Friends of the Earth: Obama broke his campaign promises in backing George Bush "free trade" deals

[Better Believe It]

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
oCTOBER 13, 2011

Friends of the Earth denounces passage of unjust trade agreements
President Obama broke his campaign promises in backing Bush-era trade pacts that repeat mistakes of NAFTA

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With President Obama’s backing, Congress yesterday passed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that are based on the flawed model of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, had the following statement in response:

“President Obama broke his campaign promise by championing these unjust trade deals. The pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama will empower big multinational corporations and Wall Street investors to pursue quick profits at the expense of environmental protections, human rights and shared economic prosperity.

“The investment chapters of the three trade deals, which open the door to corporate attacks on environmental protections, are especially alarming. If, for instance, a South Korean uranium mining company thought a U.S. environmental law impinged on its ‘right’ to make profits, it could sue our government through a biased international tribunal, bypassing U.S. courts and threatening to override decisions made through our democratic institutions.

“The passage of the Colombia deal is downright shameful. This deal promises to fuel ongoing armed conflict in Colombia, including intimidation and murder of local activists and union leaders. The deal will also encourage foreign investments in destructive palm oil plantations, mines, oil drilling and other projects designed to exploit Colombia’s natural resources and export the profits overseas. Afro-Colombian and indigenous peoples are at particular risk of displacement.

“As polls demonstrate, Americans understand that current U.S. trade policies are not working in the public interest. As protesters on Wall Street and in other cities across the country challenge the deepening poverty, unemployment and inequality in our country, President Obama has led us toward more of the same.

“President Obama must change course as he negotiates the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, and its investment chapter in particular, must not be based on the same failed and unjust model.”

###
Friends of the Earth fights to defend the environment and create a more healthy and just world. Our campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

http://www.foe.org/friends-earth-denounces-passage-unjust-trade-agreements

[arcane1]

1. Sadly, it's not just Obama

He got a lot of help from dems in congress too :(

[fascisthunter]

2. He is a Republican to Me

not a right wing republican, but a Reagan Republican which not good at all.

Also, he only part of the problem...

[slay]

8. He's a Republican period. Just not everyone has noticed

i have though - glad others here do as well.

[emilyg]

16. Many of us have noticed.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

89. I think Obama is afraid for his life....he's afraid of going against Corporate America!

We have soldiers who put their lives on the line every day for us. Yet Obama is a ....grrr I can't say it!!!!

[Dutchmaster]

91. Still can't bring yourself to accept the truth eh?

Judge a man by his words, not his actions.

[dameocrat67]

101. nobody forced him to run for president.

n/t

[Just-plain-Kathy]

106. I think Obama thought he would just reason with people to get things done.

Rahm Emanuel quit being the White House Chief of Staff in order to be a Mayor. What's up with that? He wanted the job. Were Rahm Emanuel's hands tied?

[defendandprotect]

107. Think Rahm Emmanuel succeeded in getting ....

what the Koch Bros. funded DLC wanted done -- and moved on to Chicago to

further attack public education, for one!


Here some info on who Obama really is ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7293381

[Better Believe It]

130. Where in the real world would he get such an idea? He's been well trained and vented for the job.

So I don't think he subscribed to that silly notion at all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

111. Exactly!

[defendandprotect]

102. Eh ... don't think so looking back at some of the stuff he really said .....!!

See "Time for Change's" OP on that --

Here's a link to it -- as TFC looks at Obama's writings --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7293381

[Just-plain-Kathy]

108. Obama SAYS a lot, everything we want to hear... but he doesn't veto or make signing statements....

Bush and Cheney got everything they wanted. Sure our guys helped them. Obama sits back, gives Corporate America what they want, and then he pouts.

[tblue]

103. If he's not doing his job because he's afraid

he needs to step aside and let somebody else who's not afraid do it. We really can't afford to indulge him while he frets and cowers and sells out. I'm not saying that's what I want, but if that's what's happening, it needs to stop.

[backtomn]

129. Come on....let's be serious !!!

He is clearly a Democrat.......health care, gay rights, abortion, unions, etc. I would not get ridiculous about this. Unfortunately, he just doesn't appear to be the Democrat that he said he was or the one we wanted. This is the kind of disappointment that we have needed to get used to, for many years.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

21. lol... I'm a Proud Liberal Son... I was thinking the same thing of you

being a "rabid" conservative that is.

[inna]

35. alerted for blatant, egregious slander

[crim son]

90. Oh my. How amusing. n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

99. What part of that was slander?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

97. Oh he's a Republican alright.

He flat out lied when he ran as a progressive.

[RoccoR5955]

109. And there lies the crux of the matter...

Why I had to hold my nose and vote for him. I will do it again if it keeps a RepubliCON from getting into the White House.

I wanted a REAL Democrat, like Kucinich!

[defendandprotect]

3. Obama is being celebrated by the wealthy -- just raised $70 million -- !!!!

[Better Believe It]

10. On the road to a billion bucks!

[JTFrog]

27. Thanks to USCC and Citizen's United.

But hey, nothing will stop you from bashing Obama. It's all you've done since the day that you joined.

[defendandprotect]

75. Hitching on here for Alan Grayson message on "Free Trade" Fakery ....

E MAIL FROM ALAN GRAYSON POINTING OUT WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD -- OR KNOWN --

LONG AGO RE THESE 'AGREEMENTS' -- !!



This week, we’ll see Congress vote on three so-called “trade agreements.” Did you ever wonder why they call them “trade agreements”? So that they don’t have to call them what they actually are – treaties.

Under our Constitution, a “Bill” requires the approval of a majority of both Houses of Congress and the President’s assent, or an override of the President’s veto. But under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, a “Treaty” requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

The Powers That Be know that these “trade agreements” couldn’t get the support of two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, they probably couldn’t get past a filibuster. So they just renamed them. They’re not treaties, they’re just “trade agreements.”

But they sure look like treaties, don’t they? They are agreements between our government and a foreign government. That’s a treaty.

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck . . . and it quacks . . . it’s a duck.

But they don’t care. They can’t get the two-thirds that they need in the Senate, so they’ll just pretend that they don’t need it.

And the “fast track” treatment of these “trade agreements,” which thankfully expired in 2007? Also unconstitutional. That’s one Congress (the 93rd Congress, for those who are keeping score) purporting to dictate procedures and rules to subsequent Congresses. You can’t do that, according to Article I, Section 5 of the aforesaid U.S. Constitution.

So here we are in this mad rush to serve Mammon, not only shoveling jobs overseas, but trampling on our Constitution while we do it.

I hope that when the Panama, Colombia and South Korea “trade agreements” come before the House and the Senate this week, at least one Member of Congress (Dennis Kucinich, maybe? Ron Paul, maybe?) has the guts to stand up and say, “point of order, for the Chair. These bills are not properly before the House, and they require they concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. I REQUEST A RULING BY THE CHAIR.”

Let’s see what the Parliamentarians say. If they end the charade, then it’s over. And if they go along with the charade, then let’s have a vote.

I just hope that if such a vote does take place, that every Member of Congress remembers that he or she swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

[Enthusiast]

85. PLUS ONE! nt

[JTFrog]

26. And you just keep on doing this over and over again don't you? Fucking bullshit .

98% of those donations were $250 or less.

Repeatedly pushing propaganda such as this is a great donation to the Republican party.

[woo me with science]

29. Obama's Wall Street contributions exceed those of any President in history.

Look it up.

[JTFrog]

32. You going to try to drag this argument from another thread? And still have nothing to back it up.

How utterly unimpressive.

[woo me with science]

33. Wow, that's bizarre...

I had the *exact same* sense of deja vu with YOUR post...and yours was posted first!
:scared:

I'm starting to think we might LITERALLY be trapped in a repeat of the Bush administration!
:wow:

[Change has come]

34. Link please.

Thanks in advance.

[JTFrog]

40. Sure. Unlike others, I'm happy to back my claims up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/13/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSTRE79C1YC20111013

[woo me with science]

69. Misleading statistics.

The campaign reported this week that 98 percent of its contributions so far are $250 or less. They report this in order to create the impression that the vast majority of these funds are coming from everyday folks who don't/can't give much.

