Obama "looking forward" to shipping American jobs overseas with "free trade" bill signing

[brentspeak]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/10/12/general-us-congress-trade_8731984.html

Associated Press
Congress passes 3 free trade agreements
By JIM ABRAMS , 10.12.11, 08:57 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Congress approved free trade agreements Wednesday with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, ending a four-year drought in the forming of new trade partnerships and giving the White House and Capitol Hill the opportunity to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.

In rapid succession, the House and Senate voted on the three trade pacts, which the administration says could boost exports by $13 billion and support tens of thousands of American jobs. None of the votes were close, despite opposition from labor groups and other critics of free trade agreements who say they result in job losses and ignore labor rights problems in the partner countries.

snip

President Barack Obama said passage of the agreements was "a major win for American workers and businesses."

"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label `Made in America,' support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. ... I look forward to signing these agreements."

What Obama dishonestly leaves out is that, with the South Korean pact alone, imports will significantly outweigh exports, http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/south-korea-free-trade-agreement-will-cause-159000-americans-lose-their-jobs">costing at least 159,000 American jobs. Not only are these lost jobs http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/business/global/foes-of-south-korea-free-trade-deal-struggle-to-be-heard.html">not Wal-Mart minimum-wage McJobs, but under the terms of the deal, Korean goods that are http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/vote-no-south-korea-colombia-panama-trade-agreements">65% Chinese-made can be legally categorized as "made in Korea", effectively giving China a back-door duty-free way to dump even more goods into the U.S.

Obama's own support for the trade deals is especially bizarre, as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach notes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/obama-free-trade_b_945388.html

If Obama's underlying trade goal is to double exports, as announced in his State of the Union speech, then why is he pushing Bush's old NAFTA-style trade deals -- given the data http://bit.ly/bx3JJn">is conclusive that U.S. export growth to countries with which we have such FTAs is half of that to countries with which we have no FTA? If the difference between the U.S. FTA partner and non-FTA export growth rates for goods for each year were to be put in dollar terms, the total U.S. FTA export "penalty" would be $72 billion over the past decade.

And, if the goal is to double exports, why is the first and only major trade deal being negotiated by the Obama administration the Trans-Pacific FTA? This is a prospective deal with eight countries, except the U.S. already has FTAs with the four countries (Singapore, Australia, Chile and Peru) that comprise 80 percent of the combined $2.3 trillion GDP of the participating nations. Hardly seems Vietnam (per capita annual income $1,168), Brunei (population 417,000), or New Zealand (annual GDP $139 billion -- less than half of Maryland) are worth receiving priority in U.S. trade agency resources. Yet, while Obama was giving his Detroit Labor Day speech, trade negotiators from nine Pacific Rim nations descended on Chicago to start a Trans-Pacific FTA summit -- and were greeted by labor and other activists at a protest demanding a fair new deal or no deal.

What about the majorities of GOP, Independent and Democratic voters who, according to numerous polls, oppose more NAFTA-style deals and think current U.S. trade policy is a jobs killer? Why has Obama decided to flip-flop on http://bit.ly/9GsKtV">his campaign promises for trade policy reform and take ownership of Bush's NAFTA-style deal rather than creating a new American trade agreement model that might actually create jobs here?

Obama's trumpeting of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for some of the treaty's displaced workers ("Displaced workers??" you might ask. "Weren't these free trade treaties were supposed to create jobs, not destroy them? Something's wrong here..." ) is really just a feel-good fig leaf for the sordid trade treaties: Since the economy has mostly been offshored as a result of 20 years of these trade deals, job retraining has proven to be http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/us/06retrain.html">mostly useless.

Occupy White House movement in the making?

[AnOhioan]

1. Free trade = bullshit, globalism = total bullshit

[hulka38]

2. K&R

[Township75]

3. Just doing what his corporate masters tell him to.

Don't worry, we have his back.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Thanks to Obama, these trade deals "protect labor rights, the environment & intellectual property."

[brentspeak]

5. .

:spray:

[joshcryer]

It's alarming to me that the only countries we don't have a big trade deficit with are those...

...which we have a trade deal with.

[brentspeak]

9. Since NAFTA, US now has a massive trade deficit with Mexico

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4247&type=0&sequence=1

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

39. US has a massive trade deficit with much of the world (NAFTA isn't just Mexico, it's Canada too):

If you look at the list of countries with free trade agreements: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

And you directly compare them to countries that we don't have free trade agreements: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/

It's clear that not all free trade agreements are the same. And when it comes to a country like China, clearly a free trade agreement would be beneficial.

