Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congress passes 3 free trade agreements

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 08:20 PM
Original message
Congress passes 3 free trade agreements
Source: Forbes

WASHINGTON -- Congress approved free trade agreements Wednesday with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, ending a four-year drought in the forming of new trade partnerships and giving the White House and Capitol Hill the opportunity to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.

In rapid succession, the House and Senate voted on the three trade pacts, which the administration says could boost exports by $13 billion and support tens of thousands of American jobs. None of the votes were close, despite opposition from labor groups and other critics of free trade agreements who say they result in job losses and ignore labor rights problems in the partner countries.

snip

President Barack Obama said passage of the agreements was "a major win for American workers and businesses."

"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label `Made in America,' support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. ... I look forward to signing these agreements."

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



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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. wtf, they call themselves a news organization?
...to show they can work together to stimulate the economy and put people back to work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
51. Well it is Forbes, ya know.
They actually do call themselves a news organization but their neoliberal bias is clear and abundant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fucking TRAITORS!
Just HOW MANY constituents (us 99 percenters) were calling and urging their reps to SIGN the agreements???? We need to occupy the White House and the Capitol building and start from scratch!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luciferous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't see how this will be a win for American workers when it will cause more job losses.
This is such bullshit!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. GOPhers wanted them. Third Way wanted them. Obama wanted them.
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 09:41 PM by chill_wind
Was there ever any question?



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

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

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




lots more here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/187253-president-gets...

and here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/187175-hous...

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

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

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

(bold mine)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. self-delete
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 09:54 PM by chill_wind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:49 AM
Original message
Yes, complete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. The only thing exported will be more American jobs. Who the fuck are they kidding? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. +1000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
32. Please name the top ten global exporters.
Research it, you might be surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
52. Your exercise is incomplete without a list of the top 10 importers.
You might have something to learn if you research that by way of comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #52
68. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #32
67. I wish we exported NEARLY as much as we imported. But, I'm sorry, what was your point?
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 08:25 AM by valerief
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #67
125. With "free trade" countries we do export almost as much as we import. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
84. Might wanna rethink that graphic.
Sorry but it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
In Other News Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
124. Good point nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. I want to see who of our craven Dems voted for this debacle.
Anyone have a link to the vote breakdown?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. here they are
Senate Roll Call 161 (Korea, HR 3080); 162 (Panama, HR 3079), and 163 (Colombia, HR 3078)

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

I couldn't find a direct house vote for these bills, but House RC 771 provided for consideration of a senate amendment to 2 of the bills. Again, not a single republican voting nay. My rep Lofgren voted for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Thank you for the list
Just as I suspected Ron Wyden voted for all three. Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
41. That's sort of surprising to me.
I usually agree with the way he votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. I've been wary of him
You know he has had the backing of progressives, but didn't use his voice against the bush* administration atrocities. He always kept himself low-key and never stepped up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #18
91. Merkely Nay on all three, though
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 11:45 AM by 0rganism
at least one of the Oregon senators is on our side.

I'm tempted to call Wyden's office to enquire which orifice would be optimal for insertion of my MSEE diploma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Yes, I saw that
He has stayed true so far and I am pleased with him. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Thank you for that info, alp227.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
90. Damn
Well at least Franken voted against two out of three of them. Friggin Klobuchar voted For two out of three. Really people, is free trade with South Korea really that great an idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. "they" get our jobs, so what do we get (not the filthy rich coprorations....US) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
102. We get Colombian refugees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Booooooooooooo & Hisssssssssss!
How about a FAIR Trade agreement for a change.

jerks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. I swear they dont care if we're at 10% unemployment by the election
Its like all the pols in DC (in both parties, at every level) have all lined up cushy jobs with their biggest donors just in case they lose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fool Count Donating Member (878 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. I guess, polarization and partisanship level in American politics
is not bad enough to prevent both parties from getting together on devising new and better ways of screwing the American worker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. Don't free trade agreements essentially allow corporations to establish foreign factories?
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 09:46 PM by Kablooie
Foreign workers can be had at a fraction of what an American worker costs.
Then they can sell the products back to us and also increase sales by selling tons more in the free trade countries.

