Obama's Trade Agenda Stalled By Partisan Battles

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama has made expanding exports a centerpiece of his plan for accelerating the economic recovery, but in recent weeks, his trade agenda has nearly ground to a halt amid partisan feuding.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[OldTulsan]

08:58 AM on 03/02/2011

An op-ed co-authore­d by Sen Schumer and Paul Craig Roberts in 2004..

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/second-thoughts-on-free-trade.html
Second Thoughts on Free Trade - New York Times

"...Yet in that essay of 70 years ago, Keynes himself was beginning to question some of the assumption­s supporting free trade. The question today is whether the case for free trade made two centuries ago is undermined by the changes now evident in the modern global economy.

Two recent examples illustrate this concern. Over the next three years, a major New York securities firm plans to replace its team of 800 American software engineers, who each earns about $150,000 per year, with an equally competent team in India earning an average of only $20,000. Second, within five years the number of radiologis­ts in this country is expected to decline significan­tly because M.R.I. data can be sent over the Internet to Asian radiologis­ts capable of diagnosing the problem at a small fraction of the cost.

[snip]

We are concerned that the United States may be entering a new economic era in which American workers will face direct global competitio­n at almost every job level -- from the machinist to the software engineer to the Wall Street analyst. Any worker whose job does not require daily face-to-fa­ce interactio­n is now in jeopardy of being replaced by a lower-paid­, equally skilled worker thousands of miles away..."

[ThePeacemakers]

07:59 PM on 03/01/2011

International economies have always been linked through trade.

Cut the BS. They're just trying to "link" low wages. Period. End of story.

[metaluna]

05:10 PM on 03/01/2011

The original Canada-America free trade agreement was a good one, smoothing out rough spots in trade between two first world economies that were already closely linked. However Clinton went way off the rails with FTAs that only encouraged outsourcing and greatly enriched corporations but with very little benefit to middle class Americans other than somewhat cheaper TVs and the like. These FTAs were primarily responsible for decimating our manufacturing sector. We were told at the time that the service sector along with a newly deregulated financial sector would more than take up the slack. See how that worked out for us? I think stomping on the brakes of these FTAs right now would be a good thing!

[Erdgeist]

04:04 PM on 03/01/2011

By correlation, FTAs (free trade agreements) has produced no net new jobs in the U.S. for ever ten years. NAFTA, in fact, cost over 800,000 jobs. Both Democrats and Republicans are guided by assumptions about free-trade that are historically false and economically unsound. Only transnational corporations have benefited from free-trade—who are the same people who are in Washington D.C. right now stuffing your politician's pockets full of dough.

[-swift]

12:58 PM on 03/01/2011

So, once again, the Republicans use something potentially good and bipartisan as a sacrifice to force their agenda. I would be laughing at them except it's been a totally effective strategy for them.

[AyeChart]

11:31 AM on 03/01/2011

But what about jobs that are lost when businesses go under? It's important to remember that not all jobs are the same. In business, real jobs profitably produce goods and services that people value more highly than their alternatives. Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.
--Charles Koch

The entire Democratic/Obama agenda consists in subsidizing inefficient jobs, taxing  efficient producers, finding more government boondoggles upon which to spend money, increasing the number of government workers, and weakening the economy.

[Fatdoggie]

12:34 PM on 03/01/2011

Koch is wrong! Jobs in the US do more for the American economy (subsidized or not) than increased profits for the rich, from lower foreign wages. The rich then proceed to shelter the profits in offshore accounts to avoid paying their taxes (Capitalism User Fee) while Americans suffer a reduced standard of living.

Bizarro World !! - Grand Old Party blocking a trade agreement that may actually help American workers and improve the Grand Old Recession.

[Erdgeist]

04:11 PM on 03/01/2011

Charles Koch and his brother are the guys who helped fund the anti-union tea party; who are also the same guys that are trying to bust the unions from Wisconsin. These brothers are an enemy of We the People.

[cassie reinara]

10:59 AM on 03/01/2011

None of his trade agenda looks like it will benefit people in general, but will help big business once again, so with this in mind, I am glad it's stalled. Let's hope it gets scrapped altogether.

[AyeChart]

11:32 AM on 03/01/2011

Interesting to me is how you think he can help "people in general" without also helping the companies that hire people.

Even moreso, why you think the businesses he chooses to "help,"--i.e., subsidize--will actually be helped in the long run.  Propping up failing dictators or corporations doesn't produce longterm benefit to anybody, even the dictators or businesses.

[cassie reinara]

11:52 AM on 03/01/2011

Let me put it this way. All US Trade deals are lopsided and create net trade imbalance which has resulted in net capital outflows. Less investment in the US, more investment in overseas markets and most importantly, massive loss of US jobs, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing. You can have trade policy, but this is not the same as fair or balanced trade policy. We can't trade with other nations when the results so clearly show it's about letting these multinational companies gain access to foreign markets and cheap labor!

[-swift]

12:56 PM on 03/01/2011

Actually, if you help people in general, you will help the companies. Give money to people who don't have a lot of money, and they usually spend it. Give money to people who have a lot, they usually just tuck it away.

If you help the working class get jobs, they will enrich the economy and the companies. If you help the companies increase profits, they will enrich themselves and the working class gets little to nothing.

[cyclone70]

10:32 AM on 03/01/2011

expanidng exports is all well and good,, but wihout limiting the flod of imports as well no real meaningful dent can be made in the trade deficit or the jobs lost to unfair trade

[cyclone70]

10:31 AM on 03/01/2011

What happened to Obama's camaign promises to fix or get out of our broken trade deals?

it appears more and more to be cynical campaign rhetoric used to win labor and midwest voters, that he never intended to do anything about