corpratist who cheerleads fiercely for the status quo.

Unfortunately, he is advancing in the WRONG direction.

A poll that doesn't explain the CONTENTS of such agreements is too full of shit to not burst. There's no point whatsoever in taking it seriously unless you are explicitly studying people's ignorance rather than their political positions.

Besides the obvious fact that you attempted to detour from the subject of the OP by lamely comparing me -- and anyone else who sees through the "free trade" scams -- to the Tea Party, it's also deliberately misleading on your part: You purposefully failed to provide the link to your table -- and for a good reason, I discovered.

You didn't want people here to be aware of that Pew report's sub-title: Americans Are of Two Minds on Trade: More Trade, Mostly Good; Free Trade Pacts, Not So

"More trade, Mostly Good; Free Trade Pacts, Not So".

I forgot to post the link, for which I apologize, but the sentiment at the link: "More trade, Mostly Good; Free Trade Pacts, Not So" (and that Democrats believe this more than republicans and teabaggers) is one I heartily agree with, so I would have not interest in hiding that. Low tariffs lead to more trade ("mostly good&quot . High tariffs (think - Smoot, Hawley and Hoover - all republicans) tend to depress trade. That's pretty much the FDR approach to the value of international trade.

Thank you for posting it.

For the record, it is true that the large majorities of teabaggers and republicans who oppose "free trade" and the WTO for different reasons than the minority of liberals who oppose them, so a direct comparison is unwarranted. (They just do it in greater percentages than liberals.) It is also true that plurality of liberals who support "free trade" and the WTO (according to the Pew poll) undoubtedly do so for different reasons than those republicans and teabaggers who support them.

others "republicans"?

It's a little embarrassing, really.

That's a little embarrassing, too.

As I said: "For the record, it is true that the large majorities of teabaggers and republicans who oppose "free trade" and the WTO for different reasons than the minority of liberals who oppose them, so a direct comparison is unwarranted. (They just do it in greater percentages than liberals.) It is also true that the plurality of liberals who support "free trade" and the WTO (according to the Pew poll) undoubtedly do so for different reasons than those republicans and teabaggers who support them."

BTW I didn't call anyone "republicans" anymore than you are calling me one. I simply cited a Pew poll regarding partisan differences with respect attitudes to 'free trade' and the WTO and stated that liberals and conservatives can have different reasons for supporting policies. Don't you think you have different reasons than conservatives have for opposing "free trade" and the WTO?

I'm just pointing out the irony of your projection.

Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 06:58 PM - Edit history (2)

You are misleading people by misrepresenting FDR's take on trade (and this has already been explained to you several times back on DU2, but for the sake of the members who might be misled by you here..)

FDR's actual position on trade: American companies should be free to build facilities overseas to make products for sale in that foreign country. Meanwhile, American companies would retain facilities back in the US for sale here and abroad.

FDR would have kicked you in the a$$ for suggesting that he would have ever approved of a situation where US corporations lay off American workers, relocate American facilities overseas to then make products for export back to the US for the sake of a few plutocrats. That is the nightmare situation that the New Dealers never imagined.

They probably also never imagined that people in the future would use their photographs as avatars to promote US Chamber of Commerce talking points.

His Bretton Woods conference in 1944 created GATT (which led to the WTO) as well as the IMF and the World Bank.

"FDR's actual position on trade: American companies should be free to build facilities overseas to make products for sale in that foreign country. Meanwhile, American companies would retain facilities back in the US for sale here and abroad."

I would be interesting in a link that showed that to be true. I have never read that, but you may be right. I know he supported low tariffs which would not indicate that he favored restrictions on where products made in other countries were sent. Since he also promoted international control of trade, so that countries would have a harder time unilaterally raising tariffs as republicans had done before he took office, that would make it difficult for the US to restrict imports from American companies located in other countries.

"FDR would have kicked you in the a$$ for suggesting that he would have ever approved of a situation where US corporations lay off American workers, relocate American facilities overseas to then make products for export back to the US for the sake of a few plutocrats. That is the nightmare situation that the New Dealers never imagined."

I have simply said (and I note that you have not indicated you disagree) that he supported low tariffs (having fought hard to reverse the high tariffs enacted by republicans in the 1921, 1924 and 1930) and multilateral control of international trade and finance (despite republican howls about the loss of US sovereignty).

I will grant that he probably could not have predicted that in the 1980's the republican party would give up its traditional role as the "high tariff" party and come to favor the same low tariffs that FDR had worked for himself. Would that republican flip-flop have caused him to flip-flop over to the "high tariff" side which the repubs had just abandoned? I don't think so (largely because I don't view him as having been a flip-flopper), but no one knows for sure.