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

When is this going to stop?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. I wish they'd pass the jobs bill, but the trade agreements are a good deal
US exports have been doing well under the administrations monetary policy, and these should actually do what it is hoped they will do, and support the economy and jobs here.

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

"US Exports Rise to Record" - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-e...

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

"Manufacturing Sector Shows Continued Growth" - http://www.wbez.org/story/illinois-department-employmen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. BBC: Korea trade act will increase US-made exports to the country
US Congress votes through South Korea trade deal

President Obama said the pacts with South Korea, Panama and Columbia were "a major win for American workers and businesses".

"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label 'Made in America', support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labour rights, the environment and intellectual property," he said in a statement.

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

There was nearly $80bn in trade between the US and South Korea last year. The Asian country is the seventh largest trade partner for the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Not mentioned in your post: Imports from Korea will greatly outnumber exports to Korea
Resulting in gigantic American job losses and destroyed industries from a massive trade deficit.



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

Growing Skepticism Of Free Trade

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

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

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

"It is true that our exports will increase. The problem is our imports from Korea are going to increase a lot more," Wallach says. "If you subtract the jobs that will be wiped out by imports from the jobs that will be created by exports, you come up with a deficit."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. The 159k number is bogus
...more or less made up, based on the effect of other deals made under unfavorable conditions. The point I was trying to make is that good policies can have good results. The opposite is certainly true as well.

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

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

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

Again, good policies bring good results. Its no good judging from data from other deals under different circumstances - you can look at current data, as the administration has, for the most likely effect of current policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And the 70k number isn't?
Fact is we have a track record with free trade agreements. They don't work out as well for us as their supporters claim. Since we've yet to create a net-positive free trade agreement, being skeptical of these agreements seems prudent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. We have a track record of bush's economic policy's effect on trade
We also have a current record of Obama's policy's effect on trade:

"US Exports Surge 17 Percent Over First Four Months of 2010 - http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90852/705...

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

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

"US Exports Surge to New Record High in March" - http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/05/11/u-s-expo... /

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

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

...I understand the skepticism, but on the trade issue, I'm pretty comfortable with this pic:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #25
38.  Sad thing is, it could reverse much of what good the Obama admin. HAS done these past 3 years.
I do hope things can be fixed to where the big corps don't get off so easy. I'd be a lot more comfortable then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #25
64. That's nice. Perhaps you could point out a net-positive free trade agreement?
Otherwise, you're completely avoiding my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Just one. Australia-US FTA.
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreeme...
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c6021.html

So far (through August) in 2011: exports to Australia - $17.1 billion; imports from Australia - $6.6 billion
In 2010: exports - $21.8 billion, imports: $8.6 billion
In 2009: exports - $19.6 billion, imports: $8.0 billion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
103. and Chile, and Peru, Singapore, Bahrain, and the CAFTA group
which includes 6 countries in South America.Those are free trade countries that we have net trade surpluses with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #64
89. self-delete
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 10:24 AM by bhikkhu
nevermind. In spite of the administration record, it seems no one is really interested unless its bad news...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. It's clear you didn't bother to research before posting
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 11:50 PM by brentspeak
The EPI study factors in that Korea, like China, manipulates its currency, the very thing you yourself term "unfavorable monetary policy".

You also said:



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


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

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

Therefore, American workers will indeed be "competing with slave labor there."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. Link?
I haven't followed the employment situation in South Korea closely, but I recall a crisis back in '96, when immigration rules were tightened up and more progressive employment regulations were adopted.

The country has typically very low unemployment, and natural tensions similar to our own between the need for more labor due to high economic activity vs low population, the desire to maintain a high standard of living (making more menial jobs difficult to fill), and a desire to maintain cultural homogeneity. I haven't heard that there is a problem with out-of-control numbers of foreign laborers. Its at least as much of a sensitive political issue there as it is here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim_Shorts Donating Member (355 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
88. Thank you for the EPI link, I've been looking for a study on these deals
Obama is obviously using the chamber of commerce numbers. I'm sure Jeffery Immelt is happy.

