HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama and Romney Both Bac...

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:20 AM

Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks

Wallach said: “U.S. negotiators have tried to keep TPP negotiations totally below the radar, but even so, opposition to the current 'NAFTA-on-steroids-with-Asia' approach is escalating, which is good news for the public but a serious complication for the Obama campaign’s attack on Romney as a U.S. job offshorer."


http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/52493/


A huge corporate backed Ad campaign showing the administrations backing of another job killing trade deal (TPP) could blunt the Obama campaigns strategy of highlighting Romney/Bain offshoring by blurring the lines between the two candidates in regards to offshoring US jobs.

The other side has massive amounts of money waiting to be spent. The President at some point will have to address the some of the damaging leaks coming out of the TPP negotiations.

114 replies, 7468 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks (Original post)
Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 OP
Blanks Jul 2012 #1
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #2
Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #13
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #15
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #51
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #61
Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #62
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #63
PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #101
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #94
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #95
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #96
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #106
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #107
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #108
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #109
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #110
PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #102
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #105
pa28 Jul 2012 #56
RB TexLa Jul 2012 #60
treestar Jul 2012 #3
MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #6
treestar Jul 2012 #7
MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #9
treestar Jul 2012 #18
Romulox Jul 2012 #21
former9thward Jul 2012 #26
Romulox Jul 2012 #27
former9thward Jul 2012 #38
treestar Jul 2012 #67
Romulox Jul 2012 #69
treestar Jul 2012 #73
Romulox Jul 2012 #75
treestar Jul 2012 #77
Romulox Jul 2012 #81
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #36
Romulox Jul 2012 #19
amandabeech Jul 2012 #92
Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #11
treestar Jul 2012 #20
amandabeech Jul 2012 #91
Blanks Jul 2012 #22
JonLP24 Jul 2012 #65
treestar Jul 2012 #68
Romulox Jul 2012 #70
treestar Jul 2012 #72
Romulox Jul 2012 #76
treestar Jul 2012 #78
Romulox Jul 2012 #83
treestar Jul 2012 #99
Romulox Jul 2012 #111
Romulox Jul 2012 #112
Romulox Jul 2012 #79
Romulox Jul 2012 #98
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #33
treestar Jul 2012 #80
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #88
westerebus Jul 2012 #89
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #52
treestar Jul 2012 #82
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #87
treestar Jul 2012 #100
Elwood P Dowd Jul 2012 #90
Octafish Jul 2012 #4
NNN0LHI Jul 2012 #8
Octafish Jul 2012 #10
progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #28
Octafish Jul 2012 #40
kenny blankenship Jul 2012 #46
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #54
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #53
amandabeech Jul 2012 #93
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #24
kenny blankenship Jul 2012 #45
Octafish Jul 2012 #49
freshwest Jul 2012 #103
a kennedy Jul 2012 #5
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #12
Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #14
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #16
Teamster Jeff Jul 2012 #17
Romulox Jul 2012 #23
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #25
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #35
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #37
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #39
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #41
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #42
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #43
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #47
HiPointDem Jul 2012 #48
bhikkhu Jul 2012 #50
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #55
treestar Jul 2012 #86
progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #29
Romulox Jul 2012 #31
sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #59
ProSense Jul 2012 #30
Romulox Jul 2012 #32
ProSense Jul 2012 #34
Romulox Jul 2012 #44
JoePhilly Jul 2012 #58
Romulox Jul 2012 #66
JoePhilly Jul 2012 #71
Romulox Jul 2012 #84
Marr Jul 2012 #85
pa28 Jul 2012 #57
Cronkite Jul 2012 #64
Hotler Jul 2012 #74
hay rick Jul 2012 #97
woo me with science Jul 2012 #104
ananda Jul 2012 #113
woo me with science Jul 2012 #114

Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:37 AM

1. I see a lot of criticism about the TPP.

The 'articles' like this one are not from sites that I am familiar with.

The administration has a web site addressing the negotiations, why is it that we don't believe they are trying to make it transparent? I think the president has been pretty above board so far on other issues. Why should we believe that he is suddenly trying to be real sneaky?

Is it because they haven't released any information about the negotiations? It's easy to be negative about the proposals put forward in negotiations; because everyone is trying to get the most for themselves. There is time after negotiations to fine tune agreements, in a more public forum.

I'm still waiting for more information from sources I'm familiar with before I go all negative on the administration on TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:44 AM

2. There isn't anything secret about the TPP. The negotiation sessions are announced publicly

how are they under the radar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 12:35 PM

13. Contents of potential agreement are under the radar because they know people will be outraged

Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch:

"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of TPP negotiations. Via closed-door negotiations, U.S. officials are rewriting swaths of U.S. law that have nothing to do with trade and in a move that will infuriate left and right alike have agreed to submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals that can order unlimited payments of our tax dollars to foreign corporations that don't want to comply with the same laws our domestic firms do."