Actually, you have to look very closely at the words they are using.

They don't say that 98 percent of contributions come from small-amount donors - i.e., people who gave only small amounts in total. They say that 98 percent of the contributions are in small amounts. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/13/obama-campaign-raises-almost-43-million/


There is a big difference there. The number of contributions exceeds the number of donors, meaning that some donors gave multiple times. Add up the contributions of any particular donor, and that donor often becomes a LARGE donor.

The administration engaged in the same sort of misleading reporting in 2008, too, and it was noted by the press and the fact checkers. In June 2008, for example, the Obama campaign reported that 93 percent of its contributions were for $200 or less:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=2&sq=obama%20contributions&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1214543811-/ZFP7127PQXiHkc8xzyN8A
The Obama campaign highlighted Thursday the fact that 93 percent of the more than three million contributions it had received were for $200 or less.

However, OpenSecrets.org and factcheck.org independently clarified, using official campaign filings, that only 47 percent of contributions by July 2008 had came from donors giving less than 200 dollars total, and that only about 33 percent of money collected during the entire year had come from such individuals. (http://www.socialistaction.org/goodman19.htm; http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/10/barack-obama-fundraising-juggernaut-abortion-rights-fight.html; http://factcheck.org/2008/07/average-campaign-contributions/).

The Obama campaign has aggressively courted "small donations," knowing that they look good in the press. This year, for example, they ran contests in which donors could win dinners with Obama and Joe Biden if they gave in small amounts (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/07/several-presidential-campaigns-rev.html). It is a way of making donations even from large donors look like grass roots support from the struggling working class.

So where did the 93 percent figure come from? In significant part from counting repeated small donations from people who donated much larger amounts in total. According to CNN, 983,000 individuals have made donations so far in this campaign season, but only 258,000 of them have made only one contribution.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/13/obama-campaign-raises-almost-43-million/

[stonecutter357]

113. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[caseymoz]

86. Hmmm. Doing some math, here.

Of the donors gave $250 or less, by my calculation, it means on the low side, (If everybody gave $250) it would take 280,000 donors to give $70 million.

But we don't know the total number of donations, (and there's a reason for that), and of course, those low donors were 98, not 100 percent of the donors. We can't tell what percent share of dollars the lower group actually gave, but if it's going to be even $14 million of the $70 million, that would still be 56,000 donors in that group, and that's if they gave $250. Say their mean average donation was less than half that and you'd easily need 120,000 donors. That number of donors from the lower & middle classes is unbelievable this early in the election cycle and in an awful economy. Unbelievable.

In other words, the $250 or less group could not have given a large portion of that $70 million. They could not have done it. The vast majority of it was from the high rollers. By vast majority, I mean like $60 million of it.

So, which group does a politician owe the most to?

[stonecutter357]

112. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[stonecutter357]

110. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[Rageneau]

4. IOW, Obama is WORSE than Clinton on NAFTA.

Those who still criticize Clinton for NAFTA should start blaming Obama for doing even worse.

[inna]

36. as bad as they come, and not just on trade agreements

[LondonReign2]

5. Will these free trade deals be added to The List?

I'm quite curious...

[Better Believe It]

6. They should because hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created ..... in other lands.

[Dragonfli]

63. Of Course! Hell, the 1993 Republican health care plan invented by the Heritage Foundation made it! n

[ThomWV]

7. K&R - nt

[frylock]

9. kickeroo

[G_j]

11. K&R!

[lunasun]

12. wait til they hear about his jobs plans based on envrmnt/heath standard deregulation !!!

[defendandprotect]

42. uh oh .... what's going on -- ????

[lunasun]

117. Obama jobs council -his council I can only assume- not GOP propos

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5023148



President Obama’s Jobs Council offered the White House a detailed menu of job creating recommendations, many of which should appeal to congressional Republicans as well as Democrats.

The council, led by GE head Jeffrey Immelt, a Republican, late Monday released its interim report focusing on medium-term reforms that could boost employment.

>> Among its recommendations are easing environmental and health regulations and reducing taxes on investors.

fyi
Obama put Immelt there not the GOP

[defendandprotect]

120. Ah, a new hierarchy to remove power further from the public's attention?

Obama also gave us the "Cat Food Commission" which was voted down by Congress and he

did it nonetheless --

And that has led to the 'SUPER CONGRESS' which will also make "immaculate conception"

deciions and impose them on the public -- !!

Democracy has to be close to the people, not moved into back rooms and into hierarchies

of power!!


Obama sure does have a way with making viole appointments, doesn't he!! YIKES!


:hi:

[lunasun]

136. Well it worked so well with Cheney and Energy Task Force so why not move forward on.......

yes the SUPER CONGRESS! With the power of legislation
another zinger........

This one though will get the 'but the jobs' at any expense cry and most will nod that we have to do it this way now

Healthy workers are a luxury now?? Are we gonna be ­killing ourselves in the long run for jobs in the short term?

Will environment/health push backs really create that many jobs anyway?? Were the regulations truly the job killers they claim?

McCain was out yesterday with some batty stuff to back this up saying billions of jobs lost to regulation(all kinds) since Obama got in.
His insanity resulted in at least some truth coming out about regulation vs job loss stats

Doesn't appear that is the problem but good chance to gut them now with job council anyway

[defendandprotect]

138. Regulation creates jobs -- of course -- and more importantly, stops corporate crime --

People in charge now are the destroyers --

People for whom control/power is everything -- even if it is suicidal -- as in

Global Warming!



:hi:

[Umbral]

13. Back to the top

[Jakes Progress]

14. New Reality. When they do it - bad. When we do it - good.

Principles are fungible. Money rules.

[russspeakeasy]

15. MR. O. does this with some regularity.

please notice that Mr. O. is in caps so as not to offend anyone again...

[truedelphi]

19. I AM SURE THAT THE EARTH AND ITS BELEAGURED

denizens are relaxing easier, now that you have capitalized the "O."

;-)

Sad to have lived long enough to see our nation and its Corporate paid political operatives turn Democracy into a joke.

[russspeakeasy]

54. Thanks,

:hi:

[frylock]

131. it's President O.

please correct that, RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

[Raine]

17. I'm beyond DISGUST. nt

[Fuddnik]

18. HERESY!!!!!

Some blue links should be by shortly to straighten you out.

[brentspeak]

24. Already out

A brand new set of blue link propaganda is already making the rounds today on DU.

[Dont call me Shirley]

22. Shame on you Obama, Shame on all the legislators who voted for this!

[defendandprotect]

43. Evidently if you call a TREATY a "trade agreement" it's easier to get passed ....?????

Had an e-mail on this today -- or read an article on it --

Seems if it was a treaty -- which they are -- you need 2/3rds of Senate to

approve which wouldn't happen. But if you cal lthese things "trade agreements"

you're home free!!

Apologies that I don't have more of the details on that -- but that's the scam!

[Union Scribe]

65. I guess we shoulda called the jobs bill the USA Trade Act nt

[JDPriestly]

23. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, Friends of the Earth.

These trade agreements are an abomination from beginning to end. They will harm the people of Colombia, Panama and South Korea just as much as they will harm us.

We need to evict every member of Congress who voted for these agreements at the first opportunity. They are not representing the interests of the American people. They are part of the crew that wants to surrender American sovereignty and our fundamental rights as a people to govern ourselves -- surrender those rights to international elites.

On this, Americans of all political persuasions will surely agree. These trade agreements have to be withdrawn. We already import plenty of stuff from South Korea. What good is a trade agreement going to do us? If they haven't been buying our products, it is because we don't make the things they want. The trade agreements won't change that. If they place tariffs on our goods, we should reciprocate and place similar tariffs on theirs.

But what do environmental regulations have to do with trade agreements? They should not have anything to do with them.

[defendandprotect]

44. Agree completely -- and evidently the scam is calling these "trade agreeemtns" rather than

treaties -- which require 2/3rds of the Senate to approve!!

[glinda]

49. Where is there a Petition to sign saying we are angry over this? Anyone?

[defendandprotect]

105. Trust you noted the comments by Alan Grayson that these are

actually Treaties being called "trade agreements" -- ??

Otherwise, they would require 2/3rds approval by the Senate which

they couldn't get --

I'm wondering why we couldn't declare them null and void?

Though Grayson didn't get into that --



:hi:

[me b zola]

55. Factories in many countries have less environmental regulation than the US

...sadly if we keep going at the pace that we are the US environmental protections will soon be just as bad. IF the Gulf Oil disaster had happened in Africa, BP wouldn't have had to spend millions in PR, contributions to politicians, and attorney fees.

[sce56]

25. K&R with only one regret that, I can only K once.

We need a challenger for the primaries but alas it is too late. I'm tired of having to pick the lesser of two weevils.

[xiamiam]

46. its not too late..he might be raising a lot of cash..but people see thru this now..nt

[sarcasmo]

28. Kick!

[woo me with science]

30. K&R nt

[NorthCarolina]

31. K&R

[ProSense]

37. Actually

"PresidObama broke his campaign promises in backing George Bush 'free trade' deals"

...no. That statement is based on the premise that the agreements weren't renegotiated, which is what Obama promised.

UAW Applauds Passage of U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement

DETROIT -- The UAW is pleased with congressional approval of the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The automotive provisions of the agreement were substantially renegotiated by the Obama administration to address the concerns the union had with the original FTA, negotiated in 2007 by the Bush administration.

“The revised agreement,” said UAW President Bob King, “creates significantly greater market access for American auto exports and contains strong, auto-specific safeguards to protect our domestic markets from potentially harmful surges of Korean automotive imports.”

Under the provisions of the renegotiated agreement, the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff on automobiles will stay in place until the fifth year after implementation of the agreement, and the 25 percent tariff on light trucks remains until the eighth year, when it starts to be phased down. Moreover, Korea will immediately reduce its electric car tariffs from 8 percent to 4 per cent, and will phase out the tariff by the fifth year of the agreement.

The KORUS FTA also includes standards for the protection of worker rights, including obligations for South Korea to respect core International Labor Organization labor rights and to effectively enforce labor laws designed to ensure a level playing field for American workers to compete.

more

Kerry, today: Boosting America — and creating jobs— through free trade

Kerry (before passage)

“These agreements make it clear that the United States will engage global partners on fair terms. I think it’s a virtue that the Administration stayed at the bargaining table to improve these agreements. Given that each negotiation sets a precedent for those that will follow, it’s imperative to strike the best possible agreement and I think that bar was exceeded here. The Korea agreement balances the playing field for U.S. automakers by giving them time to introduce their products to Korean consumers and adjust to a changing dynamic. We will continue to make progress on labor and other humanitarian issues as a result of changes to Colombian law and procedure. Labor laws in Panama will be better enforced and transparency in the banking sector will prevent Panama from being used as a tax haven. The ball is now in our court. Congress must consider and approve these agreements as soon as possible.”

Kerry was joined by 20, 31 and 37 Democrats on at least one of the deals.

President Obama has demonstrated that he will enforce U.S. trade agreements.

Roll Calls:

Colombia Trade Agreement

Panama Trade Agreement

Korea Free Trade Agreement

President Obama has demonstrated that he will enforce U.S. trade agreements.

Previous information from WH:

Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement

FACT SHEETS: U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and Action Plan

FACT SHEETS: U.S.-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT

Sander Levin was a staunch opponent of NAFTA and he co-sponsored the Korea agreement: Levin Floor Statement in Support of South Korea Free Trade Agreement

[chill_wind]

38. And all the Nays on Colombia were Democrats

including Reid (plus Snowe) and they all voted against it because why, again...?
And Pelosi opposed it because.. why?



Akaka (D-HI)
Begich (D-AK)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00163#position

[ProSense]

39. Like

"And all the Nays on Colombia were Democrats"

...I said, Kerry was joined by 20, 31 and 37 Democrats on at least one of the deals.

Still, that has nothing to do with my point in response to the claim that "Obama broke his campaign promises in backing George Bush 'free trade' deals"

The agreements were renegotiated, which is what Obama promised.

[chill_wind]

41. Why did all those Democrats oppose Colombia

if all the magic was in the "renegotiation"? Or, despite your argument?

What's the great renegotiation thing about Colombia in the actual bill that was passed that makes it defensible?

[ProSense]

47. Likely

"Why did all those Democrats oppose Colombia"

...for a similar reason FOE opposed the Waxman-Markey climate bill: difference of opinion.

[totodeinhere]

51. You bet it was a difference of opinion. Those many Democrats saw those bills for the frauds that

they are.

[defendandprotect]

53. Exactly --- !!!

And -- It's over for Obama -- but the excuses will go on forever -- !!!

Literally the pro-corporate things Obama has done have made me sick to my stomach -- !!!

And, it's really been a crushing blow for America -- and her suffering citizens!!


Did we expect when we voted for Obama that what we'd get would be just more

"shock and awe" -- ???

[ProSense]

58. Hmmm?

"You bet it was a difference of opinion. Those many Democrats saw those bills for the frauds that they are."

Difference of opinion as in when they supported legislation to cut funding for closing Guantanamo. Unlike the trade bills, this is not a difference of opinion, it's a fraud.

[totodeinhere]

67. I was disappointed in that vote, but that provision was attached to an omnibus spending bill that

the Democrats pushed through the lame duck congress. Those types of votes are hard because parts of that spending bill were desirable and would not have passed once the GOP took control of the House in January. So Democrats were faced with a hard choice and many reluctantly went along with the Gitmo provision because that same bill contained spending that they supported.

[chill_wind]

62. Do you mean difference of opinion over the worth of workers' rights

and human rights and the important fact that said language that was missing from the bill?

"If we believe in workers' rights and we believe in human rights in this place … but when we write a trade agreement for Colombia, we're unwilling to write in the demands for the Colombian workers, that's what's wrong with this and that's why most of us will vote against it,"

- McDermott

Isn't that why Pelosi blocked it in 2007? And that the new 'renegotiated treaty' did nothing in the actual bill legislated to address that still? That's not "opinion". That's what she stated.

Maybe the word better suited to your deflection might be "faith".

September 2011: 15 Colombian unionists murdered since Labor Action Plan took effect in April.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5007338

[ProSense]

66. Hmmmm?

"Do you mean difference of opinion over the worth of workers' rights...Isn't that why Pelosi blocked it in 2007?"

Pelosi supported the other two bills. Are you saying the workers rights are better in those two bills?

[chill_wind]

70. What part of dead trade unionists and Colombia's extra special record on that is confusing to you?

Colombia Still the Most Dangerous Place for Union Members

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=619157&mesg_id=619255

[ProSense]

73. Hmmm?

"Colombia Still the Most Dangerous Place for Union Members"

Here's what FOE states: "With President Obama’s backing, Congress yesterday passed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that are based on the flawed model of the North American Free Trade Agreement."

You said: "Do you mean difference of opinion over the worth of workers' rights...Isn't that why Pelosi blocked it in 2007?"

I asked: Pelosi supported the other two bills. Are you saying the workers rights are better in those two bills?

I mean, FOE said they're all flawed, and Pelosi's opposition to the Colombia agreement keeps being cited, but she voted for the other two, as did Levin, who opposed NAFTA.

So again: Are you saying that the workers rights are better in those two bills?

It's one thing to cite human rights violations in the country, and another thing altogether to claim the agreements are flawed.

[chill_wind]

79. Where is the language in the legislated Colombia bill

that provides the protections against these concerns? The bill Obama will sign?

2008:

The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=619157&mesg_id=619176

Sept 28 2011

"Despite the Labor Action Plan that Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos agreed to in April, violent suppression of workers, as well as land rights, indigenous, and Afro-Colombian activists continues unabated," said AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka in the letter to Obama.

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/19251-15-union-leaders-murdered-since-labor-action-plan-took-effect-afl-cio.html

“If it’s not in the bill, it doesn’t exist,” (Pelosi) said, adding that she “lost … faith” in the deal when it became clear that language would not be included.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/187253-president-gets-win-as-trade-deals-pass

[stonecutter357]

114. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

45. +1000% --- True .... Pelosi STRONGLY opposed it --- !!

All of the trade agreements should be overturned ---

Not only destroying workers here, but destroying the countries we're invading

with our corporate fascist practices ---


Evidently, these are actually TREATIES but they call them "trade agreements"

because a treaty requries 2/3rds of the Senate to pass. They know they'd never

get that.


Anyone bother to tell us that during NAFTA or CAFTA?

[ProSense]

48. She

"+1000% --- True .... Pelosi STRONLY opposed it --- !!"

...supported the other two.

[Raksha]

71. The one on Colombia would have passed even if it had been a treaty.

66 - YEA 33 - NAY 66 = 2/3 of the Senate. I guess it would have needed a 67th vote to put it over the top, though. Who would that have been?

[fascisthunter]

134. I love ya!

:thumbsup:

[totodeinhere]

50. Why didn't you mention that the Democratic caucus in the House overwhelmingly opposed all three

agreements? They only passed because of strong Republican support.

http://www.tradereform.org/2011/10/roll-call-vote-panama-trade-agreement-house-2/

http://www.tradereform.org/2011/10/roll-call-vote-panama-trade-agreement-house/

http://www.tradereform.org/2011/10/roll-call-vote-south-korea-trade-agreement-house/

Are you really telling us that bills overwhelmingly opposed by the Democratic caucus and overwhelmingly supported by the Republican caucus are good bills?

[defendandprotect]

52. +1000% --- These are actually TREATIES and should require 2/3rd vote by Senate ....

had an email or read an article on that today --

I'll see if I can find it --

but evidently that's the scam that allowed ALL of these "agreements"

which are undermining workers here to pass!!

Call them "trade agreements" and you're all set!!

[Dragonfli]

77. Alan Grayson put out that email (if that helps) nt

[defendandprotect]

78. Got it -- copied it upthread -- !!! :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2110654&mesg_id=2114354

[ProSense]

57. Why

"Why didn't you mention that the Democratic caucus in the House overwhelmingly opposed all three"

...didn't you mention some members of the Democratic caucus supported one or two of the bills while opposing the other(s)?

Like I said, Pelosi opposed one, supported two.

Sander Levin co-sponsored the South Korea bill and voted for the Panama agreement.

You posted the Panama link twice, missing the Colombia. Here are the links:

Colombia

Panama

South Korea

[totodeinhere]

60. I didn't post the Panama link twice. Both the Panama and the Columbia links have the name

"Panama" in their URL's but they are two distinct links. One points to the Panama vote and one points to the Columbia vote. Click on the links and you will see.

[Ignis]

87. Oh, the irony!

Clicking on the blue links is apparently something only other people are supposed to do. :)

[chervilant]

94. Wow...

Mr. Johnson would have had a field day with you...

[MannyGoldstein]

64. AFL-CIO: Free trade agreements hurt the middle class

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64934.html">Free trade agreements hurt the middle class

We strongly oppose the proposed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. They will not help put Americans back to work, only further hasten the decline of our middle class.

While many in Washington look at trade through an elite lens, working people outside Washington have lived the reality of failed trade agreements. In fact, the damage to our economy from trade agreements is one of the few issues on which Americans across the political spectrum agree: By a nearly 4-to-1 margin, American voters say that free-trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries cost jobs instead of creating jobs.

Of course, trade agreements can create job opportunities, too, but not if they repeat the flawed policies of the past. Our country does not need more trade deals that ship jobs overseas and fail to protect workers at home and abroad. Let’s look at the three trade agreements on the table, one by one.

First, Colombia. Rewarding Colombia — the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist — with a trade agreement sends the wrong message. It says we don’t mind that the government has utterly failed to protect basic labor rights and prosecute murderers of trade unionists. The number of trade unionists killed in 2010 — 51 — was an increase over 2009. Twenty-two trade unionists have been killed so far in 2011, including 15 since the much-heralded announcement of the “Labor Action Plan.”

These agreements may help certain sectors, but they will destroy an estimated 250,000 American jobs in total.

Shame.

[defendandprotect]

76. Exactly -- thank you -- and please see Alan Grayson "Free Trade" Fakery .....

Links to my post earlier on this thread --- don't have a direct link but think

that someone did an OP on it somewhere on DU?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2110654&mesg_id=2114354


:hi:

[Michigan-Arizona]

80. Thank you for posting that n/t

[rpannier]

100. The UAW and Levin are fooling themselves if they think this agreement will open up the market here

in Korea

Besides, it's not quite a done deal yet
It has to be ratified in this country and the opposition, while accepting it will be difficult, has decided to oppose it full board

[OhioChick]

56. Is this our "jobs plan?"

[chill_wind]

68. It's the Republican

and Chamber of Commerce's Jobs Plan. And well, The Neo-Lib Third Way's.

http://thirdway.org/press_releases/171

[Mimosa]

61. ALL our presidents are with the program. n/t

[Raksha]

72. K & R - I guess it's a good thing I had no more illusions left about Obama.

I don't expect him to act like anything but a Republican any more.

[Safetykitten]

74. What's a few broken promises between friends?

[QC]

81. Friends of the Earth never really loved him!

:cry:

[truedelphi]

82. When they didn't get that unicorn,

They ended the relationship.

(I did get a unicorn, but it bucked and smelled funny!)

[QC]

96. They are just puristic poutrageous pony-demanders!

:cry:

[truedelphi]

133. my spouse just informed me that half his Facebook buddies are

talking about Scarlett Johannson.

She left her husband, and moved in with Sean Penn.

That didn't work out.

Now she is examining why she has been having a nervous melt down.

She concludes this: all her inabilities to hold down a relationship stem from being in denial about how since she worked for Obama and spent money for Obama, she could not face that he has royally screwed us over.

Now she is facing it, and her life is smoothing out.

(What would life be without a little gossip?) :-)

[QC]

135. I love gossip, too.

And I'm glad I didn't really expect much from the president, so I haven't had to deal with disillusionment.

[stonecutter357]

115. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[truedelphi]

132. Totally agree. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

83. How very unbipartisan of you to look backwards and see the TRUTH:

Now go find something POSITIVE to say about the "good-faith negotiators" in the GOP, you useless pea eaters. And, yes: :sarcasm:

[Enthusiast]

84. Obama lied.

Anyway, he is a Republican. We were just fooled into believing he was a Democrat. I would vote for Sarah Palin before I would vote for Obama.

[Richardo]

121. That says more about you than Obama

[Enthusiast]

126. It says that I know

what he is. I too was fooled. No more.

[MissDeeds]

88. K&R

[adam in oregon]

92. No shocker

Another day, another cave by Obama. What more will it take to wake people up. He does not represent you. He wants your job to go to Korea. He will not stand with OWS because then he would lose his cabinet. He is nothing but a corporate stooge. Vote 3rd party. There is no difference between the parties any more. Well, one will push you into the well, and one will push you in to the well and then say sorry maybe in 2012 we'll be different.

[bertman]

93. REC and kick. nt

[polichick]

95. I'm glad OWS is non-partisan - both sides are corrupt beyond words!

[stonecutter357]

116. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[polichick]

118. Yes - and couple that with uniform and verifiable voting. Otherwise...

...there is no democracy.

[stonecutter357]

122. get the money out of politics.

:toast:

[polichick]

125. Welcome to DU! Hope you sign Dylan Ratigan's petition for a Const. amendment.

[Freddie Stubbs]

98. Horse shit! President Obama renegotiated the treaties

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

119. Isn't this what all those people in New York are demanding? Free Trade with Korea?

Several DUers assure me that it is.

[pam4water]

123. I could not believe that "free trade agreement" passed. Nothing has changed form Bush. :(

[SavWriter]

124. K and R

Just wanted to make sure this stayed at the top where everyone could find it.

[Citizen Worker]

127. The democratic party. Friend of the working class. On this issue alone I will not vote for Maria

Cantwell or Patty Murray. That's it, I'm done with the democratic party.

[backtomn]

128. It suggests 3 things to me...........

1. The job situation sucks
2. The election season has begun
3. Desperation........he will try anything that makes it look like he is doing something.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

137. At least with Bush I knew what we were dealing with,

Obama's crimes against the people who supported him escalate with each passing day.

It's like being sucker punched each time because you couldn't imagine him capable of

such insanity.