I posted a thread earlier today for people to discuss the three free trade agreements that were debated and passed today. Very few people decided to express any opinion about them one way or the other. I find that interesting because these three bills are probably the most significant bills that will be passed in this entire two-year Congress. Here are the Senate roll calls for all three bills:
South Korea 83-15
Panama 77-22
Colombia 66-33
As I noted earlier, these bills differed in their merit. For me, the Panamanian one was the easiest to support. The Colombian one was the hardest. Congress saw things a little differently, but they passed them all. Here’s the president’s statement:
The landmark trade agreements and assistance for American workers that passed tonight are a major win for American workers and businesses. I’ve fought to make sure that these trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama deliver the best possible deal for our country, and I’ve insisted that we do more to help American workers who have been affected by global competition. Tonight’s vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label “Made in America,” support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. American automakers, farmers, ranchers and manufacturers, including many small businesses, will be able to compete and win in new markets. I look forward to signing these agreements, which will help achieve my goal of doubling American exports and keeping America competitive in the 21st century.
Personally, I don’t think these deals will do much for our employment rate either way. I guess that is good and bad. If you search the archives, you’ll see that I predicted that these trade bills would pass, and that very little else would.
I don’t agree with ANY of these trade deals but your earlier post made your thoughts VERY clear. So, how nice for you.
I really don’t want to talk about every detail of what problems I have with each of these deals, though I probably could write a whole book about each one. But you have decided that they’re all good or, at least, not so bad and you foolishly believe the myth that some new American jobs might be created from them. Sure they will, but there will be MANY MANY more “displaced” American workers as a result of these shitty free-trade deals.
I really don’t want to go there… or start a fight with you. But I really think that if anyone calls these deals a “Jobs” bill, they are absolute fools. They are exactly the opposite.
who is going to be displaced? I’m not saying you’re wrong. But do you know what you’re talking about or are just assuming something?
I would love to hear your arguments because I concede to not be informed enough on the specific agreements.
I’m very much on the fence.
Convince me. Especially, convince me that the UAW is wrong about the South Korea deal (the only one that’s really big enough to make any sort of noticeable difference either way).
Did any other unions besides the UAW back the South Korea trade deal? If not, what does that tell you? It would tell me that they only backed it because Detroit was saved.
Then why didn’t they come out for the other two?
Here’s a thought: the UAW actually knows more about the bill and the auto industry than you do.
United Food and Commercial Workers
I didn’t express an opinion in the earlier thread bc I don’t know enough about the subject to take a firm position. I’d oppose the Colombia deal on principle though, due to their record of suppressing organized labor. I think they have a lot of atoning to do before getting favored trading status with us, notwithstanding our labor record these days is pretty crappy too.
Agreed.
If you keep talking stupid I’m not going to donate to your site anymore.
The previous poster is more polite than me.
HAVE YOU BEEN STUPID YOUR WHOLE LIFE OR DID YOU JUST START TODAY?
Are you totally blind to the three-card-monty being perpetrated upon working class American in these trade agreements?
The nations covered in these agreements have miniscule markets while the US has the world’s largest. Any market that these countries can compete in now in the US dwarfs their own domestic markets that American companies can compete.
You have no frigging idea about how business works. But, I really cannot blame you, Booman because liberals/leftists usually are not drawn from the business class and are instead usually drawn from careers that do not include backgrounds in manufacturing and sales that are taking the hit with these trade agreements.
I am; and the trade agreements screwed a hell of a lot of working class people for the chance to line the pockets of people who are already in the clover.
Maybe if you could articulate what your problem is, you might educated me. Personally, if you’re talking about NAFTA, I agree with you. Not everyone is cut out to work in an office park. You can’t just outsource all your manufacturing jobs without leaving behind an underemployed underclass of blue collar workers.
However, I don’t think we’re going to see people moving factories to Colombia or Panama. I think some car parts contracts will leave Michigan and go to China under the S. Korea deal. So, Michigan will take another hit there, but you should note that UAW thinks it’s a good deal. Are you smarter than them?
I think the strongest reason to oppose these deals is not that they will be harmful, but that they perpetuate a way of thinking about trade that has already been harmful.
Did the worker re training provision stay in?
Obama wanted that in each one and the GOP was trying to get rid of it.
Yes.