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

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

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Colombia, especially, should have NEVER been rewarded with an FTA.
Edited on Wed Oct-12-11 11:21 PM by chill_wind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
40. There is a really fascinating correlation between countries we have agreements with...
...and countries we don't. The countries we have trade agreements with turn out to reduce the trade deficit considerably.

We really need a trade agreement with China since it's only one way (we get Chinese imports, no exports, major tariffs on China's side, basically none on our side; I think there are some steel tariffs but I'm not sure on that one; Solyandra was killed for one, because they had to compete with China).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
62. Right free trade agreements (actually treaties that by-pass the 2/3 majority vote requirement)
Because we have seen sooooooo many, many jobs being created from all those other 17 free trade agreements.

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

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

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

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

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


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #62
79. Poor monetary policies have caused millions of job losses in the US
by making imports so much cheaper than domestic production.

Current policies are more favorable to domestic production, and it shows in our export numbers and in the job growth related to export businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
values1 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #79
86. Our One-Party Congress spins another tale.
Historically, 70% of the economy, consumers, have been put up
against the wall with a system of scam from Wall Street
casino bets, insuring, and encouraging failure on housing
loans.  Deregulation made it possible.

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

IF there is some magic marker that shows how these new same
spin trade deals are going to create a nation here in America
again..that enables the US workforce to obtain a living wage
with the debt that they have been locked, enticed, into,
under the old system, you better be publishing it big time,
cause no one is going to buy your story as we look at
economic history, 3 unnecessary ongoing wars, an abused
military, and a dismal future....locked to a scammed past. 
Congress IS the issue.  Regulation probably won't happen with
the current Republican OR Democratic Congress.  Exports won't
equal imports. Huge regulation policies and tariff on US
company products made overseas need to be established FIRMLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #79
99. What you failed to mention: The S. Korean trade deal continues those unfavorable monetary policies
Korea manipulates their currency in much the same way that China does. Therefore, the Obama/GOP KORUS deal is simply another gut punch to the US economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
73. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
109. History is often a good guide
And it's usually better than predictions made from standard economic theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
17. Trumka: The wrong medicine at the wrong time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
21. All three are bullshit agreements...
This administration has made some of the worst decisions imaginable.
Bail out the banks, ships jobs overseas, and tell the liberals to eat their peas. With all due respect.. I've fuckin had it. Mr. O needs to be primaried....Bernie ? Howard ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. I see the joblessness for Americans program is still way ahead of the jobs for Americans program.
All is still well with the plutonomy, despite the protests.

What a relief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-11 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
28. When will Labor quit sucking the d--k of the democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
106. With a two party system one party need be only slightly more favorable to a given
interest group to win their support by default.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
29. Senator Kohl (WI) voted for SK and Panama, but against Columbia
What the FREAK is wrong with these people??? More unemployment and these a$$hats are celebrating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimsarah Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
30. Next up,
passage of the "bipartisan" corporate tax holiday repatriation act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimsarah Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
44. Oh, and not to worry
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 02:30 AM by kimsarah
The $1.4 Trillion needs to come back to the U.S. so our companies and banksters can reward the CEOs and other executives with bonuses -- early Christmas bonuses if approved in time, for their well-earned hard work. It's been seven years since the last repatriation, and it's way overdue. Some of the money left over after the bonuses is expected to create jobs, which should trickle down to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thornleylv Donating Member (273 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
31. Congress can move fast when corporation need something.
Why can't they move that fast on the jobs bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workinclasszero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
33. MFing TRAITORS!!!
You sorry bastards! We have to have a REVOLUTION to stop these rotten un-american slime or they will put each and every one of us on the street!

OCCUPY EVERYTHING!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
35. Fuck........
Well, you know what? I now hope South Korea has a horrible economic crash sometime in the near future, just so the GOP can learn a hard lesson about screwing this country over.

And as for Obama...........he clearly didn't know what he was getting into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
36. When are we going to OCCUPY CONGRESS?
Goddamned fucking traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
37. FACT from The New York Times: The WH made "changes demanded by industry groups and unions"
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 12:53 AM by ClarkUSA
No amount of the usual misleading Obama-bashing rhetoric from biased op-ed sources changes these facts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
39. Lou Dobbs held up a r eport which he stated was from the Labor
Dept. According to the report there will be no new
jobs. Guess what some goods will be mfg in N.Korea.
Is that not just ducky. Oh yes, Trumpka, Labor Unions
says around 160,000 jobs will be lost. Ho Hummmm.

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

The Republicans are willing to help semd jobs out of
this country but will not vote for a jobs bill to help
Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
42. So voting to axe jobs in favor of the corporate masters...
Why am I not shocked...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Safetykitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
43. Huzzah for our side! The final slide into desperate living.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
45. Hooray for poorly informed rage
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 02:03 AM by Sen. Walter Sobchak
US Exports to Korea are surging and has been for some time, principle US exports to Korea are heavy industrial equipment which are presently subject to a tarrif of 6.2% which will be reduced to zero. The idea it will cost 159,000 jobs is ridiculous, South Korea is NOT a low-cost place to do business, indeed Korean companies are establishing operations in the US because it is cheaper to do business here... and cars are very heavy.

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

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

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

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

Free Trade isn't and has never been the problem. US domestic policies are republican adherance to 'low road' economic development policies are the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #45
59. I love irony.
US Exports to Korea are surging, ya say? If exports were already surging, then why did we need a FTA? And did you know that we have a trade deficit with South Korea to the tune of $7.8 billion so far this year?

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

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

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Weren't your same arguments used to sell NAFTA? That was supposed to be a great thing too. Our trade deficits with Mexico and Canada are $39.3 billion and $20.5 billion so far this year, respectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #59
118. So 9 out of 10 years of increased exports, combined with a falling deficit
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 10:31 PM by Sen. Walter Sobchak
Isn't a surge?

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

This couldn't possibly make sense, Obama and Kirk are just part of an anti-American fifth column in the employ of the transnational capitalist class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #45
65. Thank you - it is too amazing that people just jump
on these without understanding them. OP asks us to condemn that without knowing what is even in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #65
71. Or people jump into threads with support when
they have no idea what they are talking about.

Care to show where you got your info about how great these deals are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #71
100. I don't know if they are good or bad
But at least I'll get informed before deciding. That OK?

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. So you are not willing to show where you got your info about how great these deals are.
I wonder why that could be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #104
127. I specifically said I don't know
And this is your response?

You are clearly against anyone finding out more on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #45
77. sayeth the person pushing for unFree Trade
nothing is free and we the working class pay for it all... go jump in a cold river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #77
117. Your quarrel is with the republicans, not Samsung.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #45
80. Removing tariffs on agricultural goods to Colombia?
Just like in Mexico, where a flood of surplus U.S. corn destroyed countless small farmers there?

Such a deal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #80
116. The "Inclosure Acts" in the UK from 1750 - 1850 also took out small farmers
(For the spelling pricks, that is how it was spelt at the time)

It is just part of industrialization, subsidizing largely unproductive cottage agriculture is money poorly spent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. Except in the case of Mexico, some of the displaced farmers become
our illegal immigrants, and others become foot soldiers for the drug lords.

Such a deal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. Most of the farmers were displaced pre-NAFTA
By an internal economic policy based on import substitution (aka dependency theory) which caused rapid industrial growth and a shift from subsidizing agriculture to subsidizing infant industries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. So if Mexico was subsidizing jobs, why can't it support its own people?
??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #121
131. Mostly regional disparities,
The Mexican government favored economic development in the North, while the south has languished since colonial times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #131
132. But it's the north that is the center of the drug wars
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-11 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #132
133. Location, Location, Location.
There is no multi-billion dollar trade in smuggling drugs into Guatemala.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #45
83. What is your job again?
In what manner do you butter than loaf you are slicing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #83
115. I work with foreign businesses operating in the US and vice-versa
I also wrote extensively on the original 1987 FTA between the United States and Canada and the 1965 Auto Pact before it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SixthSense Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #45
97. I disagree strongly with that assessment
That argument bears a startling similarity to the bill of goods we were sold with NAFTA.