According to the Pew poll a plurality of Democrats still believe in the benefits of FDR's low-tariff trade philosophy. You may feel that anyone who still believes in the same trade philosophy that FDR believed in is not fit to us his avatar. You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.

I think FDR not only would still support the same trade policy, but would also still support high and progressive taxes, an effective safety net and tight regulation of corporations, among many other progressive policies. (And I assume that you don't think he would have changed his positions on taxation, the safety net or regulation.) Progressive policies back then are still progressive policies today. That's why progressive countries in Europe and Canada, among others, still follow FDR's principles on taxation, the safety net, regulation and trade, while the US has reversed FDR's progressive taxation structure, slashed the safety net and deregulated corporations and Wall Street to an extent that would have reminded FDR of the 1920's.

There are Chamber of Commerce talking points and there are tea party talking points. I do not doubt that you come up with your own "talking points" based on what you believe. Whether you extend that courtesy to me is entirely up to you.

Now you're even making up stuff about the same Pew poll you posted, claiming -- without any reason -- that FDR would have supported today's corporate-written "free trade" agreements of NAFTA, CAFTA, and KORUS. FDR supported trade in general, not lobbyist-overseen deals to create your beloved job-offshoring.

pampango: "You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it. I think FDR..,would still support the same trade policy (i.e. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.)"

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts:

Smoot-Hawley had almost zero effect on The Great Depression. International trade was only a tiny part of our GDP when it passed, and all trade, international, interstate, or intrastate, was going down the tubes because nobody had any money.

Why don't you look at the 8 trillion dollars we've lost in Current Account Deficits thanks to the free trade deals you worship? Why don't you consider the 10 million US jobs lost thanks to the free trade deals you worship? Why do you ignore the billions of dollars a year the rich investors and CEOs who pushed these deals are putting into their bank accounts thanks to these deals? NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and all the other so called "free trade" deals are nothing more than outsourcing/investment scams masquerading under the name of "free trade".

I did not say that it caused the Great Depression, just that FDR worked to reverse it along with the tariffs enacted by republicans in 1921 and 1924. (And I don't think a "good corporate republican" would join FDR in condemning a tariff law passed by a republican congress and signed by a republican president. )

Trade is still a very small part of our economy about 22% but a lot of people blame trade for all kinds of problems. Compare the relatively small significance of our trade in our economy to Canada trade (45% of their economy), Germany (90%) and Sweden (95%) and folks in those countries don't spend their time blaming trade for their problems.

We may agree that some Americans overestimate the effect that Smoot-Hawley had because trade was a small part of our economy. It is also true that many Americans exaggerate the effects of trade today even though it is still a relatively small part of our economy compared to its importance in the economies of progressive countries, like Canada, Germany and Sweden.

They all trade much, much more than we do (and despite their high wages and strong unions do quite well at it), so I don't think American liberals should be afraid of trade since Canadian and European liberals aren't. The world today proves that there is a positive correlation between trade and how progressive a nation is, not a negative correlation. We have relatively little trade and a very unequal society, while countries with the most equitable distributions of income are the same countries that trade much more than we do.

They are scams with the words "free trade" attached to them. This IS NOT FDR and the 1930s. Corporate crooks have taken over our trade policies. They should not even be called "free trade". The WTO is a joke. They meet in secret behind closed doors and the rich corporate lawyers make the decisions. It's nothing more than a race to the bottom for American workers and race to amass insane wealth by the corporations. Yet every single time people like you see a bill that has the word trade attached to it, you jump up and down with joy.

in those societies benefit from trade in way that US workers don't.

You are massively disingenuous.

Ron Kirk is the worst kind of corporatist, and another really vile appointment by Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/obama-trade-congress-buy-american_n_1475277.html

Congress Revolts On Obama Plan That Would Ban 'Buy American'
Posted: 05/ 3/2012 4:18 pm Updated: 05/ 3/2012 11:29 pm

WASHINGTON -- A group of 68 House Democrats and one Republican sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Thursday urging him to reconsider an element of the controversial free trade agreement currently being negotiated by the administration. If approved in its current form, the pact would effectively ban "Buy American" policies in government contracting.

Although the deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has received relatively little media attention in the United States, it has sparked international friction among consumer groups and environmental activists who worry that terms demanded by the Obama administration will eliminate important public protections. Domestically, however, the deal's primary source of political tension is from a portion that could ban "Buy American" provisions -- a restriction that opponents emphasize would crimp U.S. jobs.

Since the 1930s, the American government has offered preferential treatment to American producers in the awarding of federal contracts. If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms. The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific deal the same privileged status, according to the Thursday letter.

"We do not believe this approach is in the best interests of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers," the letter reads. "Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries, such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam, could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in large sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries' manufacturing sectors, rather than our own."

<...>

Letter: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BuyAmericanTPPLtrtoAdmin.pdf