Obama's Social Security cuts = Bill Clinton's NAFTA

[livingwagenow]

When the topic is convenient to Republicans, they still love to blame free trade on Clinton, even though the version of NAFTA that we still operate under today isn't the same version that then Pres Clinton signed into law.

A Ray-gun appointed federal judge took a scalpel to Clinton's NAFTA by scrapping the provisions that PROTECTED American jobs by keeping them here by striking down said provision/amendment while keeping the rest of the NAFTA law in place.

Said decision opened up the floodgates for American corps to began outsourcing to Mexico for cheaper labor. Clinton and Bush later expanded free trade into Central American nations.

However, Bush's policies of giving major tax incentives to corporations to outsource is really what gave outsourcing its fangs. Following the Bush tax cuts of 2001, American manufacturing and our factories shut down and outsourced MILLIONS of jobs to China, India etc.

To this day, Clinton still takes most of the blame for the way that outsourcing has ravaged our country to the point of still threatening the demise of our nation. Even though today, Republicans are the party that is protecting job outsourcing by refusing to scale back free trade and by FILIBUSTERING the "Bring Jobs Home Act" to death.

Clinton still takes a large part of the blame for unleashing his American jobs protecting version of NAFTA upon the people, which a federal judge made into the beast of an American job-killing law that NAFTA is today.

Republicans love to blame job outsourcing on Dems when it's conveneint to them, even though they are the party that is hell bent on preserving job outsourcing.

If Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare, the Democratic Party will forever be labeled as a party willing to cut Social Security and a party that really isn't out to protect seniors.

Republicans will use this argument against Dems for DECADES to come, if Obama cuts SS/MC.

They'll blame Dems for harming SS the way they blame Dems for free trade.

We don't need two pro-free-trade parties, we need ALL Dems to be an alternative to pro-FT Rethugs.

We don't need two pro-slash-SS/MC parties, we need ALL Dems to be an alternative to slash/kill-SS Rethugs.

President Obama, will you be the president that Rethugs refer to as proof that Dems harm SS when they are campaigning to seniors? They will tell seniors that it was in fact a Democratic president that slashed SS, if you continue forward with your plan to slash SS.

This will cause great harm to the future of the Democratic Party that will resonate for decades. If seniors can't trust Dems to protect SS, then who do we think they will vote for?

Cutting SS will be Obama's NAFTA and another major strike against the Democratic Party in the future.

Save SS by eliminating the $110,000(approx) annual earning cap where they stop deducting if the person earns more.

Eliminating that cap will save SS. Chaining the cost-of-living is just another weak attempt at kicking the can down the road. It won't save SS.

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. Everything About Your Post Is True.

Any time I hear complaints about jobs Clinton and the Dems are blamed for NAFTA. Sadly Clinton also bought into GATT and "favored nation" status for China. Rubin and Greenspan convinced him that free trade would expand employment. Well it idid in other countries at the cost of good jobs here.

Rubin is supporting the new "free trade agreements' and has a place at the economic table where Obama sits. I am sure that Greenspan is on the scene as well.

You are right about Social Security as well. Obama is a weak deal maker and that is a problem. He hurts Dems like Clinton did by trying to paint them into a corner.

And we both know that without a sound SSA system and secure pension seniors and the present generation face a bleak future. The 401K is fraudulent and a joke and WILL NEVER provide any real security. It is simply a money pump for the rich.

[livingwagenow]

5. +1 Well said.

So many people saw their 401k's disappear during the great recession and still to this day. IMO 401k's are a gamble. 401k's are not a retirement plan and you wisely pointed that out. 401k's are not retirement security when a nations 401k's can vanish almost overnight by economic collapse, as in 2008's crash.

SSA and properly funded and protected pension systems are retirement security, again, as you wisely pointed out.

[Divernan]

25. I recently checked out the status of stocks I lost my retirement savings on in 2008.

I bought them for dividends, not growth, but they did grow at a nice pace, and kept increasing dividends and occasionally splitting. I did not have a lot to invest, but I researched stocks on my own and was very happy with my choices.

I had been warned by an investment banker in the family to avoid mutual funds, because one lost so much in fees & charges, as the fund managers "churned" the funds.

For an actively traded mutual fund, the entire assets of the fund will be involved in buying and selling transactions once every six to twenty-four months. In churning cases, the entire assets of the investor are often traded once a month, or even more frequently. As a commission is paid on each trade, commissions can substantially destroy the value of an investment account in a very short period of time.Critics of the practice of paying brokers commissions for managing investment accounts point to churning as one of the indicators that the brokerage system indirectly encourages such behavior by brokers to the detriment of investors. Accounts invested in securities with steady returns and little price fluctuation generate no commissions, and brokers are therefore not encouraged to invest their client's money in such investments.

By fall of 2008, 3 years before I retired, I was getting annual returns between 33% and 57%, paid out in quarterly dividends. Then came the crash, and dividends were completely cancelled as the companies tried to ride out the storm. Share prices plummeted from, to give 2 examples, approximately $41 to $10; and $29 to $3.00. I sold them in 2009 and at least got a hefty capitol loss for my income tax. As of today, neither has resumed dividends and share prices are $10.18 and $3.53.

So that is the story of how I lost approximately 80% of my stock investments. I am very fortunate to have a pension from my employment for my state, as well as social security. But as a single parent who got divorced and did not enter the work force until my mid-40's, neither of those compare well to someone (like most men of my generation) who worked (outside the home) for 40 years instead of 20 years.

The family member/banker told me years ago that Wall Street was absolutely salivating to see social security privatized so they could get massive transaction fees managing the investments. If 10,000 social security recipients put their money into Mutual Fund "A", every time the managers of said mutual fund bought or sold one of the many stocks owned by the fund, their fees for said trade would be charged individually to every one of those 10,000 social security recipients. In other words, a single transaction (that would be of just one of the many stocks held by the mutual fund), taking a second or so in the electronic trading world, would generate 1/2 a $million

Transaction fees - used to be $24 to 50 - I've been out of the market for many years - don't know what they are now. We have just over 55 million social security recipients - do the math.

[CrispyQ]

86. 401k's are a scam - thread & article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023428917

[Cleita]

2. Excellent post.

A hearty recommend and welcome to DU!

[Autumn]

3. Very good post. Welcome to DU.

[closeupready]

4. Agreed.

K&R

[G_j]

6. well stated

K&R

[cliffordu]

7. Ah, bullshit.

[livingwagenow]

8. care to elaborate? nt

[emulatorloo]

10. Has Obama signed a law that cut Social Security?

No.

Is the admin promoting a bill that cuts Social Security?

No.

[livingwagenow]

13. A chained cpi is a cut to SS.

If a person's $1300 SS check is chained today, each year the cost of living goes up. In five years, that same $1300 monthly check will have far less purchase power than it has today.

That's why the chained cpi that Obama has offered up as part of his grand bargain is in fact a major cut to SS monthly benefit checks.

Do you live on a fixed income?

People on SS rely on the cpi for at least some relief from ever increasing cost of living.

[emulatorloo]

14. Did Obama sign a law containing chained CPI?

Is the admin promoting a bill that implements chained CPI?

No and No.

There are no "Obama's Social Security cuts"

Chained CPI proposal political gambit to prove Republicans are rigid ideologues about revenue increases. Was a head fake to show people how intractable GOP/Teabags are.

[Enthusiast]

70. Why would a president do a head fake

that would alienate millions of potential future Democratic Party voters? The idea is absurd. The President proposed the cuts.

Remember, the President appointed anti-New Deal zealots Simpson and Bowles to head up the catfood commission. The President is no friend of social security.

Head fake.

[JDPriestly]

17. Obama has advocated publicly or the chained CPI which will mean a cut in my already small

Social Security payments.

[cliffordu]

35. Sorry, not happening.

'will mean a cut'

Not happening.

[cliffordu]

12. More anti dem bullshit from yet another expert newcomer.

Apparently the anti Clinton/Obama brigade, in full lockstep with uncle Mitch, have stormed the beaches.

Enjoy your stay!!!!

Always ready to listen to your point of view.

For the lulz

[Phlem]

16. "in full lockstep"

How ironic.

-p

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. heh.

[Divernan]

50. Yup! It's called projection!

[livingwagenow]

19. Do you live on a SS-like fixed income?

Or are you anywhere near approaching retirement?

It's difficult to understand the impact of a chained cpi if you don't live on a fixed income with cost of living increases.

I really don't get the 'anti-dem' reference. Since when is standing up against FT and cutting SS considered 'anti-dem'?

Unless you support cutting SS. Is that the case?

[cliffordu]

32. I live on SS. It's well known around here.

I completely understand the concept and consequence of CCPI.

When the bill gets passed, get back to me, other than that, this is all jerking off.


Ain't gonna happen.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Actually, I think this is the pro-Clinton/anti-Obama brigade

Clinton was in fact responsible for continuing the NAFTA/CAFTA policies that had begun under previous administrations.

Sure, Clinton may have not begun those free trade policies, but he sure as hell wasn't trying to stop them.

In addition, Clinton set a lot of things in motion that has affected the economy today, such as supporting the repeal of Glass-Stegall (yes, it happened in the middle of the night, pushed by Republicans and forced onto Clinton's desk, but he didn't have to sign it!!). Clinton deregulated the telecommunications industry; he championed welfare reform that to this day has had a deleterious affect on poor and working families. (Welfare to work programs work well when the economy is thriving, but when it is not, these programs obviously do poorly, since there are no freakin' jobs!) Not to mention the notorious Omnibus Crime Bill that gave us the "three strikes" rules and minimum sentencing.

So even if Bill Clinton wasn't directly responsible for some of these actions, his involvement and acquiesence ensured their implementation and long term impact.

So while we're being fair, I will also admit that President Obama has not been effective at trying to undo some of the harms that President Clinton and his predecessors have inflicted on this economy via their regressive policies.

[livingwagenow]

21. I'm every bit as against Bill Clinton as you are for the exact same reasons you mentioned.

Clinton was a deregulating pro-corporatist. I'm hardly of the 'pro-Clinton' camp.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. I'm not in the pro-Bill Clinton camp either.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. Then my post was not directed at you. :)

[Rex]

28. NAFTA was created by George Bush Sr.

SO when I see 'Clinton's NAFTA', I already have one red flag flying in my face.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. It's Clinton's NAFTA because he signed it into law. My husband's grandfather was a cattle rancher,

and he lost a lot of money because of NAFTA.

[Rex]

48. George H. W. Bush, Brian Mulroney and Carlos Salinas

signed it into law.

[PoliticAverse]

51. Not true. Clinton signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993...

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/events/12_08

[Rex]

52. It was signed by three different leaders.

Clinton would have had nothing to sign without it.

[liberal_at_heart]

59. Clinton should have refused to sign it. If he had I would have a lot more respect for him. But he

did therefore, I do not respect him. I'm so tired of democrats being dissolved of any responsibility. Oh, it's all the republcians's fault. Bullshit. The democrats need to fight. They need to fight for the 99% instead of sucking up to the 1%.

[Enthusiast]

71. I could not agree more.

NAFTA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley did tremendous damage to to the nation.

[Union Scribe]

34. Now that's some bullshit.

People trying to prevent the Dems from doing massive damage to both the nation and their party brand are not "anti-dem". Anti-Dem would be to bury your head in the sand and let party leaders ruin it by turning their back on things past Dems fought so hard for.

In other words, OPs like this thread are far more important and valuable to the future of the Democratic party than the amen chorus could ever be, because the chorus is so busy high-fiving the captain that neither see the icebergs coming.

[Enthusiast]

72. Oh, baby!

Very well said!

[liberal N proud]

77. Exactly

But there are enough here now that they defend each other lockstep.

[Cha]

57. +1.. you don't have to "elaborate" for me. I know exactly what you mean. nm

[liberal_at_heart]

9. The TPP certainly does equal NAFTA. And much like Race to the Top is worse than

No Child Left Behind, the TPP is worse than NAFTA. We must stand against these horrible policies and cuts to our social safety nets.

[silvershadow]

11. Yep. And that's the plan by the PTB, the only ones who matter. No matter what, it's coming. We

can howl all we want, but on tee vee we are referred to as "the professional left" instead of who they are really talking about: Every hardworking American of both parties. It doesn't matter who we elect, either, apparently, as I haven't seen any perp walks; what should have been perp-walks morphed into a sordid "political" discussion. What are the laws on the books, the Constitution, and the founding documents has morphed into a political discussion about what it is we are entitled to know. It's like George Orwell and Lewis Carroll had a baby.

[Enthusiast]

73. Nice!

And the baby became a monster.

[Whisp]

15. IF - MAYBE -MIGHT

haven't we done this for about 5 years now.

wake me up when the President actually grabs grub out of the poor elderly jaws. until then, this is Yawnsville HairOnFire, State of Confusion 456092

[tom_kelly]

18. I left a message just today on whitehouse.gov re: this

But you have stated it more complete and accurate here. Great job!

[woo me with science]

22. Excellent post. Welcome to DU.

[tridim]

27. Except that the main point of the OP is not true at all. I knew you would approve Woo. nt

[woo me with science]

36. *Another* attempt at a personal swipe?

Doesn't that embarrass you, to repeatedly produce empty posts like this? Is it possible that my response to your last little personal assault like this struck a nerve?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3422184

Tridim, the empty personal swipes really aren't a substitute for a point. The OP is pretty clear. I am not seeing much in the way of actual response...just empty, nasty little arrows of the caliber you just produced.

[tridim]

37. The OP lied about Obama SS cuts, you know he lied (there are no cuts), and then you defended it.

It is an embarrassment to the integrity of DU.

Don't like it? Quit defending lies.

[livingwagenow]

40. tridim, it is YOU that is lieing here.

I never said anywhere in my OP that Obama has already made cuts. I only talked about his proposed cuts. The cuts that are coming if Obama gets his way.

Why do you keep saying that I said that Obama already made cuts?

Please, be specific. What part of my OP are you referring to?

[tridim]

43. The first four words of your post title are a whole cloth lie.

Don't insult DU's intelligence.

And it's "Lying", not "Lieing".

[sheshe2]

66. Really?

"Obama's Social Security cuts = Bill Clinton's NAFTA"

Seriously, you made no such claim???????

[livingwagenow]

38. Thanks for the welcome!

Don't let that other person get you down with his/her empty reply of 'it's not real'. Apparently only he/she knows what is real and those of us that live in reality don't know what we see. At least, according to Tridim.

We never have to apologize for sticking to the truth.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. When was Social Security cut?

Maybe I missed it.

[tridim]

29. Oh ye of little faith. Neo-DU believes it, and that's all that matters.

Sorry lurkers, actual-DU doesn't misinform like this. Unfortunately we have been infiltrated by non-Democrats who lie for sport.

[Cha]

64. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^! & LOL! :))))))) nm

[liberal N proud]

78. +1000

[livingwagenow]

41. Where in my OP did I say that SS was cut?

My OP is talking about the cuts that Obama has proposed.

[ucrdem]

45. In your title. nt

[livingwagenow]

47. I then went on to explain quite well that I was referring to his PROPOSED cuts. nt

[ucrdem]

58. I don't see the word "proposed" in your title. nt

[Marr]

67. Perhaps you should start reading past the titles. /nt

[Rex]

26. It was Poppy Bush's NAFTA, I don't know why Bill went along with it.

I mean, I do NOW...but could never understand why a Dem would want to continue along with a horrible Repuke policy.

[leftstreet]

30. DURec

[Koios]

31. NAFTA = good ...

... cuts to SS/MC = bad.

[Divernan]

33. Excellent post - welcome to DU

As you see, there are posters here who are true believers/staunch defenders of all things Obama. Can you believe any politically active and aware person would disingenuously claim that Obama has not been pushing for privatizing social security, chained CPI and all the other garbage coming out of his handpicked Catfood Commission and which he keeps putting on the table in search of his mythical Grand Bargain?

They really serve only to distract and distort.

That being the case, I recently followed the suggestion of some of the best, most respected, true progressives on DU and put 15 of the worst offenders on my ignore list. It's wonderful! As someone observed, it's like having DU back to the kind of serious give and take, political debate and observations which we had in the beginning. (I've been a member since 2002). Again, just a suggestion - you can give it a try, and always cancel your ignore list if you really miss the annoying background noise.

[tridim]

44. There are NO "Obama SS cuts". None. nt

[Divernan]

49. Not yet, and hopefully never - but not for lack of trying on O's part!

You can try to twist things around all you want, but you know and I know that this thread is about proposed cuts.

[Divernan]

54. DEMS reject obamas chained CPI formula for social security.

As The Hill reported on April 22, 2013, Obama DID propose chained CPI be used to calculate Social Security Benefits, and YES, Obama's formula WOULD REDUCE SOCIAL SECURITY COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS. Now what will you argue? That a reduction is not a cut? It's like shooting fish in a barrel to "debate" you!

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security


Dozens of House Democrats on Monday introduced a resolution that rejected President Obama's proposal for calculating growth in Social Security benefits.
(headline, April 22, 2013)

The resolution, H.Con.Res. 34, was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), and co-sponsored by 81 other Democrats. It says it is the sense of Congress that "the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits."

Obama used his 2014 budget plan to call for imposing a so-called chained CPI formula. That formula would reduce Social Security cost of living adjustments by taking into account alternative purchases people can make in order to avoid goods and services whose costs are rising quickly.

Since Obama's budget was released, Democrats have criticized it as a way to shrink Social Security payments to seniors and have repeatedly rejected it in speeches on the House floor. "We should not expect Rhode Island seniors to sacrifice their earned Social Security benefits to fix fiscal problems that they had no hand in creating,"

The resolution finds that Social Security payments average about $14,000 per year, and that more than 53 million people receive them. It also adds that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits by 0.25 percent, and would reduce outlays by $112 billion over the first decade.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security#ixzz2bQdLjMax
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[bvar22]

87. Coming to a Station Near YOU in 2014 and 2016!

[font size=5][center]Republicans SAVED Social Security from the Obama Cuts!!!
Vote REPUBLICAN!
[/font]accompanied by VIDEO of Obama himself proposing the cuts.

[TBF]

53. Excellent. Welcome to DU! nt

[maui902]

55. My understanding is that the proposed cuts are part of an overall budget proposal

that consists both of items most if not all Democrats could support and items that many Democrats oppose. This post and others that have objected to tying current benefits to chained CPI seem to suggest that the Obama administration made this proposal in a vacuum, and I don't think that's the case. Yes, one option is to address the issue entirely via lifting the cap on the FICA tax; but we have a divided Congress (and I can't remember many years when that hasn't been the case) and trying to address the deficit issue (which will only become a greater challenge as the baby boomers continue to retire) solely by increasing taxes just doesn't seem to be a realistic option. You can argue forever that it's the right thing to do, that it's the moral thing to do, that it will work, etc. But with a divided government it's just not a realistic option in my view. If you agree that resolving the budget situation entirely through tax increases is not a realisitic option, but still believe budget deficits, if left unchecked, will harm the economy for all concerned (which is what I believe and that the Obama administration apparently believes), then drafting a proposal that cuts the budget through some cuts and some taxes seems responsible to me. If you believe that chained CPI is a bad idea, I'm ok with that, but it would be more responsible to offer an alternative proposal that has better than zero chance of actually being implemented.

[Enthusiast]

74. If we had a president that was inclined to preserve

social security without cuts, he would go to the American people and make it clear that there are only two alternatives-either raise or eliminate the cap or employ a Chained CPI measure. It's called the "bully pulpit".

I think the American people would overwhelmingly support increasing the cap. Increasing the cap is what we have always done in the past.

Also, baby boomers paid more into social security in order to prepare for the day when the system might become overburdened by their sheer numbers.

This is why so many of us are disappointed in the President on this issue.

Again, if the President was with "us" there would not be zero chance of the alternative.

[forestpath]

56. Exactly. The Democratic Party will OWN Social Cuts thanks to Obama.

Which really seems to be exactly what it wants.

[Bobbie Jo]

60. lol

[forestpath]

83. ...

[IMG][/IMG]

[L0oniX]

61. Obama did not cut SS ...he offered CPI which was not accepted ...yet.

I will burn my Dem voter registration card over any Dem enabled SS cuts of any type. It won't be a real Dem party anymore.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

62. What is the name of the Judge who struck down the provision protecting American jobs?

I need the name for future debates.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

63. Went looking and found this . . .

"He vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and pledged political retaliation against members of Congress who did.

He was innocent!

"Ronald Robert Carey (March 22, 1936 – December 11, 2008) was an American labor leader who served as president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters from 1991 to 1997. He was the first Teamster General President elected by a direct vote of the membership. He ran for re-election in 1996 and won, but in 1997 federal investigators discovered that the Carey campaign had engaged in an illegal donation kickback scheme to raise more than $700,000 for the 1996 re-election effort. His re-election was overturned, Carey was disqualified from running for Teamsters president again, and he was subsequently expelled from the union for life. Although a federal jury ultimately cleared him of all wrongdoing in the scandal, the lifetime ban remained in place until his death."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Carey_%28labor_leader%29

[Beacool]

65. Most jobs did not go to Mexico and Canada.

Globalization killed our jobs. Where are most jobs going? Asia.

[Divernan]

68. As of 2010, 682,900 U.S. jobs lost to Mexico via NAFTA

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Well, here you are again, making sweeping statements without a shred of documentation.
Please DO provide credible links/sources for your claims, i.e, hard numbers as to direct and secondary US jobs lost to Mexico, Canada and "Asia" - and a definition of which countries you count as "Asian" would also be highly appropriate.

Please stop posting the fevered imaginings and wishful conclusions arising out of your personal gestalt as though they are facts. Think about this. You post with an icon of Hillary Clinton - obviously indicating you are a strong supporter of hers. This is analogous to reckless drivers who careen through traffic with political bumper stickers on their cars. People look at their reckless driving and associate it - QUITE NEGATIVELY - with the person identified on the bumper sticker. In other words, with supporters like you, Miss Clinton doesn't need any enemies.

Focusing on the particular sweeping claim you make in this thread, I easily researched the loss of US jobs to Mexico, attributed to NAFTA (see links below). Doesn't seem to be much out there on Canada (but since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you). The EPI report does indicate, though, 300,000 jobs lost to Canada as a result of NAFTA. As to "Asia" I found that mainly high-tech jobs seem to be going to China, in large part because the Chinese govt. is supporting high tech education for its students, and aggressively courting companies to come to China. On the other hand, wages are increasing in China, unlike Mexico. And when I was in Edinburgh two years ago, I sat in front of 3 Chinese doctoral students at the symphony and had a fascinating discussion with them at the intermission. Their government was sponsoring them to live for 6 months in a major European city to improve their English language skills and learn Western customs, culture, manners and attitudes - all part of their education so they could better interact with Westerners in their future careers. The Chinese government was doing this with its students in many parts of the world. As compared to the U.S., which sends its young people to hellholes like Afghanistan or Iraq to receive training in how to wage war and move on to well-paid careers as mercenaries for Halliburton.

But here's the thing, Beacool - even IF (and it remains to be documented) more jobs have gone to "Asia" via "globalization" - there are STILL some 1 million of your fellow Americans (assuming you are American) who have directly lost their jobs to Mexico/Canada because of NAFTA. Your post indicates those are not worth considering or talking about. I find your cavalier "whatever, we've lost more jobs to 'Asia'" attitude really inhumane, offensive, and politically obtuse. I think one million US workers who lost their jobs, and their families/dependents, would agree with me.

http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf
Trade deficit with Mexico has resulted in 682,900 U.S. jobs lost or displaced
By Robert E. Scott | October 12, 2011


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html
U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy. 17 years later, a new report estimates, the American worker only has hundreds of thousands of job losses to show for it.

According to a report by Economic Policy Institute economist Robert Scott, entitled "Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA," an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" because of the agreement and the resulting trade deficit.


http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf
One million American jobs lost to NAFTA.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the rising trade deficit with Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect eliminated about one million net jobs in the United States by 2004. EPI further calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010. Moreover, official government data reveals that nearly five million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost overall since NAFTA took effect.

Given the methodology employed, it is also likely that the EPI estimates do not capture the full U.S. job loss associated with NAFTA. Service sector jobs have also been negatively impacted by NAFTA, as closed factories no longer demand services. EPI estimates that one third of the jobs lost due to the rising trade deficit under NAFTA were in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy.

[Enthusiast]

75. Thanks for the timely information..........nt

[Beacool]

84. I don't have time to read your overlong post at the moment.

But by Asia I didn't just mean China, there is also Southeast Asia. More Americans jobs were lost to this region than were lost to Mexico.

"China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 was touted as a win-win development that would benefit both the U.S. and Chinese economies. Almost a decade later, it is clear that American workers have suffered significant losses. In a new paper, EPI International Economist Robert Scott calculates that 2.4 million American jobs were lost between 2001 and 2008 as a result of increased trade with China, and that those job losses have occurred in every U.S. state, Congressional district, and most industries."

http://www.epi.org/publication/counting_the_jobs_lost_to_china/

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp345-china-growing-trade-deficit-cost/

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/manufacturing-overseas-competition-0224.html

[Enthusiast]

69. Where's the guy that said we can start eating beans?

As the cheaper alternative, you know. Maybe he will grace us with his insight.

[liberal N proud]

76. Obama is cutting Social Security?

WOW!

Here come the conspiracy theorist.

[Divernan]

79. His cuts ARE in budget he sent to Congress, as you WELL know!

via changing the CPI. What's YOUR (or your grandma's) favorite brand of cat food, sweetie!?!?!

By denying that this is what Obama is pushing, you are an AGEIST! Why do you hate the elderly? Are you a trust fund baby or something? No one in your family now or in the future relies on social security? You oppose leaving social security (which has not contributed to the deficit) alone and cutting funding to the war mongers/MIC? What ARE you doing on Democratic Underground, anyway? Instead of the one-line zingers, try spelling out for us all what you think of Obama's pushing cuts to social security.

$360 Less For Social Security Beneficiaries In 2023 – Under Obama's doctored CPI, retired Americans on average would receive $30 less a month in 2023 than under the existing system. That translates to a reduction of 2 percent.

As retirees age, they would become poorer – Nancy Altman, co-director of the advocacy organization Social Security Works, claims that chained CPI does not reflect the daily expenses of seniors—who spend more on health care than the rest of the country.

She presented a graph charting the impact of different inflation metrics on $17,500 of income to the subcommittee. If a 65-year old receiving that sum lived for another 30 years, she would be receiving the equivalent of $15,000 under Chained-CPI, Altman claimed based on her entity’s calculations. Not surprisingly, Altman prefers an inflation measure known as CPI-Elderly that would be weighted more toward the costs of older Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-altman/

Nancy J. Altman has a thirty-five year background in the areas of Social Security and private pensions. She is co-director of Social Security Works and co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security coalition and campaign. She is the author of The Battle for Social Security: From FDR’s Vision to Bush’s Gamble (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

From 1983 to 1989, Ms. Altman was on the faculty of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and taught courses on private pensions and Social Security at the Harvard Law School. In 1982, she was Alan Greenspan's assistant in his position as chairman of the bipartisan commission that developed the 1983 Social Security amendments. From 1977 to 1981, she was a legislative assistant to Senator John C. Danforth (R-MO), and advised the Senator with respect to Social Security issues. From 1974 to 1977, she was a tax lawyer with Covington & Burling, where she handled a variety of private pension matters.

Ms. Altman is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of beneficiary rights. She is also on the Board of Directors of the Foundation of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, as well as the National Academy of Social Insurance, a membership organization of over 800 of the nation's leading experts on social insurance. In the mid-1980s, she was on the organizing committee and the first board of directors of the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Ms. Altman has an A.B. from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/04/18/Five-Big-Impacts-from-Chained-CPI.aspx#page1

[liberal N proud]

80. I see lots of rhetoric in this thread with nothing referencing any facts

The old DU would not have allowed that for long.

I rely on facts!

[Divernan]

82. You need reading glasses. See facts in my post 54 IN THIS THREAD!

In the "old DU" as you refer to it, everyone was smart enough to read all the posts in a thread before replying. Post 54 reads as follows :

As The Hill reported on April 22, 2013, Obama DID propose chained CPI be used to calculate Social Security Benefits, and YES, Obama's formula WOULD REDUCE SOCIAL SECURITY COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS. Now what will you argue? That a reduction is not a cut? It's like shooting fish in a barrel to "debate" you!

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security


Dozens of House Democrats on Monday introduced a resolution that rejected President Obama's proposal for calculating growth in Social Security benefits.
(headline, April 22, 2013)

The resolution, H.Con.Res. 34, was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), and co-sponsored by 81 other Democrats. It says it is the sense of Congress that "the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits."

Obama used his 2014 budget plan to call for imposing a so-called chained CPI formula. That formula would reduce Social Security cost of living adjustments by taking into account alternative purchases people can make in order to avoid goods and services whose costs are rising quickly.

Since Obama's budget was released, Democrats have criticized it as a way to shrink Social Security payments to seniors and have repeatedly rejected it in speeches on the House floor. "We should not expect Rhode Island seniors to sacrifice their earned Social Security benefits to fix fiscal problems that they had no hand in creating,"

The resolution finds that Social Security payments average about $14,000 per year, and that more than 53 million people receive them. It also adds that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits by 0.25 percent, and would reduce outlays by $112 billion over the first decade.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security#ixzz2bQdLjMax

[JoePhilly]

81. This is it!!! Here it comes!!! Any second!!!

[OnionPatch]

85. Yep. He will destroy what might have been an impressive legacy. It's such a shame.

And boy do I get nauseated when I hear people saying since he has not signed such cuts into law that he is innocent of attempting to slash SS. He has proposed these cuts so many times you'd have to be oblivious not to have heard him. But we are not supposed to believe what he says? Should we then believe the opposite of everything he says?? Should we then be worried if he changes his tune and says "no cuts"?

[Safetykitten]

88. His lagacy, yes lagacy,will be of complete control of all things by republicans.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

89. Still need the name of the judge who "scrapped provisions that PROTECTED American jobs"

Anybody know who this was?