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

SK might qualify as a substantially similar economy. Colombia and Panama most certainly do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #97
114. Our domestic polices did us in, not NAFTA.
The principle is sound, advanced economies should focus on the highest value economic activity. This however requires domestic policies that don't cut your own national throughout. The Europeans figured this out decades ago prospered for it. While we decided a futile holding action based on reduced wages, regulations, protections and what-not was the way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #45
98. Wow is your analysis bad.
We ran a $5 billion trade deficit with South Korea in 2010, where workers are paid less than the US. How exactly do you expect free trade to benefit US workers in that case?

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

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

Data from here: http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #98
113. A $5 billion dollar trade deficit is infinitesimal,
Our trade deficit with China is $273 Billion, Our trade deficit with Columbia will disappear with the removal of agricultural tariffs and I don't think were in a great position to lecture anybody about human rights.

Panama has a population of 3.4 million and for statistical purposes near full employment, I think our jerbs are safe on that front.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #113
123. The existence of larger trade deficits elsewhere is irrelevant.
What is important is the size of the deficit compared to total trade. $5b is not small in that context.

And it's cute you think it will all work out even after NAFTA has proven your argument wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
101. Thanks for the laugh
While labeling everyone else "poorly informed", you successfully failed to include a single link to support any portion of your rant. Especially funny is your contention that "the three trade agreements will quickly allow the US to realize a trade surplus" after you had already claimed that exports to Korea are "surging" and that we "already have a ridiculous trade surplus" with Panama. Circular logic isn't convincing -- and neither are US Chamber of Commerce talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #101
112. What are you talking about?
US exports to Korea have increased year over year, every year of the past decade except for 2009, in that same period the trade deficit with Korea has decreased every year even in light of the ascendency of Hyundai/Kia. As recently as 1997 the US acheived a trade surplus with Korea. Between Hyundai shifting greater production to the United States, US industrial exports becoming more competitive with those from the European Union who already has a free trade agreement with Korea there is nothing implausible about it.

Free Trade with Panama is a technicality, an offshoot of the FTAA process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #112
126. So what you're saying is that we should obliterate our trade surplus with Korea
Edited on Fri Oct-14-11 09:36 AM by brentspeak
by signing a free trade deal that will destroy regional US manufacturing (non-Caterpillar) by subjecting it to unnecessary S.Korean competition subsidized by 65% made-in-North Korea-and-China labor and an artificially devalued S.Korean currency? (And it gets even worse after that.)

BTW, the issue with extending "free trade" with Panama has nothing to do with trade deficits or manufacturing or jobs -- it has to do with legalizing corporate tax havens. The new trade deal with Panama will now allow corporations a US government-ok'd sanctuary for mammoth tax evasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-11 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #126
130. We don't have a trade surplus with Korea, but one is very much attainable
Edited on Sat Oct-15-11 12:17 AM by Sen. Walter Sobchak
Status quo is the most destructuve alternative, Korean exports already receive favorable treatment by way of the WTO and our European competitors will have an across the board price advantage by way of their free trade agreement with Korea. It is silly to argue that the US is going to lose manufacturing jobs to Korea when Korea itself is offshoring manufacturing to China, Eastern Europe and the United States. Intermediate goods is a red herring.

Free Trade with Panama is no different than the free trade agreements with Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Not terribly important, just part of the goal of Free Trade across the entire Americas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
105. WTF does "US domestic policies are republican adherance to 'low road' economic development policies
mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. It means he's into race to the bottom economics, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. No, it means I place the blame where it belongs - republicans
Who believe the key to prosperity is lowering wages, regulations, environmental protections and what-not. As opposed to a liberalized trade regime which the rest of the advanced world seems to cope with quite nicely with all the above intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #111
128. Huh?
Edited on Fri Oct-14-11 10:09 AM by blue_onyx
Do you realize these trade agreements are Bush policies? It's NAFTA all over again. NAFTA was agreed to by Bush in 1992. Clinton supported it (with changes) and signed it into law in 1993. These trade agreements are W. Bush policies that Obama signed into law with some changes. We've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well. You want to blame Republicans while supporting Republican policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #128
129. And Al Gore wanted Fast Track from Congress to reach the same agreements
Things would be little different today with or without NAFTA, national self-emaciation began years before NAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #45
107. LOL: "trade agreements that will quickly allow the US to realize a trade surplus"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Indeed it will,
Typical US exports to these markets are still subject to significant tariffs while WTO treatment of typical exports to the US from Korea and Columbia is much more favourable. It also levels the playing field between US exporters and European exporters as the European Union has already realized a free trade agreement with South Korea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
46. This just promotes the same ole same ole shit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
47. Every time I hear the words "bi-partisan support" - I know we've just been screwed
hell that's the only thing congress will agree on - is how to fuck us - whether it be by bailing out big banks, tax cuts to billionaires, or never ending wars. i'm fucking sick of it. the system is broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #47
87. You too, huh?
Re "Every time I hear the words "bi-partisan support" - I know we've just been screwed." Funny (not!) how it seems to work out that way every single time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrynXX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
49. well this will make sure the wall street protests continue.
Republicans eager to toss jobs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Altoid_Cyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
50. People are actually defending this as being "good for America"??
I guess that love truly is blind when the smitten sees a "D" after the president's name.

