HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren challeng...

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 01:14 PM

Elizabeth Warren challenges Obama (and Clinton) on trade

Elizabeth Warren challenges Obama (and Clinton) on trade
3/12/15

Washington (CNN)Elizabeth Warren's push to kill major trade negotiations -- backed up by the AFL-CIO's plans announced Wednesday to cut campaign contributions to its traditional Democrat allies to fight alongside her -- could become major headache for President Barack Obama.

And eventually Hillary Clinton, too.

Warren is spearheading a growing liberal push to undercut Obama's attempt to negotiate free trade deals with Pacific Rim countries and the European Union. Her beef: Corporations could gain the ability to challenge countries' laws under a complicated provision that's routinely tucked into new deals.

The innocuous-sounding "investor-state dispute settlement mechanism," critics on both the left and the populist right fear, would be like an independent, international court, with the power to force the U.S. government and American corporations to abide by its rulings.

The issue pits Warren against her own party's president, and on the same side as populist conservatives. The Massachusetts Democrat took aim at that provision on a conference call hosted by liberal groups on Wednesday, saying it should "raise alarm bells for everyone."

"The name may sound a little wonky, but this is a powerful provision that would fundamentally tilt the playing field further in favor of multinational corporations," Warren said. "Worse yet, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty."...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/elizabeth-warren-obama-hillary-clinton-trade/


And there's also the not so small matter of JOBS, which is I'm sure the AFL-CIO's concern~
How Our 'Free Trade' Policies Kill Jobs
Dave Johnson
Campaign for America's Future
3/10/15

The U.S. is currently running a net trade deficit of over $500 billion each year with our "trade partners." We have been running trade deficits every year since the late 1970s. We buy from them, but they don't reciprocate and buy from us, so the trade is out of balance -- way out of balance.

These other countries use the proceeds from our purchases to set up their own industries so that they don't have to buy from us in the future. We let this happen, so as our industries move away, we will have no choice but to import. In many cases our own so-called "American" corporations are voluntarily "deindustrializing" and sending the factories and equipment to "trading partners" elsewhere.

The Damage

When a country runs a trade deficit, it means that the "demand" for goods and services created by that country's economy is being exported, and people are being hired in other countries instead of in that country. It means that the growth of that country's economy and the number of jobs available is lower than it would be otherwise. Last week's Wall Street Journal article "U.S. Trade Gap Narrows in January," for example, called our trade deficit "a drag on overall growth." They quantified by how much, reporting, "Net exports -- the difference between exports and imports -- subtracted 1.15 percentage point from fourth-quarter gross domestic product."

...At Economy in Crisis, John Olen writes in "Lack of Jobs is Due to Our Trade Deficit":

Trade policy that encourages businesses to relocate production of goods to other nations without penalizing them for selling those goods back to this nation has resulted in millions of lost jobs. White House estimates show that for every $1 billion in goods exported, the economy creates 5,000 jobs. Unfortunately, that street goes both ways -- data from the Economic Policy Institute shows that for every $1 billion in goods imported, the economy loses 9,000 jobs.

Read More~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/how-our-free-trade-polici_b_6839248.html


8 replies, 654 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

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:04 PM

1. K&R..."Fast Track TPP" is coming up for vote soon...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:08 PM

2. Fast Tracking "Free" Trade agreements is one issue that emphasizes the

 

split in the Democratic Party. Progressive Wing doesn't support, while the Corporatist Wing is all in favor. To those that think that all Democrats are equal, this proves otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:24 PM

3. Both parties are split on trade agreements. The positions of the base vs politicians are reversed.

Progressive Wing doesn't support ...

"Liberal Democrats" are the only partisan group of the public that does support 'fast track'. Moderate/conservative Democrats, Independents and republicans (particularly the tea party wing) oppose it.

A majority of Democrats think the TPP is a 'good idea'. No other group gives it majority support.

That type of support does not make it a good deal but it is a more complicated partisan issue than just Democrat vs republican or conservative vs liberal.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:27 PM

4. The two most progressive Senators are against Fast Tracking the TPP.

 

I would like to see which "liberal" Democrats support it.

Obama and H. Clinton support it and I classify them as in the Conservative Wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:44 PM

6. Indeed they are. As I said their are splits between politicians and the base in both parties.

I would like to see which "liberal" Democrats support it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "which 'liberal' Democrats support it".

Polls show that to be the case among the public, not the politicians, though they do not identify who the individuals are. If you are talking about which "liberal" politicians support it they you are pointing out the split between the politicians and the base.


Obama and H. Clinton support it and I classify them as in the Conservative Wing.

I don't. I see them as quite liberal with trade policies similar to those of Germany and Sweden which I don't classify as conservative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 05:01 PM

7. First lets talk about politicians. I don't agree that the trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and

 

the TPP can be labeled "liberal trade" policies. These agreements clearly favor the corporations. With the possible exception of social issues, both Obama and H. Clinton favor conservative policies like the TPP. The more progressive politicians are against the TPP. There is a clear split.

As far as the general public, polls asking people to self-identify find that a lot of non-liberals calling themselves liberals. By my definition no supporter of HRC should be calling them self a liberal. The Third Way are not liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 05:23 PM

8. To 'liberalize' trade (or immigration or anything) means to loosen restrictions and make it easier.

By that definition trade in Germany, Sweden and all other progressive countries is more 'liberal' than it is here.

You can argue that NAFTA and other trade agreements were not 'liberal' due to specific aspects of those agreements. But promoting trade is a 'liberal' endeavor. It just has to be done properly.

... both Obama and H. Clinton favor conservative policies ...

Taxes are higher on the 1%; millions more are covered by health insurance; Dodd/Frank is the law, etc. All those policies could have been stronger but the same could be said of programs initiated by FDR and Obama's accomplishments are liberal progress. No Democratic president has ever been a 'perfect liberal'. If we are lucky enough to get Warren or Sanders as our next president, neither will be a 'perfect liberal' in terms of what they propose or accomplish.

... polls asking people to self-identify find that a lot of non-liberals calling themselves liberals.

I would be interested to see evidence of that. Do self-professed conservatives do the same? I thought that the term 'liberal' had become something of a 'dirty word' for all but the most genuinely liberal.

The Third Way are not liberal.

I agree. Expanded trade is 'liberal' as all progressive countries do it, but deregulation and cutting the safety net are not liberal policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:32 PM

5. Amen

And is certainly a "it doesn't affect me" attitude. Well with trade agreements such as the TPP, NO job is safe. When the manufacturing base bottoms out of a country, it is well and truly fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread