Obama pushes trade agenda ahead of big speech

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama called on Saturday for new efforts to open global markets to U.S. goods, highlighting trade before a big speech on Tuesday that will lay out his policy priorities for the coming year.

With the U.S. unemployment rate stuck at a stubbornly high 9.4 percent, Obama said expanded trade was crucial to job creation.

"If we're serious about fighting for American jobs and American businesses, one of the most important things we can do is open up more markets to American goods around the world," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

His remarks came after Chinese President Hu Jintao completed a four-day U.S. visit that included talks at the White House dominated by trade and economic issues.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70L0V820110122

---

This will wipe out the Democrats who are left in the Mid-west battleground states.

If the Democrats vote Yea on free-trade aggreements you can just kiss 2012 goodbye.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[earthside]

2. Yup. That's worked out so well ...

... for working and middle class Americans over the past thirty years.

What is becoming rather astounding is the near totality of Pres. Obama's sell-out to the corporate ruling elite.

[ananda]

7. Obama's sellout was predictable.

He's always been a go with the power elite chameleon.

The problem is that Obama has what looks like charm, sanity, and intelligence.
This can be heady and attractive to people so fed up with the clear and
egregious and sinister idiocy of Bush, Palin, and their ilk. But it's just
dressed up differently while actually being worse in a way.

[pampango]

3. Excellent. He's pursuing FDR's (and EU progressives') commitment to international trade.

What he needs to really push are progressive issues like progressive taxation, a strengthened social safety net, strong unions, and regulation of markets and the finance industry, policies that make Canada, Australia and the EU more progressive places than the US.

[brentspeak]

4. Shows that you very little about FDR's idea of international trade

The New Deal Democrats envisioned the US' role in international trade as this:

US companies would build ancillary manufacturing in other parts of the world -- while retaining the main manufacturing facilities here in the US. Those foreign-located plants would then build things that would be sold in their own regions; the US plants would build things that would be sold here in the US.

FDR and every Democrat up until Jimmy Carter never in their worst nightmares imagined that the entire concept of "free trade" would be subverted so that US corporations would relocate their manufacturing outside the US in order to import goods into the US.

This has actually been explained to you in the past here on the forums, but for some reason, you keep hoping people here won't keep track.

[Lasher]

10. Ouch!

That's gonna leave a mark.

[pampango]

16. FDR campaigned against the Smoot/Hawley tariffs in 1932 and dismantled them by

signing trade deals on a country-by-country basis. He (and Truman after FDR's death) were the main proponents of lowering tariffs globally and freeing up international trade.

They believed (as do most Europeans today except for a few on the far right) freer trade was consistent with peace and prosperity. It has certainly worked on the European continent for 65 years in contrast to the frequent wars that came with high tariffs and other trade barriers. Since France, Germany and most of the rest of Europe have opened their borders to trade and immigration with each other, they have avoided catastrophic wars that visited the continent so frequently in earlier years.

"As a result of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and other countries' responses to it, the world after World War II saw a push towards multi-lateral trading agreements that would prevent a similar situation from unfolding. This led to the Bretton Woods Agreement, in 1944, a great lessening of global tariffs starting in December 1945, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in the 1950s." GATT was actually signed in 1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

"Marked by the bitter experience after World War I, Cordell Hull -- FDR's Secretary of State -- came to believe that "unhampered trade dovetail with peace; high tariffs, trade barriers and unfair economic competition, with war."

Due to Hull's guidance and persistence, Congress enacted the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which gave the executive branch the authority to undertake bilateral negotiations to reduce tariffs. Although the trade agreements negotiated during the 1930s had a limited effect, it marked a significant departure from the old non-negotiable high tariffs enacted by Congress, and set the stage for a new era in U.S. trade policy.

http://www.freetrade.org/node/608

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Ouch!

That's gonna leave a mark.

--d!

[Hello_Kitty]

35. No it's not because it's bullshit from the Sweatshop Lobby. eom

[Lasher]

39. No, it must be true because pampango cited the fucking Cato Institute

founded by Charles fucking Koch. Surely you don't think this could be a libertarian fabrication, bankrolled by a corrupt wealthy elite to recruit the gullible to their cause.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Oh but hey

As long as he repeats the same platitudes about progressive taxation and social safety nets over and over you can't accuse him of pushing corporate propaganda.

I mean, if you can overlook past statements where he has said he is okay with the existence of sweatshops.

[pampango]

45. Europe goes quite far with progressive taxation, strong social safety net and trade.

You may consider progressive taxation, strong unions and effective social safety nets as "platitudes" but I think you'll find that most Europeans find them to be essential to living in a progressive society. They don't define "progressive" as meaning don't trade with foreigners. They do more of that than we do. To them "progressive" means taking care of your own people and being as open as possible to the rest of the world.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. Cut the crap. You know we're not Europe.

Our trade deals have not come with increases in the social safety net. And you know it.

[pampango]

51. Never said we were Europe. Just that we could learn lessons from progressive countries.

America is not so unique ("exceptional?") that we can't learn lessons from Europe, Canada and Australia.

If progressive countries trade more than we do, then high tariffs and restricted trade must not be what define a progressive society while such "platitudes" as progressive taxation, an effective social safety net, as well as strong unions and effective market regulation, do.

[Romulox]

52. Which is why you post thread after thread advocating for an increased safety net

Oh right. No you don't. You push "free trade" and call anybody who objects a racist. :hi:

[pampango]

55. #41: "he repeats the same platitudes about progressive taxation and social safety nets over and over

You claim I never post about increasing the social safety net. Can't please everyone I guess. :)

[Romulox]

56. You post several OPs a day. Link or it didn't happen!

"Can't please everyone I guess."

Why you would think citing Rand Paul or the Cato institute on this website would please ANYONE is beyond me. :hi:

[pampango]

57. I suspect that posting links to my posts about safety nets, progressive taxation, strong unions, and

income inequality would hardly satisfy you. That is probably one thing that we can agree on. You seem to be quite aware of my posts. If you want to believe that these posts "didn't happen" ("he repeats the same platitudes about progressive taxation and social safety nets over and over") unless I provide you with links, well, that's a game you will win every time. :)

[Romulox]

58. I said "OPs". You post several NEW THREADS a day advocating for "Free trade".

Those MUST be balanced with a similar number of OPs about human rights, say, since human rights are EVERY BIT as important to you as so-called "free trade". Uh, right? :rofl:

[pampango]

59. OP's alone count. You seem to post few OP's. Does that mean you care about nothing?

Remember that only posting OP's shows that you care about an issue. Other posts mean nothing. (Feel free to post links to your OP's on safety nets if you care to.) :)

[Romulox]

60. Is it really necessary for you to concede a point twice? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

62. You trot out the platitudes about the European social safety net

When people point out that 'free trade' hasn't worked out all that great for American workers. I've responded, repeatedly, that those things should have been in place before we sent thousands of jobs out of the country but you ignore that. When you run out of hypothetical fantasy scenarios and Cato Institute talking points you proceed to accuse whomever you're arguing with of being a racist.

Lather rinse repeat.

[pampango]

64. The reality of the EU, Canada and Australia are hardly "hypothetical fantasy scenarios".

They are actual progressive societies.

Apparently you don't count Europeans, Canadians and Australians as real progressives because they believe in trade as well as in solid social safety nets, progressive taxation, strong unions, and effective market regulation. If the people in those countries who fought for their progressive policies thought that trade was not progressive, they would have fought for tariffs and trade barriers. They didn't.

If the Europeans, Canadians, and Australians are right and restricting trade is not a progressive policy, then it makes little sense to pursue it in lieu of fighting for real progressive policies like those above. It may be more achievable, because it's always easier to blame foreigners for our problems (Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, etc.) than to fight with our own rich and powerful and it's likely that the far right (like the tea baggers) will cooperate with efforts to restrict trade for their own reasons.

Would it have been better to have these great progressive policies before FDR and Truman decided that increased trade was good for global peace and prosperity and came up with GATT which led to the WTO. YES! It would great to have these wonderful progressive policies before we do ANYTHING!

But it makes no sense to tear down one progressive policy, international trade, (unless FDR, Truman, a host of other Democrats and modern progressives in Europe, Canada and Australia are all wrong) because we are frustrated that we can't obtain real progressive policies like they have fought for and won in those countries.

[Romulox]

66. Right. But we have 98% of the "free trade" of those places, and 10% of their safety net.

And your prescription is....more "free trade"? And yet you still claim to care about workers?