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

Thank you pres. Bus...er I mean Obama. Change that we can do without big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
53. I don't notice any of the defenders mentioning Columbia's habit of murdering trade unionists
I guess that's all right too?

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/10/12/trumka-korea-colombia...



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

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


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

Working people know what many too many politicians apparently do notthese deals will be bad for jobs, workers rights and our economy...

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

... EPI says the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should serve as warning about the job loss threat of these three trade deals. Click here for a state-by-state NAFTA job-loss map.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
54. Related thread here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerseyjack Donating Member (369 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
55. I just heard a giant sucking sound ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-11 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #55
122. That'll be the President and his administration saying "Hi" to the corporations again. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
56. these trade agreements never seem to work as advertised.
they invariably result in lost jobs, lower wages, and less bargaining power for the American worker.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
57. As Hillary Clinton said....
Shame on you, Barack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wobblie Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
58. sold out
We got nothing in exchange for more outsourcing of our manufacturing. No extension of UI benefits, and no re authorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act for workers. These "trade" acts are part and parcel of the readjustment of our standard of living downward by 30%. People who support these trade acts are totally ignorant of what China's most favored nation trading status has done to our manufacturing base---5 million plus jobs that paid 50,000 dollars a year plus gone for ever. The "jobs" being created now pay half as much (if that)---get it--a general 30% reduction in our standard of living in being engineered by the "masters of the universe". These "free trade" agreements have one purpose only, and that is to maintain the downward pressure on wages. It is the way "unfettered" capitalism works. "Cheap" foreign goods, are only cheap if you are working. For the 16% U-6 unemployment, all goods are expensive. You are either with the 99% or you are a sycophant of the idle rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Atlanta Donating Member (906 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
60. These worked out so well before.......
NAFTA has sucked millions of U.S. jobs out of the country, mostly to the south. Unless these trade agreements are between partners that share certain common values, they will result in jobs being sucked from the wealthier countries to the poorer and a flow of cheap goods in the other direction. When an American or Canadian manufacturer with an average labor cost of say $25.00 an house can shift jobs to Mexico with an average labor cost of say $5.00 an hour, those jobs will never return. The only jobs that remain are those in the service sector that cannot be performed elsewhere (e.g. hairdresser, McDonad's server, etc.) and those that require skills that don't exist in Mexico. Those same American and Canadian manufacturers then re-import the Mexican-made products to their home markets. This results in a lower cost of consumers and a much larger profit margin. This works as long until the wealthier countries have been so drained of jobs they can no longer afford to buy those products. For every good-paying job that leave, at least 3 other jobs are affected. Over time and with volume, the entire economy is at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
61. Vomit. Only Koreans, Colombians, and Panamanians get the jobs.
The American people get the shaft.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
63. Here is Kerry on the agreements
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 07:47 AM by ProSense
Kerry

These agreements make it clear that the United States will engage global partners on fair terms. I think its a virtue that the Administration stayed at the bargaining table to improve these agreements. Given that each negotiation sets a precedent for those that will follow, its imperative to strike the best possible agreement and I think that bar was exceeded here. The Korea agreement balances the playing field for U.S. automakers by giving them time to introduce their products to Korean consumers and adjust to a changing dynamic. We will continue to make progress on labor and other humanitarian issues as a result of changes to Colombian law and procedure. Labor laws in Panama will be better enforced and transparency in the banking sector will prevent Panama from being used as a tax haven. The ball is now in our court. Congress must consider and approve these agreements as soon as possible.


