hell out of imports and the sons of bitches known as CEO. It's time.

[brentspeak]

2. Well, Obama did promise this would be a "jobs" speech

Jobs for South Koreans, Panamanians, Colombians, corporate lawyers for outsourcing companies...

[ThomCat]

14. Farmers in South Korea, Panama, and Columbia are going to be

desperately hurting when their countries get flooded with heavily subsidized foods from the US.

US agribusiness is going to do to them exactly what they did to farmers in Mexico with NAFTA.

All of those farmers are going to go bankrupt and lose their land. Then they'll be flooding cities desperately looking for work. Millions of displaced people will be looking for any job they can get. Wages will fall in all three nations. The economies will be heavily undermined, and might even crash, just like Mexico's economy crashed.

Expect South Korea to get hit the hardest. They have the largest Agricultural base of native small independent farmers to lose. Agribusiness is going to have a great time raising hell and taking over.

Corporations will make a killing. And in all the Chaos, there will be lots of opportunities to put the "Shock Doctrine" into effect, to use the chaos as excuses for harsh and punitive changes here against us at home "because there simply isn't any choice if we're going to find a way to survive."

And, of course, it will all be a big surprise. "Who could have ever foreseen all of this economic chaos and devastation?"

It will be purely coincidental that corporations are still doing well, moving more of their resources out of the US, and hoarding profits in off-shore banks.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Quote? Here's a fact for ya: "WTO Upholds Obama’s Tire Industry Relief Decision"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=762403&mesg_id=765428

[brentspeak]

5. Here's a study for you: "Free Trade Agreement with Korea will cost U.S. jobs"

http://www.epi.org/press/news_from_epi_free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/">EPI Study: 'Free Trade Agreement with Korea will cost U.S. jobs'

[ClarkUSA]

7. So? The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) forecasts a small positive impact.

[brentspeak]

8. USITC study: Few US autos will be sold in Korea, while huge increase in imports from Korea to USA

You were saying something about the USITC?

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2011/04/obamas-korea-trade-deal-undermines-future-of-us-auto-industry-finds-government-report.html

April 07, 2011
Obama’s Korea Trade Deal Undermines Future of U.S. Auto Industry, Finds Government Report

The http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2011/er0407jj1.htm">newly released study by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) on the South Korea Free Trade Agreement’s (FTA) supplemental auto deal found that the already hard-hit U.S. auto industry is in for more pain under the Obama administration’s FTA with South Korea. The study was requested following a December 2010 “supplemental deal” that exempted some U.S. autos from having to meet stringent Korean auto safety and environmental standards.

The latest study confirms that, even with the supplemental agreement, very few U.S. autos will be sold in Korea, and a huge increase in Korean auto imports into the U.S. is predicted.

Moreover, the new study did not alter the previous findings that the bilateral and global balance in autos will worsen under this agreement, nor that the U.S. will see an increase in its overall global trade deficit.

snip

President Barack Obama campaigned and won on overhauling our unfair trade policies. Instead, what Americans face with the Korea FTA is the same Bush NAFTA-style agreement, with slightly altered auto tariff schedules. The Korea trade deal is still projected to increase the overall U.S. trade deficit and cost 159,000 U.S. jobs. The Korea deal requires the kind of financial deregulation that contributed to the economic crisis. The FTA’s labor chapter still contains Bush’s ban on reference to the International Labor Organization conventions when enforcing its weak labor standards. This agreement even allows South Korean goods to be given the benefits of the agreement even if such goods contain inputs or parts from North Korea, despite our sanctions on trade with that country. And it still has sovereignty-eroding, public-interest-policy-chilling rules that allow multinational corporations to sue governments in private, foreign tribunals for taxpayer money. There are nearly $9.1 billion in claims in the 14 so-called investor-state cases outstanding under NAFTA-style deals. None of them relate to traditional trade concerns; all of them relate to environmental, public health and transportation policy.

[ClarkUSA]

9. LOL! I was quoting your own source. Go argue with them.

I'm not interested in your complaining. President Obama remains a friend of American worker as my fact amply shows:

"In September 2009, Obama became the first president to enforce U.S. trade law when he imposed tariffs to protect domestic workers against a surge in tire imports from China. The original complaint came from the United Steelworkers (USW), and Obama’s decision led to a rebound in the tire industry."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=762403&mesg_id=765428

[brentspeak]

11. Try reading my source again

EPI is refuting USITC's old study, not confirming it. The latest USITC study (which I linked to just above) comes around to EPI's study.

But persist in your propaganda; some sad sap out there might believe it.

The Charts below compare USITC’s estimates of the impact of the forthcoming free trade agreement with Korea to EPI’s own calculation. Unlike USITC’s forecast of a small positive impact, EPI’s research shows it will increase the U.S. trade deficit with Korea by about $16.7 billion, and displace about http://www.epi.org/publications/trade_policy_and_job_loss/">159,000 American jobs within the first seven years after it takes effect.



The USITC has a history of vastly http://www.epi.org/publications/trade_policy_and_job_loss/">underestimating the negative impacts that free trade agreements have on the U.S. economy. In 1999, it estimated that China’s entry into the World Trade Organization would increase the U.S. trade deficit with China by only $1.0 billion, and have no significant impact on U.S. employment. In fact, the U.S. trade deficit with China increased by $185 billion between 2001 (when China entered the WTO) and 2008, and http://www.epi.org/publications/bp260/">2.4 million U.S. jobs have been displaced or lost. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico also rose rapidly after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Studies are a dime a dozen. FACT: Trumka: In Speech, Obama ‘Goes to the Mat’ to Create New Jobs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767297

Get a clue.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. So toss the studies and just go with whatever Trumka says.

Study on one hand, simple statement on the other. I'm conflicted.

[ClarkUSA]

26. I will. Teamsters's Hoffa and AFL-CIO's Trumka both praise Pres. Obama's job plan.

... I'm sure they know more about free trade than the OP or anyone here.

What Hoffa said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767415

[Union Scribe]

33. HOFFA OPPOSES THE KOREA FTA

I know you think throwing out names without arguments attached to them is a valid posting strategy, but you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot better than that.

Here's what Hoffa ACTUALLY says about it: http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/31811KoreaFTALetterHouseofRep031711.pdf

[ClarkUSA]

47. Hoffa liked what he heard tonight and had no complaints, unlike you and others.

[Union Scribe]

51. They've made their feelings about free trade VERY CLEAR.

You may hate it, but people can read my links for themselves and use their own knowledge of the positions of these two massive unions to figure out that they most certainly do NOT support FTAs.

[ClarkUSA]

54. They had no objections to anything Pres. Obama said tonight. Why are you complaining?

[ThomCat]

39. I'm sure they know more about free trade too, but they don't support it.

No union has ever supported free trade.

Just because they are supporting the push to create jobs doesn't mean they support the free trade agreements that were mentioned in the same speech.

Do you ever give up, trying to spread this Bullshit so deep across the so many threads? You've posted the same thing over and over again without a single fact to back you up even once.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Neither Hoffa or Trumka objected to any part of Pres. Obama's speech. Why are you?

[ThomCat]

63. Yes they did. They just didn't do it at that moment.

They have objected to free trade many times, and they will continue to object to free trade.

If you can't see that, perhaps you just don't know what free trade agreements are, and don't understand what the issue is, or what it means.

I've posted a bunch of times trying to break it down and explain it to you, but clearly it's still going over your head if you're still so confused.

You're obviously very good with Google. I suggest you Google NAFTA and Free Trade Agreements to see if you can find a simple explanation aimed at kids that can give it to you in simpler language. Maybe then you'll get it. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

65. That was then. This is now. Hoffa and Trumka obviously liked what they heard tonight w/no qualms.

[ThomCat]

66. You can read minds now?

Until they post something changing the position of their entire union, you're wrong. A union position paper isn't something to taken that lightly. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

69. No, I can read their press statements to the media, which I posted the links to in this thread.

[ThomCat]

76. You posted vague quotes, praising a speech for the idea of creating jobs.

And from this you are trying to convince yourself that they are supporting every policy, and whatever Obama would do on any issue, that was mentioned in the speech.

That's absurd, and you know it. But you'll never give up claiming it, because you're a fanatic.

[ThomCat]

15. Of course they do. It's their job to promote Free Trade.

Do you really expect them to say anything different?

[ClarkUSA]

20. Note how Trumka doesn't agree with any of the naysayers of Pres. Obama's speech content.

Read his reaction and learn something: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767297

[ThomCat]

21. Notice he was only talking about the first half of Obama's speech.

He didn't say a damned thing about the free trade agreements.

Good try though. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

25. Wrong; he didn't whine about any part of Obama's plan. ALSO: 'Teamsters Urge Support For Jobs Plan'

Get a clue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767415

[Union Scribe]

36. Trumka OPPOSES FTAs!

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/07/06/tell-congress-to-stop-colombia-korea-panama-trade-deals/

[ClarkUSA]

45. Funny how warmly he praised Pres. Obama's speech tonight, eh?

[Union Scribe]

50. You are an impenetrable wall.

And I cannot say what that wall is made of, but people can read the unions' actual statements for themselves.

[ClarkUSA]

52. I speak the truth. The truth is impervious to distortion.

[ThomCat]

38. Again, you post a quote that is only about the jobs package,

not the free trade agreements.

The unions have never been in favor of the free trade agreements. Find one quote, ever, where the unions have praised free trade agreements.

You'll never find one.

[ClarkUSA]

46. Again, you ignore the fact Hoffa and Trumka, unlike you and others, had nothing bad to say tonight.

Guess they liked what they heard. And nothing you say changes that fact.

[Rosco T.]

6. Bullshit. You were not listening

[ClarkUSA]

19. Trumka was. See Reply #18.

Here's what he said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767297

[ThomCat]

22. Do you know anything about free trade agreements?

Obama has been working to organize 3 of them.

Panama is a tax haven country. It's where wealthy people and corporations hide money from the IRS. If this Free Trade Agreement with Panama gets signed, those tax shelters become legal. The IRS will no longer be able to go after anyone who hides money there.

All the devastation we saw in Mexico after NAFTA was signed, with all their farmers losing their farms because we flooded Mexico with subsidized food... That's going to happen again. It is already being discusses internationally that we can look for South Korea to be the big target. All their family farmers can expect to face bankruptcy very soon. The entire economy of South Korea will take a huge hit from all that instability.

We had to prop up Mexico's economy to prevent a world economic meltdown. Will we have to do the same again with South Korea? Will we be able to afford it?

Free Trade Agreements are nothing more than Economic Nuclear Weapons. They are invitations to use the Shock Doctrine again and again, here at home, to lay off more workers, lower wages, cut benefits, move jobs offshore, and blame all of it on the economic chaos that they created deliberately for exactly these purposes.

Anyone who thinks that Free Trade Agreements are good for us is a damned fool.

[glowing]

24. Thank you. You did a wonderful job of outlining the problem exactly.

[ClarkUSA]

27. LOL! The Teamsters' Hoffa and AFL-CIO's Trumka both praised Pres. Obama's plans.

Obviously, they know what free trade means to their membership and American workers more than anyone here.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. That's not what I'd call a good conclusion...

I mean really, are you going to measure Hoffa and Tumpka's praise against what these international trade agreements have HISTORICALLY done, plus, what's been explained above?

OBVIOUSLY not.

And, OBVIOUSLY, we're not going to "chill out", cause we know anyone who thinks that will yield anything doesn't "have this" under control. I don't know who the hell Obama has been listening to, but we're just about out of time for any come through ideas.

And, THAT's too fucking bad.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Yes, of course you wouldn't.

:eyes:

[Union Scribe]

34. That's why HE OPPOSES IT

http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/31811KoreaFTALetterHouseofRep031711.pdf

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

43. That was then. This is now. Hoffa obviously liked what he heard tonight.

[Union Scribe]

49. omg. You're seriously suggesting that the Teamsters and AFL-CIO now support FTAs.

Despite ACTUAL STATEMENTS to the contrary.

[ClarkUSA]

53. That's your second attempt at a strawman argument. I stand by what I have repeatedly said here.

You ignore the fact Hoffa and Trumka, unlike you and others, had nothing bad to say tonight.

Guess they liked what they heard. And nothing you say changes that fact.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

58. FACT: Neither Hoffa or Trumka objected to any part of Pres. Obama's speech tonight. Why do you?

[ThomCat]

59. Because there is a lot to object to.

But it is also a fact that they objected to Free Trade many times in the past, and knowing that these specific free trade agreements were coming, they objected to these specific free trade agreements, in writing, even before this speech.

Expecting that they must specifically stand up and criticize the free trade agreement lines in the speech, tonight, in order for any criticism to be valid is an arbitrary, nonsense limitation you have no valid right to try to impose. Nobody is buying it.

If you get to do shit like that, then so do I, and I say that no criticism you have of any post is valid unless you type it at 3am from Austin, TX from a Blackberry. How's that for arbitrary validity? :P

[ClarkUSA]

60. Not according to Hoffa, Trumka, Paul Krugman, Ari Berman of The Nation and the NYT editorial page.

It appears I'm in good company. :)

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

64. You presume wrongly. Again. I listened and agree with the widespread praise I've read.

Your "analysis" is nothing more than distortions of what President Obama said. I prefer the facts.

[ThomCat]

67. You haven't been able to site a single fact yet.

You call my analysis "distortions" but you apparently don't have the intellectual skills to explain how.

[ClarkUSA]

70. FACT: Neither Hoffa or Trumka objected to any part of Pres. Obama's speech tonight.

I keep citing this fact and even posted links to their press statements to the media. Ignoring this fact is intellectually dishonest.

[ThomCat]

75. You keep deliberately ignoring the fact that they have objected

to certain policies beforehand, in print, taking time to state in wring that their unions are against the free trade agreements.

They haven't retracted those printed policy statements. Nor will they. Unions don't support free trade.

But you can keep deluding yourself into thinking that just because they liked the idea of building jobs, they loved every single policy that was even tangentially mentions. That's an absolutely idiotic and delusional thing to believe, that only a truly fanatical idiot would be able to believe. But if it makes you happy, and you like being a delusional, idiot, go right ahead.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Irrelevant red herring. Stick to the topic. -> "Unions vow to work for passage of Obama jobs plan."

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768243

[ThomCat]

78. No, it is clear that Unions don't like free trade, and never have.

Still don't, or they would not have taken the time,and effort in advance to write and post statements before the speech stating that they oppose the upcoming free trade agreements even before they were announced to the public.

Their comments about the speech specifically avoided making any comment about free trade, so there was no positive comment made about free trade to contradict the well-thought-out policy statements they had already posted on behalf of their unions.

When any official posts official policy statements, especially when they just finished posting those policy statements, an off-the-cuff statement at any public event that didn't even mention the same issue NEVER indicates a change regarding that official policy just because some fanatic wishes it was so. Keep dreaming. :eyes:

If they come out with a new policy statement supporting free trade because this speech convinced them to make a 180 degree turn on the issue, where are the public statements in the media since then confirming this? Where are the new written statements retracting that written policy statement against free trade? You're so fond of Google. Find them! Surely they must exist if you're so sure you're right. :rofl:

Put some proof, some sign of reality, up to back up all these bizarre and pointless fanatical posts of yours, or just admit that you're just obsessed and wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

79. Yet neither Hoffa or Trumka objected to any part of Pres. Obama's jobs plan. They want it to pass.

That is what is really clear, despite your baseless rhetoric. They liked what they heard without any complaint, unlike you.

[ThomCat]

80. You're repeating yourself.

I guess you decline my challenge. You lose. You fail.

[ClarkUSA]

81. That's because you are ignoring the facts which contradict the OP's outrage and your rhetoric.

Those who stand against this jobs plan stand against the wishes of union leaders. It's that simple.

[ThomCat]

85. You're a joke!

You only support unions if and when they seem to be fully behind your dear Obama. I'm an Iron Clan Union supporter, and always have been.

Claiming that those who don't agree with Obama are against unions is a very shallow and obvious attempt to imply that obedience to Obama is required to be true to unions. But then you believe that Obedience to Obama is required to be true to anything good.

Yet, you'll attack unions if you see them saying or doing something that you think is critical of Obama.

You can't stand up to me and claim that you support unions more, or better than me, or a hell of a lot of other people here who really do support unions every single day, every year without fail.

Your litmus test for EVERYTHING is OBAMA, and everyone knows it. You don't fool anyone. :eyes:

Again, you fail. Utterly. Very pathetic.

[ClarkUSA]

86. Still can't acknowledge that unions are happy with Obama's jobs plan and want it passed?

Guess not.

[ThomCat]

89. I never claimed they weren't happy that he was proposing a jobs plan.

In fact, I stated several times that they are pleased that he is proposing a jobs plan, so you're being dishonest.

What you are insisting upon that I refuse to accept or believe, because it isn't true, is that the unions are also pleased with other policies that Obama mentioned in his speech that don't have Anything At All to do with creating jobs. i.e. Free Trade Agreements for South Korea, Columbia, and Panama.

Free trade agreements destroy millions of American jobs and undermine the jobs that remain by lowering wages and allowing employers to get rid of benefits. Anyone who knows anything about free Trade knows this.

Anyone who knows anything about unions also knows that unions oppose free trade for exactly these reasons.

The unions can, and do support the creation of jobs, while simultaneously opposing Free Trade policies that destroy jobs.

Claiming that you don't understand this is being deliberately disingenuous because you would rather convince yourself that others are like you, loving everything Obama does uncritically and completely.

[ClarkUSA]

91. False narratives replete with strawman arguments don't interest me.

:boring:

[ThomCat]

35. Neither one was talking about free trade at all.

They were talking about job creation.

Free trade does not create jobs. It transfers jobs out of the country. History has already shown this repeatedly.

Can you try any harder to deceive people?

[ClarkUSA]

44. Neither Hoffa or Trumka objected to any part of Pres. Obama's jobs plan. Why are you?

Not that I care, because all of the complaints I am hearing on this OP and others have not a shred of proof to back up their accusations. The OP won't even offer up a single quote when I asked. Neither have you or anyone else.

Obviously, Hoffa and Trumka actually listened to the speech.

[ThomCat]

61. I object because there is a lot of object to.

They objected to the free trade part. They just didn't do it at that moment.

If you aren't capable of wrapping your mind around anything that happens at any other time, I'm sorry about your cognitive disability. That must be very difficult to live with. :(

I'm sure you listened to the speech. I'm not sure you heard any of it. You were probably too busy adoring Obama and kissing the tv to actually pay attention.

I not only listened, I read the speech several times.

1. Enough to know that he is going to be cutting medicare and social security.
   
   
2. And he is going to be cutting the payroll tax that funds medicare and social security. Not just a a small amount, but he's giving each company such a large cut in the payroll tax that it's very likely that Medicare and Social Security are probably going to have sudden funding problems because of this.
   
   
3. The existence of a funding shortage in both social security and medicare, even one that is down the road a few years, will be all the political justification "moderate" democrats need to decide that both programs need to be completely privatized in order to "save them."
   
   
4. So anyone who was really paying attention (unlike you) could clearly see that this is clearly the opening round of the efforts to destabilize and destroy medicare and social security.
   
   
5. I also saw that in a speech talking about the need to repair national infrastructure, Obama proposed No Way to do that. All of the companies that will get these tax rebates for hiring people will hire them to do whatever it is that those companies already do. Unless the federal government or state governments hire those companies to come in and fix our national infrastructure, one road or school or park at a time, there is no reason for them to do so. There is no mention at all of who would pay these companies to do this work, or how. There is no mention of where the additional money would come from to pay them for these contracts to do this work.
   
   
6. That would be double-paying for the jobs program; paying companies to hire people, and them hiring them to do the construction work that needs to be done. No mention was made of the double cost, or how that would be paid, or what the total would come to.
   
   
7. And in a speech about creating jobs, an announcement about free trade agreements is incredibly out of place, given that free trade agreements are what cost the United States million of the jobs we have already lost. There is no way that more free trade agreements will bring any of those jobs back. They can only cost us more jobs, and speed up our downward slide started with NAFTA.
   

I paid attention to Obama's speech and noticed all of these things.

