Obama "empathizes" with OWS; will soon sign middle-class destroying free trade bill anyway

[brentspeak]

http://www.uskoreafta.org/news/us-chamber-commerce-it-s-now-or-never-pass-these-free-trade-agreements">pushed by the US Chamber of Commerce, which was itself http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/occupy-d-c-protesters-march-through-washington-demanding-jobs/">"occupied" by members of Occupy DC yesterday.

This link helps explain the http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article30841.html">NAFTA-clone South Korea free trade treaty Obama is itching to sign (which he will do so as soon as Congress passes him the bill to his desk.}

Obama gave some http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/story/2011-10-06/wall-street-protests-obama/50679970/1">lip service to the Occupy Wall Street movement the other day -- even though many Americans will http://www.epi.org/publication/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/">become unemployed/underemployed as a result of the US-Korea Free Trade Treaty he'll put his signature to.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Unrec.

:hi:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

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

[MrTriumph]

3. Obama has the support of 82% of workers... in China, India, etc.

Hey, he's a "job creator" after all!

[Vincardog]

4. BO is pushing to pass the bill that aWoL negotiated and could not pass. FUCK that. Can anyone tell

me why any liberal should vote for him given his disastrous policies?
None of this "the alternative is worse". I am done voting for the least worse option.
Give me one positive reason to allow BO to continue to destroy the Democratic brand.

[begin_within]

38. There is no reason.

[ProSense]

5. So

"Obama 'empathizes' with OWS; will soon sign middle-class destroying free trade bill anyway"

...will he sign them without Congress passing them?

How do you know they'll cost jobs? The assessments are not an exact science. Most are based on the impact of NAFTA, and these agreements have been strengthened. NAFTA's provisions also went unenforced. President Obama has demonstrated that he will enforce trade agreements.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

11. So

"OP: 'which he will do so as soon as Congress passes him the bill to his desk.'"

...Congress is plotting to screw the middle class? I'd like to see that vote.

Three things are going to be factors: the deals, the TAA, and the enforcement. Also, the China currency bill is seen as a positive for the middle class.

[brentspeak]

12. Oh, you mean the China currency bill which Obama is already wavering on?

This China currency bill, correct? The one which Obama oh-so-bravely isn't publicly supporting?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/us-usa-china-idUSN1E7950FF20111007?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

By Doug Palmer and Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON | Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:49am EDT


(Reuters) - President Barack Obama accused China on Thursday of "gaming" international trade by keeping its currency weak, but was cautious about a bill before the Senate aimed at pressing Beijing to revalue the yuan.

The legislation, which calls for U.S. tariffs on imports from countries with deliberately undervalued currencies, will head toward a final Senate vote on Tuesday after efforts to bring action to a close faltered on Thursday.

Obama stopped short of explicitly backing the legislation and he restated concerns that any measure must comply with global trade rules. Still, in his toughest language on China to date, the president echoed the sponsors of the bill.

snip

Obama, who faces a tough bid for re-election next year, did not say whether he would sign or veto the legislation if it reached his desk. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives would have to approve the measure first.

And did you write "TAA"? You mean the same TAA that you've been trumpeting for the past year on these boards -- even though it's been pointed out to you about -- oh, I don't know, at least 10 times -- that it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/us/06retrain.html">wouldn't do jack-squat for today's displaced American workers? You mean that TAA?

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2011/06/obama-edges-closer-to-political-cliff-with-deal-to-combine-program-to-aid-workers-losing-jobs-to-tra.html

June 28, 2011

Obama Edges Closer to Political Cliff With Deal to Combine Program to Aid Workers Losing Jobs to Trade With Three Bush-Era NAFTA-Style Trade Pacts Projected to Cause More Job Loss

http://www.citizen.org/documents/statement-taa-june-28-2011.pdf">Statement of Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

snip

For most Americans, what’s newsworthy is not that the administration is pushing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), which effectively is a job burial insurance program, but that pushing a deal on TAA is being used as political cover to move more NAFTA-style trade agreements that will kill more American jobs in the first place, especially given our high unemployment rates.

Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of the American public – across stunningly diverse demographics – is opposed to NAFTA-style trade deals and that members of Congress vote for them at their peril. Earlier this month, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, whose job is to sell these trade deals and who helped former President Bill Clinton sell NAFTA to a skeptical Congress, recognized that workers “lose from these agreements” and implied that campaigning against FTAs could even be an electoral advantage. (The Washington Post, “White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers,” June 16, 2011.)

The point that’s gotten lost in all this wrangling over TAA is that the three leftover Bush trade deals are bad in and of themselves. Even an official government study finds that the Korea deal will increase our trade deficit, and we know up front that it will kill jobs and undermine our national security. The Colombia deal will eliminate any leverage the U.S. has to combat the forced displacements and murders of unionists, Afro-Colombians, human rights defenders and others – problems that have gotten worse since this deal was signed in 2007. The Panama deal will make it harder for the U.S. government to penalize tax-dodging multinational corporations. The supplemental deal on autos for Korea, the labor “Action Plan” for Colombia, and the tax information exchange agreement for Panama are all toothless and do nothing to alleviate the aforementioned problems, as Public Citizen has extensively documented. They were all part of a political-cover kabuki dance.

Moreover, the fact remains that all three deals have the same damaging provisions we all remember from NAFTA: limits on financial services regulation, foreign investor privileges that promote offshoring, weak labor standards, limits on imported food safety and inspection, and the ridiculous private investor-state enforcement system that empowers multinational corporations to go around our domestic courts and directly challenge our state and federal laws before foreign tribunals and demand compensation from our tax dollars for claimed violations of the trade deal.

[ProSense]

15. So

"Oh, you mean the China currency bill which Obama is already wavering on?"

...you think he'll veto the bill?

<...>

Obama stopped short of explicitly backing the legislation and he restated concerns that any measure must comply with global trade rules. Still, in his toughest language on China to date, the president echoed the sponsors of the bill.

The measure, which has drawn warnings from Beijing that it could trigger a trade war, is still widely expected to pass.

"China has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the United States," Obama told a news conference focused on his bid to revive a weak U.S. economy.

"Currency manipulation is one example of it," he said.

<...>

[brentspeak]

16. Hmmmm?

It doesn't stand a chance of passing because Obama refuses to push it. Which Obama knows.

[ProSense]

18. That's

"It doesn't stand a chance of passing because Obama refuses to push it. Which Obama knows."

...hilarious.

[MrTriumph]

9. Here is a more sensible approach: 1st renegotiate NAFTA, evaluate it then move on.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[brentspeak]

17. So...let's compare and contrast your post with the OP

...will he sign them without Congress passing them?

OP: "(which he will do so as soon as Congress passes him the bill to his desk.}"

[treestar]

6. One thing is clear

Obama does not agree with you on the "middle class destroying" nature of the bill.

I have this feeling it's complex. I'd rather learn than just follow someone who declares all free trade agreements to be bad and makes arguments assuming they are bad, without supporting that premise in any way.

[brentspeak]

10. Perhaps this will "clear" things up for you:

http://www.epi.org/publication/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/">Free Trade Agreement with Korea will cost U.S. jobs

The Obama administration has announced that it intends to finalize a new free trade agreement with South Korea (KORUS FTA) in time for the next G-20 summit in November. Although the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) projects this will have a small positive impact on the U.S. trade balance, and “minimal or negligible “ impact on U.S. employment, history shows that such trade deals lead to rapidly growing trade deficits and job loss in the United States.

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



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

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Politicial parties go like this..... but social movements go like this.....

Not news.

[Dr Fate]

13. The point is that he is at least listening. Sarah Pailin is not even going to listen.

nt

[Exilednight]

33. Listen or don't listen, it's only actions that count. n/t

[pscot]

35. That's a stirring defense

Atleast he's better than Palin. Well done.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[great white snark]

20. Must be the approval numbers amongst Liberals going up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=791333&mesg_id=791333

:fistbump:

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. You can bet that has a great deal to do with it.

;)

[JoePhilly]

21. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad ... this might as well be the Op title.

[polichick]

29. Where's your statement of support for the trade bills?

[tblue]

34. Perfect Obama Perfect Obama Perfect Obama Perfect ...

He has never done anything wrong. Nothing is his fault. He is not responsible for anything. He is the greatest president who ever lived. He saved the country and no one else on the planet could do what he has done. He is perfect. Everything bad is somebody else's fault. If you don't like everything about him you are a racist. He is faultless, flawless, all-seeing, all-powerfu, and is not to blame for the actions he takes, the appointments he makes, or the words that come out of his mouth. If you don't get that, there's some thing wrong with you. His reelection is more important than any principle or anyone else's well-being, or anyone else's life or future or dignity or job or house or children. I have invested all my hopes and energy and time in his reelection, so if you attack him, you attack the very thing I live and breathe. How dare you?!

[pscot]

36. I'm going to memorize this

And repeat it like a mantra every night until I fall asleep. If I can keep it up for the next year I may be able to vote for him one more time.

[NorthCarolina]

23. Did he ever renegotiate NAFTA like he promised in the last campaign?

Oh wait...I remember now, it's "On Hold". :eyes:

[Mr Deltoid]

28. Nuttin' to see here...

...just keep moving along..

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Just going to throw it out there

The number that gets thrown around here for jobs that will be lost by the South Korea trade agreement is about 150,000. There's about 300 million people in this country. If 300 million people will benefit from cheaper goods and services at the cost of 150,000 peoples' jobs, are we really destroying the middle class with this trade agreement?

[dflprincess]

30. In other words, "I got mine, screw you who don't."

That would make a great slogan for the NEW Democrats.

And just ignore that this would be another 150,000 jobs on top of the ones already lost. Next, you can complain about all those lazy people who "won't" work.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. I'm kinda playing devil's advocate more than anything here

150,000 is about a month's worth of jobs, if the economy is keeping pace with population growth. In the grand scheme of things that's not a whole lot. That said, I haven't seen any stats about the potential multiplier effect. When small towns lose a factory the entire town goes down with it. Furthermore, I haven't really looked at what we're supposed to get from South Korea that we're not getting now as a result of this agreement.

There is some extent to which trade does benefit working class people, so long as they are the ones not losing their jobs. If life's essentials become cheaper, it makes it easier for people to meet their budgets. Granted, not everything that becomes cheaper due to trade falls into that category. Making plasma TV's cheaper by outsourcing jobs isn't going to be helping any struggling families get by.

[golfguru]

25. If you loved NAFTA, you will also love OWS.

[Jakes Progress]

26. You just need to be able to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

We got lots here who spout the line about hating NAFTA and supporting workers, but who defend it every time Obama tows the free trade line and loses American jobs.

[bvar22]

27. You can't be FOR Free Trade,

..and be Pro-LABOR at the same time.
The two positions ARE mutually exclusive.

EFCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU

NAFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0&NR=1




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

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

[pscot]

37. Word!

[Tom Ripley]

31. It's just THAT Corporatist Democrat's way of saying "I feel your pain"

I guess the 90s revival is gearing up