Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Dems Paint Romney as “Outsourcer-In-Chief,” But Will Obama’s Trade Deal Blow It? [View all]brentspeak
(18,290 posts)28. No, it sounds like you're continuing your B.S. revisionist history/propaganda of FDR
Your posts here are kind of like if the US Chamber of Commerce paid someone to post on DU while using an FDR avatar to ingratiate pro-globalization talking points on a Democratic website.
A repost of my own response to your propaganda from a May, 2012 earlier thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002648192#post11
Response to pampango (Reply #15)
Sun May 6, 2012, 11:56 PM
brentspeak (16,175 posts)
20. The B.S. keeps piling up
Now you're even making up stuff about the same Pew poll you posted, claiming -- without any reason -- that FDR would have supported today's corporate-written "free trade" agreements of NAFTA, CAFTA, and KORUS. FDR supported trade in general, not lobbyist-overseen deals to create your beloved job-offshoring.
pampango: "You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it. I think FDR..,would still support the same trade policy (i.e. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.)"
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts:
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act.html
The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (enacted June 12, 1934, ch. 474, 48 Stat. 943, 19 U.S.C. § 1351) provided for the negotiation of tariff agreements between the United States and separate nations, particularly Latin American countries. The Act served as an institutional reform intended to authorize the president to negotiate with foreign nations to reduce tariffs in return for reciprocal reductions in tariffs in the United States. It resulted in a reduction of duties.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was authorized by the Act for a fixed period of time to negotiate on bilateral basis with other countries and then implement reductions in tariffs (up to 50% of existing tariffs) in exchange for compensating tariff reductions by the partner trading country. Roosevelt was also instructed to maximize market access abroad without jeopardizing domestic industry, and reduce tariffs only as necessary to promote exports in accord with the "needs of various branches of American production.".
Therefore, FDR's trade policy was the opposite of today's free trade agreements, which are authored deliberately to relocate domestic industry to overseas facilities and which are not required at all to consider domestic American production.
My question to you is: How much longer are you going to continue slandering FDR for your own agenda on these boards?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Dems Paint Romney as “Outsourcer-In-Chief,” But Will Obama’s Trade Deal Blow It? [View all]
brentspeak
Jul 2012
OP
Can't you take even a short break from your war against America's working class? Really?
Zalatix
Jul 2012
#17
No, it sounds like you're continuing your B.S. revisionist history/propaganda of FDR
brentspeak
Jul 2012
#28
I thought the problem with outsourcing had to do with jobs going to China and India
treestar
Jul 2012
#9
Why would you think that the outsourcing-of-jobs problem is limited to China and India?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#11
Do we really need another wage-lowering, let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade"
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#12
They work to the advantage of wealthy stockholders, not middle-class workers in the US.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#21