[joshcryer]

41. BTW, was reading your link, I like how it doesn't support your implication (ie, it was dishonest).

The implication is that NAFTA is the reason for the massive trade deficit (which was around that of Canada a few years ago, 2010 was a weird year, however, trying to track down why it was so unbelievably high).

From your link, "U.S. trade with Mexico was growing for many years before NAFTA went into effect, and it would have continued to do so with or without the agreement."

Although NAFTA's effects on the balance of trade with Mexico are unimportant economically, they are of considerable interest politically. The perception that the agreement is responsible for the decline in that balance since 1993 has contributed to negative attitudes toward NAFTA and toward other proposals for trade liberalization. However, simulations from CBO's model indicate that NAFTA has had an extremely small effect on the balance of trade in goods with Mexico in all of the years since the agreement went into force--and a positive effect in most of those years. The largest effects indicated by the simulations are increases of $0.9 billion, $1.3 billion, and $0.9 billion in 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively--the most recent three years in the simulation. The effects for all years are less than 0.02 percent of GDP in magnitude.

It's a remarkable result because I never expected this in a million years.

[pampango]

47. Our trade deficit is much less with "free trade" countries than with the rest of the world.

That counts all 17 countries with which we have "free trade". It doesn't cherry pick just those "free trade" countries that prove the point we want to make.

In 2010 our total trade with the those 17 countries was $1.115 trillion. We had a deficit of $71.1 billion (6.5% of the total).

In 2010 our total trade with the rest of the world was $2.108 trillion. We had a deficit of $574.8 billion (27.2% of the total).

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/index.html

[brentspeak]

62. And what's our trade deficit with Mexico?

Somehow, you failed to address the very point I made and instead substituted irrelevant data that includes non-cheap labor nations like Australia and Jordan, as if all free trade deals we've made with other nations are the same and can be lumped in together as one.

[joshcryer]

78. The only point you make singles out Mexico while neglecting the rest of the world.

I don't know why you're doing that.

[joshcryer]

77. The excel spreadsheet doesn't have deficit, and I don't know how to make excel compute it.

Also, I would like to see a GDP-per-capita comparison.

[brentspeak]

60. Since NAFTA, balance of trade w/ Mexico has gone from a surplus an avg. -$50 billion/annum

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html">This is the actual link I meant to provide from the US Census Bureau. It demonstrates clearly that the USA-Mexico trade deficit has exploded since NAFTA's signing in 1994.

The earlier link I provided you before was the wrong link (my mistake; similar labels in my bookmark folder); it's from the GOP-appointed Congressional Budget Office prepared back in 2003. However, as it turns out, the continued and extraordinary expansion of the USA-Mexico trade deficit in the years since has shown that CBO report to be nothing more than a pro-NAFTA public relations spin sheet designed to sugar-coat NAFTA so that the pending CAFTA deal could be sold. Anyone today who actually believes the report's contention that NAFTA hasn't caused the massive USA-Mexico trade deficit would have to be pretty dense.

[joshcryer]

76. Why are you singling out Mexico? What about Canada?

[brentspeak]

107. Canada isn't a low-wage competitor n/t

[joshcryer]

114. Hahaha, and South Korea is?

Wow.

[brentspeak]

121. Was "South Korea" part of your question or was "Canada"?

You're mixing up your flamebaiting questions with one another. Got yourself confused? Tripped yourself up?

And for the sake of anybody else reading who might want to know, South Korea actually is increasingly becoming a "cheap labor nation" through the use of http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/5247">migrant labor.

[bvar22]

59. Flat Out BullShit.

China,
Japan,
Mexico,
and Canada

...are ALL in the Top Ten Countries with which USA has the BIGGEST Trade Deficits.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html

[joshcryer]

79. Golly gee, that's a wonderful link. It proves the point. Only 2 have a free trade agreement!

We don't have a free trade agreement with China, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Ireland and Iraq.

I don't know what you're trying to do by posting that link! It doesn't support your post at all!

Our trade deficit with Mexico and Canada alone is less than with China!

[bvar22]

108. FAIL.

Your Statement:

"It's alarming to me that the only countries we don't have a big trade deficit with are those which we have a trade deal with." ---joshcryer, Wed Oct-12-11 09:13 PM

I posted links that prove that within the top ten countries with our largest trade deficits are TWO Countries covered by NAFTA.

My rebuttal disproving your statement is VALID.
Your statement is FALSE.
No amount of spinning, obfuscation, diversion, rationalizing, denial, crawfishing, torture, or twisting will change that FACT.

I stand by my post.

Cheers.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Rationalizations.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[joshcryer]

113. That was clearly poorly phrased, the rest of my posts on this matter clarify my position.

I should have said "the countries we have trade agreements with result in a smaller deficit than those we don't."

Instead of actually trying to have a genuine discussion, you nitpick. Par for the course.

[bvar22]

115. "Poorly Phrased"... LOL

If by "poorly phrased" you mean Flat Out False,
then we agree.



If you are going to make broad claims on DU like THIS:
"the countries we have trade agreements with result in a smaller deficit than those we don't."---joshcryer, Sat Oct-15-11 05:54 AM, Post#113

...you had better provide some support for your claim,
or somebody who KNOWS better will call BullShit.
Are you really going to argue that our deficit with Mexico is smaller than our deficit with Turkmenistan?

If you go dig deep enough at DLC or Chamber of Commerce propaganda sites, you might be able to put together a cut & paste argument that our deficit with Mexico is better now with NAFTA
than is might have been without NAFTA,
but I will shoot that one down too with actual numbers.

(^Just saving you some time and wasted effort^ )

We have also had De-Facto Free Trade with China and several Indonesian Slave Labor Countries
since the late 90s.

[joshcryer]

117. My links back up my position.

We're talking about free trade agreements. We have no free trade agreement with, eg, China, and the are responsible for more deficit than Canada and Mexico combined.

[bvar22]

118. That uis why I used the term "De Facto",

...and I stand by my post.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Logical]

7. Has there been ANY Obama decision you have not defended? Just curious.

[msongs]

8. when your job goes will you still chill the eff out lol nt

[MrMickeysMom]

11. Fail....

Pure failure... NOTHING good comes from this, or anything else in the name of putting Americans back to work.

[chill_wind]

25. How does the Colombia deal bill that passed protect labor rights

or human rights?

[Dragonfli]

32. Simple, once labor leaders are assassinated, their rights are no longer violable, Columbia is

good at that. They protect the rights of their people by rendering those rights moot, we simply have much to learn from them.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[pampango]

49. Don't know about ClarkUSA, but when did you stop being enamored by FDR's ideas.

"When the Republicans regained power after the war (WWI) they restored the usual high (tariff) rates, with the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. When the Great Depression hit, international trade shrank drastically. The crisis baffled the GOP, and it unwisely tried its magic one last time in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This time it backfired, as Canada, Britain, Germany, France and other industrial countries retaliated with their own tariffs and special, bilateral trade deals. American imports and exports both went into a tailspin. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Dealers made promises about lowering tariffs on a reciprocal country-by-country basis (which they did)."

In 1934, the (Democratic) U.S. Congress, in a rare delegation of authority, passed the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934 which authorized the executive branch to negotiate bilateral tariff reduction agreements with other countries. The prevailing view then was that trade liberalization may help stimulate economic growth. However, no one country was willing to liberalize unilaterally. Between 1934 and 1945, the executive branch (under FDR) negotiated over 32 bilateral trade liberalization agreements with other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#1913_to_present

And, of course, the whole post-WWII international order was created by FDR and Truman with multilateral institutions governing international trade (ITO/GATT), finance (IMF) and politics (UN). They knew that when the republicans returned to power at some point there was a danger of a return to the high tariff, isolationist policies that they were known for.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

54. Facts are facts

Yes you can compare trade policies of any two Presidents.

Your post says nothing, only that: Damn it I want to believe all free trade agreements are bad!!

[Dragonfli]

56. THE FACTS are these "free trade deals" are far from any FAIR TRADE deals FDR made, educate yourself:

It is better to be educated than to use that posters Republican talking points and blatantly false comparisons


- The Korea trade deal is the largest offshoring deal of its kind since NAFTA. If approved, the deal will displace 159,000 American jobs in the first seven years. Even the official U.S. government study on the Korea pact says that it would increase our trade deficit — meaning more job loss — and it hits the “jobs of the future” sectors hardest — solar, high speed trains, computers.

- We should have never even discussed a new trade deal with Colombia, the world capital for violence against workers. More unionists are assassinated every year than in the rest of the world combined. In 2010, 51 trade unionists were assassinated. Do you think we would consider a trade deal with a county where 51 CEOS were murdered? So far in 2011, another 22 have been killed, despite Colombia’s heralded new “Labor Action Plan.”

- The Panama agreement has many of the same problems as the other two deals — undercutting the reregulation of the big banks and speculators who destroyed our economy and empowering foreign investors to attack U.S. health, safety, labor and environmental laws before foreign tribunals. But, Panama is also one of the world’s largest tax havens. There, rich U.S. individuals and over 400,000 corporations dodge paying the taxes our communities desperately need. This FTA would take away our current tools to fight tax dodging and money laundering.

Much more information in the links below

http://www.citizen.org/documents/korea-colombia-panama-factsheet-may-2011.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Bush-NAFTA-style-Korea-trade-deal.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/colombia-fact-sheet-june-2011.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Panama-FTA-%20Fact-Sheet.pdf
http://www.epi.org/publication/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr10122011c.cfm
edited to add a couple of links

Also a very important point, GATT was a TREATY and was passed the appropriate way AS A TREATY, to pass a similar treaty without the necessary requirements of passing a treaty is to ignore the laws of this country http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2099157

[pampango]

57. I'm comparing FDR's low-tariff policy with those of Clinton and Obama.

Republicans are "johnny-come-lately's" as believers in low tariffs. It took them 40 years after WWII to realize that FDR was right (without publicly admitting it) and that their historical commitment to high tariffs was wrong headed. European liberals still believe as FDR did.

[Union Scribe]

35. You still going to insist labor leaders love this FTA shit?

Or have you moved on to other complete fabrications?

[kelly1mm]

38. Then why did a majority of congressional DEMOCRATS oppose it? nt

[JoeyT]

68. Because when people think of protecting labor rights,

everyone automatically thinks of Columbia, amirite?

[Overseas]

120. That's what they told us about NAFTA.

Let's hope that somehow this time will be different.

[Hart2008]

6. Recced up to zero or some negative number. NT

[rurallib]

10. and dems wonder why labor is looking around.

'we can keep the jobs here if you work for $5 a day.'
(sarcasm for the humor impaired)

[FLyellowdog]

12. Stop buying imported merchandise.

Problem solved? :shrug:

[brentspeak]

19. Where are you going to find made-in-USA merchandise?

The US-based manufacturers are being killed by the trade agreements, and the Wal-Marts and other big-box retailers refuse to carry surviving US-based manufacturers' merchandise.

[Fruittree]

42. Target, TJ Maxx, LL Bean, Etsy, Urban Outfitters,

American Apparel, DIVA Clothing, Amazon...It's true that it is hard to find but what I've been doing is if it's not made in the US, I ask myself "do I really need this"? and if the answer is "no" then I don't get it...if the answer is "yes" I at least try to find an option that isn't made in China. I also will write a thank you to the store or company for carrying Made in the USA...It's not perfect but there was no way Obama or anyone was going to be able to dial back this whole globalization/free trade deal. It's up to us as consumers to make our voices heard...They can't sell, if we don't buy.
Just a note, I particularly like Etsy because the items are made by the sellers or are used and you can find things at all price ranges.

[brentspeak]

66. I'm sorry...WHAT made-in-USA merchandise does Target and TJ Maxx sell??

Most LL Bean merchandise is now being made in http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/5247">China and Vietnam. And yes, there are http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011020501/buffett-balanced-trade-idea">plenty of ways Obama is able to keep American jobs here at home. However, he has worked with Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce on these trade deals, so I never expected him to do the correct thing.

[brentspeak]

69. Working link to LL Bean and where their merchandise is manufactured:

http://americanmanufacturing.org/blog/does-ll-bean-keep-it-made-america

[Fruittree]

111. Target carries glassware, storage containers,

socks, flashlights, cosmetics, personal care items and food - those are the things I've bought - There might be others.TJ Maxx carries some clothing, dishes, glassware,socks,linens....LL Bean carries tote bags and boots made in the USA. You just have to look carefully and you can find things. Much as I agree with your sentiment and I hope things go back the other way - look at the congress and tell me you honestly think he or anyone in his position can just remake the world as they wish.

[Mimosa]

74. Wow, you obviously don't shop at Target, TJ Maxx, etc.

Sure, if you find clothing and other goods which are over 35 years old at Goodwill, you can buy American.

[Fruittree]

112. Actually I do shop at Target and TJ Maxx...

As I replied to someone else - Target carries glassware, storage containers,cosmetics, personal care items, food, socks and flashlights made in the USA - there might be other things but those are what I've bought. From TJ Maxx you can find socks, some clothing, linens, dishes made in the USA. And again, I'll put in a plug for Etsy - made and sold by the individual selling the item - with I think it's safe to say the vast majority being American. LLBean - sells boots and tote bags made in the USA. Go out and look, you'll be surprised how much you can find. American Apparel sells nice t-shirts. We have power as consumers to give our money to whom we choose and I think manufacturers are noticing because I'm seeing more and more on the packaging - Made in USA.

[Poll_Blind]

13. Recced up to 0. Sombodies doesn't like peoples knowing what the Prez. gets up to.

:rofl:

PB

[golfguru]

14. That is pure conjecture...no one can predict future accurately

There is good chance job gains/loss will balance out. That is what fair & free trade is supposed to do. Which is actually a plus since weaker business models will go broke, and better models will expand. That is the surest way to increase productivity. Without gains in productivity, there is zero chance of increasing standards of living.

[boppers]

15. "not Wal-Mart minimum-wage McJobs" ... linking to a textile mill?

Huh?

One of the reasons Unions started in the United States was because textile jobs are HORRIBLE. Loud, hot, sweaty, back-breaking, no future, jobs from hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

[brentspeak]

18. Maybe you weren't aware of it, but the year isn't 1911

And the average yearly salary of an American textile worker is a solid http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-Textile">$41,000.

[boppers]

23. 1. Salary? BuwaHAHAHAHAH!!!

2. That's a search on "textile". That includes textile buyers, and textile designers, and all the other jobs that do all the high end work in the US, and then ship the labor component overseas.

According to http://www.ncto.org/ustextiles/index.asp the average US textile worker pulls in $559 a week, for an income of $29,068 a year (assuming no vacations, working 40 hours a week, every day of the year). Hourly, (with a 40 hour week) that's about $13.97 an hour. That's about 150-160% of minimum rage, depending on your location. After taxes, hey, you may be just *barely* above poverty level! ($22,350 for a family of four in 2011).


edit: add 559/40 number

[brentspeak]

27. We'll assume your link contains a figure more accurate than mine

While also assuming that you purposefully left out the part in your link that sharply contrasted textile worker wages and benefits with those working Wal-Mart minimum-wage McJobs.

Role of Mills in Small Towns and Rural Communities

U.S. textile plants are located primarily in small rural communities in the Southeast and oftentimes provide a major source of tax revenue and employment for the small towns and cities surrounding the textile mill. Textile mill jobs are highly sought after in their communities, with pay substantially higher than average wages for jobs in the service and retail industry. In 2010, textile workers on average earned 155% more than clothing store workers ($559 a week vs. $219). Benefits are better too, and include health care as well as retirement savings opportunities.

Many U.S. textile companies provide unrelated yet important services to their communities. For example: several companies provide college scholarships to the children of employees and in some cases to those in the local communities; fund recreation centers; sports teams; provide lighting in downtown areas, and fund holiday and seasonal community events. Therefore, when a textile mill downsizes or closes its doors altogether, the entire community feels the ramifications.

[boppers]

29. That's fair, for some definitions of "sharply contrasted".

It also pays better than seasonal agricultural work.

Slightly better, in both cases.

(For some definitions of "slightly").

Here's some more Wal-Mart info (where high-end seems dominant):
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Wal-Mart-Salaries-E715.htm
Low end, for contrast:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc/Hourly_Rate

[Mimosa]

75. Most textile jobs in the South disappeared during the 1980s-early 1990s.

There used to be Levi's jeans, Wembly ties, Haspel suits, all made in Louisiana. Cannon towels and sheets made in GA. Those factories are all GONE now.

[brentspeak]

106. There are still some textile manufacturers left

This giveaway to Big Ag threatens to finish them off.

[Enrique]

46. if you think the loss of mill jobs isnt a problem

then yes, I can see why you would support free trade agreements.

Among the people opposed to the free trade agreements are people desperately trying to save the textile industry and other manufacturing industries that you couldnt imagine anyone wanting to work in.

[Major Hogwash]

16. Yeah!!! I'm still going to vote for Obama!!!!

Hell, I might even vote twice because I think Obama is so nice.

:rofl:

[bhikkhu]

20. On trade and exports, Obama has an excellent record

If you look at the actual numbers, exports are one administration success story that has been creating jobs, shrinking the trade deficit, and contributing to economic growth.

Its easy to find prediction about how bad the deals are, but they are largely based on the effect of NAFTA under the boneheaded economic policies of bush, who made it so much more economical to export jobs and import goods. Currently, he's no longer in charge, and that's no longer the case.

[Union Scribe]

34. Not anymore.

[bhikkhu]

36. Last month - "US Exports Rise to Record"

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

...and consistently there has been good numbers and success stories over the past year and a half. The administration's goal is to have doubled exports by 2015, and things are well along in that direction. I think the estimate is 500,000 new jobs have been created by the increases since 2009.

[Union Scribe]

37. Sounds like these bullshit deals weren't necessary, then.

He just joined Clinton in the "fuck you US workers, but thanks for your votes" hall of shame.

[bhikkhu]

55. It sounds like they should augment a trend, and increase employment further

...I think of the 2 million jobs or so created since Obama took office, 500,000 of them are supposed to be export related.

[joshcryer]

40. We can't say that for sure for another few years, because the recession hit the world so bad...

...we won't know if Obama's policies have balanced the trade deficit for some time now: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0004.html

What's for sure, though, is that Bush fucking raped this country trade-wise.

[totodeinhere]

21. Most repukes in the House and Senate voted for Obama's free trade bill. Most Dems opposed it.

Need I say more?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=795626&mesg_id=795804

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/163

[bornskeptic]

43. A majority of Democrats voted for the Korea and Columbia deals.

Only the Columbia agreement was opposed by a majority of Democrats.

[totodeinhere]

48. Wrong. Here are some links to prove you are wrong.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/163

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx (Scroll down and click on Roll 783.)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[chill_wind]

24. "The White House and Republican leaders

said that the three agreements would provide a big boost to the lagging American economy and put people back to work. "

That pretty much says it all. The White House and Republican leaders. Saving us all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/trade-bills-near-final-chapter.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Any time the White House and Republican leaders are working together...

...you can be sure it's the American people getting the shaft.

[woo me with science]

52. The White House and Republican leaders work for the same corporate Masters.

I never understood the enthusiasm for this rehashed Republican Chamber of Commerce plan. It contained job killing free trade agreements and an extension of a Republican tax policy that has already been in effect for nine months.

And that its not even mentioning its damaging effects on Social Security by tying it to the General Fund.

[Dragonfli]

28. You have to admit, Obama is a loyal employee of his constituency (the US Chamber of Commerce), he

is going through their list fast and decisively.
He takes his marching orders well http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/110905_jobs_letter.pdf

He is even willing to give away american jobs and worker protections in order to get the job done for his employers
http://www.epi.org/publication/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/

He is truly an honest politician, one that stays bought, it is a bit insulting that he will profit them by hundreds of billions of dollars, and screw the 99% out of security, livelihood and hope for just millions in donations from each of his employers, he is not just a corporate prostitute but a cheap one at that.

We mean very, very little to him don't we? I wonder if after all the math is done what the price of each American citizen is, are we at least as valuable a commodity to sell as cattle for instance?

[Mimosa]

31. Wow! I feel Nixon is in office. N/T

[SwampG8r]

100. nixon would be a Duer by todays

standards of right and left
he governed way to the left of this administration

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Vinca]

44. Doesn't anyone in power ever think to connect job loss and trade agreements?

It doesn't seem like rocket science. The more trade agreements that get signed, the worse the job market is in this country. Sometimes I wonder if anyone is on the side of the average person.

[court jester]

45. Where *IS* Ross Perot? One would think he'd be taking a victory lap...

but he's nowhere to be found. Why is that?

The whole CIA/daughter wedding thing stunk to high heaven, and now, after he's been proven correct about what he said about NAFTA he's AWOL. Is it his choice or the "medias"? Or something else?

Curious, that.

"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label `Made in America,'

Everyone in America knows how easy it is to find goods made in America (...)

So what "exports" is he referring to? Weapons? Tanks? Fighter Jets?




Ross Perot and his daughters wedding:

In September he qualified for all fifty state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to reenter the presidential race. He said that Republican operatives had wanted to reveal compromising photographs of his daughter, which would disrupt her wedding, and he wanted to spare her from embarrassment. Scott Barnes, a private investigator and security consultant who had testified to that effect, later recanted his story. He revealed in 1997 that he had deceived Perot about the existence of the photographs, and that he had created the hoax with others who were not involved with any political campaign. Barnes was a Bush supporter, and believed that if it were revealed that Republicans were involved in dirty tricks, it would harm Bush's candidacy.<27>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

George Herbert Walker Bush: 11th Director of Central Intelligence
In office January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977

[ProSense]

51. Kerry on the agreements

Kerry

“These agreements make it clear that the United States will engage global partners on fair terms. I think it’s a virtue that the Administration stayed at the bargaining table to improve these agreements. Given that each negotiation sets a precedent for those that will follow, it’s imperative to strike the best possible agreement and I think that bar was exceeded here. The Korea agreement balances the playing field for U.S. automakers by giving them time to introduce their products to Korean consumers and adjust to a changing dynamic. We will continue to make progress on labor and other humanitarian issues as a result of changes to Colombian law and procedure. Labor laws in Panama will be better enforced and transparency in the banking sector will prevent Panama from being used as a tax haven. The ball is now in our court. Congress must consider and approve these agreements as soon as possible.”

Roll Calls:

Colombia Trade Agreement

Panama Trade Agreement

Korea Free Trade Agreement

President Obama has demonstrated that he will enforce U.S. trade agreements.