Also, a letter from 130 Members of Congress to USTR Expressing Concern over Transparency in TPP.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/letter-130-members-congress-ustr-expressing-concer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 01:27 PM

15. Of course the countries in a trade agreement are subject to an enforcement arm of the pact


That would only outrage idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:07 PM

51. They were secret until a whistle-blower leaked them. That is when we found out about them.

Hard not to try to address what is in those negotiations that were leaked, such as handing over control of of US laws, to foreign Corporations. Do you support foreign Corps making decisions about OUR environment, being able to over-rule our hard-fought-for environmental protection legislation?

And that's just ONE of many seriously disturbing elements of these 'agreements'. Not to mention that CONGRESS was kept out of the loop on these negotiations.

Do you think Congress should have nothing to say about Foreign Entities being given more power over OUR country's issues, than Congress itself has?

I think you need to read up on what is at stake here. I absolutely hope the Obama administration had nothing to do with this. It is the worst violation of trust we have seen in a long, long time, if ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #51)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:42 AM

61. There is no agreement yet. It's negotiations. And there is no reason for them to be public


until they are an agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:29 AM

62. Even the WTO releases draft negotiating texts

In 2010 TPP countries agreed not to release negotiating texts until four years after agreement is finished. Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate committee with official jurisdiction over TPP, has been denied access even to US proposals to the negotiations. But 600 corporate representatives serving as official US trade advisers have full access to TPP texts and a special role in negotiations.

This kind of secrecy is not a good thing or even a common thing in past trade negotiations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:48 AM

63. Executive privilege. The president and his representatives have to be able to negotiate


things like this without the congress causing issues every step of the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #63)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:34 PM

101. Corporate input every step of the way is OK though.... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:52 PM

94. There is every reason why trade agreements should be discussed openly by CONGRESS, NOT by foreign

entities who have absolutely no right to be even suggesting, let alone apparently WRITING laws for this country, WITHOUT Congress' knowledge. Congress was BARRED from getting this information and in fact did not know what was going on. When the leak occurred, Sen. Levin, head of the Free Trade Committee, demanded access to these negotiations. He was denied that access. This is outrageous. Who is running this country is the question this leak among other revelations, that badly needs to be answered. As on observer said, 'this makes the cliche 'selling the country down the river' no longer a cliche, but a fact.

This whole thing needs to be thoroughly investigated. Since when is it okay for foreign Corporations to interfere with the laws of the US to benefit THEIR bottom line?

The questions this raises go back to 'deals' that have been made in the past also. The Longshoremen, eg, who found out that Foreign Corps had been given rights to US ports which allowed them to fire US Union workers whose livlihoods have depended on their working on those docks for generations. The Foreign Corps reneged on 'promises' that they would not fire US workers, but as soon as they got what they wanted, access to US ports, that is exactly what they set out to do. How did that happen? Since when does a foreign Corporation get to take over US property and then run Americans off the property and out of their jobs?

These leaks are just the tip of an iceberg that many have been wondering about for a long, long time, and if Congress is worth anything anymore, if they care about THIS country, they will begin an investigation as to who these people are and how they have come to have so much power over the lives and property of US Citizens AND our laws, environmental and otherwise.

There really is no way to try to minimize the significance of what has been revealed frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #94)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:24 PM

95. No, Senator Levin's demand is outrageous. The congress will vote on the agreement. They do not


negotiate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #95)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:00 AM

96. Sen. Levin was absolutely correct to be outraged that foreign etities are busy writing laws for this

country. Please show me where in the Constitution foreign Corporations have a right to do the job intended for Congress?

Are you serious, really? Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #96)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:35 PM

106. Congress will vote on the final agreement. The president and the executives of the other



nations in the agreement can seek input from whomever they chose. You people who want the world to be a smaller place are so out of mainstream economic thought, that you really are just funny to watch every time a trade deal is in the news. You have no power to stop the future. I know, I know, you've got an internet petition with 58 billion signatures, and it will accomplish nothing in stopping the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #106)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:00 PM

107. 'You people'??? You mean Americans who think that Congress is our legislative body, you know, the

people authorized by the will of the People to write and vote on and pass legislation for the common good of THIS COUNTRY.

Since WHEN, and I really am asking you to provide me with some solid facts here because I have not found them anywhere, since when did this country cede Congress' right to legislate to Foreign Corporations? Were we invaded and we lost?? Explain please!

What you are saying is only confirming everything that is wrong about this. You are okay with Foreign Entities writing US Law and then submitting these laws for the expected rubber stamp approval by enough bought and paid for Teabaggers and Blue Dogs??

I want to see from you how this in any way represents any part of the US Constitution, which last I heard, was still the law of the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #107)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:08 PM

108. Treaties are also law of the land If the executives of those

Countries want input from groups they can do that. The congress in this country then votes on the final agreement. We are part of the world and we enter into agreements with other countries. And those agreements are agreed to by congress just like every other law. You can not tell the other countries who they can and can't get input from and neither can our congress. It seems many of you don't like that we are part of the world and engage them but we do and you can't stop the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #108)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:18 PM

109. Congress was barred from knowing anything about this. If it had not been for a whistle-blower

we would still have no idea what plans these Foreign Corps had for the American people. What is it you are not getting about this? We have no treaty with Commercial Corps to allow them to write legislation for this country. Please point me in the direction of when we gave up our sovereignty to Global Corps.

The only question that remains is how many other secret legislation is being written for America by foreign Corporations? Amazing that you find this to be okay, seriously. I doubt the American people in general will be as blase about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #109)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:44 PM

110. Did you also agree with the congress when members said the Attorney General had to hand over

documents?

Do you want both he and Ambassador Kirk held in contempt of congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #95)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:37 PM

102. The constitution says 'Advice and Consent'...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #102)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:19 PM

105. And they will do that when they vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:02 PM

56. Ask Senator Wyden. Subcomitee chair on trade.

He was excluded from the process and had no idea what the agreement contained until details leaked out.

Hopefully your rofl guy is just having a seizure or something because this issue really isn't funny at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #56)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:40 AM

60. The negotiations aren't finished, once they are what will actually be in the agreement will be


public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:46 AM

3. Are we just to assume it is "job killing" or at least, try to explain why

President Obama must not think so, or there is no reason he'd be doing it.

So I think there is an open issue there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:21 AM

6. Can you name a "free" trade agreement that hasn't been job killing?

Or in the case of the three Bush/Obama agreements signed last year, weren't projected to destroy hundreds of thousands of US jobs by every disinterested group who reviewed it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:42 AM

7. That doesn't explain how

it works that they allegedly kill jobs. The recession occurred in 2008. It would have been sooner if NAFTA were involved. Too often on DU we are to assume this without understanding it. It is those who want our hair on fire about it who needs to explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:57 AM

9. NAFTA: 700,000 US jobs destroyed (and counting)

According to EPI: http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf

Almost-free trade with China was much worse still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:41 PM

18. Page 3 we have now trade deficits with Mexico

On page 4 NAFTA has devastating effects on the Mexican economy.

Page 4 Mexico has also lost jobs.

Yet on page 6 the US corporations are outsourcing to Mexico.

But what is the connection between removing tariffs and creating a free trade area and these inconsistent problems? Both Mexico and the US are worse off, but it because of NAFTA or something else? How did creating this free trade area lead directing to the problems?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:46 PM

21. LOL. "You say workers in both countries are WORSE off, while corporations are much richer?"

How is this possible????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:17 PM

26. How is it not possible is the better question.

Or do you think a corporation becoming richer means a better life for the workers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #26)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

27. I was poking fun at the poster's (feigned?) incredulity. I agree with your title. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:54 PM

38. Sorry, I missed the other poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:01 AM

67. What incredulity?

I was talking about an article you have not read.

It is inconsistent, claiming we've lost jobs to Mexico but on another page, Mexico has lost jobs.

And there is nothing to connect it to NAFTA.

If you expect people to argue this point, they have to understand it.

ETA: President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, so I believe he thought it would have good results. If he was mistaken, whoever says that needs to explain just how created a free trade area out of these three countries is partly responsible for economic problems that arose subsequently.

We often blame those problems on Bush and the tax cuts, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #67)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:06 AM

69. Is this a joke? Nobody can educate you on basic economics, here. Nor is your lack of understanding

a counter-argument.

To the extent you are sincere you need to use the internet to educate yourself in these matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #69)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:22 PM

73. But then you can't seem to explain it

You have not provided the requested explanation. Or responded to any point I made.

I don't know why I'm to be against free trade. Or why people like Clinton and Obama, whom I think would not sign things that they knew would harm the economy, think it's OK.

You're not going to win an argument without an explanation other than: "you are ignorant." You need to add something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #73)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

75. You have proven to be a waste of time in the past. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #75)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:59 PM

77. You still aren't making your argument.

What is it? Stop with the personal shit and make a solid argument that free trade causes all the problems it allegedly does, and why then do these deals pass Congress and get signed by Dem Presidents? That is the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #77)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:00 PM

81. Nonsense. I'm not going to bother to *disprove* your ill-informed argument; there's no point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:42 PM

36. Taxpayer subsidies is the biggest reason, but there are many.

 

NAFTA largely exists to legalize what used to be called dumping, it's just negotiated dumping across multiple sectors and multiple nations.

We kill the Mexican farmers by dumping our massively subsidized agricultural products, they get a nice piece of our former manufacturing sector so that Mexicans that had no jobs can have really brutally awful jobs for subsistence wages.

The common thread and only goal is that the corporations make ever higher profits for doing nothing more. These trade agreements are written by the corporations for the corporations, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:44 PM

19. Excellent post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:33 PM

92. I'm still waking up, but this report does not seem to cover jobs created in Mexico

that would have been created here by U.S. companies.

The whole Ford Fusion operation started in Mexico after NAFTA and many suppliers have moved their plants down there too, to be closer to Ford. Ford doesn't pay anything close to UAW entry wage and benefits, which are running about $15 an hour with a mediocre medical plan and a 401(k).

Monterrey, Mexico, is a big manufacturing center that has grown quite a bit since NAFTA.

I keep thinking that we in the U.S. will end up spending many, many dollars keeping those U.S. plants safe from internal Mexican problems in the future, and that we're spending more than we know now just to keep those plants in cheap labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 11:49 AM

11. Sen. Obama said in 2008.........

"One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."

Oops!


TPP has been referred to as "NAFTA on Steriods".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:44 PM

20. Did Obama ever explain why?

Why does creating a free trade area with Mexico and Canada in itself lead to economic decline?

What even if the TPP? What does it do? Create a free trade area with what countries?

Why would Obama sign a treaty that he thinks is going to cause American job decline? Maybe it is different in some way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:25 PM

91. Don't be obtuse.

"Free trade" means that all jobs but the top go to the country with the workers that can do the work at the lowest wage. Sometimes we end up with cheaper toys, but often products are cheap and of lesser quality.

People here who used to make stuff become unemployed for long periods or end up with much lesser paying jobs.

Capital, i.e. equipment and money end up in the cheaper countries.

We end up with crapier jobs and fewer of them.

Oh yes, from the date that the trade agreement is effective going forward, all future investment is made directly in the lower wage country.

Other factors that many low wage countries have that entices manufacturing employers are lack of or lack of enforcement of environmental protection laws, workplace safety laws and wage and hour (overtime and breaks) laws.

I cannot believe that you have as many posts as you do and either cannot recite this in your sleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:57 PM

22. TPP has been referred to as NAFTA on steroids.

By whom? If I refer to Facebook as 'A waste of time on steroids' does that make it so.

That's exactly what I was referring to in the post at the very top of this thread; you can find whatever you want on the Internet.

Since when does it become true just because you read it somewhere?

Just because Obama said it while campaigning; doesn't necessarily make it true either.

Statisticians come to all different kinds of conclusions. There are too many variables that lead to job loss or job creation to point to a definite cause. Very often people point to a statistic that they believe to be true; when it is really just one possible interpretation of the data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:08 AM

65. Pretty simple

A lot of companies figure it is more profitable to move production overseas and employ cheap labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:05 AM

68. If it is moved to Mexico presumably from the US and Canada

Yet there are now no tariffs on our products to Mexico, so Mexicans are more likely to buy our products and Canadian products.

We need to understand why this was a bad thing in order to be able to argue it. It seems most with their hair on fire on this subject don't know why. Just railing against "the corporations" doesn't explain it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #68)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:11 AM

70. Reality, treestar: "Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. manufacturing employment has fallen by 5 million"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #70)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:20 PM

72. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

We need to know why it was NAFTA or to what extent it was due to NAFTA. Or to free trade. We're told free trade is evil, but there's no point in taking that stance if we can't explain it.

I can understand why jobs would go to Mexico but in the end we would be hoping Mexico's standard of living would come up to ours. And Mexico is nearby. I still am astonished that companies can make things cheaper in China, which is so far away, transport costs should cancel it out.

If Mexico were to become like the US and Canada, however, things would be wonderful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #72)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:58 PM

76. This information is available to anyone who is even remotely curious. You haven't found it for a

reason.

We need to know why it was NAFTA or to what extent it was due to NAFTA.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #76)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:59 PM

78. Then explain it

Make your argument. You keep dodging that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #78)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:01 PM

83. Nope. Won't be derailed by your ignorance. Make an effort to *READ THE LINKS ALREADY POSTED* to

this very thread first, then you can demand more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #83)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:23 PM

99. What would you do if you were in a real debate?

Tell the other person to read a lot of stuff?

Is that how people can win votes? No, they have to explain.

I looked at one link but it was all conclusory - no explanation. If you understand it yourself, you should be able to articulate it.

Why does a free trade area lead inevitably to economic decline and how much does it involve that versus other factors? Did the housing bubble occur because of NAFTA? How can that be explained?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #99)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:09 AM

111. This is a MESSAGE BOARD. The way we communicate is through the written word. If you won't read,

you can't learn anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #99)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:09 AM

112. This is a PATHETIC way to try to derail, btw--the "feigned" ignorance as a debating tactic. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #72)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:59 PM

79. I mean, there are detailed links *IN THIS VERY THREAD*, and you still pretend your ignorance of the

matter is the same as an argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #72)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:49 PM

98. Read the links in THIS THREAD yet, oh seeker of knowledge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:36 PM

33. how would we know, since the public & legislators are denied access that's given to corporations?

 

Four senators sent a letter to the Obama administration on Monday asking for greater congressional access to negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a controversial proposed free trade agreement that remains shrouded in secrecy.

Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) signed the letter, which asks that congressional offices be given access to draft negotiations among the United States and eight other Pacific nations. The four senators also asked that nonprofit groups advocating "Internet freedom" policies be given access to the documents.

The secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific deal has sparked a great deal of consternation among public health advocates, consumer groups and members of Congress. More than 600 representatives of corporations are able to view draft versions of the deal because of their positions on government advisory boards, while only a handful of nonprofit groups have the same privilege. Members of such boards are not permitted to share information about the documents with the public. Staff members from both Republican and Democratic congressional offices have also been denied access to the documents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/trans-pacific-partnership-documents-sherrod-brown-jeff-merkley-ron-wyden-robert-menendez_n_1624956.html

"just trust the president" = bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:00 PM

80. By the time it gets to Congress it would have to be public

Nothing can pass Congress that is not public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #80)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:11 PM

88. "by the time it gets to congress"... our government is negotiating terms *now*. why is it secret?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #80)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:17 PM

89. Ever hear of the Patriot Act?

Public? Hardly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:09 PM

52. This isn't just about 'job-killing'. It is way worse than that. Have you read what was

leaked regarding those negotiations? Do you want to give up this country's power over, eg, legislation regarding our environment to foreign Corporations? Do you want a foreign legal body to have more power over this country's issues than Congress has?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #52)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:01 PM

82. How is that going to come about without the ultimate agreement

being made public?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #82)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:09 PM

87. Now it cannot. Had it not been for the whistle-blower no one would know about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:23 PM

100. But how could it become law without going through the usual process?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #82)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:19 PM

90. The media will keep all the dirty details as secret as possible.

95% of the public knew absolutely NOTHING about CAFTA and the leftover Bush agreements Obama supported. When CAFTA was being debated during the Bush years I must have asked about 20 friends and relatives what they thought about it, and not a single one knew a damn thing about it.

The giant corporations and billionaires that control the media make a killing off these fake free trade deals, so all they will give us the same generic talking points promoting this disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:00 AM

4. Gee. I remember when Democrats supported American workers.

That was before NAFTA, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:51 AM

8. Gee, my job was shipped out of the country 10 years before NAFTA though

And many of my "Democratic", neighbors were out purchasing imported cars while I was laid off.

So understandably some of us have a different take on this.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 11:00 AM

10. Sorry to read that.

Many of my UAW neighbors lost their jobs to automation. Detroit hasn't been the same since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:20 PM

28. Our entire business landscape has changed.

And sadly many people could not change with it, and the type of industry that the world has, does not need as many blue collar workers.

Of all the start ups I've seen lately, they deal in information.. not products. And this is billions of dollars annually. They can be run with a small staff of some programmers, customers service, and marketing.

The World changed, too... and this conversation is much like what happened when America first introduced automation of any kind. Sort of how the blacksmiths felt, I bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 04:01 PM

40. The automation wave is threatening the UMC now.

Do We Need Doctors Or Algorithms?

Personally, I understand the need for information in an information based economy. What we also need is culture and the arts.

That -- freedom of thought and expression -- is anathema to the Ownership Class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 07:20 PM

46. Hilarious





You must think these are "white collar" workers.

No, the world still needs blue collar workers - more than ever before in fact. We don't have them HERE because US capitalists can get them so much more cheaply in Asian despotisms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:17 PM

54. Did America give up its sovereignty to affect these changes in the past?

Are you aware of what is in these 'agreements' regarding who will be given more power than the US Congress over, eg, our environmental laws? Are you happy to have Foreign Corps making the rules for this country based on THEIR needs?

I think you better go read what has been leaked regarding these agreements. Sounds to me like they make 'selling the country down the river' a true statement rather than what we used to use it for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:12 PM

53. Sorry about your job, but that is not the only issue regarding these 'agreements'. It is way more

than the outsourcing of jobs. I think people have not been reading what this is about or I doubt they would be so cavalier about it. Unless of course you don't mind the literal selling of this country to Foreign Corps who would have the power to over-rule our own laws, and Congress would have no say in it. Congress eg, was not aware of these 'agreements'. Do you think Foreign Corps should be planning for this country's future without the knowledge of Congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

93. I don't think that foreign corporations, or any corporations, should be planning our future,

even with the knowledge of congress, because it seems that congresscritters are merely corporate employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:02 PM

24. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 07:10 PM

45. You're living in the past, citizen!

Gas is probably 50c a gallon there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #45)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 07:44 PM

49. LOL!

?zz=1

Lowest I remember purchasing was 25˘, ca. 1973...Humble or whatever it was then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:39 PM

103. Not dry behind the ears yet. Bought gas at 17 cents a gallon. Then it went to 19. Kids these days!

And it was from Humble and there was always Sinclair. You know, with the friendly, smiling green brontosaurus.

I hated it when they scrapped that sweet guy. Sniffle.

But then, when Humble turned into EXXON, they gave me a nice fluffly tiger tail for my tank.

Geeze, lighten up a little. Oh, and get off my lawn!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 12:17 PM

12. We already have trade with the trans-pacific nations

the deal that is being worked on regulates that trade. Trade regulations are inherently the job of the president, and Obama has a very good record so far on managing things toward higher exports - http://news.yahoo.com/u-exports-march-hit-record-high-186-8-191608747.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 12:47 PM

14. One item leaked...

TPP will give multinational corporations and private investors the right to sue nations in private tribunals. These tribunals have
the power to overturn environmental, labor, or any other laws that limit profit, awarding taxpayer funded damages.


What does that have to do with exports?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 01:31 PM

16. This is similar to what the WTO "trade court", arbiter of trade disputes

which has been a generally effective means for resolving disputes between trade partners - mostly things like "dumping" products below costs to grab up a competitors customers, or copyright violations and piracy. For the most part, without trade agreements, regulations, and a means to enforce them, the kinds of problem we see traditionally all hurt the US market.

It has a great deal to do with exports, as that supports US manufacturing. Obama's goal has been to double the value of US exports by 2015, and (somewhat quietly) he is on track to succeed in that goal. Something like 500,000 of the 4 million+ new jobs created under Obama are related to increased US exports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:29 PM

17. The WTO Trade court is an arbiter of trade disputes between member countries...

not directly between multi-national corporations and countries. Through the WTO Multi-Nationals and investors can not dispute United States environmental laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #17)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:58 PM

23. Many other countries (e.g. Japan, South Korea, China) have active partnerships between gov't and

industry. The distinction between corporations and nations is largely arbitrary, in such cases.

See, for example:

Chaebol (from chae: wealth or property + pŏl: faction or clan) refers to a South Korean form of business conglomerate. They are global multinationals owning numerous international enterprises. The term is often used in a context similar to that of the English word "conglomerate". The term was first used in 1984.

There are several dozen large Korean family-controlled corporate groups which fall under this definition. Through aggressive governmental support and finance, some have become well-known international brand names, such as Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and SK.

The chaebol has also played a significant role in South Korean politics. In 1988 a member of a chaebol family, Chung Mong-jun, president of Hyundai Heavy Industries, successfully ran for the National Assembly. Other business leaders also were chosen to be members of the National Assembly through proportional representation. Since 2000, Hyundai has played a role in the thawing of North Korean and South Korean relations.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:14 PM

25. no, it's not. and there are fewer jobs in the us today than on the day bush took office.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:41 PM

35. Yes it is - nearly identical in organization and intent

...and isolationism is one way to keep the US jobless. We still make a lot of things here that are successfully exported, and a great many jobs depend on that. Job losses have two primary causes - technological advances (accounting for about 3/4 of manufacturing job losses), and crappy trade deals that encouraged imports but not exports.

Obama has a very good record on trade, and this one is designed to bolster US exports and employment. Trade itself is not the problem, and the meme that "we can't compete" is a RW slur that way too many people have bought into without really thinking it through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:46 PM

37. jobs created during us presidential terms:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

"free trade" is crap. it benefits finance capital, not people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:56 PM

39. "free trade" is crap

what is being discussed is the framework for regulated trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 04:07 PM

41. 'regulated' for the benefit of the biggest boys on the block. also crap. 'regulated' for the

 

benefit of transnational capital, at the expense of national capital. 'regulated' to undermine democratic process and national sovereignty.

triple-crap.

it's 'free trade'. the kind of 'regulation' is the same as that which started the american revolution: the british east india company didn't have to pay taxes on their tea trade, the local boys did. those 'regulations' were made by the british east india company.

same thing today. corporations writing the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 04:22 PM

42. That's assuming Obama is a RW corporate shill

Which he is not, as his record on trade shows very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #42)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 04:30 PM

43. Assuming nothing about Obama personally, but about the system.

 

ALEC has resolutions supporting free trade frameworks with: Colombia, Panama, Trans-Pacific Partnership (New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam), Taiwan, Georgia and Indonesia. In December we are likely to have one supporting the Korea-U.S. FTA.

http://www.alec.org/2010/11/a-look-into-the-2011-legislative-cycle-policy-initiatives-in-the-states/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #43)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 07:20 PM

47. Ok, assuming then that Obama is incapable of constructing a good trade agreement

...which again goes counter to his record. And, again, "free trade" is not what is being discussed - what is being discussed is a framework for regulated trade.

Perhaps the difference in perspective is that I grew up in the NW, where trade is a vital part of the economy and supports thousands of good jobs and a great deal of manufacturing. Problems arise and fester when trade is unregulated, where there are no means to settle disputes, and where unfair practices can't be challenged. Trade agreements are generally there to address those problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #47)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 07:23 PM

48. i disagree that obama constructed the agreement. i am 4th generation pnw. trade has always

 

existed *everywhere*. trade is not the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #48)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:00 PM

50. So we agree that trade is not the problem

and I agree that free trade is crap.

Which is why we need good trade regulations and agreements!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #14)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 08:18 PM

55. Thank you, I've been reading the comments here and it seems to me that a few people defending

this either have not read what this is all about, or they are in favor of replacing Congress with Foreign Corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:04 PM

86. Our law cannot be overruled that way

Those tribunals would be dealing with private contracts, not government regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:22 PM

29. Thanks.. guess I'm going to go vote for Ron Paul now.

Never really understood the point of people coming here and tearing down the Democratic candidate. What is our alternative? Ron Paul?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:28 PM

31. We live in a "democracy". Maybe we can stop this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:45 PM

59. The Rule of Law is always a good place to turn to when corruption rears its ugly head.

Do you have any idea why the US has suspended the Rule of Law for certain people?

We know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was crime involved in the Financial Meltdown, which was up to now, considered to be one of the biggest 'bank heists in history'. But now we are learning, each day, that there is more and that what we are finding out makes the 2008 meltdown look like a misdemeanor by comparison.

But not one person has gone to jail or even been prosecuted for these massive crimes that have affected billions of ordinary people world wide.

What do you think ought to be done about these criminals, to keep their ill-gotten money out of our political system?

Now we find out, thanks only to a whistle-blower, that things are even worse again than we thought. That secret negotiations were going on that would give Foreign Corporations more power in this country than Congress.

You seem to be saying that we should close our eyes to all these crimes. That we should not speak about our country being handed over to foreign Corporations and your reason is the same old reason that GOT US HERE! 'There's an election coming up'!! Is an election more important than the country being robbed, than power over the US Congress being handed to foreign Corporations? At what point do we let our elected officials know we want something done about all of this.

There are always elections coming up, so you tell us when we should squeeze in these 'concerns' because my recollection is over the past decade that there is never a good time, and that the criminals know this and know they have nothing to worry about. So things keep getting worse.

I am interested in your solution to dealing with these massive crimes that may lead us into an even worse Global Collapse even as the revelations keep pouring out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:24 PM

30. Yeah,

"could blunt the Obama campaigns strategy of highlighting Romney/Bain offshoring by blurring the lines between the two candidates "

...this is what we want. So let's make up false equivalencies about pending trade agreements to claim a hypothetical about a trade agreement's potential to be exploited by companies that want to ship jobs overseas is the same as Romney's work at Bain to ship jobs overseas.

See the fucking differences?

Dear voters: Obama = Romney because some asshole like Romney may ship jobs overseas because a pending trade deal likely will possibly enable such an asshole, hypothetically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:30 PM

32. You seem to see politics as lining up behind Team A or Team B. Many of us want to PLAY for a team.

That means influencing policy that influences our lives.

Does that make sense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:38 PM

34. No

You seem to see politics as lining up behind Team A or Team B. Many of us want to PLAY for a team.

That means influencing policy that influences our lives.

Does that make sense?

...it doesn't "make sense."

You see, one can denouce the pending trade agreement without the false equivalency. I mean, there is no proof or evidence to suggest that Obama would support a deal that would lead to jobs being shipped overseas or wouldn't work to stem any losses (by adjusting policy or working with Congress) from existing agreements.

On the other hand, Romney supports outsourcing so he would do what he can to facilitate it.

But that's not the basis of the false equivalency:

"could blunt the Obama campaigns strategy of highlighting Romney/Bain offshoring by blurring the lines between the two candidates "

Obama has never been the CEO of a company that actively engaged in offshoring. That nonsensical point only serves to take the heat off Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 06:56 PM

44. Of course there is "evidence to suggest that Obama would support a deal that would lead to jobs"

Of course there is "evidence to suggest that Obama would support a deal that would lead to jobs being shipped overseas"--the President broken promise on NAFTA being a major piece of evidence, and the President's own "Free Trade" with Korea deal being another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:43 PM

58. So you will soon be starting a Group here on DU called 2016 Progressive Prez, right?

In 2012, Obama is running against Romney. That is the reality.

You want to PLAY ... then you need to start forming the narrative for the next Prez election, and that's 2016.

There are many here on DU who complain about Obama, but I have yet to see any of them accept the reality that he is our candidate in 2012, and that if they want to "fix things" they need to get busy NOW for 2016.

Complaining about Obama 6 months out from the general election is not an effective approach. Trying to influence elections in the future is what needs to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 10:32 AM

66. YOU sure as shooting haven't kept your mouth shut these past 4 years. Why should I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:00 PM

71. Didn't tell you to keep your mouth shut. Suggested some one like you start

a group to discuss who Dems should support in 2016 given that we already know who to vote for in 2012.

Of course you can keep complaining about Obama all you want, and that reality doesn't change any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #71)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:02 PM

84. I haven't relented on this issue since before 2008. Don't dictate my priorities to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:03 PM

85. Why does advice from your corner always-- ALWAYS boil down to "shut-up while our guy is in office"?

I mean, except for those occasions just after unpopular legislation is passed, when we're all berated for having 'failed to push the President hard enough'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:38 PM

57. If domestic corporations are people I guess foreign corporations are too.

From what I've read in the leaked TPP documents foreign corporations will be getting diplomatic immunity, or amnesty if you choose to see it that way.

It seems to me that they'll be able to live here under the conditions and laws of their home country and sue our own government for damages if we enforce our own laws.

Maybe I've got it all wrong but this agreement appears to be on a fast track and the public can only guess at the full contents. We'll never know until it's too late unless the administration follows through on it's promises of transparency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:55 AM

64. Take a look at what happens when we do a "free trade" deal.....

 

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

We signed a trade deal with China in 2000 and at that time our trade deficit was 90 billion dollars per year. Ten years later the deficit is 295 billion dollars per year.

This "trade deal" extracted 200 billion dollars FROM OUR ECONOMY. That is almost 1.5% of our GDP and if you consider the multiplier involved in losing that money circulating in our economy we gave up close to 5% of GDP to China alone.

You can use the census website to examine our trade deals with other countries like Mexico.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

In 1995 (before Nafta) our trade deficit was 15 billion with Mexico and last year it was 68 billion. Nafta cost our economy 53 billion dollars in lost GDP. While not as large as the loss to China it is still notable.

If you consider all the countries we have signed "free trade agreements" with over the years it is clear that politicians of BOTH PARTIES have pissed away our economy trying to please their corporate campaign donors while discarding the American worker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:31 PM

74. Not dimes bit of difference.

ACA, Lilly Ledbetter, LGBT rights etc. are all just crumbs thrown at us to distract us while all along the PTB fuck us over and over and over. Obama talks some good shit, but behind closed doors he's shaking hands and making deals with the money people and the corporations. He talked a good fight during his run to the presidency and as soon as he got the nod here in Denver it was "Now is not the time to point fingers." and let us not forget this gem " What Wall St. did might have been immoral, but hey committed no crime." and on and on and on. let me ask once again, how much more of a fucking are you going to take before you are willing to take to the streets in mass protest????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:24 AM

97. Why TPP will not blunt Bain attacks.

Nothing to do with the merits. TPP is another job-killer and an amazing corporate power grab to boot. But Romney will not make it an issue because the people that own him won't let him make an issue out of it. They are happier flying beneath the radar. Mitt's mitts are tied on this one. He'll take his Bain outsourcing lumps for now and hope to score points in a later round on another issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:07 PM

104. Can you spell "collusion"?

We all damned well ought able to spell it by now.

Occupy. Voting is not enough anymore when both parties are flooded with corporate money.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #104)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:12 AM

113. Yeah.

Occupy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:11 PM

114. Kick. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread