Why does Obama support trade agreements that will cost thousands of Americans their jobs?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Flawed-free-trade-deals-will-cost-American-jobs-1920725.php

Flawed free-trade deals will cost American jobs
Stand with working families and oppose these three proposals.
By Linda Chavez-Thompson

<edit>

We were promised Texas would be a NAFTA winner, but the Economic Policy Institute reported the United States has lost more than 682,000 jobs to NAFTA. About 55,600 jobs were lost in Texas. Additionally, the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico became a $97.2 billion deficit.

<edit>

EPI predicts the Korea trade deal would kill 159,000 jobs in its first seven years. Even the official U.S. government studies show that this deal would increase our trade deficit.

<edit>

The Korea trade agreement jeopardizes jobs by allowing certain goods with up to 65 percent foreign content to count as “made in America” and get reduced tariffs. This could lead American employers to send more jobs to China and Mexico. This may be great for multinational corporations, but not for American workers.

The Colombia deal could cost another 55,000 U.S. jobs. An even bigger issue than the job loss issue is the fact that Colombia is the most dangerous country in the world to be a trade unionist. More unionists are killed there annually than in the rest of the world combined.

more...

[Fumesucker]

1. I wouldn't get bogged down in the details of policy..

That's for the politicians and the bureaucrats.

Have you heard the latest about the Kardashians and Lady Ga Ga?

[90-percent]

3. Lady Ga Ga maybe not so much

She seems pretty cool and open minded as far as celebrities go. I find her a lot more interesting than most of the vapid famous for being famous celebs that our MSM seems to think we are interested in.

-90% Jimmy

[Fumesucker]

5. Yeah, but in terms of "how it will effect your life" celebrity gossip is pretty worthless in general

Wasn't trying to pick on Lady Ga Ga specifically, from what I've seen she's talented and as you say open minded.

Personally I'm more into Grace Potter and the Nocturnals but that's just a matter of taste.

[90-percent]

18. Agree

I agree with your point completely. MSM feed us sensationalist unimportant crap instead of info we need to be informed responsible citizens. The Casey Anthony trial is an excellent recent example.

Lady Ga Ga is just a bit more worthwhile, she seems smart and also an activist and possibly left leaning. I doubt she will O.D. when she turns 27. She'd be more at home at DU than Lindsay Lohan, let's just say.

-90% Jimmy

[indepat]

14. Did you hear that Kim is said to have a nice bum?

;)

[awoke_in_2003]

17. well, there is that. nt

[woo me with science]

21. Nope, Obama told us politicians are paid to do that.

We should watch TV.

[nashville_brook]

25. :) heh heh.

[udbcrzy2]

2. Why would any Democrat support it? n/t

[pampango]

35. For the same reason that liberals in Canada and Europe support it.

Trade plays a much larger role in the economies of progressive countries than it does in the US. They import 2 to 3 times more than we do and export 3 to 4 times more than the US.

Since WWII it has been liberals who have pushed globalization and conservatives who have fought it. This is particularly obvious in Europe today where liberal governments promote immigration and a strong, borderless EU, while conservatives oppose both.

But liberal support for globalization has been almost as strong in the US. FDR and Truman made it a point to create multilateral organizations like the UN, GATT, IMF and Brenton Woods to make sure that the world didn't go back to the high tariffs, border controls and an ineffectual League of Nations that existed in the 1930's. FDR repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and negated the tariffs put in place by Smoot and Hawley. Kennedy started and Johnson finished the Immigration Act of 1965 which repealed the republicans' 1924 Act and greatly liberalized immigration laws.

Many modern American conservatives have embraced globalization more than their European counterparts, but even their embrace only extends to trade and economics (and even that is opposed by teabaggers and the base of the party). When it comes to immigration and culture today's repubicans go back to their roots in 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act) and the restrictive Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924.

[Divernan]

44. Good spin! You should write for the White House press office.

Seriously, you really are supposed to post the link to your cite.

[Romulox]

45. Source: CATO/ Progressive Policy Institute ("PPI"). nt

[pampango]

48. Here are the import/export numbers for the US, Canada, Germany and Sweden.

Trade plays a much larger role in the economies of progressive countries than it does in the US. They import 2 to 3 times more than we do and export 3 to 4 times more than the US.

US GDP - $14.772 trillion, imports $1.948 trillion (13.2% of GDP), exports $1.280 trillion (8.7%) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
Canada GDP - $1.574 trillion, imports $406.4 billion (25.8%), exports $406.8 billion (27.5%) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada
Germany GDP - $3.306 trillion, imports $1.349 trillion (40.8%), exports $1.515 trillion (45.9%) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_germany
Sweden GDP - $333.2 billion, imports $121.1 billion (36.3%), exports $132.8 billion (39.9%) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

Trade is 21.9% of the US economy, 53.3% of the Canadian economy, 86.7% of Germany's economy and 76.2% of Sweden's economy.

[Romulox]

46. Greeks haven't been protesting for "free trade" this summer

[Capn Sunshine]

52. for one thing, Detroit needs the handle. For another this would create UNION jobs

The KFTA would create a level playing field where American Imports would gain market share creating more jobs domestically. Every major union is backing this. The bama Administration has added meaningful, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all trade agreements in front of them.

I think the question really shoud be, what is behind the opposition? Follow the money.

[Romulox]

53. What the heck does "Detroit needs the handle" mean?

And what makes you think that "free trade" with South Korea could be anything but a disaster for Detroit (notice I didn't say "Big 2")???

:shrug:

[Brickbat]

4. Chill the fuck out!

He's got this!

[Motown_Johnny]

23. Have these trade agreements cost you or a loved one their job?

No, I thought not.






Can you please provide a quote where he has stated something other than full support for these crazy free trade agreements?

[Brickbat]

26. Oh, I was just quoting everyone's favorite Pundit Kitchen graphic. I am very familiar with what

so-called free-trade deals can do, I have marched against them, and our family has been affected by them. We've weathered it so far, but I object in solidarity to what it does to workers.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. my apologies then, but that sarcasm emote has a purpose

I honestly thought you were serious


my bad

[Brickbat]

31. No problem.

I try to avoid the sarcasm icon and let my words speak for themselves, but sometimes I'm too dry for the printed word; this happened here, clearly.

We're all in this one together, Motown Johnny. :hug:

[southerncrone]

6. Good thing I like peas.

[PufPuf23]

7. POTUS Obama supports neo-liberal economic and foreign policy

and appointed people that share his ideology.

I am long past being surprised.

[patrice]

8. This is why we should consider making the support of Labor our #1 issue.

Not that all of the other stuff you see on this board is unimportant, just that we NEED to get our priorities functionally straight. IMHO We need to do whatever it takes to make American Labor strong and sort everything else out within that context.

[PoiBoy]

11. K&R...!!!

your reply should be a thread of it's own... it is a vital point that needs to be seriously considered....


:hi:

[Waiting For Everyman]

9. He's a neo-lib corpo-Dem, and his chief of staff is Bill Daley.

Anything he says to the contrary is just vote-getting. The top 0.1% is always a little short of votes. They have to con enough people to get the rest.

I can't believe he has the NERVE to say the words "trade agreement" at all, and especially as a jobs solution. THAT'S some giant-sized ARROGANCE! He thinks we're THAT stupid. Even the Repub voters, as stupid as they are, are against free trade. Any Dems who are still for it belong with the subject line.

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. Because he's a rightwinger?

That's really the only logical explanation I can come up with.

[amborin]

12. +1 pushing an intensified neo-liberal agenda

[indepat]

15. More untaxed (by USA) profits for corporations who move jobs out of the country?

:patriot:

[woo me with science]

22. Gah!

:wow:

(Third Wayers are corporatists.)

[leftstreet]

13. He wants us all unemployed so we'll have time to GOTV?

:shrug:

[Brickbat]

16. Hee, I lol'd.

[IDemo]

19. Chicago School economics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/barackobama.uselections2008

[Karmadillo]

20. Wow. "I love the market." At least for the serfs. When it hurts the banksters, I have to fix it.

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting and very depressing.

[Odin2005]

51. Never elect anyone who taught at the University of Chicago.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Same reason a TeaPubliKlan might; either being stupid, evil, or delusional.

I don't know the exact underlying reasons someone becomes an ideological global corporatist but it isn't to be of benefit to the bottom 80% of the American population.

[senseandsensibility]

32. Yeah, I'm sick of asking why, too.

I know longer care why. The only important question is how do we fight against it?

[Recursion]

28. Because voters like being able to buy cheap shirts and sneakers

Also as the dollar weakens trade works more to our advantage, or at least less to our disadvantage.

[BuelahWitch]

38. Can't buy jack shit when you don't have a job

Or even if you do, and it doesn't pay enough to buy ANY new clothes after rent, food and utilities.

[Recursion]

40. Right, but 90% of us do, and voters are often pretty selfish (nt)

[Bryn]

29. and then he turns around and says it's not the government's job to create jobs

:(

[LWolf]

30. Because he is a neoliberal. nt

[grahamhgreen]

33. When they show u who they are, believe them - Randi Rhodes

[Octafish]

34. Same reason he won't raise taxes on the rich or stop welfare for Wall Street.

They're his base, too.

[amborin]

37. exactly....Obama meets regularly....

Obama Confers With Executives on Job Creation, Including Xerox Chief Burns

"President Barack Obama conferred today with eight company executives, including Ursula Burns, chief executive officer of
Xerox Corp. (XRX) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) CEO William Weldon, on ways to boost the economy and create jobs.

Burns and Weldon were joined at the White House meeting by Kenneth Chenault, chairman of American Express Co. (AXP), Richard Davis, chairman and CEO of U.S. Bancorp, Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of Blackrock Inc. (BLK), Glenn Hutchins, co-CEO of Silver Lake Financial Management Co., John Stumpf, chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), and John Surma, chairman and CEO of United States Steel Corp. (X) The meeting latest a little more than an hour. ...."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-12/obama-to-meet-with-johnson-johnson-ceo-weldon-xerox-s-burns.html

*************************************************************************************


it probably makes sense to confer with CEOs; maybe Obama asked Xerox to stop outsourcing and
slashing US jobs?


Xerox Increases Outsourcing to India

Published: April 5, 2009


Xerox will pay $100 million over six years to outsource data-center services to HCL Technologies, one of India’s largest technology service providers, a Xerox spokesman, Bill McKee, said on Sunday.

As part of the deal, HCL will manage disaster-recovery preparation and consolidate Xerox’s data centers in North America and Europe, Mr. McKee said.

Last year, Xerox cut about 3,000 jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/technology/companies/06xerox.html

[Obamanaut]

36. The fewer jobs there are, the greater the pool of potential enlistees for the

never-ending wars.

It's a clever plan.

:sarcasm:

[sendero]

39. Because he doesn't.

.... give a crap about you, he's proven that at every turn.

[QC]

41. He does it because it's who he is.

In fairness to Obama, it was clear enough during the primaries to those who were paying attention, like when he appointed the DLC's chief economist (Austan Goolsbee) to be his campaign's chief economist, or when he said that corporations needed a place at the table, or when he sent one of his lickspittles to Canada to assure the ruling elite there that his very gentle criticisms of NAFTA were just campaign talk for the rubes.

Sure, he freely appropriated the rhetorical style of the civil rights and farmworkers movements, but what he actually did was always pure corporate neoliberalism.

Quite a few people here tried to point this out, but they were accused of whining over ponies and harshing everybody's buzz and such. Many of them aren't here anymore, interestingly enough.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[sarcasmo]

43. Because corporations tell the figure head in chief what to do.

[Romulox]

47. I think he is genuinely a neo-liberal. nt

[cantbeserious]

49. Because Obama Is Beholden To "Mr. Global" As Catherine Austin Fitts Phrases Things

eom

[Odin2005]

50. because he does what his corporate masters tell him to do.