Congress passes 3 free trade agreements

[brentspeak]

Source: Forbes

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."

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

---

Obama might as well have said that passage of the agreements was "a major win for multinational corporations and Wall Street. I look forward to signing these agreements and watching more Americans slip from the middle class into poverty." The South Korea agreement alone will cost at least http://www.epi.org/press/news_from_epi_free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/">159,000 American jobs. The Panama agreement simply ensures that corporations will yet another http://www.fpif.org/articles/panama_free-trade_tax_haven">legally-protected tax haven.

[Enrique]

1. wtf, they call themselves a news organization?

...to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work...

[Lasher]

51. Well it is Forbes, ya know.

They actually do call themselves a news organization but their neoliberal bias is clear and abundant.

[Plucketeer]

2. Fucking TRAITORS!

Just HOW MANY constituents (us 99 percenters) were calling and urging their reps to SIGN the agreements???? We need to occupy the White House and the Capitol building and start from scratch!!! :mad::mad::mad:

[Luciferous]

3. I don't see how this will be a win for American workers when it will cause more job losses.

This is such bullshit!!!

[chill_wind]

8. GOPhers wanted them. Third Way wanted them. Obama wanted them.

Was there ever any question?

The Korean deal passed on an 83-15 vote, while the vote was 77-22 on the Panama deal and 66-33 on the Colombia agreement.

Trade represents a rare source of comity between Obama and House Republicans, who have otherwise fought bitterly with the White House since regaining control of the lower chamber. Obama has included the deals in his package to create jobs and improve the economy, which is otherwise languishing in Congress.

The White House released a statement from the president after the votes saying that the deals' approval was a victory for "American workers and businesses."

lots more here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/187253-president-gets-win-as-trade-deals-pass

and here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/187175-house-approves-colombia-fta-with-scant-dem-support

Republicans are wetting themselves with joy in sharing and touting this same great victory for Americans.

"All three agreements had broad Republican support, while they divided House Democrats. Only 31 Democrats supported the deal with Colombia, while 59 Democrats backed the deal with South Korea and 66 supported the Panama agreement."

Has anyone posted the votes? Especially it will be useful to see the 31 names on the Columbia deal. Pelosi blocked that in 07 when Bush tried to push it and candidate Obama also opposed it. She voted against this one again and the article explains why. (Reid was said to oppose all three.)

(bold mine)

[chill_wind]

15. self-delete

[Enthusiast]

Yes, complete

[valerief]

4. The only thing exported will be more American jobs. Who the fuck are they kidding? nt

[OhioChick]

19. +1000 n/t

[boppers]

32. Please name the top ten global exporters.

Research it, you might be surprised.

[Lasher]

52. Your exercise is incomplete without a list of the top 10 importers.

You might have something to learn if you research that by way of comparison.

[valerief]

68. +1000

[valerief]

67. I wish we exported NEARLY as much as we imported. But, I'm sorry, what was your point?

[pampango]

125. With "free trade" countries we do export almost as much as we import. n/t

[tblue]

84. Might wanna rethink that graphic.

Sorry but it's true.

[In Other News]

124. Good point nt

[avaistheone1]

5. I want to see who of our craven Dems voted for this debacle.

Anyone have a link to the vote breakdown?

[alp227]

13. here they are

Senate Roll Call 161 (Korea, HR 3080); , and 163 (Colombia, HR 3078)

The Korea bill passed with 83 votes, Panama 77, Colombia 66. In my state (CA), Feinstein voted for all 3 bills, Boxer against just the Panama one. Jeanne Shaheen, who was absent from last night's jobs bill vote because of a home state award ceremony, voted yea on all 3. Democrats who voted against all 3: Kay Hagan (NC), Richard Blumenthal (CT, newly elected), Harry Reid (NV, also majority leadre), and Jon Tester (MT). No Republicans voted against the free trade bills.

I couldn't find a direct house vote for these bills, but House RC 771 provided for consideration of a senate amendment to 2 of the bills. Again, not a single republican voting nay. My rep Lofgren voted for this.

[me b zola]

18. Thank you for the list

Just as I suspected Ron Wyden voted for all three. Ugh.

[Quantess]

41. That's sort of surprising to me.

I usually agree with the way he votes.

[me b zola]

48. I've been wary of him

You know he has had the backing of progressives, but didn't use his voice against the bush* administration atrocities. He always kept himself low-key and never stepped up.

[0rganism]

91. Merkely Nay on all three, though

at least one of the Oregon senators is on our side.

I'm tempted to call Wyden's office to enquire which orifice would be optimal for insertion of my MSEE diploma.

[me b zola]

92. Yes, I saw that

He has stayed true so far and I am pleased with him. :)

[chill_wind]

20. Thank you for that info, alp227.

[kenfrequed]

90. Damn

Well at least Franken voted against two out of three of them. Friggin Klobuchar voted For two out of three. Really people, is free trade with South Korea really that great an idea?

[msongs]

6. "they" get our jobs, so what do we get (not the filthy rich coprorations....US) nt

[roody]

102. We get Colombian refugees.

[SoapBox]

7. Booooooooooooo & Hisssssssssss!

How about a FAIR Trade agreement for a change.

jerks.

[DJ13]

9. I swear they dont care if we're at 10% unemployment by the election

Its like all the pols in DC (in both parties, at every level) have all lined up cushy jobs with their biggest donors just in case they lose.

[Fool Count]

10. I guess, polarization and partisanship level in American politics

is not bad enough to prevent both parties from getting together on devising new and better ways of screwing the American worker.

[Kablooie]

11. Don't free trade agreements essentially allow corporations to establish foreign factories?

Foreign workers can be had at a fraction of what an American worker costs.
Then they can sell the products back to us and also increase sales by selling tons more in the free trade countries.

Once again, a big win for the 1% and a net loss for the 99%.

When is this going to stop?

[bhikkhu]

12. I wish they'd pass the jobs bill, but the trade agreements are a good deal

US exports have been doing well under the administrations monetary policy, and these should actually do what it is hoped they will do, and support the economy and jobs here.

The prediction of 159k jobs lost is based on "history" - which is to say its based on the effects of unfavorable monetary policy combined with trade. Currently the situation is much better, and the policies are good. Good policies bring good results.

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

"US Trade Gap Shrinks as Exports Surge" - http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/210728/us-trade-gap-shrinks-as-exports-surge

"Manufacturing Sector Shows Continued Growth" - http://www.wbez.org/story/illinois-department-employment-security/manufacturing-sector-shows-shows-continued-growth

[alp227]

14. BBC: Korea trade act will increase US-made exports to the country

US Congress votes through South Korea trade deal

President Obama said the pacts with South Korea, Panama and Columbia were "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 labour rights, the environment and intellectual property," he said in a statement.

The Obama administration says that pact alone will support 70,000 American jobs.

There was nearly $80bn in trade between the US and South Korea last year. The Asian country is the seventh largest trade partner for the US.

[brentspeak]

16. Not mentioned in your post: Imports from Korea will greatly outnumber exports to Korea

Resulting in gigantic American job losses and destroyed industries from a massive trade deficit.

http://m.npr.org/news/Business/141264928?page=2

Growing Skepticism Of Free Trade

These members reflect a growing skepticism in the general public about whether free trade agreements really are good for the U.S. economy.

"I've seen first hand the negative effects that trade agreements have had on our manufacturing sector and this one is estimated to displace 159,000 jobs and increase our trade deficit with Korea by $16.7 billion," says Rep. Mark Critz, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.

The same government report that says beef producers will be real winners also finds that in the case of South Korea the trade deficit is likely to grow. Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, says supporters are looking only at the deposits and none of the withdrawals.

"It is true that our exports will increase. The problem is our imports from Korea are going to increase a lot more," Wallach says. "If you subtract the jobs that will be wiped out by imports from the jobs that will be created by exports, you come up with a deficit."

[bhikkhu]

22. The 159k number is bogus

...more or less made up, based on the effect of other deals made under unfavorable conditions. The point I was trying to make is that good policies can have good results. The opposite is certainly true as well.

The 159k number comes from one group who looked at deals made under unfavorable monetary policies. When we declare "free trade" with a partner whose currency trades at a discount to ours, the effect is to make imports cheaper than domestic production here, and you wind up with more imports and less exports. The long term effect is to destroy domestic production, and encourage overseas production. That's a bad policy.

When you make a trade deal under favorable economic policies, things can be more balanced and trade can strengthen both partners. South Korea is a modern economy like our own, with a similar standard of living and wage structure, good benefits, and an excellent national health insurance program. We're not competing with slave labor there.

Overall, Obama has pursued a goal of doubling US exports by 2015, by both trade policies and a good monetary policy. If you google "US export growth", you might be surprised; I know it has gotten little press and the president gets little credit, but things in have been going well on that front.

Again, good policies bring good results. Its no good judging from data from other deals under different circumstances - you can look at current data, as the administration has, for the most likely effect of current policies.

[jeff47]

23. And the 70k number isn't?

Fact is we have a track record with free trade agreements. They don't work out as well for us as their supporters claim. Since we've yet to create a net-positive free trade agreement, being skeptical of these agreements seems prudent.

[bhikkhu]

25. We have a track record of bush's economic policy's effect on trade

We also have a current record of Obama's policy's effect on trade:

"US Exports Surge 17 Percent Over First Four Months of 2010 - http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90852/7057327.html

"Exports Related Jobs Surge in 2010" - http://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2011/07/05/export-related-jobs-surge-2010

"Exports to China Surge to Record Levels" - http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/02/us-exports-to-china-surge-to-record.html

"US Exports Surge to New Record High in March" - http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/05/11/u-s-exports-surge-to-new-record-high-in-march/

"July Trade Deficit Narrows, US Exports Surge" - http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1149497839001/july-trade-deficit-narrows-us-exports-surge/

"US Exports Hit Record High; Imports Fall" - http://www.joc.com/global-trade/us-exports-hit-record-high-imports-fall

...I understand the skepticism, but on the trade issue, I'm pretty comfortable with this pic:

[AverageJoe90]

38. Sad thing is, it could reverse much of what good the Obama admin. HAS done these past 3 years.

I do hope things can be fixed to where the big corps don't get off so easy. I'd be a lot more comfortable then.

[jeff47]

64. That's nice. Perhaps you could point out a net-positive free trade agreement?

Otherwise, you're completely avoiding my point.

[pampango]

66. Just one. Australia-US FTA.

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/australian-fta
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c6021.html

So far (through August) in 2011: exports to Australia - $17.1 billion; imports from Australia - $6.6 billion
In 2010: exports - $21.8 billion, imports: $8.6 billion
In 2009: exports - $19.6 billion, imports: $8.0 billion

[bhikkhu]

103. and Chile, and Peru, Singapore, Bahrain, and the CAFTA group

which includes 6 countries in South America.Those are free trade countries that we have net trade surpluses with.

[bhikkhu]

89. self-delete

nevermind. In spite of the administration record, it seems no one is really interested unless its bad news...

[brentspeak]

27. It's clear you didn't bother to research before posting

The http://www.epi.org/temp727/WorkingPaper289-2.pdf">EPI study factors in that Korea, like China, manipulates its currency, the very thing you yourself term "unfavorable monetary policy".

You also said:

South Korea is a modern economy like our own, with a similar standard of living and wage structure, good benefits, and an excellent national health insurance program. We're not competing with slave labor there.

The Korean deal will allow for Korean goods to be categorized as "made in Korea" with as little as 35% Korean manufacturing involvement; the treaty will now permit 65% of "made in Korea" products to actually be made in China or elsewhere.

Furthermore, the growing trend in Korean domestic manufacturing is to in-source cheap labor from abroad -- from Indonesia, Vietnam, and former Soviet republics -- in place of existing domestic Korean labor. There are huge, teeming housing complexes around Seoul where imported foreign factory workers are packed together like sardines and bussed back and forth to factory locations. These in-sourced foreign laborers are paid and treated almost as poorly as Chinese coke-smelt employees, and they are increasingly replacing Korean factory workers inside Korea itself.

Therefore, American workers will indeed be "competing with slave labor there."

[bhikkhu]

34. Link?

I haven't followed the employment situation in South Korea closely, but I recall a crisis back in '96, when immigration rules were tightened up and more progressive employment regulations were adopted.

The country has typically very low unemployment, and natural tensions similar to our own between the need for more labor due to high economic activity vs low population, the desire to maintain a high standard of living (making more menial jobs difficult to fill), and a desire to maintain cultural homogeneity. I haven't heard that there is a problem with out-of-control numbers of foreign laborers. Its at least as much of a sensitive political issue there as it is here.

[Jim_Shorts]

88. Thank you for the EPI link, I've been looking for a study on these deals

Obama is obviously using the chamber of commerce numbers. I'm sure Jeffery Immelt is happy.

From the EPI study: Overall, if adopted, the U.S.-Colombia and U.S.-Korea trade agreements
will displace a total of 214,000 additional U.S. jobs. The majority of the jobs displaced would be in
manufacturing, but many jobs would also be lost in industries that sell other goods and services to manufacturing.
link: http://www.epi.org/temp727/WorkingPaper289-2.pdf

Dennis Kucinich: "free trade deals with Korea, Panama and Colombia will result in more jobs lost"

Bernie Sanders : Oct 12, 2011 Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the floor of the senate today that U.S. trade policy has been "a disaster" for American workers. These new trade agreements are nothing more than a continuation of a failed trade policy.

[chill_wind]

26. Colombia, especially, should have NEVER been rewarded with an FTA.

[joshcryer]

40. There is a really fascinating correlation between countries we have agreements with...

...and countries we don't. The countries we have trade agreements with turn out to reduce the trade deficit considerably.

We really need a trade agreement with China since it's only one way (we get Chinese imports, no exports, major tariffs on China's side, basically none on our side; I think there are some steel tariffs but I'm not sure on that one; Solyandra was killed for one, because they had to compete with China).

[fasttense]

62. Right free trade agreements (actually treaties that by-pass the 2/3 majority vote requirement)

Because we have seen sooooooo many, many jobs being created from all those other 17 free trade agreements.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The current free trade agreements have caused millions of job losses in the US. But doing more of the exact same free trade agreements are going to, now all of a sudden, cause job increases in the US?

How dumb do you have to be to believe new free trade agreements will help the US economy when the results of 17 agreements are currently staring you in the face with high unemployment, higher poverty rate, lower wages, and millions of Americans homeless and on food stamps?

These free trade agreements are nothing more than give aways to the rich 1% and corporations.

Now Uncle Joe try and sell your tomatoes for a living wage when they can be bought for 10 cents from Panama. But don't worry, Panama is giving all the excessively wealthy a hiding place for their ill gotten gains.

[bhikkhu]

79. Poor monetary policies have caused millions of job losses in the US

by making imports so much cheaper than domestic production.

Current policies are more favorable to domestic production, and it shows in our export numbers and in the job growth related to export businesses.

[values1]

86. Our One-Party Congress spins another tale.

Historically, 70% of the economy, consumers, have been put up
against the wall with a system of scam from Wall Street casino
bets, insuring, and encouraging failure on housing loans. 
Deregulation made it possible.

Then the big money boys took their marbles and ran home to sit
on them hoping to hatch some greater deals in the future to
scam somebody somewhere to keep that profit coming, no matter
what it does to the majority of "Americans," (do we
have a nation anymore? other than to fight some "nation
building" war for Wall Street expansion). The two
prospects were either to scam cheap labor somewhere, or next
to continue to insure that American tax dollars go into the
pockets of "private" Wall Street market
investment...from schools, prisons, Social Security, and
Medicare.   No guarantees on those once they hit the
market....  The kids and grandkids of the future? Who cares?
The rich have their kids pockets taken care of....and the poor
will have to fight the wars for expansion overseas.

IF there is some magic marker that shows how these new same
spin trade deals are going to create a nation here in America
again..that enables the US workforce to obtain a living wage
with the debt that they have been locked, enticed, into, under
the old system, you better be publishing it big time, cause no
one is going to buy your story as we look at economic history,
3 unnecessary ongoing wars, an abused military, and a dismal
future....locked to a scammed past.  Congress IS the issue. 
Regulation probably won't happen with the current Republican
OR Democratic Congress.  Exports won't equal imports. Huge
regulation policies and tariff on US company products made
overseas need to be established FIRMLY.

[brentspeak]

99. What you failed to mention: The S. Korean trade deal continues those unfavorable monetary policies

Korea manipulates their currency in much the same way that China does. Therefore, the Obama/GOP KORUS deal is simply another gut punch to the US economy.

[Enthusiast]

73. ...

[daleo]

109. History is often a good guide

And it's usually better than predictions made from standard economic theory.

[chill_wind]

17. Trumka: The wrong medicine at the wrong time.

http://blog.aflcio.org/

[russspeakeasy]

21. All three are bullshit agreements...

This administration has made some of the worst decisions imaginable.
Bail out the banks, ships jobs overseas, and tell the liberals to eat their peas. With all due respect.. I've fuckin had it. Mr. O needs to be primaried....Bernie ? Howard ?

[No Elephants]

24. I see the joblessness for Americans program is still way ahead of the jobs for Americans program.

All is still well with the plutonomy, despite the protests.

What a relief.

[Citizen Worker]

28. When will Labor quit sucking the d--k of the democrats?

[harun]

106. With a two party system one party need be only slightly more favorable to a given

interest group to win their support by default.

[AllyCat]

29. Senator Kohl (WI) voted for SK and Panama, but against Columbia

What the FREAK is wrong with these people??? More unemployment and these a$$hats are celebrating?

[kimsarah]

30. Next up,

passage of the "bipartisan" corporate tax holiday repatriation act.

[kimsarah]

44. Oh, and not to worry

The $1.4 Trillion needs to come back to the U.S. so our companies and banksters can reward the CEOs and other executives with bonuses -- early Christmas bonuses if approved in time, for their well-earned hard work. It's been seven years since the last repatriation, and it's way overdue. Some of the money left over after the bonuses is expected to create jobs, which should trickle down to us.

[Thornleylv]

31. Congress can move fast when corporation need something.

Why can't they move that fast on the jobs bill?

[workinclasszero]

33. MFing TRAITORS!!!

You sorry bastards! We have to have a REVOLUTION to stop these rotten un-american slime or they will put each and every one of us on the street!

OCCUPY EVERYTHING!!!!

[AverageJoe90]

35. Fuck........

Well, you know what? I now hope South Korea has a horrible economic crash sometime in the near future, just so the GOP can learn a hard lesson about screwing this country over.

And as for Obama...........he clearly didn't know what he was getting into.

[Hugabear]

36. When are we going to OCCUPY CONGRESS?

Goddamned fucking traitors.

[ClarkUSA]

37. FACT from The New York Times: The WH made "changes demanded by industry groups and unions"

No amount of the usual misleading Obama-bashing rhetoric from biased op-ed sources changes these facts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x795798

[OHdem10]

39. Lou Dobbs held up a r eport which he stated was from the Labor

Dept. According to the report there will be no new
jobs. Guess what some goods will be mfg in N.Korea.
Is that not just ducky. Oh yes, Trumpka, Labor Unions
says around 160,000 jobs will be lost. Ho Hummmm.

Even if this report was not true these are jobs over
the long term. This country needs jobs now.

The Republicans are willing to help semd jobs out of
this country but will not vote for a jobs bill to help
Americans.

[JCMach1]

42. So voting to axe jobs in favor of the corporate masters...

Why am I not shocked...

[Safetykitten]

43. Huzzah for our side! The final slide into desperate living.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. Hooray for poorly informed rage

US Exports to Korea are surging and has been for some time, principle US exports to Korea are heavy industrial equipment which are presently subject to a tarrif of 6.2% which will be reduced to zero. The idea it will cost 159,000 jobs is ridiculous, South Korea is NOT a low-cost place to do business, indeed Korean companies are establishing operations in the US because it is cheaper to do business here... and cars are very heavy.

Status quo with Columbia isn't an option and disproportionatly favors Columbia just by nature of the WTO and goods imported and exported, it is however not a large trade deficit and the US will acheive a trade surplus with Columbia owing to the removal of the tarrifs on agricultural goods.

And finally the US has already has a ridiculous trade surplus in our favor with Panama.

Three trade agreements that will quickly allow the US to realize a trade surplus which is highly favorable to exporters of heavy industrial equipment and agriculture.

But yeah, feel free to keep thinking Obama and Ron Kirk are some sort of inept Fifth Columnists out to fuck you over. I realize it is essencial to the world view of many around here.

Free Trade isn't and has never been the problem. US domestic policies are republican adherance to 'low road' economic development policies are the problem.

[Lasher]

59. I love irony.

US Exports to Korea are surging, ya say? If exports were already surging, then why did we need a FTA? And did you know that we have a trade deficit with South Korea to the tune of $7.8 billion so far this year?

You claim it's expensive to make things in South Korea. The average annual wage there is $32,638 compared to $51,493 in the US.

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

Did you know that the South Korean FTA will allow for goods to be categorized as "made in South Korea" with as little as 35% Korean manufacturing involvement; the treaty will now permit 65% of "made in South Korea" products to actually be made in China, North Korea, or elsewhere?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5024927

Weren't your same arguments used to sell NAFTA? That was supposed to be a great thing too. Our trade deficits with Mexico and Canada are $39.3 billion and $20.5 billion so far this year, respectively.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

118. So 9 out of 10 years of increased exports, combined with a falling deficit

Isn't a surge?

The US needs a free trade agreement with Korea because of preferential treatment of Korean exports under the WTO regime and because the free trade agreement between the EU and Korea will make US exports less competitive. It was estimated by the EU that 450 million Euros would be saved in duties on heavy machinery in the first year. The largest US export to Korea (excluding outlier Boeing orders) is heavy machinery. Korea is the 7th largest US export market - but without free trade European exporters have an immediate and commanding advantage since the tariff on the US Industrial goods is 6-8%.

This couldn't possibly make sense, Obama and Kirk are just part of an anti-American fifth column in the employ of the transnational capitalist class.

[treestar]

65. Thank you - it is too amazing that people just jump

on these without understanding them. OP asks us to condemn that without knowing what is even in them.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Or people jump into threads with support when

they have no idea what they are talking about.

Care to show where you got your info about how great these deals are?

[treestar]

100. I don't know if they are good or bad

But at least I'll get informed before deciding. That OK?

Or do I have to condemn every one just because someone says they are always bad? Because that's the attitude.

[Lasher]

104. So you are not willing to show where you got your info about how great these deals are.

I wonder why that could be.

[treestar]

127. I specifically said I don't know

And this is your response?

You are clearly against anyone finding out more on the subject.

[fascisthunter]

77. sayeth the person pushing for unFree Trade

nothing is free and we the working class pay for it all... go jump in a cold river.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

117. Your quarrel is with the republicans, not Samsung.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Removing tariffs on agricultural goods to Colombia?

Just like in Mexico, where a flood of surplus U.S. corn destroyed countless small farmers there?

Such a deal!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

116. The "Inclosure Acts" in the UK from 1750 - 1850 also took out small farmers

(For the spelling pricks, that is how it was spelt at the time)

It is just part of industrialization, subsidizing largely unproductive cottage agriculture is money poorly spent.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Except in the case of Mexico, some of the displaced farmers become

our illegal immigrants, and others become foot soldiers for the drug lords.

Such a deal!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

120. Most of the farmers were displaced pre-NAFTA

By an internal economic policy based on import substitution (aka dependency theory) which caused rapid industrial growth and a shift from subsidizing agriculture to subsidizing infant industries.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. So if Mexico was subsidizing jobs, why can't it support its own people?

??

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

131. Mostly regional disparities,

The Mexican government favored economic development in the North, while the south has languished since colonial times.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. But it's the north that is the center of the drug wars

:shrug:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

133. Location, Location, Location.

There is no multi-billion dollar trade in smuggling drugs into Guatemala.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. What is your job again?

In what manner do you butter than loaf you are slicing?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

115. I work with foreign businesses operating in the US and vice-versa

I also wrote extensively on the original 1987 FTA between the United States and Canada and the 1965 Auto Pact before it.

[SixthSense]

97. I disagree strongly with that assessment

That argument bears a startling similarity to the bill of goods we were sold with NAFTA.

Free trade is only beneficial when the other side of the trade has an economy substantially similar to ours.

SK might qualify as a substantially similar economy. Colombia and Panama most certainly do not.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

114. Our domestic polices did us in, not NAFTA.

The principle is sound, advanced economies should focus on the highest value economic activity. This however requires domestic policies that don't cut your own national throughout. The Europeans figured this out decades ago prospered for it. While we decided a futile holding action based on reduced wages, regulations, protections and what-not was the way to go.

[jeff47]

98. Wow is your analysis bad.

We ran a $5 billion trade deficit with South Korea in 2010, where workers are paid less than the US. How exactly do you expect free trade to benefit US workers in that case?

We ran a $3.6 billion trade deficit with Colombia in 2010. Where workers are paid much less than the US. As an added bonus, union leaders in Columbia are routinely executed.

While we ran a $5b trade surplus with Panama in 2010. So one might think this one could actually be good. But labor costs are very low in Panama, which means that gap will close nicely as Panamanians take over US jobs.

Data from here: http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

113. A $5 billion dollar trade deficit is infinitesimal,

Our trade deficit with China is $273 Billion, Our trade deficit with Columbia will disappear with the removal of agricultural tariffs and I don't think were in a great position to lecture anybody about human rights.

Panama has a population of 3.4 million and for statistical purposes near full employment, I think our jerbs are safe on that front.

[jeff47]

123. The existence of larger trade deficits elsewhere is irrelevant.

What is important is the size of the deficit compared to total trade. $5b is not small in that context.

And it's cute you think it will all work out even after NAFTA has proven your argument wrong.

[brentspeak]

101. Thanks for the laugh

While labeling everyone else "poorly informed", you successfully failed to include a single link to support any portion of your rant. Especially funny is your contention that "the three trade agreements will quickly allow the US to realize a trade surplus" after you had already claimed that exports to Korea are "surging" and that we "already have a ridiculous trade surplus" with Panama. Circular logic isn't convincing -- and neither are US Chamber of Commerce talking points.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

112. What are you talking about?

US exports to Korea have increased year over year, every year of the past decade except for 2009, in that same period the trade deficit with Korea has decreased every year even in light of the ascendency of Hyundai/Kia. As recently as 1997 the US acheived a trade surplus with Korea. Between Hyundai shifting greater production to the United States, US industrial exports becoming more competitive with those from the European Union who already has a free trade agreement with Korea there is nothing implausible about it.

Free Trade with Panama is a technicality, an offshoot of the FTAA process.

[brentspeak]

126. So what you're saying is that we should obliterate our trade surplus with Korea

by signing a free trade deal that will destroy regional US manufacturing (non-Caterpillar) by subjecting it to unnecessary S.Korean competition subsidized by 65% made-in-North Korea-and-China labor and an artificially devalued S.Korean currency? (And it gets http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article30841.html">even worse after that.)

BTW, the issue with extending "free trade" with Panama has nothing to do with trade deficits or manufacturing or jobs -- it has to do with legalizing corporate tax havens. The new trade deal with Panama will now allow corporations a US government-ok'd sanctuary for http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/blogs/2465-panama-free-trade-tax-haven.html">mammoth tax evasion.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

130. We don't have a trade surplus with Korea, but one is very much attainable

Status quo is the most destructuve alternative, Korean exports already receive favorable treatment by way of the WTO and our European competitors will have an across the board price advantage by way of their free trade agreement with Korea. It is silly to argue that the US is going to lose manufacturing jobs to Korea when Korea itself is offshoring manufacturing to China, Eastern Europe and the United States. Intermediate goods is a red herring.

Free Trade with Panama is no different than the free trade agreements with Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Not terribly important, just part of the goal of Free Trade across the entire Americas.

[rhett o rick]

105. WTF does "US domestic policies are republican adherance to 'low road' economic development policies

mean?

[Romulox]

108. It means he's into race to the bottom economics, too. nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

111. No, it means I place the blame where it belongs - republicans

Who believe the key to prosperity is lowering wages, regulations, environmental protections and what-not. As opposed to a liberalized trade regime which the rest of the advanced world seems to cope with quite nicely with all the above intact.

[blue_onyx]

128. Huh?

Do you realize these trade agreements are Bush policies? It's NAFTA all over again. NAFTA was agreed to by Bush in 1992. Clinton supported it (with changes) and signed it into law in 1993. These trade agreements are W. Bush policies that Obama signed into law with some changes. We've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well. You want to blame Republicans while supporting Republican policies.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

129. And Al Gore wanted Fast Track from Congress to reach the same agreements

Things would be little different today with or without NAFTA, national self-emaciation began years before NAFTA.

[Romulox]

107. LOL: "trade agreements that will quickly allow the US to realize a trade surplus"

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

110. Indeed it will,

Typical US exports to these markets are still subject to significant tariffs while WTO treatment of typical exports to the US from Korea and Columbia is much more favourable. It also levels the playing field between US exporters and European exporters as the European Union has already realized a free trade agreement with South Korea.

[earcandle]

46. This just promotes the same ole same ole shit...

[slay]

47. Every time I hear the words "bi-partisan support" - I know we've just been screwed

hell that's the only thing congress will agree on - is how to fuck us - whether it be by bailing out big banks, tax cuts to billionaires, or never ending wars. i'm fucking sick of it. the system is broken.

[Raksha]

87. You too, huh?

Re "Every time I hear the words "bi-partisan support" - I know we've just been screwed." Funny (not!) how it seems to work out that way every single time.

[PatrynXX]

49. well this will make sure the wall street protests continue.

Republicans eager to toss jobs

[Altoid_Cyclist]

50. People are actually defending this as being "good for America"??

I guess that love truly is blind when the smitten sees a "D" after the president's name.

More jobs, money and human rights violations for Colombia while we get royally %&$#ed AGAIN.

Thank you pres. Bus...er I mean Obama. Change that we can do without big time.

[bread_and_roses]

53. I don't notice any of the defenders mentioning Columbia's habit of murdering trade unionists

I guess that's all right too?

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/10/12/trumka-korea-colombia-panama-trade-deals-wrong-medicine/#more-62380

... Colombia has long been the most deadly nation in the world for trade unionist and as an AFL-CIO report found last week, remains so, despite promises by the Colombian to battle the violence against trade unionists. Trumka says a deal with Colombia “is not just bad policy, it’s immoral.”

Just last year, 51 trade unionists were assassinated. Would we pass a trade agreement with a country if it were 51 corporate CEOs who’d been murdered?

The other arguments in favor are the same old same old as in the Clinton years. We already know how those worked out

Working people know what many too many politicians apparently do not—these deals will be bad for jobs, workers’ rights and our economy...

... According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the Korea trade deal will cost 159,000 net U.S. jobs while Panama routinely tramples workers’ rights and shelters money launderers and tax dodgers.

... EPI says the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should serve as warning about the job loss threat of these three trade deals. Click here for a state-by-state NAFTA job-loss map.

[Lasher]

54. Related thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=5023658

[jerseyjack]

55. I just heard a giant sucking sound ---

[Nihil]

122. That'll be the President and his administration saying "Hi" to the corporations again. (n/t)

[endless october]

56. these trade agreements never seem to work as advertised.

they invariably result in lost jobs, lower wages, and less bargaining power for the American worker.

[JJW]

57. As Hillary Clinton said....

Shame on you, Barack Obama.

[wobblie]

58. sold out

We got nothing in exchange for more outsourcing of our manufacturing. No extension of UI benefits, and no re authorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act for workers. These "trade" acts are part and parcel of the readjustment of our standard of living downward by 30%. People who support these trade acts are totally ignorant of what China's most favored nation trading status has done to our manufacturing base---5 million plus jobs that paid 50,000 dollars a year plus gone for ever. The "jobs" being created now pay half as much (if that)---get it--a general 30% reduction in our standard of living in being engineered by the "masters of the universe". These "free trade" agreements have one purpose only, and that is to maintain the downward pressure on wages. It is the way "unfettered" capitalism works. "Cheap" foreign goods, are only cheap if you are working. For the 16% U-6 unemployment, all goods are expensive. You are either with the 99% or you are a sycophant of the idle rich.

[Swede Atlanta]

60. These worked out so well before.......

NAFTA has sucked millions of U.S. jobs out of the country, mostly to the south. Unless these trade agreements are between partners that share certain common values, they will result in jobs being sucked from the wealthier countries to the poorer and a flow of cheap goods in the other direction. When an American or Canadian manufacturer with an average labor cost of say $25.00 an house can shift jobs to Mexico with an average labor cost of say $5.00 an hour, those jobs will never return. The only jobs that remain are those in the service sector that cannot be performed elsewhere (e.g. hairdresser, McDonad's server, etc.) and those that require skills that don't exist in Mexico. Those same American and Canadian manufacturers then re-import the Mexican-made products to their home markets. This results in a lower cost of consumers and a much larger profit margin. This works as long until the wealthier countries have been so drained of jobs they can no longer afford to buy those products. For every good-paying job that leave, at least 3 other jobs are affected. Over time and with volume, the entire economy is at risk.

[Laelth]

61. Vomit. Only Koreans, Colombians, and Panamanians get the jobs.

The American people get the shaft.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

63. Here is 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

[Jakes Progress]

69. But, but it has to be a good thing, right?

I mean Obama wants it so it has to be good. But then Clinton wanted it so it must be bad. But then Obama wants it so it must be good. But george wanted it so it must be bad. Overload, Overload.

Gee if only there were some way to decide whether things were good or bad other than just go by which personality star wants it. Hmmm. If only there were something humans could do other than let famous people tell them what to do. Hmmmm.

[Enthusiast]

70. This amounts to an economic act of treason.

Obama said he would renegotiate NAFTA because public sentiment was so against it. He knew full well that a huge majority of Americans are opposed to new free trade deals. Obama and the rest of the supporters of these deals all knew that the American people did not want these deals. WTF? Democracy? I don't think so.

[The Backlash Cometh]

72. Neo-liberalism.

I think of how Clinton signed that Nafta agreement thinking he was going to improve conditions in other countries. Has anyone ever asked him if he had regrets?

[lovuian]

74. this is the nail in the coffin for Congress

they are so out of touch with America

and so in bed with the corporations

[CanonRay]

75. There go more jobs

they just don't get it yet.

[fascisthunter]

76. Congress forces Americans out of more Jobs

That is esentially what they have done. And then we get the bullshit apologists who try to trivialize the working classes struggle... goodamn are the rich and wealthy oblivious and arrogant.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. I knew they'd do this crap. We no longer have representatives in Congress. We have a-holes nt

[get the red out]

81. New jobs!!!!!

Just not in the United States. Fun times. The only time our political parties agree is to totally screw us over.

[workinclasszero]

82. Attention all american workers...

That sharp painful feeling you have this morning between your shoulder blades is from the knife that our president and congress shoved into you today!

3 more job killing free trade bills just sailed right on through into law! No problem!

Here's a clue for everybody.

When the democrats and republicans unite to pass any type of legislation with no problems it means...

They are doing the bidding of their wall street mafia masters and the public be damned!

[L0oniX]

85. Class warfare ...they have fired back at us. What can we do about it?

BUY MADE IN THE USA PRODUCTS!

[Maven]

93. Or-Bama-Wellian

"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."

:rofl:

[ProSense]

94. UAW Applauds Passage of U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement

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.

more

[brentspeak]

96. Economist Ian Fletcher: "Don't be fooled by White House's cynical ploy" (obtaining UAW support)

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

Don't be fooled by the fact that some unions, like the United Auto Workers (UAW), have endorsed the agreement. This is part of a cynical ploy by the White House to split the trade union movement in order to keep the AFL-CIO neutral. The UAW's out-of-touch leadership is so punch-drunk from the 2008 collapse of the U.S. auto industry that it has lost touch not only with what is good for the American economy as a whole, but with what is good for rank-and-file auto workers. Don't take my word for it: in the words of Al Benchich, retired president of UAW Local 909:

The UAW Administration Caucus is the one-party state that controls the UAW at the International level. Every International officer is a member of the Caucus, and they surround themselves with appointed international reps that unquestioningly do their bidding.

No wonder other, more democratic and more intelligent, unions, like Leo Gerard's United Steelworkers, are criticizing the UAW for its decision to support KORUS-FTA. Interestingly, the UAW's past record of criticizing KORUS-FTA is more honest than anything they're doing in a desperate bid to help keep Obama in the White House. For example, here's what they originally said about this agreement:

KORUS-FTA has inadequate protections and enforcement mechanisms to enforce either the spirit or the letter of the law.

[SixthSense]

95. In case anyone tells you we have representative government

just wave this in their face and ask them WHO called on their representatives to pass these?

[upi402]

134. Where's a LINK to the votes?

I'd like to see the "Democrats" who voted to twist the knife again.

[upi402]

135. Here's a LINK. Both my "Dems" voted for them

http://www.votesmart.org/mystate_summary.php

I'm disenfranchised. There are only 2 parties and both are against me 100%.