Obama signs South Korea, Panama, Colombia trade pacts

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law free trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, which were long delayed over implementation wrangles and political disputes in Washington.

The president also signed an extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program which helps US workers who lose jobs to foreign competition, which he insisted upon before sending the deals to Congress for ratification.

Obama signed the deals, which he says will support tens of thousands of jobs and promote good labor practices, in the Oval Office, a week after they were endorsed by wide margins in Congress.

By his side as he signed the pacts were US business leaders, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk and the ambassadors to Washington of South Korea, Panama and Colombia.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jYoyAVKriRWdhWcLBPA88VV5H_cw?docId=CNG.e1771690f71c3d2c94aa0c8833fbddc0.91

[bhikkhu]

1. I hope those against it will agree to change their minds if it works out

- that is, if we continue to have positive job numbers, if economic growth continues, if US exports continue to rise, and if the trade deficit continues to decrease.

One can be negative based on predictions of doom - but one might also say what other possible results would make them reconsider.

[JDPriestly]

9. I remember a committee debate in the Fall of 1985 in which

the Democrats warned that if we passed "free trade" bills, Americans would be reduced to handing hamburgers back and forth to each other for a living.

That is precisely what has happened. "Free trade" is not free at all. It has reduced Americans to living from hand to mouth, unable to own their homes, unable to start their own viable businesses, unable to compete. Sure, we export -- arms, arms, weapons, soldiers and the machinery that people in other countries use to undercut our workers and destroy our economy.

These "free trade" agreements will bring more and more misery to ordinary Americans. They are, of course, great for those few who run the multinational corporations. And increasingly, those few are not American-born, but rather dual nationals who easily cross cultural and linguistic divides.

I oppose these "free trade" agreements. There is nothing "free" about them, and I do not trust the US government's statistics. I trust what I see and know. Bunch of liars, that's what we have in our "free trade" propaganda machine.

Also, I oppose these trade agreements because they undermine and erode our self-government. Every trade agreement sets up some sort of international court or other organization that can override and supersede our local regulations with regard to, say environmental protections, etc.

Right now, we have a huge dispute about the entry of Mexican trucks and drivers into the roads of the US. Our trucks have to meet high safety standards. Mexican trucks don't. Our truck drivers have to pass stringent drug tests. Theirs don't. But since our trade agreements are international law, they prevail over local and state law.

No, I do not like trade agreements. My attitude is based on solid fact and experience and not flimsy, phony numbers.

[bhikkhu]

10. Monetary policies are much better now for US manufacturing and trade

making imports here more comparable in price to domestic goods, and US goods competitive overseas. We've actually set several export records this year, and the president's goal is to have doubled exports by 2015.

On the domestic jobs front, about 500k of the 2 million jobs created since 2009 are export related. The US trade deficit is also lower now, for a better balance of trade.

Good policies have good results...though the record of harmful trade deals in the past is long enough that I don't blame anyone for being skeptical.

[Kolesar]

2. The paperwork I have to do to sell into Korea is horrible

Korea has erected an artificial market barrier that cost us $$$$$$$$$.
We need this.

[Purveyor]

3. Well if the Teabaggers are all for it, why should we...

:sarcasm:

Tea Party Buys In To Trade Deals

Freshman House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for a trio of trade deals last week despite hopes from opponents that the faction would move en bloc to stop them.

The 89 House Republicans new to Congress this year — many of whom were backed by the Tea Party — were courted by both sides of the debate over the long-stalled trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

With their views on trade relatively unknown, some opponents of the deals thought they had an opening to sink them from the right.

But in the end, almost all of the GOP frosh voted in favor of the three agreements. Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) told The Hill a consensus formed among the newcomers that the trade deals deserved their support.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/188071-tea-party-buys-in-to-trade

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Apparently President Obama was able to persuade then

[pampango]

6. Tebagger politicians voted for them, but the teabagger "civilians' are largely against the deals.

Most Tea Partiers Think Free Trade Agreements That Tea Party Candidates Support Are Bad For The Country

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/tea-partiers-trade-bad

"Interestingly, the poll also found that opposition to free trade agreements is particularly strong among Americans who define themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement. 61 percent of self-described tea party supporters said they thought free trade has harmed the United States, just four percent less than union members:"

[Arctic Dave]

5. I happy to see he has no problem trading with a country who murders unionist.

Also, the false meme you are trying to push is disingenuous. Where will you get the info to see that these three countries made our imports go up and not our dollar devaluation?

Are you willing to say he fucked over more Americans if we lose more jobs to foreign companies?

[Sandrine for you]

7. Anyway, US never respect his trade pacts. nt

[JDPriestly]

8. It's a sad day!