In all of your posts, you haven't posted a single thing that you've noticed. Not one. We could all wonder whether you actually paid attention at all, or if you were simply too busy being star-struck.

[ClarkUSA]

71. Not according to Hoffa, Trumka, Paul Krugman, Ari Berman of The Nation and the NYT editorial page.

Like I said, I'm in good company. Your baseless opinions don't amount to a hill of beans. :)

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Here's a fact for ya! --> "Unions vow to work for passage of Obama jobs plan."

I stand with the unions in supporting the passage of the Obama jobs plan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768243

You keep complaining.

[ThomCat]

87. Notice that they don't mention support for free trade anywhere?

:P

Hey, where are those announcements that they're campaigning to promote those free trade agreements? Surely, if you're so absolutely right that they love everything about Obama's policies they must be waiting in the wings to start promoting those free trade policies too? Right?

:rofl:

Of course the unions are vowing to work on passage of the jobs plan. Unions will work their asses to to make sure that any plan that creates jobs for American people succeeds. That's what Unions do!

But you keep taking quotes about support for one thing and claiming that it means support for everything else too. That's sloppy and irrational, and makes no sense. Except to a fanatic.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Notice they want the entire Obama jobs plan passed with no caveats? What do you think that includes?

Hmm?

[ThomCat]

90. Are you changing the subject now so that we're now no longer

talking about their supposed support for free trade agreements?

If all you want to try to argue now is that they support the jobs plan, there is nothing to argue about. I already agreed that they will be supporting the jobs plan. They are a UNION. That's a big part of what unions do!

[ClarkUSA]

92. No, I'm stating the facts, as I always have throughout this thread.

[okieinpain]

29. because those jobs are gone and they are not coming back.

never, ever, ever, ever. I surprised people still hold out for manufacturing jobs, this place is a service and entertainment country.

[Union Scribe]

55. ***The Teamsters and AFL-CIO and their leaders OPPOSE proposed free trade agreements***

To be absolutely clear and make sure that no one can twist the positions of these two unions, here is what they have to say specifically about FTAs now being considered. Not any other part of Obama's jobs plan, JUST THE FTAs:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/07/06/tell-congress-to-stop-colombia-korea-panama-trade-deals/
http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/31811KoreaFTALetterHouseofRep031711.pdf

These are the current positions of these unions, posted right now on their official websites.

Whatever else they have to say about the OTHER things Obama proposes, don't let anyone tell you that labor leaders support destructive free trade because THEY DO NOT.

Goodnight and Solidarity. Keep your guard up, working America.

[ClarkUSA]

56. Neither Hoffa or Trumka objected to any part of Pres. Obama's speech tonight. Why are you?

In fact, they warmly praised President Obama in their press statements to the media. People need to know this fact.

[Fruittree]

68. Well then, maybe we need

to stop buying their "cheap shit"...I know it's hard because sometimes it's hard to find American made items but we have the power to decide what we buy and who it's made by and if we all do it, it will make a difference.

[ClarkUSA]

72. "US Exports rise to record as Trade Deficit Shrinks"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html?_r=1

"Keep in mind, the effect of free trade is entirely dependent on monetary policy. We had decades of monetary policy previously which discouraged exports and encouraged imports, and thats where the trade data and predictions come from. It is entirely possible that current policies will and are working as the president hopes."

Get a clue.

[ClarkUSA]

73. "Congressional Progressive Caucus statement on the President's jobs proposal"

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison today released the following statement on the president’s jobs speech:

“The President has delivered a good start for putting Americans back to work that includes elements we as progressives have been calling for.

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768102

Get a clue.

[ClarkUSA]

74. "Congressional Black Caucus statement on the President's jobs proposal"

"We are especially pleased about the synergy between the proposal presented by us and the proposal he submitted to Congress for consideration this evening. President Obama presented a bipartisan solution–something we can all support regardless of political affiliation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768021

Get a clue.

[ClarkUSA]

83. "Unions vow to work for passage of Obama jobs plan."

Stand with the unions or work against them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768243

I stand with the unions and support the Obama jobs plan. I will work with the unions to push for its passage.

How about you?