Look at the nice little present Obama is going to give us.

[Elwood P Dowd]

You would think he at least had the freaking brains to delay this piece of shit job-exporting deal with an election in 13 months. But no, he is going to stick the knife in the back of his base yet again.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4956

Today President Obama sent Bush’s NAFTA-style trade deals with Korea, Colombia and Panama to Congress asked for approval. Votes are expected on all three pacts next week.

Next week, the House will vote on these three damaging Bush-era NAFTA replicas. If we do not get a majority to vote no and stop these deals, we know that they increase our trade deficit and kill more U.S. jobs — at a time when 25 million Americans are still searching for full-time jobs and unemployment is 9 percent.

[ixion]

1. I don't think he wants to get re-elected

everything he does seems to point to that.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[blkmusclmachine]

19. Obama always said he'd be "fine" with only 1 term:

What a fighter!!

[avaistheone1]

25. He figured he could do the necessary damage in just four years for his wealthy benefactors.

And it does appear to be so.

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. Yup

You got it.

:toast:

[Javaman]

28. no, he said...

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president"

he's turning to a a mediocre one term prez.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[meatloaf]

68. mediocre would be a step up

[kath]

78. you've got that right.

[indepat]

36. I've been pondering this for some time, considering how events have unfolded one by one. It's as

if the TPTB let BHO be president so Democrats could be blamed for all the havoc caused by junior's ruinous policies and illegal actions which, btw, would largely be ratified and continued by the new Democratic administration. For lagniappe, Rethuglicans would get to hang an eternal albatross around the Democrats' necks because the Democratic president would be willing to put social security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the perpetual chopping block, a RW-wet dream of the ages, all the while junior's tax cuts for the wealthy would be continued. All this may sound like hyperbole, a conspiracy theorist's incoherent ramblings which, incidentally this writer doesn't endorse, but the fact remains clear that all this has been a win, win for Rethuglicans who were in seriously dire straights when junior left office. :patriot:

[BeHereNow]

69. I dont think you sound "C.T." at all.

CT refers to a "theory."
What we have are facts, thus distinguishing it from CT speculation.

The facts support the very thoughts you have expressed.

BHN
On Edit:
Just want to add a thought many of my African American friends
have expressed to me. Not only will he be remembered as the one
term President who failed, but the first BLACK president who
was also a "Democrat" that will be blamed for everything, which
will ultimately work because the American public has the attention span
of a gnat...it's like the Bush Cheney years never happened,
just choruses of the BLACK DEMOCRAT ruined the country.
He was used, plain and simple. A pawn on the grand chessboard of the Masters.

Evil abounds in the circles of the PTB.
Don't doubt it for a minute.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

72. I've thought this since Palin walked out on stage that night.

[anamandujano]

75. Remember Obama's first speech in congress.

He stood up and said words to the effect that Bush won fair and square. It kind of got him off on the wrong foot in my book.

I'm guessing he was already on the Puke payroll and being primed for POTUS.

[kath]

79. Whoa - was that really his first speech in Congress?

Jeebus - the Pukes really must have gotten to him very early on.

[sandyj999]

41. I totally agree. He keeps making unpopular decisions.

I do believe this job wasn't the dream he had with all the lobbying and underhanded deals and he is disillusioned. I don't really blame him, I would want out too.

[Myrina]

52. They're only unpopular to our side...

... if you think like a Corporatist or an undercover Republican, they're very good decisions.

He was a Trojan Horse & the left opened the gate. :(

[Larry Ogg]

67. Why do so many people call him a Trojan Horse?

There were plenty of clues during the Presidential Primary that showed that he was pro-bankster, pro-Wall Street, pro-free trade, pro-Israel and pro-Republican.

[Vincardog]

83. And he ran on being PRO transparency, pro people (he promised to renegotiate NAFTA), Pro Labor (he

promised to raise the minimum wage), pro environment(This will be the time the earth began to heal).


What POLITICIANS LIE?

[Larry Ogg]

84. There's an old saying, "You can't serve two masters".

And it was obvious to whom Obama would serve once he was elected, and it wasn't the working class base he was preaching too.

Politicians have been able to get away with lying for so long, that their lying has become a cultural norm.

Truth is that, Americans have been swallowing the lies of politicians for so long, that we could be called the "People of the Lie".

Turns out, lying is the best tool Oligarchs have for turning honest working class people into debt slaves.

Of course, they hand pick the politicians that most of us get to vote for in our pretend democracy, in an attempt to legitimatize
the lies that make them richer, and the rest of us indentured servants and cannon fodder.

[Vincardog]

97. So "why do people call him a Trojan horse"?

[Larry Ogg]

106. Within the context of how I've seen used recently...

People are waking up and finding out that Obama is not at all what they expected. Expressing their disappointment.

On Aug-04-08, prior to Obama being elected POTUS. Albeit opposite the context of those who are finally waking up to the fact that Obama is not on their side, I used the term sarcastically, to say that Obama would have be a Trojan horse against the system itself. But like I stated then, I wasn't holding my breath. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6579643&mesg_id=6583299

[shanti]

51. agreed

he just seems to be going thru the motions.

[salib]

65. Chill out

"I fucking got this". Right?

He will be re-elected. We might actually rise up against the truly crazy. He will get his billion (yes with a "b") from his buds.

[snooper2]

93. ROFL...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[arcane1]

3. It will be VERY interesting to see how Congress votes on this n/t

[IDemo]

29. Is it really a mystery how they will vote? n/t

[stillwaiting]

63. It will pass.

It's SUCH a piece of shit bill that it will have to pass with bi-partisan support.

There will be both Democrats and Republicans voting against it in not small numbers as well so some of us can continue to think that we have some representation in Congress, but it will pass.

[stevenleser]

5. The Panama part will not be nearly as damaging as the South Korea and Colombia aspects

Panama is on the dollar and has a pretty high wage. They also dont export much that we make here (mostly bananas and Sugar). They also put up with a lot of crap from us for nearly a century culminating in us leaving and when we left, we left one of the areas where we had been completely polluted with weapons ordinance.

Colombia and SK... well, those are horses of a different color.

Edit to give full disclosure. I have Panamanian nationality in addition to US.

[Angry Dragon]

12. I have heard that Panama will become a good tax haven

for the rich because because of their laws

[stevenleser]

13. They already are, but, things are tightening up.

You cannot pierce the corporate veil and that is the big issue right now. You can have an attorney down there set up a corporation and no one can force that attorney to divulge the names of the corporate officers, those who hold stock or how much it is worth.

There is some movement to reform that, but its still pretty airtight right now.

[bvar22]

27. Panama is a haven for Tax Cheats.

"The pending trade agreement with Panama isn't really about trade.
It's about foreign investor rights, money laundering, and tax dodging."

http://www.alternet.org/economy/61739/why_is_our_trade_policy_benefitting_tax_cheats/



Panama also operates the BIGGEST Ship Registration SCAM in The World,
allowing corrupt Ship Owners to avoid maritime regulations, Pollution & Accident Liability, taxes,
and tracking of illegal weapons, drugs, and black market trading.

When Things Go Bad for the biggest shipping/pollution criminals in The World,
the search for those who are liable ENDS at the opaque Panamanian Ship Registry.

....just perfect for the International "Free Traders".


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

Solidarity with The 99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[defendandprotect]

6. Pushing the trade deeals is obviously more important to Obama than many other issues -- !!!

Sad to say -- !!!

Hot and hefty profits for corporations --- once more!!

[abelenkpe]

7. He should scrap that plan pay attention to the rapidly

Deteriorating global economy and get ready to nationalize the banks. What is he thinking?

[DJ13]

8. Job destruction=Vote next week

Job creation=Whenever we get around to it.

[AllyCat]

35. I've already been bashed on DU for saying Obama has not helped create jobs

because, they say, "it's not true" and I'll "never listen to reason and facts". So maybe this little present isn't a fact? Dunno. Maybe I should PM them this link.

[undeterred]

oops

:rofl:

[undeterred]

9. We need to be the wind behind his back.

That's what Thom Hartmann just said.

:rofl:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. We need to check behind his back..... for crossed fingers.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. He put us behind him, and is passing wind?

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. Did you expect any different?

I didn't...not from someone who's no less a part of the American political machine (the Chicago version, no less!) than any Republican corporate kneepadder. Don't be fooled, people: Barack Obama is just another 1%er (or malleable tool thereof), and the only reason to support him is because political reality means he's kind of stuck with paying at least a little more lip service to the quaint notion of giving a shit about the other 99% than the GOP opposition does.

[sad sally]

11. It's an issue he can get that all important Republican support he needs to get reelected.

When George W. Bush asked Congress to pass a Colombia free-trade agreement in the waning months of his presidency, Democrats revolted.
--
Flash forward to 2011. President Obama is stumping for three Bush trade deals -- with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama -- as he calls on Congress to immediately pass his latest jobs agenda.
---
What's changed? For one, Republicans have removed one of the main stumbling blocks for Democrats in 2009.

Republicans agreed this summer to authorize trade adjustment assistance (TAA) -- a program that supplies federal income support to workers who lose their jobs or suffer drops in work hours as a result of increased imports. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) agreed to support the measure in June, while extracting some concessions that included spending cuts to offset the cost and a smaller pricetag, reverting to pre-stimulus levels of support. In July, 12 Republican senators sent a letter to Obama notifying him they would support the TAA bill and urging him to send the FTAs to the Senate.
---
While AFL-CIO President RIchard Trumka refrained from mentioning the trade agreements in a measured response to Obama's jobs speech last week, he has maintained the AFL-CIO's opposition. "These trade deals are absolutely not solutions to the jobs crisis. Instead of continuing to advocate for policies that got us into this mess, we need to focus on investing in our future and keeping and strengthening the jobs we have," AFL-CIO spokeswoman Alison Omens said.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/republicans-support-obamas-trade-agenda-do-democrats/245248/?du

[TeamsterDem]

14. Almost unbelievable. nt

[bhikkhu]

15. I don't expect agreement here, but if you look at it, its a good deal all around

Columbia and Panama have little to export but agricultural products that we can't grow here, and which we already import.

South Korea is a modern country, with standards of living, education and health care similar to our own. Its not a matter of competing against child-labor or slaves.

...and then, generally, you have to look at exactly why free trade has such a bad reputation - and that has to do with its history over the past 30 or 40 years, which has a lot to with US monetary policy. When we have a "strong dollar" policy, our goods are expensive relative to others, while imported goods are inexpensive. That's been the general policy for a very long time, during the whole period in which most of us formed our notions of free trade. It discouraged domestic production, and encouraged overseas manufacturing.

Currently, we have a monetary policy which is the opposite - and we have steady growth in US manufacturing. I know few people here are likely to have heard, but:

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

US export levels have been setting records all year, and have been contributing to the (slow) economic growth that we have had. The monetary policy of the Obama administration is largely responsible. A little more free trade, combined with sound monetary policy, is likely to do what the president hopes it will - and give the economy another push in the right direction.

[Whisp]

18. yes, not all trade deals are like the Clinton trade deals.

and I expect people would be suspicious and angry, rightly so.

but obama is not clinton.

[ellisonz]

22. Seconded.

For telling the truth and not embracing scare tactics :applause:

[stevenleser]

32. Interesting points. I know that you are right with regard to Panama.

Panama also has a surprisingly high standard of living and wage and they are on the dollar so currency fluctuations arent going to suddenly make Panamanian goods much cheaper.

[Duct Tape]

50. Regardless, minimum wage in Panama, South Korea and Colombia

is lower than minimum wage here and corporations will jump at that. In addition union membership is lower in those three countries than it is here, especially in Colombia where only 4% of the workers are unionized and union activists are regularly murdered.

[pampango]

70. South Korea has a per capita GDP almost identical that of the EU. It has a much more equitable

distribution of income than the US has. South Korea doesn't have the extremes of low-wage poverty (nor the number of uber-wealthy) that we have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_eu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[Duct Tape]

76. South Korea's protectionist policies,

which have been in place quite a while, have helped create that equitable society. The question is not whether South Korea is doing well. The question is whether or not corporations can take advantage of this deal and the answer is yes. Corporations will outsource for even the most modest decrease in cost.

[pampango]

81. As you may know our trade numbers with "free trade" countries is much better than with the rest

of the world. Why is it better to retain the status quo with South Korea's "protectionist policies" in place?

And Europe has fewer "protectionist policies" (and more "free trade") than anywhere and the EU is more equitable society than is South Korea. (Light years ahead of the US.) Equitable distributions of income and wealth don't come from "protectionist policies" but from internal progressive policies regarding taxation, unionization, regulations and the safety net (in all of which the US fails miserably).

It would be better to change the rules to level the playing field. (That's what the EU did in its FTA with South Korea.) Our trade performance has traditionally been much better when that happens.

[Romulox]

87. Still a big, fat, job obliterating DEFICIT with those countries, though. Tell the truth for once.

:hi: :silly:

[pampango]

92. The truth is that our trade deficit with "free trade" countries is much less than with the rest of

the world.

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).

Our trade deficit with non-"free trade" countries is much larger both in absolute terms and as a percentage of trade. It makes no sense to want to preserve the status quo which preserves more of those "big, fat, job obliterating DEFICITS".

[stevenleser]

94. Good information to know. As I have tried to tell some people here, each issue needs to be examined

separately. Being against "War" or against "Free Trade" and then closing your mind to the complete set of factors or individual situations and just responding with a negative is not helpful to Liberalism or Progressivism.

The more you examine this latest series of Free trade proposals, the less objectionable they seem.

[Romulox]

96. What an insightful analysis!

:rofl:

[Elwood P Dowd]

98. I've heard similar statements like his with every single free trade deal the past 20 years.

And after every single one is implemented, we start witnessing more job exportation, growing trade deficits, and an accelerated race to the bottom.

[stevenleser]

100. So, your solution is we close down our minds and don't examine each proposal, because

they couldnt possibly work, just because?

[Romulox]

103. No, I think he agrees with you--just ignore the overwhelming evidence that these trade deals destroy

jobs whilst spouting some utopian platitudes.

But I may have read him wrong. You, I'm familiar with from some of your previous outbursts! :hi:

[stevenleser]

113. You still have made no argument for why you are right regarding these countries

but I expected that. You dont know anything about these countries.

[stevenleser]

99. Except, I didn't try to offer any analysis. No wonder you are so confused all the time!

:rofl:

[Romulox]

95. But uniformly DEFICITS nonetheless. Your argument is that we are bleeding LESS from our carotid

than from our abdomen. Such an argument does little to recommend wounds to our carotid artery.

[stevenleser]

101. No, that is not his argument. That is your straw man argument. nt

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[pampango]

107. I think you're the only one who thinks a large trade deficit is no worse than a small one

in terms of its effect on American jobs. You argue against 'free trade' deals without refuting the fact that history shows that our trade deficit is much better with them. Larger deficits mean the loss of more jobs.

[Duct Tape]

108. Of course our trade numbers would be better,

that's how they like it. Tons of imports and very few exports. Notice how almost everything says made in Taiwan or China? How many people in China and Taiwan do you see using products that say: "made in the U.S."? Expanding markets are not always great. I agree an equitable society does not come simply from protectionist policies but the policies sure do help. I find it interesting that you mentioned unionization because as I said before less South Korean workers are unionized than American workers.

