# Oabma and Free Trade



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, here we go folks. seems O is now talking out of both sides of his mouth. he can't have it both ways.

the whole idea behind NAFTA was all about taking on shore jobs and moving them to a cheap labor (in a foreign country) source so big business could make more profits. trouble is, with this strategy spiraling out of control, those folks that held those jobs here in the US can no longer afford to buy the very products made off shore, because they are now making 50% less in wages. great business strategy, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/pl_ ... 2nqais0NUE


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I must not be reading the same thing as you are......this sounds like a reason to vote for him not against him.

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

my point is, Obama isn't going to do a damn thing to change how NAFTA works now. he is blowing smoke at the voters to gain their support in Ohio. i guess you have never witnessed this in politicians before?

oh well..... :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> 1 Obama has criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement
> 
> 2 He has pounded rival Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, for switching positions on NAFTA and said repeatedly that he would revisit that pact to instill environmental and labor standards.
> 
> ...


Paragraph 1 I agree I don't like it either. My farming relatives all loved it until they got it. I think they were thinking about exporting their products and didn't think about business in this country importing products.

Paragraph 2, he can not instill environmental standards without the consensual agreement of all parties involved. He may become president of the United States, but not king of the world. Perhaps he is over judging his influence.

Paragraph 3 he is clearly trying to have it both ways. Without a doubt he believes one way or the other, but because he wants all the votes he can get he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The question is which side does he believe.

Paragraph 4 again is trying to cater to both opinions.

Paragraph 5 raises some concern for me. As president of the United States I want him to do what is best for the United States, not what is best for Mexico. If he can do both fine, but if there is only one choice then he must decide if he is for us or for them. I have compassion for all people of this earth, but if a person wants to be president of the United States they must put our welfare first and foremost. We clearly have political figures in Washington DC that don't get this point. People like Murtha who call our soldiers murderers don't get the point.

Young people sick of the politics as usual were mesmerized by Jesse Ventura and voted the joker into office. Likewise the personal appeal of Obama has had the same affect now. He may very well be our next president, and I predict that if you're a working man, a business that makes profit, a gun owner, a hunter, a second amendment advocate, or in the military, it want be good.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

hunter9494 said:


> my point is, Obama isn't going to do a damn thing to change how NAFTA works now. he is blowing smoke at the voters to gain their support in Ohio. i guess you have never witnessed this in politicians before?
> 
> oh well..... :roll:


So how did you determine that?Just because you don't like him?

But then I know where you are coming from.......just look at GWB.....since I don't like him,and he is a politician,I can now say everytime he opens his mouth,he is blowing smoke.You know.....good old"Mission Accomplished" George.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Ken, i have seen politicians pander to the voters/public before. i guess you and many others just don't recognize it, advantage Obama!

he is hoping most won't recognize it this time, as he has enchanted so many through his oratory. could be wrong, but do you really think he is going to be able to turn back any part of this agreement which would provide meaningful relief for workers in this country? in fact he has stated that those lost jobs aren't coming back

ever wonder how this guy can say he has always been against what is so unpopular now? honestly, folks need to look a lot deeper into what this guy has done and is really all about.

it sure isn't change you can believe in, quite frankly Obama is truly just another politician who has the gift of a golden tongue and some good campaign strategists. get ready for tax and spend like you haven't seen the likes of for a long time. history has a tendency to repeat itself. this time it has just been "repackaged" . a niftier, trendier, more hyped up model!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Ken, i agree with your Bush analogy too. He has been a disappointment for many and quite frankly has hurt the Republican party.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know, I don't think I am going to be a very positive person this year. Please forgive me, but if someone has something positive to say about any of the current goon squad I am afraid I will have to disagree. Most of the time anyway.

I will say that Obama appears to have a great personality. He would perhaps be a good friend, but a poor president. McCain would be a better president, but I think he is overbearing and arrogant. If he wanted to sit down with me for a cup of coffee I would fight the urge to------- well lets skip that, I would all of a sudden have something more important to do. Sorting fly crap from pepper would be more fun than a cup of coffee with McCain.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and i agree with plainsman on that note as well.

i just don't agree with how Obama is the new hope and how he single handedly will make the government run differently or make the US a more respected country in the world by backing out of Iraq and negotiating with terrorist nations, adding to their validity and high regard in the world.

this may make sense to some, but not to me. as i said before, the guy scares the hell out of me when it comes to foreign policy and these are most dangerous times.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> i just don't agree with how Obama is the new hope


Oh, he is the new hope for many people. A vast majority of the liberals, many of the independent, and some conservatives. However hope is all he offers, but hope without action has no value. Well, that's not true, it will prolong the same problems while everyone lives in misery, but still they have hope.

The infatuation with Obama is emotional, and without logic. It is without logic because as much as he spouts what he is going to do he has not said how he is going to do some of those things. If he implements what he says he will it will be a tremendous burden on the working taxpayers of this nation, and a huge windfall for the lazy. We will be in the last stages of a democracy. I think that's why the republicans have abandoned their conservative principles. They want to remain in power just like the democrats, and also like the democrats they have figured out that it is now a majority of Americans that can be bought with taxpayer dollars. I hope they are wrong.

Hope is not tangible, nor can it by itself produce any affect. To be of any value it must inspire someone to take action. It all comes back to action, not hope. Hope is for the emotional while action is for those who get things done. The hopeful watch the doers while they themselves remain in stagnant, hopeful, helpless despair.

The old cliche isn't hope or get off the pot. Get off the pot Obama.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yes Obama is the most liberal candidate in a long time.....and conservavtives will hate him just as much as liberals hate the past 8 years under GWB.It really doesn't matter who is president.....someone will have undiluted hatred for them.

But that is why it is time to move the pendulum back from the far right to the left again.It will settle in the middle and in 4 years we go back the other way again.The best is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Yes by all means lets do swing things back to the far left again. I'm sure all will agree the long gas lines, the 20% interest rates, the high unemployment, the over populated welfare system, the cities burning with riots, the minority quota system and failed foreign policies were some of our best times. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Those were during Carters term....worst president outside of Nixon ever.

But that really has nothing to do with the next president any more than saying all Republican presidents are liars and cheaters like "Tricky Dick Nixon."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Those were during Carters term....worst president outside of Nixon ever.
> 
> But that really has nothing to do with the next president any more than saying all Republican presidents are liars and cheaters like "Tricky Dick Nixon."


Ken, you might think I am a pessimist, but I think it's realistic that every president I can remember excluding Reagan was a liar. I don't know about the current Bush. Simply because liberals call him a liar doesn't make it so. I don't think he tells the truth about his dealings with the Mexican border, but I don't think he lied about why we went to war in Iraq. That Bush lied mantra is simply liberal partisanship.

Where I disagree with liberals is when they get all emotional rather than logical. All this hope garbage is so simplistic. What ever happened to using our brains? Change is another stupid thing. I want to know which direction change will be, not just keep saying change, change, change, like an empty headed third grader.

I don't want to hear emotional stupidity from liberals or conservatives. I'm very disappointed in both parties. I keep "*hoping*" (ya I know I want a miracle) that when we know who the candidates are that one of them will start talking substance.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Excuse me but you can't say far left and then make a excuse for one President. Johnson, Carter, Clinton, that was the far left. Only thing that kept Clinton from being a far left President for 8 years was he lost control of the House and then the Senate which kept him on a short leash for 6 years. You've got a President that is center right now. Problem with some people is he moves to the right on some issues and to the left on other issues. Neither side likes it so he is bashed no matter what he does. There is no such thing as a popular middle President that can give everyone what they want. Someone is going to be displeased no matter what the decision. The only controlling factor that has proven time after time to be beneficial for this country is to ensure that no single party has control of the House, Senate, and Executive branch at the same time. Take a stroll back through time and look at all the money gobbling entitlement programs which are sinking this country that exist today and see who approved or amended them into law. Hint, it wasn't the far right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cwoparson, you have a point about Bush. Perhaps we could say "we can tell he is doing a good job because everyone hates him equally". I think that is what happens to a middle of the road person, and your right Bush is middle of the road. Liberals consider him conservative, and I consider him a little to far left (soft on illegal aliens).


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ah just read the latest press, on how "Obamanomics" is going to save us all. uke:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

From the Grand Forks Herald:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota endorsed presidential candidate Barack Obama today, citing his record on trade.

"Senator Obama has never felt ... that NAFTA was good for America," Dorgan said in a campaign conference call with reporters. "He's always been a supporter on key trade issues."

NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, is unpopular with blue-collar workers whose votes are critical in the Democratic primary Tuesday in Ohio.

Obama has won 11 straight primaries and caucuses since Super Tuesday, increased his advantage in the all-important delegate count and has attracted the support of his congressional colleagues. On Tuesday, he secured the endorsement of one-time presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Clinton has been endorsed by 13 of her Senate colleagues, Obama 10.

Dorgan was an ally of former President Clinton and a vocal critic of President Bush. As chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, he has led hearings on government accountability issues related to the Iraq war and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast.

Dorgan has built a reputation for championing populist farm programs, criticizing Republican free-trade policies and assailing big business. He made headlines in 2005 when he called for a windfall profits tax on major oil companies.

Last year, he authored a measured to block funding of a Department of Transportation pilot program required under NAFTA that would have opened the U.S. to cross-border long-haul Mexican tractor trailers. The program was opposed by the Teamsters Union, among others.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass, what is with that NAFTA thing anyway? If I remember nearly everyone thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, then after they got it nobody likes it. I think Bush Sr. Clinton our people from North Dakota all liked it. Am I remembering that wrong. It's like everyone has done a 180 on it. Someone refresh my mind on this please.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I just know the major ideas behind it to be honest, not the details. For what it is worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't think our threesome was in favor of it.ND farmers were predicting an onslaught of Canadian grain weren't they driving down prices.Guess they were wrong huh???


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

good read. this guy has his head in the clouds and is so naive about what he can accomplish. he won't be able to deliver on 20% of the rhetoric.

February 20, 2008 Obamanomics 
Now that it's very likely he could become president, what does Barack Obama want for his economic policy? I'm not sure if this is real policy or just pandering.

Mr Obama's plan would lower the corporate tax rate for companies that met criteria including maintaining their headquarters in the US, maintaining or increasing their US workforce relative to their overseas workforce, holding a neutral position in union drives among their employees and providing decent healthcare. 
The lowered rate would be paid for by the abolition of tax breaks that encourage companies to shift jobs overseas. "In the last year alone, 93 plants have closed in Ohio," Mr Obama said. "And yet, year after year, politicians in Washington sign trade agreements that are riddled with perks for big corporations but have absolutely no protections for American workers."

Mr Obama's plan met instant scepticism from otherwise sympathetic Democratic economists who said it would require a large regulatory apparatus to put into practice. They also said that companies could "game the system" by spinning off overseas subsidiaries in order to reduce the offshore-onshore workforce ratio.

They questioned whether it was necessary to provide incentives for employers to provide health insurance since Mr Obama's healthcare plan would already mandate them to do so. Finally, Mr Obama has already tied up the estimated $10bn (€6.8bn, £5.1bn) in revenues that would be saved from abolishing tax incentives for multinational companies that retain their profits overseas.

"I would say that this plan is borderline unimplementable," said a Democratic economist in Washington. "It is also puzzling. Normally presidential candidates only come up with plans that are unrealistic when they are losing. But Obama is now the favourite."


----------