Roll Calls:

Colombia Trade Agreement

Panama Trade Agreement

Korea Free Trade Agreement

President Obama has demonstrated that he will enforce U.S. trade agreements.

Previous information from WH:

Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement

FACT SHEETS: U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan

FACT SHEETS: U.S.-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
69. But, but it has to be a good thing, right?
I mean Obama wants it so it has to be good. But then Clinton wanted it so it must be bad. But then Obama wants it so it must be good. But george wanted it so it must be bad. Overload, Overload.

Gee if only there were some way to decide whether things were good or bad other than just go by which personality star wants it. Hmmm. If only there were something humans could do other than let famous people tell them what to do. Hmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
70. This amounts to an economic act of treason.
Obama said he would renegotiate NAFTA because public sentiment was so against it. He knew full well that a huge majority of Americans are opposed to new free trade deals. Obama and the rest of the supporters of these deals all knew that the American people did not want these deals. WTF? Democracy? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
72. Neo-liberalism.
I think of how Clinton signed that Nafta agreement thinking he was going to improve conditions in other countries. Has anyone ever asked him if he had regrets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
74. this is the nail in the coffin for Congress
they are so out of touch with America

and so in bed with the corporations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
75. There go more jobs
they just don't get it yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
76. Congress forces Americans out of more Jobs
That is esentially what they have done. And then we get the bullshit apologists who try to trivialize the working classes struggle... goodamn are the rich and wealthy oblivious and arrogant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
78. I knew they'd do this crap. We no longer have representatives in Congress. We have a-holes nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
81. New jobs!!!!!
Just not in the United States. Fun times. The only time our political parties agree is to totally screw us over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workinclasszero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
82. Attention all american workers...
That sharp painful feeling you have this morning between your shoulder blades is from the knife that our president and congress shoved into you today!

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

Here's a clue for everybody.

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

They are doing the bidding of their wall street mafia masters and the public be damned!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
85. Class warfare ...they have fired back at us. What can we do about it?
Edited on Thu Oct-13-11 10:12 AM by L0oniX
BUY MADE IN THE USA PRODUCTS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
93. Or-Bama-Wellian
"Tonight's vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label `Made in America,' support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. ... I look forward to signing these agreements."

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
94. UAW Applauds Passage of U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement

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

DETROIT -- The UAW is pleased with congressional approval of the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The automotive provisions of the agreement were substantially renegotiated by the Obama administration to address the concerns the union had with the original FTA, negotiated in 2007 by the Bush administration.

The revised agreement, said UAW President Bob King, creates significantly greater market access for American auto exports and contains strong, auto-specific safeguards to protect our domestic markets from potentially harmful surges of Korean automotive imports.

Under the provisions of the renegotiated agreement, the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff on automobiles will stay in place until the fifth year after implementation of the agreement, and the 25 percent tariff on light trucks remains until the eighth year, when it starts to be phased down. Moreover, Korea will immediately reduce its electric car tariffs from 8 percent to 4 per cent, and will phase out the tariff by the fifth year of the agreement.

The KORUS FTA also includes standards for the protection of worker rights, including obligations for South Korea to respect core International Labor Organization labor rights and to effectively enforce labor laws designed to ensure a level playing field for American workers to compete.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Economist Ian Fletcher: "Don't be fooled by White House's cynical ploy" (obtaining UAW support)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/stop-the-kor...

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



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


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



KORUS-FTA has inadequate protections and enforcement mechanisms to enforce either the spirit or the letter of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SixthSense Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
95. In case anyone tells you we have representative government
just wave this in their face and ask them WHO called on their representatives to pass these?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-11 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
134. Where's a LINK to the votes?
I'd like to see the "Democrats" who voted to twist the knife again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-11 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Here's a LINK. Both my "Dems" voted for them
http://www.votesmart.org/mystate_summary.php

I'm disenfranchised. There are only 2 parties and both are against me 100%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC