From the very beginning, Obama was bull$hitting when he said he would renegotiate NAFTA
When Obama campaigned for his first term as President, he boasted that he would renegotiate the jobs-destroying NAFTA pact.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/the-facts-about-nafta-gate/
Obama: I will make sure that we renegotiate (NAFTA), in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.
But while Obama was on the campaign trail shamelessly pontificating , he was simultaneously hand-selecting NAFTA-friendly trade representatives who would act to make sure NAFTA would not get reviewed at all.
These are the words of Obama's 2009/10 trade representative, offshoring lapdog Peter Cowhey, assessing NAFTA 20 years after it was signed into law:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Oct/25/nafta-trade-canada-pritzker-commerce-mexico-maquil/
“(NAFTA) built economies of scale for North America to be competitive in our rapidly changing world,” said Peter Cowhey, dean of the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California San Diego. Cowhey also served as the U.S. trade representative in the Obama administration between 2009 and 2010.
“NAFTA has been very helpful in facilitating what ought to be deep relationships and making them a deep success,” Cowhey said.
Cowhey did not have a different opinion of NAFTA when Obama chose him four years ago to be his trade representative.
Of course, we also know Cowhey is overflowingly full of cow-$hit: NAFTA, has, in fact, only cost the United States hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, as well as reduced the wages of millions of more American workers:
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20061004/
Broken promises
NAFTA cost U.S. jobs and reduced wages
By Robert E. Scott
Corporations, politicians, and economists repeatedly claimed in the early 1990s that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would improve the U.S. trade balance with Mexico and Canada, resulting in a net gain of about 200,000 jobs in the United States. The reality is that the U.S.-NAFTA trade deficit has soared over the past dozen years, displacing a total of 1 million jobs nationwide, with losses in every state (see Revisiting NAFTA). Simply put, NAFTA has failed to achieve the benchmarks for success established by its proponents. Nonetheless, many of the original NAFTA supporters as well as members of the Bush Administration and Congress have made similar claims and promises about the purported benefits of other recent trade deals, such as the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement and the proposed agreements with Peru, Korea, and Colombia.
For a better understanding of the situation, it helps to review some basics. Exports support jobs in the United States, while imports displace domestic production and jobs. In 2004, U.S. imports from Mexico and Canada were $412 billion, while U.S. exports were only $300 billion, leaving a $112 billion trade deficit (nominal dollars). By comparison, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico was only $9 billion in 1993; the increase in that trade deficit through 2004 is what is responsible for displacing 1 million jobs nationwide.
Two of the biggest job losers were California (-124,000 jobs) and Texas (-72,000), as shown in the chart below. In terms of the share of a state’s workforce that was affected, those hardest hit were Michigan (-1.4% of its workforce, or -63,000 jobs), Indiana (-1.2%, or -35,000 jobs), and Mississippi (-1.0%, or -12,000 jobs).
Trade-related jobs that were displaced in manufacturing and related services industries paid wages that were 16% to 19% higher than the average job in the rest of the economy. Growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have pushed workers out of higher-wage jobs and into low-wage positions in non-trade-related industries. The displacement of 1 million jobs from traded into non-traded goods industries reduced wage payments to U.S. workers by $7.6 billion in 2004 alone.
Next up: Obama's pet project, TPP, the ultimate corporate trojan horse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
... in other countries and not our own. We'll loose jobs from it, not to mention the gorilla in the room effing coup that comes along with it. It'll bring change alright, and not the change this country needs. What this country needs is to toss out the effing trade agreements that Clinton brought to us and now this whopper that PO thinks he's going to sign off on. They do not have a right to make such decisions on our behalf when we don't know what the end result will be. Their "changes" are taking We the People back and NOT forward! 
Sid
on your not well-thought-out opinion.
Sid
Sid
You radiate brilliance.
Do you need studies?
Sid
how dare you speak! why doncha move to France with those freedom fries of yourn!
(unfortunately a needed smiley these days)and you still love me.
I will have to look into this more: that Canada is the fortunate one in regards to NAFTA. That is a surprise to me, but I will look around and get some edumacation as things may have changed.
Back in the Mulroney days (which were the Reagan days and the Thatcher days all at once, ugh), the first free trade agreement between the U.S. and us, the FTA, our manufacturing suffered greatly as so many moved down to your southern states to take advantage of cheaper labour, looser labour laws,etc. It was a real hit for a lot of people.
Welcome to DU! 
Peace.
-Laelth
Sid
I'm going to rofl at you since you are all assholes!
You never loved him like we do. So you see why it doesn't make sense to you.
-p
But I've been on this since he was elected. At least now, some people are waking up. You should have heard the shit (ALL of the SHIT) I got for my stance. Bipartisanship, what kind of brick do you have to be to know that there's isn't a snowballs chance in hell that was going to work.
But you are correct, I became a US citizen, I wasn't born here and perspectives from other countries are just as important as ours.
I would venture you get shovel fulls too.
-p
Sid
Sid
You're, dammit.
I've seen your posts too.
-p
if I make such an embarrassing error in the midst of a smart ass remark, please feel free to correct me.
no shit.
My 12 year old thought your post was hilarious and clever. Of course, he gets a kick out of fart jokes too.
as much as making that crack amused me ! Give your 12 year old a hug for knowing good humor when he sees it
and?
I understand why you won't. I think everyone in the thread understands why, and false outrage is a bucket that won't carry water on this one.
But hey, keep trying.
I'm actually having a ball at this point. Far from angry, just shaking my head.
Do you need a backhoe to go with that shovel, or are you fine with the hole you are already in, my friend? I'd toss you a rope, but something tells me that you aren't the type to take it
I started having fun. But no, indifference isn't one of those emotions now .
Now I'm just snickering, enjoying some ice cream and seeing how far you want to go with this.
then I guess that is just a coincidence, eh? 
In addition, you left out the part about deregulation, stratification of wealth, outsourcing, inequality, environmental devastation, etc. That's the heart and soul of globalism.
for working people.
You can explain that globalism has been less destructive in other nations, but you are playing make believe if you pretend globalism hasn't gutted the American middle class.
In fact, you can't and won't make the foregoing argument, because it is patently false. So you call anybody who points out the inconsistencies in your bizarre worldview "nationalists", based on a made-up definition of the word idiosyncratic to you and you alone.
It's pathetic, pampango. And it's not working. Nobody is fooled. Not even you.
Keep on fighting the good fight though.
isn't an argument worth addressing. Educate yourself before you join the discussion.
And certainly not just with regard to trade agreements.
Let's not allow that to happen again.
