BREAKING: Obama Says He Will Vote for NAFTA Expansion

---

Is this for real?
What world are we living in?
Un-frickin'-believable.

---


BREAKING: Obama Says He Will Vote for NAFTA Expansion


"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."

The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration - or any administration - is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/10/breaking_obama_says_he_will_vo.html

---

pro-war

anti-labor

pro-corporate

pro-torture

anti-civil liberties

Bullshit

Bullshit

Bullshit

Bullshit

Bullshit

WTF do I know?

I'm sitting here wondering what the hell fecal "clams" are. Must have more coffee.

Perhaps it's because they're NOT duped by her; they really ARE conservatives.

Thank you Mr. McCarthy, we've learned our lesson.

Makes sense. You can only be what you are.

TC

Rall doesn't have a big fan club here, but I rarely have an issue with his drawings.

pro-war

anti-labor

pro-corporate

pro-torture

anti-civil liberties...

You forgot anti-impeachment.


TC

I don't think this was a good idea. Of course, having this vote come up now really puts him between a rock and a hard place, as it does Clinton and Biden as well.

Sirota has no confirmation on this. Obama merely answered a question about Peru specifically. There is some reporting on blog chatter, some people not even mentioning him voting on it at all, and I could only find one blogger that reported it in a third party kind of way.

This is precisely how false info is decimated. Sirota has done a pretty nasty hatchet-job on Obama before on more than one occasion, so buyer beware.

I will admit I don't know the details of the agreement. I'm sure Edwards will of course say anthing he believes his base wants to hear, being that he's not a voting Senator anymore.

nt

This "broke" earlier today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3593921

There's nothing here here quite yet. I think I'll wait for something other than blog chatter for confirmation before commenting, but by all means put a nickel in and ride that pony. Yee-haw.

Charlie Rangel supports it for chrissakes. It's not perfect but it's not "NAFTA II"



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ao6hjonl6EJE&refer=latin_america

That is hardly the entirety of the unions, however.

Remember also, this was originally an MSNBC piece that was taken and spun by an Edwards backer, Sirota.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/403888.aspx

"Obama also refused to commit to a ban against using nuclear power, when asked by a young voter. In his speech in Portsmouth yesterday on renewable energy, Obama said that development money should be spent on researching safe ways to use and dispose of nuclear power. He reiterated that stance today."

ON EDIT: Actually "strike four"

I don't blame him for his stance. As someone originally completely opposed to nuclear power, I have opened my mind to the idea as a last resort, but not the way we had been previously building plants. There are better and much safer methods. When you are on the brink from global warming, tough choices are going to have to be made.

no more

Yes, it is that simple

I am speechless.

Except for the screaming in my head.

He answered a question on Peru specifically and that's it. There is ZERO confirmation that he even mentioned how he would vote.

This is precisely how disinformation is spread a la Faux News.

This place is unreal sometimes. Oh, the drama. :eyes:

When folks pile on unsubstantiated internet lore particularly when it is exploited by an author who has a history of, um, misleading and unfairly harsh screeds towards Obama, it's usually a good idea to get confirmation. But since confirmation doesn't matter to some here, that pretty much narrows it down to faux outrage.

and that's probably what Sirota was aiming for.

Google/AP: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gv3nibIqeeEEGWEtvdppAuH5WGCQD8S62E101

Huffington Post (David Sirota): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

no matter how much I'd love the Obama camp (voters) to come to my fave's camp (Edwards), I find this kind of stuff, HEINOUSLY unfair.

I don't like it when it's done to my guy either!

If he says it soon, I'll believe it. How can this thread be left up for disinformation campaigns?

If there's one issue I disagree with DU orthodoxy it's free trade... Just as I support the right of folks from other countries to legally come here and become citizens I support the rights of folks from other conutries to sell their stuff here... I don't want to build walls....

That doesn't mean that countries should be able to steal our intellectual property or dump their stuff here at lower prices than what it costs them to make to earn market share, but I do support free trade...

Protectionism doesn't work...Why would a country buy your stuff when you won't buy stuff from them?

If people are displaced by trade I support stipends for re-training and programs like that but we shouldn't be afraid to compete...

I am all for the American worker. But we still have to compete globally through free trade.

"Protectionism doesn't work".

Trade tariffs worked for years and then the Corporatists tore them down to allow the flooding of slave labor produced, foreign made goods into our country.

I suggest you listen to Thom Hartmann and learn a bit before supporting any further the Corporatist trade agendas that have rewarded outsourcing of jobs and importing of cheap goods with no oversight or economic balance.

Give a listen:
http://www.airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage/


---

GREAT book. It's pretty much my views in the journal in one convenient tome.

Yeah, tell me how Democratic is it to support philosophies that go AGAINST the American worker. Astounding.

No wonder the Democrats are so screwed up.

"If we stopped free trade and went protectionist tomorrow we'd reduce GDP by maybe a tenth of a percent . But it would be catastrophic for millions of people in poor countries..."

-Paul Krugman


http://www.pkarchive.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HawleySmoot.jpg

In my best Borat voice, Not

But in reality his economic foresight is rather lacking. He is more of a social commentator than an economist.

The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)<1> was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Many countries retaliated, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.

The act was pioneered by Senator Reed Smoot, a Republican from Utah, and Representative Willis C. Hawley, a Republican from Oregon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

:eyes:

eom

:eyes:

Free trade is a moldy bill of Reaganite goods that benefits the CAPITAL of the country, not the labor. It's long on theory and short on real results for the working poor and middle classes, who continually get left behind, especially if they're not college educated.

"Retraining" is a crock when you don't even know what you're re-training for, nor do you know that the career you choose isn't going to follow it's predecessor offshore or be subject to the wage-ravaging phenomenon spawned from . .. er. . . "competitiveness".

"Competitiveness" . . . yeah. It's not competition when Indian workers are always going to be cheaper. It's not competition when you're giving them the R&D future that we should be getting our hands on. It's not competition because we don't MAKE anything HERE anymore. It's not competition because they're already getting the jump on sciences such as nano- and Bio-technology while were trying to destroy science to believe a story and appease a bunch of toupeed wackjobs with crosses. It's not competition when you enable corporations to displace thousands of American workers either by offshoring or inshoring via tax breaks and loopholes. It's not competition when you have nothing on the near or far horizon to replace the outgoing jobs but piddly-waged, underskilled service positions, as the past six years have proven.

FAIR trade would include labor protections and safety regulations for foreign workers, something that doesn't exist under the unbridled capitalist model now. FAIR trade would include corporate regulations of some sort and eliminate corporate personhood. FAIR trade would have to include a better plan for re-entering displaced workers into equivalent wages at equivalent careers. Maybe FAIR trade should also include provisos that no worker should have to fend for their damned selves when they're axed through no fault or choice of their own, but because they simply weren't cheap enough.

All FREE trade does is plunge the middle classes of ALL nations to the bottom of the well, especially ours. Indian wages are already rising, leaving corporations to look for even cheaper nations. Even with the wage increase, it isn't like they live in astounding conditions. Their infrastructure and pollution problems still exist, as does the overcrowding and outdated utilities.

A strong economy is supposed to accommodate EVERYBODY at a liveable wage, not just the heavily degreed and privileged.

But go ahead and continue to blame the worker for something completely out of their control or price range.

Well put my friend!!

Can I quote you in other posts?


---

:)

There's more good ones in my Journal.

He understands the importance of competition...

"Two Hillary supporters for Free Trade. Gee, color ME shocked."

I'm for Paul Krugman



"If we stopped free trade and went protectionist tomorrow we'd reduce GDP by maybe a tenth of a percent . But it would be catastrophic for millions of people in poor countries..."

-Paul Krugman

It ISN'T as black and white as saying "You're either FOR Free Trade or FOR Protectionism. Simple as that." THAT kind of argument is Republican in structure.

First, American companies have to concede that outsourcing indeed represents a problem for the worker, which they absolutely refuse to do since it doesn't affect their pockets or bottom line. Free Trade and job offshoring have clear winners and losers that need to be defined not based on hypothetics and theory (which is how everyone is doing it now), but reality.

Next, the US government needs to begin to measure the magnitude of the problem. Currently, no one really knows how many jobs have actually been offshored because corporations either refuse to report it, period, or announce proposed offshoring at a later date after the cuts happen, which means either more or less jobs will be leaving.

US visa policies should also be reviewed with an eye toward protecting America’s labor market. Too many corporations exercise loopholes to get around the current Visa restrictions, particularly regarding L-1s. Visa abuse is rampant within many corporations in the race for cheaper labor here and abroad. This is one of the main contentions I have with a Hillary candidacy is her want to increase visas. We have enough underemployed workers here that we don't need an increase. There isn't a problem with quantity OR quality. The problem resides in the fact that CEOs and their shareholders are plain and simple GREEDY.

Meanwhile, the US should put more effort into helping and retraining workers displaced by offshoring. Our country has an absolutely atrocious record when it comes to redeployment of US workers at a comparable salary and skill set. We don't give near enough help that is needed for the cruelly downsized, and this especially holds true for blue collar workers. The worker has to completely fend for his or herself once fired, and this usually means developing a skill set for which they aren't fit or able to afford training for. Unemployment insurance is painfully inadequate. We spend billions on pork, corporate welfare and oil wars yet we shit on the very people and resources that makes the nation work.

Asking the worker to figure out for themselves what the "next big thing" will be and get training for it is so patently absurd, as is the "re-training" canard. The average person doesn't know what's going to happen a YEAR, let alone five to TEN years, down the road. Progress does NOT have to be akin to bloodletting.

What I'm saying is that there should be far less emphasis by business leaders to adopt the destructive and short-term way of thought. Just because it's "good business" doesn't make it "right".

From Outsourcing America's authors (both of Indian descent, BTW):

"As for the offshoring of government work, while falling short of calling for a prohibition, the writers point out that public agencies need to be more judicious in striving to keep taxpayer-supported jobs in the states. "We should recognize the enormous value of keeping certain types of government procurement onshore, especially in a time when we are far from full employment. In terms of high technology, creating strong preferences for American workers not only is in the national interest but is in the interests of national security."

In the long term, the writers feel that tomorrow’s workers need to be trained to have lifelong marketable skills. "If, indeed, our young people are facing a future in which they will have five careers rather than five jobs within one career, then adaptability is the desirable attribute for students." That means developing transferable skills that can be applicable to a new career, whatever it might be. "

"Meanwhile, the US should put more effort into helping and retraining workers displaced by offshoring. "

I agree...


And not all Rethuglicans are for free trade and not all (good and liberal) Democrats are opposed to it... I watched the Rethuglican debate and Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter oppose free trade, and interestingly enough they are the most nativist candidates in their party, which is saying something...If they don't want "them Mexicans" in our country why should I be surprised they don't want their goods here either...


I realize this a complex issue but I think competition works out best for everybody as long as the competition is fair and transparent... But I also believe the government has a role in ensuring folks are equipped to compete...

:thumbsup:

free trade sounds wonderful. no tariffs, the most efficient producer provides goods at a lower cost. it's not what corporations (and hence the government)mean by 'free trade'. Mainly, they mean that countries cannot do anything to disadvantage a foreign corporation. Environmental protection,labour laws, all unfair because they restrict 'free trade'. For example, Mexicio filed suit agianst the US for banning dolphin-unfriendly tuna under GATT I believe, of which NAFTA is an extension. Basically, the free trade laws envisioned by the NAFTA/CAFTA sponsors would not let such a puny things as national law interfere with the rights of corporations to earn a profit.

The US is a big 'dumper' by the way - all those farm subsidies going to impoverish Mexican corn farmers etc. Just think if they dumped that cheap corn and wheat in the US market - on no, that would hurt US businesses....

Mexico has the most open economy on the Planet, they are members of both NAFTA and the WTO, and have numerous free trade agreements with many other nations on the planet, and so, what are the results?

Let's see, increases in economic refugees...check(we call these "illegal immigrants" but they are fleeing here after all)

Depressed wages...check(wages in Mexico has DECREASED, overall, since the ratification of NAFTA)

Increased Unemployment...check(look at my first point)

Increased displacement of people from homes...check(Mexican farmers driven off land by large American owned Agricorps)

Destruction of local, Mexican owned businesses...check(Almost 2/3rds of Mexican businesses, most small to medium sized, have been driven out of business by American based international corporations.)

Disappearing middle class...check(Related to the above, the middle class in Mexico has been at least halved since the ratification of NAFTA)

See, there are two sides to this issue, there are the all "roses and sunshine" free traders who live in a fantasy world, and then there is everyone else, who lives in and sees reality.

Isolating yourself is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

Once again Sirota shows his true nature when it comes to Obama by spreading crap to get the base riled up.

The Democrats pushed for tougher environmental and labor rights changes to the agreement based on the Bloomberg article posted earlier in the thread.

Democrats can't be against ALL trade. I seriously doubt that there will be many Democrats opposing this agreement.

Is Sirota going to spotlight all of the Democrats who vote for this or just Obama?

Of course, Sirota's candidate doesn't have to vote, so he can say whatever he wants.

Amend NAFTA to add labor agreements
Q: Would you scrap NAFTA or fix it?
A: I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street.

Reinvest in communities that are burdened by globalization
Q: A lot of Americans are concerned with outsourcing of US jobs. What's your solution?
A: I moved to Chicago to work with churches that were dealing with the devastation of steel plants that had closed all throughout the region. Tens of thousands of people had been laid off. There was never a federal effort to come in after those closings and to figure out how can we retrain workers for the jobs of the future, how can we invest and make sure capital is available to create new businesses in those communities. And so not only do we have to deal with our trade agreements, not only do we have to eliminate tax breaks for companies that are moving overseas, not only do we have to work on our education system, but we also have to have an intentional strategy on the part of the federal government to make sure that we are reinvesting in those communities that are being burdened by globalization and not benefiting from it.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

Insist on labor and human rights standards for China trade
The U.S. should be firm on issues that divide us -like Taiwan-while flexible on issues that could unite us. We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses-but without triggering a trade war, as prolonged instability in the Chinese economy could have global economic consequences.
Source: Press Release, "Renewal of American Leadership " Jul 12, 2004

Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US
ensuring fair trade by enforcing existing trade agreements. Obama believes any trade agreement must have real, tangible benefits for U.S. business and workers and will work to enforce the trade agreements on the books.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm

A vote for the expansion of free trade is a vote for prosperity and peace.

Those so called labor protections are dependent on the President to enforce. I don't see Bush or any pro-corporate Dem, including Obama, enforcing labor protections. Corporate lobbyist money is too addictive to Repukes and Dems.

Rangel supports this because he and Sen. Baucus have set up a joint PAC where the corporate lobbyists contribute. Those lobbyists want free trade and Dems like Rangle and Baucus are willing to sellout Americans for campaign contributions.

He said he'd vote for a Peruvian trade agreement, that's completely different from both NAFTA & CAFTA.

Calling the Peru FTA (Free Trade Agreement) NAFTA is simply a lie. Desperate attempts by Sirota (a devout Edwards supporter) to try to trash Obama with lies and distortions is a sad event.

Here is what fellow Democrats with strong union support records say about the Peru FTA:


It seems odd that Sirota and others wouldn't mention this information. I wonder why...
:crazy:

Ingenious. I wish I had thought of that. It's like, you're supporting Edwards but you also support all the Democrats that are running.

:thumbsup:

"The Peru FTA is the first agreement to incorporate key changes in trade policy to include basic labor standards, stronger environmental provisions and expanded access to life-saving medicines."

skip the vote.

Is that Obama says he will actually vote this time...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

have a choice as to whether they sign on to this thing? I thought i heard they have an election coming up regarding this issue... the point would be moot if they reject the idea.

I also remember reading that the IMF (or World Bank) would foreclose or fine Peru if they did not sign on...

:(

It's a sad day when South/Central American democracy surpasses our own. :(

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=8319

he is no free trader and does not like it.

Wake me up when he writes something without misleading people.

predict are on the way. (Some Business Gurus from
Clinton years are eating "Tums" and Maalox by the
barrel.)

I am beginning to believe not one candidate realizes
what they are going to be facing.

Oh well, Lets get these dislocations going. The American
People can "eat cake".

So DLC got to you also.

How does that work?