It's not credible. :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

69. He has told me in the past that he is okay with the existence of sweatshops.

Tells you everything you need to know.

[Romulox]

71. He's utterly transparent. But DU has a short memory.

Nothing wrong with calling this bozo out every time he emerges from his clown car! :thumbs:

[Hello_Kitty]

63. You're right. He never posts an OP about the need for a social safety net in the U.S.

Because that's not his priority. It's a red herring.

[pampango]

65. I've post plenty of OP's about income inequality and how that relates to our lack of a safety net

as well as weak unions, regressive taxation, and ineffective market regulation. I also frequently point out that those countries that trade more like Canada, Australia and the EU have much, much lower levels of income inequality.

[Romulox]

67. Nonsense. Which is why no links are forthcoming. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

68. But if none of those things ever come to fruition in the U.S. you will STILL be for free trade.

Because those things HAVEN'T happened here and you are STILL for trade deals that export thousands of jobs out of the country. Which means that you really don't give a shit about this country.

[pampango]

70. If none of those progressive policies ever come to fruition in the US it won't matter whether we

trade at all, "free" or otherwise. You could shut off every speck of trade (build walls and astronomical tariffs) and, if none of those progressive policies come about, life here will be even more miserable. It is, in fact, those "things" (progressive taxation, safety net, etc.) that will make our quality of life not the presence or absence of international trade.

Earlier in our history corporate American favored tariffs and import restriction because it provided them with a "captive market". They didn't want to have to compete with European countries who exported to us. Progressives argued against tariffs as being pro-business and anti-consumer. That may be why Smoot, Hawley and Hoover were republicans and FDR and Truman were Democrats.

In the future you depict in which "none of those things ever come to fruition in the U.S", my guess is that corporations will adapt quite quickly to their new "captive market" along with weak unions, regressive taxes, ineffective market regulation and a porous safety net.

Trade is about 18% of our economy (vs. 60% in Germany and 48% in Canada). Eliminating trade would devastate Canada and Germany, but I suspect our corporations could adjust quite well to the elimination of competition in what is still the biggest market in the world. Coupled with manufacturing automation that has reduced employment in the industry everywhere in the world and your assumed "none of those things (progressive policies) ever come to fruition in the U.S", I suspect US companies would end up being quite happy with their new "closed market".

[Hello_Kitty]

72. Life here is about to become even more miserable.

IOW, the sweatshops will be here. Which, as we know, you're cool with given your acceptance of sweatshops and enthusiasm for locating manufacturing in countries with weak unions, regressive taxes, ineffective market regulation and a porous safety net.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. The Smoot Hawley myth has been debunked repeatedly.

Finally, if the global economy crashes, it will be important to correctly identify the economic causes. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed in June 1930. Its economic effects were minor for the US given the pre-existing high tariff structure and the minimal extent of US engagement in trade. Indeed, those effects may even have been beneficial in that spending switched from imports to domestically produced goods. Yet, for 75 years, free traders have sought to blame Smoot-Hawley for the Depression and thereby make a case for free trade. The rooster crows at dawn, but does not cause the sunrise. Smoot-Hawley did not cause the Depression. Likewise, trade stalemate and failure of the Doha trade round will not cause the next economic crisis. However, they may coincide, in which event rest assured that globalization boosters will argue causation.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/could-globalization-fail

[pampango]

43. Smoot/Hawley did not cause the Depression, but FDR thought it hurt recovering

from it. That's why he negotiated bilateral trade deals to avoid high tariffs and then promoted the mechanisms to promote international trade after WWII.

[Romulox]

53. Your calling anyone who doesn't follow FDR's ideology to the 'T' a "racist" has some logic problems

:hi:

[notadmblnd]

24. And that will happen about the same time monkeys fly out our butts

[Enthusiast]

5. One word that favors free trade

will damage the Democratic Party forever. I don't know anyone that believes the lies about the benefits of NAFTA. President Obama has to know this. Every working man I talk with, regardless of party, hates the free trade deals with a passion. We all recognize 'free trade' as code words for outsourcing.

Maybe Obama can completely destroy the Democratic Party in the state of the union address with a two pronged attack on domestic manufacturing and social security.

[OhioChick]

6. Favoring free trade = political suicide for Democrats n/t

[somone]

8. Greed Is Good ----> Globalization Is Good

"Globalization is good. Globalization makes countries more interdependent on each other. And, the more interdependent we are, the better chances we have for peace. And, globalization will in the end create more competitive environments." - Jack Welch

[w4rma]

9. I'm starting to look forward to President Guliani or a President Palin.

At least we can point to them and say "bad". Obama is just downright insidious.

[bbgrunt]

19. i agree.

[Yuugal]

40. Amen nt

[Lasher]

11. Don't forget about the proposed Colombia and Panama FTAs

I'm certain Obama hasn't.

[JJW]

12. NAFTA

William Daley headed up Clinton's NAFTA.

[bvar22]

13. Not THIS shit again.

I can't believe that the "Democratic Party" leadership is STILL selling this rat poison.

The very RICH have been reassured they will NEVER know a day of discomfort,
while the Working Class has been told we will compete with 3rd World Slave Labor for our jobs.

Learn to live well with nothing,
because the GLOBAL RICH are going to take it ALL.

[Populist_Prole]

14. Oh please....

This is the same old regurgitated free trade boiler plate pushed by every president since Reagan ( Clinton being the worst IMO ). Never talk about the corrosive influences of ever increasing imports and outsourcing. With the past and current imbalance, they know, they damned well KNOW that there is no way on earth we can export enough to mitigate the ever increasing flood of imports. It's like some degenerate gambler's logic: "I lose money on every deal, but I make up for it in volume". Sheesh!

They always throw Boeing jets around like our ace in the hole export card. BS. For decades now, a shitload of subassembly, including major sections of aircraft are produced offshore. In China's case, they have always demanded subassembly work as a condition of buying our planes. This of course erodes the value of "job creating exports" as well as the more corrosive way it nutures their own productive capacity. Selling them the rope, as it were.

Do they really think we're so stupid to buy this soundbite horseshit, after seeing the effect of the same for decades?

[somone]

17. In China's case, they also want technology transfer as a condition

it ended real well for the Japanese and European companies who sold them high-speed trains - and now the Chinese are selling the same models with minor modifications on the world market.

[saras]

15. WTF??

"...open global markets to U.S. goods..."

not to point out the obvious or anything, but WHAT U.S. goods? We don't friggin' PRODUCE anything anymore!

Maybe he's referring to armaments - we definitely need more freedom to sell those to anyone with the money, preferably both sides at once.

[Populist_Prole]

18. Using "goods" as a nebulous term

Another whitewashing of free trade. Browbeat them enough and they'll probably alter it to "goods and services".

Ever notice too, that the only time the plutocrats really want to get tough on China is what it comes to "intellectual property"? Dumping of hard goods? "Hooray for the consumer!" they'll chirp. Pirated DVD's? "Now they're going too far!"

Our bought and paid for government is choosing winners and losers. It's like any job without a dress code doesn't deserve to exist here.

[pampango]

23. Here's a couple of instances of Obama acting on "Dumping of hard goods".

"World Trade Organization Upholds American Tariffs on Tires From China" / http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/business/global/14trade.html?_r=1

"Obama Approves Steel Pipe Tariff From China" / http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/obama-approves-steel-pipe-tariff-from-china

He seems to be trying to work within the rules of organizations we have joined to take action that Bush never did. He may never be the "go it alone" cowboy diplomacy practitioner that Bush was, but that may not be a bad thing.

[lonestarnot]

20. Fucking A.

[bbgrunt]

21. Oh yes, this will bring the jobs back.

:sarcasm:

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. You think Obama cares about that?

:rofl:

[nyy1998]

22. I am still a free trader albeit that I do want agreements that safeguard American interests

And I was very pleased with the trade deals that Obama signed recently with India and South Korea. I do believe that free trade can benefit both countries, if done correctly. And yes, I do concede that it hasn't been done correctly in the past 20 years. Although my family has benefited greatly from NAFTA and the boom it created here in the border areas, I'll concede that the border boom could've still been created with some more safeguards to help the American manufacturing industries.

That said, should I hand in my decoder ring?:hide:



P.S. On an ironic note, this is my 777th post. Go figure.

[liberation]

30. There is no such thing as "free" trade.

If you need an "agreement" that means it is not "free" to begin with...

[SOS]

61. Agree. Call it global capitalism, not "free trade"

Multi-national corporations racing to the bottom of labor costs, nothing more.
Capital is free to finance a new factory in Vietnam at the push of a button on Wall Street.
What "freedom" does labor get?
Working behind razor wire for $20 a week in a Vietnamese garment factory,
while the American who used to do the work sells his house and drains his retirement to survive another six months.
It's utter bullsh*t.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. "If it's done correctly" "If we push for progressive taxation and a social safety net" If if if.

You have as much chance of getting a unicorn as getting all the things that would mitigate the impact of free trade pacts on American workers put in place.

[Odin2005]

25. Translation: Bend over, we are gonna screw you and you better like it!"

[bulloney]

27. Typical free trade agreement scenario:

The U.S. unilaterally reduces or eliminates its protections while the partners in the said agreement keep theirs at least at a higher level. The U.S. inevitably increases its trade deficit with said countries, jobs are outsourced at a faster rate, and the politicians responsible for the agreement deny that they are results from the agreement. And then, they make shit up about how some small isolated markets have actually benefited. We've seen it with NAFTA, WTO and other regional bloc agreements.

[somone]

28. Very accurate summary

"Free trade" kills American jobs. The only winners are corporate CEOs and their paper pushing, glad handing, bean counting drones.

[alp227]

29. if NAFTA is so bad can anyone explain why during the late 90s the economy was still booming?

I'm seeing a lot of complaints that NAFTA/free trade leads to outsourcing. That's not my strongest political subject right now, so could anyone clarify why after NAFTA was signed in '96 that the unemployment rate in America kept sliding down until 2001?

[Hydra]

32. Tech bubble to housing bubble to today

Clinton was extraordinarily fortunate to have the internet/tech boom keeping things good for the worker bees. People who don't have trouble getting work and feeding their families don't worry much about the details.

With that he was able to pass NAFTA and repeal Glass-Steagall, which actually allowed for the housing bubble and the derivatives mess that we're in now.

In retrospect, it all falls into place so elegantly. Bush was supposed to get SSI privatized in order to keep the machine going smoothly until all the money was sucked up. That probably would have kept things going for another 2-4 years, and right about now the whole house of cards would have come down.

Like I said, elegant, like it was planned far in advance, despite all of the people wearing the POTUS hat.

[reformist2]

47. Yup. A once in a century bubble followed by a fraudulent bubble.

I thought things would be tough after the tech bubble burst. I had no idea they'd pump up the economy again with a phony housing/home equity bubble. Now what??? We are so far from a healthy economy now it is truly frightening.

[Hydra]

48. My bet when the last bubble popped was a new bubble

Healthcare. I was wrong- HRC is a handout to the insurance companies, and won't actually filter to the healthcare workers as work.

My new best guess based on available data is that this crash will be prolonged as long as possible until the last drop of wealth is extracted. Afterwards, we may be a banana republic or some sort of eugenics paradise. Either way, lots of people are going to die, and nobody is going to stop it.

[reformist2]

49. I have the same fears as you do.

There aren't enough jobs to go around, and there's no sign the government is going to be approving any "public works" projects anytime soon.

[Hydra]

50. Right- all the stuff that could be done to fix this is Taboo

Doing the math, that means they're waiting for something specific or for us to kill each other off over available resources.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. NAFTA was signed in '93.

And while unemployment may have been sliding, income inequality continued to rise.

[Fearless]

31. "Open global markets" is code for send jobs overseas.

[killbotfactory]

33. Is everyone assuming these are going to be free trade deals?

International Trade is a good thing if there are protections in place for labor and environmental laws.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. No one would argue with that

The whole problem is that the labor and environmental protections aren't there.

[Romulox]

54. LULz! Just as long as we pass those "side agreements", right?

You don't remember the President breaking his campaign promise to re-open NAFTA negotiations (or for that matter, President Clinton's assurance that NAFTA would be fixed with "side agreements" after its passage!)? :eyes: :wtf:

[Vinca]

44. You know what big business will do in order to export more American goods?

They'll have them made in China, ship them in, then ship them back out again. They don't want to pay living wages to American workers if they can profit off the backs of people who work for pennies an hour without benefits.