We've all heard this "let's level the playing field" argument time and time again. The only thing trade liberalization does is screw American workers and help corporations earn more profit.

To answer your first question, it would be better to maintain the status quo because we can't afford to lose anymore jobs. South Korea doesn't mind liberalizing trade with the EU or America because they know that no profit-oriented business would move from SK, therefore they can afford this change in policy. What you don't and won't see is South Korea liberalizing trade with Taiwan. Sure they are giving Taiwanese exports preferential tariffs, because they want to encourage trade with China, but they sure as hell aren't shooting for a free trade agreement. The moment they do, their economy will start slipping and they will lose the growth their economy experienced from protectionist policies in place since the 1960's.

Proponents of free trade know that South Korea is their strongest case because they can point to SK's success while ignoring their history or trade barriers and because it's much harder to find positives in the deals with Panama and COLOMBIA.

[Romulox]

85. LOL. Talk about a losing argument!

:hi:

[stevenleser]

90. No. It's not "regardless" and no, companies will not "jump at the chance"

to relocate to any of those three countries for various reasons.

Wages in South Korea are not materially lower than ours, the cost of shipping goods from there or Panama negate any benefits from the small wage differences. Panama has a horrifically hot and humid climate and very expensive electricity and gas. That combination makes running a factory there very expensive.

The crime and other security issues in Colombia are extremely daunting in terms of making an investment in that country.

It's not enough to be a Progressive. You have to be smart and not leap to equating different things that are not the same. Free trade with China or Mexico is not the same thing as Free trade with South Korea or Panama. The war with Iraq is not the same thing as the wars with Libya or Afghanistan. I can go on.

[Duct Tape]

111. Where did I equate things that are not the same?

Sure, gas and electricity may be pricey in Panama but that's not the point. Corporations will just provide the lowest possible quality for their workers and make them work in dim light and without AC (hence the name: sweatshops). When Unions aren't around, as is this case for those three countries, corporations can do whatever the hell they want. The shipping of products does not negate the difference in wages. Corporations sure as hell aren't buying first class shipping and handling.

Why do you have to insult my intelligence? ("You have to be smart and not leap to equating...")

By the way, go ahead and write your list of things you can't equate. The war in Afghanistan is ridiculous and, although I'm happy to see the rebels succeed in Libya, are reasons for becoming involved in Libya were less than humanitarian. One more thing, I'm not a progressive, I'm a Democratic Socialist.

[stevenleser]

112. No, wrong again.

First of all, I visit Panama frequently and hold Panamanian citizenship in addition to US citizenship. I insult your intelligence because you are making statements as if they are facts regarding places you have never been and don't know anything about.

No one is going to place factories in Panama to try to save money for the reasons I already said. When you have been on the ground, and examined the economy, costs, etc. for these places, you can easily rule such things out. Per capita GDP in Panama is $12,000 per year and average wage is pretty close to that. That is about 33% higher than Mexico's and shipping costs from Panama are higher as it is farther away and shares no land border with us. Electricity in Panama is also much higher than Mexico and it is also hotter and more humid there.

It is also a high crime country. I mention that because you have to lock things up, like factory equipment, or it will be stolen. So you cannot have an open air factory and if you try to have a closed air factory with no air conditioning, people will start dying on day one as indoor temperatures will exceed 130 degrees with high humidity. I'm guessing those kinds of temperatures and humidities will be bad for any equipment you are trying to use and products you are trying to make.

South Korea's per capita GDP is $29,000 per year. If you include shipping costs from there to the US, it negates the wage benefits. Certainly if you were going to put a factory in Asia, China, whose per capita GDP is $8000 per year and thus has wages about 1/4 that of South Korea would be where you would go.

So, neither Panama nor South Korea poses a threat to US workers. How about Colombia? It ought to go without saying, but the problems Colombia has had over the last few decades would make anyone crazy to invest any money there in terms of factories or other operations. It seems to be better, but no one is going to bet tens of millions of dollars on that.