Previous information from WH:

Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement

FACT SHEETS: U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan

FACT SHEETS: U.S.-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT

[JTFrog]

63. TY for always being there with the facts. n/t

[brentspeak]

70. Was there a "fact" anywhere in that post?

All I saw was a hazy quote from Kerry that steered-clear of any specifics. Also some of the usual blue-link propaganda.

[Jakes Progress]

73. Same ole Washingtonian blather. Factless

but long on quasi-affirming, sorta-kinda-gotcherback, deniable PR release.

[uponit7771]

67. I'll hold my judgement until I see the tarrifs in other countries taken down, if that is true then..

...it's a fair deal cause we can export.

Then I'll wait to see if they trade agreements are enforced where they haven't been in the past.

[SidDithers]

102. Fact are good...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[woo me with science]

53. K&R

Here we go again. :puke:

[workinclasszero]

58. If a republican President had stabbed us in the back like this..

This forum would be burning in flames of outrage. Free trade my fu****g ass! A PROVEN KILLER of american jobs!

But no its a democrat pres so he gets a pass as he does what wall street wants.

See also: Bill Clinton and Al Gore ramming NAFTA down our throats years ago.

Our "friends" are KILLING US!

[polichick]

65. Time to stop seeing them as "friends" - OWS gets it!

[midnight]

61. K&R shipping jobs over to other countries is just another bailout for the corporations.

[polichick]

64. k&r Still talking one game, playing another.

[ClarkUSA]

71. INCONVENIENT FACT: "UAW Applauds Passage of U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement"

DETROIT -- The UAW is pleased with congressional approval of the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The automotive provisions of the agreement were substantially renegotiated by the Obama administration to address the concerns the union had with the original FTA, negotiated in 2007 by the Bush administration.

“The revised agreement,” said UAW President Bob King, “creates significantly greater market access for American auto exports and contains strong, auto-specific safeguards to protect our domestic markets from potentially harmful surges of Korean automotive imports.”

Under the provisions of the renegotiated agreement, the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff on automobiles will stay in place until the fifth year after implementation of the agreement, and the 25 percent tariff on light trucks remains until the eighth year, when it starts to be phased down. Moreover, Korea will immediately reduce its electric car tariffs from 8 percent to 4 per cent, and will phase out the tariff by the fifth year of the agreement.

The KORUS FTA also includes standards for the protection of worker rights, including obligations for South Korea to respect core International Labor Organization labor rights and to effectively enforce labor laws designed to ensure a level playing field for American workers to compete.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x796243

[Jakes Progress]

72. Convenient fact. "part of a cynical ploy ... to split the trade union movement"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/stop-the-korea-free-trade_b_812646.html

As the author, an expert who has been consistently liberal on the issue of these "free" trade agreements, writes: Don't be fooled. Divide and conquer is an old union busting method.

[polichick]

80. Divide and conquer is an old people busting method used by corporations too.

[ClarkUSA]

82. LOL! Why don't you tell the UAW that?

[polichick]

83. You don't think they're familiar with the tactic?

[ClarkUSA]

87. What tactic? The one you made up out of thin air? Sorry, conspiracy theories are such a bore.

[polichick]

103. If you think "divide and conquer" hasn't been used for decades...

...you really are out of touch.

[Jakes Progress]

86. Golly dude. Read the posts and thread before you post.

What has your comment got to do with anything being said. You just made my point for me.

Catch up.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

81. That's not a fact of any kind.It's a nutty conspiracy theory via a dime a dozen HuffPo op-ed column.

[Major Hogwash]

85. Ah, now now, you're over-evaluating the craptastic articles over on HuffBlows website.

Where Brietbart is regarded as a "reporter".

[ClarkUSA]

90. And don't forget that proud firebagger fount of HuffPo wisdom, PUMA Jane "Blackface" Hamsher...

:puke:

[Jakes Progress]

93. Not up on the whole opinion thing, I see.

Unless you consider every blogger on HuffPo to be equal.

[Jakes Progress]

92. Does writing for HuffPO make Al Gore craptastic?

How about Jill Biden? They also have Jesse Jackson's writing. I guess you consider him craptastic too.

Oh. Find someone to help you learn the difference between blogging opinions and reporting.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Jakes Progress]

96. About as right as your posts.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

88. In your fact free world, I guess you would think that.

Read the article. Then tell us exactly what part of it is nutty. Tell us which part is conspiracy theory. Or are you trying to say that corporations don't use "divide and conquer" to bust unions? Are you saying that one union is more important than dozens of other unions? Are union opinions only valid when they confirm your fantasies?

[ClarkUSA]

91. More irony from you. What do you think the "op" in op-ed column stands for? LOL!

Obama-bashing op-eds replete with conspiracy theories are like assholes, everyone on HuffPo has one. :)

[Jakes Progress]

95. Golly. Is Obama the only Democrat you like?

You consider Al Gore an asshole? Jimmy Carter? John Kerry? Golly. They write on HuffPo also.

[ClarkUSA]

98. Your strawman argument and Obama-related insult is duly noted. What else is new? Yawn.

:boring:

[Puglover]

104. Edit. Not at all worth it.

[Jakes Progress]

116. No, it isn't.

But this one can't help responding even when he is deep in the hole. And each one bumps a good OP back up to the top. Just don't waste any real effort on argument. When pressed to answer for his nonsense this one just ducks or changes the subject. Never has a straight answer.

[Jakes Progress]

110. Still don't know what a strawman is, I see.

Oh well. As long as you can throw up words to avoid actually discussing the issue, you seem happy.

How about you tell us why you think the three trade deals are a good thing. You can find lots of support ideas from the republican forums. You do know that they voted 100% lockstep to support these deals. The Democratic caucus did not. But you go ahead and explain why the republicans are right.

Or is this the time you bug out - you know, when you actually have to try to explain your odd positions.

[Democat]

101. US farmers celebrate approval of free trade deals

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNTe_TkkzA_Gg8KQ97ZO14_L4egA?docId=8792882b9bdd46cc975e95050396ac68

[Axrendale]

105. I really don't understand the hullabaloo that so many on the left keep raising about free trade

The article that is cited which purports to "prove" that the ROK agreement is going somehow cost 159,000 jobs is ludicrous - it presents an argument based on fradulous evidence derived from dodgy analyses from the past that most serious economists wouldn't touch.

The truth is that these deals represent neither the betrayal that liberal critics of the administration have decried them as, nor the major success trumpeted by the administration. They are on the contrary about as miniscule as it is possible to get in small potatoes.

My experience tends to be that the people who screech about these kinds of developments tend to know very little about international trade, basic socio-economics, or both. Provided that trade laws are scrupulously enforced (which has admittedly been a problem at times) considered agreements such as these are on the whole quite a positive thing - though almost never having a particularly big impact. Exports and imports of the relevant products might rise or fall, some new jobs are created, some old ones are lost - and no concerned party comes out noticeably on top of the other as long as everybody agrees to play by the rules.

Even the infamous NAFTA - the ultimate bugaboo amongst the anti-free trade crowd - although a flawed agreement was in terms of its actual impact for the US, had a surprisingly underwhelming effect. On the whole it seems to have been partly responsible for a small net-loss in jobs (it did manage to create some as well) but the reality which many around here choose to ignore is that most of job losses which are credited to it actually resulted primarily from other factors (technological development was a big culprit), leaving the scary-looking numbers and representations from the bogus charts and arguments as little more than an embarrasingly durable example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Joseph Stiglitz, probably the foremost keynesian economist alive today, has published some excellent works about this stuff that a lot of the people who reflexively screech about this stuff might find highly informative.

My suspicion is that a large part of the hysteria tends to be prompted by the heavy opposition of organized labor to free trade both in theory and in practice. As far as I'm concerned this simply showcases why the American left would do well to avoid devolving into little more than a political arm of the union movement. As positive as the contributions of organized labor to American society might be, its positions are hardly infallible - if they were, then large parts of the New Deal would never have come into being.

[brentspeak]

119. "The left", "liberal critics", "reflexively screech", "hysteria"

Apparently, you didn't realize this is DemocraticUnderground.com, not FreeRepublic.com.

The article that is cited which purports to "prove" that the ROK agreement is going somehow cost 159,000 jobs is ludicrous - it presents an argument based on fradulous evidence derived from dodgy analyses from the past that most serious economists wouldn't touch.

The analysis was conducted by economist Robert Scott (PhD. economics). Not sure from what hole you pulled your claim that it's an analysis that "most serious economists wouldn't touch" -- probably from the same hole that you pulled a fabricated word from ("fradulous")

Even the infamous NAFTA...had a surprisingly underwhelming effect...Joseph Stiglitz, probably the foremost keynesian economist alive today, has published some excellent works about this stuff that a lot of the people who reflexively screech about this stuff might find highly informative.

Contrary to your bull$hit, Stiglitz actually terms NAFTA a "broken promise":

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-broken-promise-of-nafta.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[dionysus]

109. unrec for made up headline.

[Hawkowl]

122. At least he's not a Republican!

He's fucking insane! All jobs must go! No offer refused! The USA will not have one single fucking manufacturing job left in another 10 years.