So, if we engage our brains and do a modicum of internet searching and research, we can see that these new free trade agreements are nothing like NAFTA or other free trade agreements.

[reACTIONary]

64. I agree, we need expanding markets and strategic trade...

...we need high value, competitive global enterprise. We need to up our game and invest in our human capital - good, sound basic education for all and advanced education for everyone who is motivated and qualified. We need a strategic, long term economic policy that is respectful and supportive of ALL Americans at every level.

[flamingdem]

110. Thanks. This is good information about what is positive about the deals nt

[OhioChick]

17. And this surprises you? n/t

[Poll_Blind]

20. But lookit what he said when he was running for President:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkWEwwLBuvs">Barack Obama : NAFTA Trade /Jobs

"...AND I WILL CHANGE IT WHEN I AM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"

:eyes:

PB

[sabrina 1]

30. Soon someone will come along to tell you that you misunderstood

that statement. And maybe we did. Maybe by change he didn't mean what we thought he meant, he must have meant 'make it even stronger'. It's our fault that we never thought to ask these questions. But we will next time.

[Vincardog]

59. He is working to change it: to make it worse

[inna]

21. k&r; surprised there are no other current threads on this

[bvar22]

23. Free Trade is a SCAM

...designed by the RICH Corporate Owners to:

* avoid Human Rights, Labor Rights, Environmental Regulation,

*gain access to SLAVE LABOR in 3rd World Countries

*avoid paying taxes by floating their money outside the constraints of borders.

They used Smooth Talking Politicians to SELL their SCAM to a gullible America.
It has worked PERFECTLY.

It is hard for me to believe that there are STILL Politicians Hard Selling this old SCAM in America.

It is even harder to believe that some Americans are STILL Buying It.




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

Solidarity with the 99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[unionworks]

62. amen

...and amen again. Shout it from the streets.

[Safetykitten]

24. He's a giver. What can he say?

[KoKo]

58. A giver? You mean "Give it all away?

:eyes: I can't believe this is what we voted for and got all excited about. But, then...I come from Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...territory.

They were all "givers" I guess..... Sad thing is that I was hoodwinked into believing they would "give to their supporters" and not "to their Biggest Donors." My BAD!

[bullwinkle428]

31. Were these pulled out of the big jobs bill, or are they a completely

separate entity altogether?

[Elwood P Dowd]

33. These are Bush negotiated trade deals that he signed but couldn't get the votes in congress

to implement them. Obama now wants congress to approve them.

[B Calm]

34. Makes me sick!

[City Lights]

37. Ugh!

:puke:

Rec'd.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

38. It's good to know that my congressman, Peter DeFazio

won't vote for them.
We need to clone him.

[bongbong]

39. repigs will vote for this

repigs want to eliminate the Middle Class in America.

[Deep13]

40. Yeah, well.

I seem to remember warning people that this would happen and being shouted down as a racist. I'm not directing this at the OP, but I fucking told you so.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[nineteen50]

44. What a corporate republican can't get done

The corporate Democrats will.

[slay]

47. +1

yep. we have 2 right wing parties in this country and i am fucking sick of it!

[shanti]

54. two right wing parties....

merge into one right wing dictatorship :eyes: i didn't sign up for that!

[humbled_opinion]

45. Why in the world.....

Never mind I guess the Democrat party big tent is squeezing out a bunch of people that just don't like this republican lite agenda....

Wonder where I fit now?

Is there an app that can help me find out?

[slay]

46. I can not vote for four more years of betrayal

sorry. can't do it. i won't vote for the repubs, but i can not vote for the republican in dem clothing that is Obama.

[kath]

80. Nor can I. Just can't do it.

I will vote in down-ticket races, but refuse to give support to this repub in Dem clothing.

[Romulox]

89. Me neither. This tears it. nt

[WCGreen]

49. It wasn't just Bush...

Clinton took the handoff and got it through early in his first term...

[usregimechange]

53. He is such a socialist.

:rolleyes:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[fascisthunter]

56. I Really See no Difference Between him and a Republican

maybe not batshit-crazy rightwingnut, but republican. He may have a "D" by his name, but make no mistake, this man is a corporatist.

[slay]

77. Me either

like you said - not the over the top batshit crazy teabagger type - but a republican when judged by his policies and actions (especially economic and military) - absolutely he is!

[KoKo]

57. He already admitted he doesn't think he can be re-elected. So he's gotta make "hay while his sun

shines." After all he is, truly, a magnificent politician. It's about him...and he's gotta get an agenda done that get's him some room in the "history books" that kids will learn about in the future.

He truly has always been about "The Future." So...it's what it is with him...:-(

[EmeraldCityGrl]

60. Poor little underdog. Isn't that what he called himself this week?

"I'm use to being the underdog." Maybe he's going for the sympathy vote since he sure isn't going for the Progressive/Liberal vote.

[Hutzpa]

61. I don't think the president has a choice in this matter

the bill has expired and is up for renewal, it is common for bills that is about to expired be sent to Congress
for a renewal.

You are making this sound as if the president has created a brand new bill for voting.

Your subject line is misleading.

[Elwood P Dowd]

74. Where did you get that bullshit?

These bills have never even been voted on by congress. Bush never had enough support for them in congress to get them up for a vote. Obama just resubmitted them with some minor changes.

[Romulox]

88. "cognitive dissonance". nt

[Liquorice]

66. He's also making it easier for debt collectors to harass people.

I don't know what to think of Obama anymore. Why is he doing these things?


"To the dismay of consumer groups and the discomfort of Democrats, President Barack Obama wants Congress to make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cellphones of consumers delinquent on student loans and other billions owed the federal government."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/APNewsBreak-Obama-seeks-debt-apf-585121864.html?x=0&.v=1

[scentopine]

71. Yes- thanks for posting this, unbelievable that Obama helps scumbag debt collectors , but

when it comes to working men and women - he sends jobs to slave labor in Asia. Center baggers are the worst. They'd sell their own mothers if they could make a penny profit on the deal.

[Marrah_G]

73. No big surprise- corporate America bought his support long ago

He doesn't give a shit about the rest of us. HIS wife and kids will never go without anything. HE will never have to worry about choosing between heat or food.

Anyone who thinks politicians are in DC to help all of us is frankly just kidding themselves. No one leaves DC poor.

[Vinca]

82. I'm beginning to think, like the first poster, that he doesn't really want a 2nd term.

How else can you explain doing something that is going to cost Americans more jobs? If he's not really into it, I wish he'd let us know before it's too late.

[KoKo]

115. doesn't seem to have "fire in the belly" for it.

sad..

[Romulox]

86. This is Obama's "Jobs Bill"!!!!

:wow: :rofl:

[Elwood P Dowd]

91. He even mentioned these bills as job creators in one of his speeches a few months ago.

No joke, he really freaking did.

:eyes:

[hack89]

102. So reducing or eliminating foreign tariffs on US products is a bad thing? Really? nt

[Elwood P Dowd]

105. Tariffs are not the main problem.

There are environmental, labor, consumer product safety, wages, and other policies that make it attractive for giant US corporations to move production to these low-wage countries. There are also non-tariff trade barriers our foreign trade partners use to block US products. Have you ever shipped any consumer goods overseas? I have, and in many of the countries they have a low tariff but an incredibly high VAT on imports. We have done nothing to address that with ANY of our so called "free trade" deals.

Over the past 20+ years we have lost almost 10 million jobs and rang up 8 trillion dollars in current account deficits because of all these so called "free trade" deals. Last year's deficit alone was about 600 billion dollars! Einstein said it best: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

[scentopine]

109. You nailed it. We need to shutdown the corporate right wing talking points with reality -nt

[lib2DaBone]

114. Obama is not progressive.. he could care less about his base...

..because he thinks you will automatically vote for the lessor of two evils.