Obama backs off NAFTA promise
NAFTA is safe under Obama despite his promise to re-open the very successful trade agreement. How long will liberals in the dem party stand by while their chosen one continues to go back on campaign promises?
Obama backs away from reforming free trade deal
WE Congressional Democrats from economically struggling regions are getting frustrated as President Barack Obama backs away from campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA.
“I am greatly disappointed that the administration seems to have backpedaled on trade, specifically on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement,” said Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine., who says his state has lost thousands of jobs because of NAFTA. “President Obama campaigned on this issue, and I’m disappointed that he’s walking away from that commitment.”
Just last month, Obama’s trade representative, Ron Kirk, backed off the much tougher stance on the 15-year-old trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada that the president took last year as he vied for votes in some of the most economically depressed areas of the country.
“The president has said we will look at all options,” Kirk told reporters in April. “But I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement.”
Kirk’s statement dealt a blow to senators such as Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Kay Hagan, D-N.C., who blame NAFTA for destroying the manufacturing economies in their states.
“I’m disappointed,” Brown said. “There is pent-up demand for a new approach that starts with fixing what is not working, including NAFTA.”
Kirk’s words also surprised Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, who accompanied candidate Obama last year though places like Youngstown and Toledo, which she says have been devastated by cheap Mexican imports.
When Obama was trying unsuccessfully to close the gap on Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Ohio Democratic primary, he pushed hard against the trade agreement Clinton’s husband had championed.
Obama not only verbally promised voters there a NAFTA re-do, he did it in writing. “Bad Trade Deals Hit Ohio Harder Than Most States and Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA,” declared an Obama campaign leaflet picturing a shuttered factory.
“He made those statements in the Youngstown area,” Kaptur recalled. “And when these words are heard, they mean something. Now people are waiting for the results of that.”
In December, Obama decided to appoint Kirk to the job of U.S. trade representative. The former mayor of Dallas is a vocal supporter of NAFTA, as trade with Mexico has created jobs in Texas and a steady stream of truck traffic through his city.
In February, anti-NAFTA Democrats bent Obama’s ear on the matter at the Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, Va. To their horror, one witness said, Obama listened to their arguments, then simply blurted out “We can’t stop trade.”
An undeterred Democrat responded, “The option isn’t no trade, it’s balanced trade.”
But as comprehensive reform for health care and energy consume the legislative calendar, optimism for a NAFTA rewrite is fading.
“There is no way the Obama administration is going to reopen NAFTA,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate and staunch opponent of the trade agreement. “The candidates always say that.”
You should of voted for Obama!
Unlike you John, I give credit where due.
It must piss you off that your boy is not doing what you and your lib thinkalikes wanted when you elected him. Iraq, Afghanistan, NAFTA, Gitmo, torture trials — if only he would get off the marxist economic policies, he might work out OK.
You criticized Rush for saying he wanted the Obama agenda to fail. What say you now….are you still want Obama to succeed?
do you, not are you…
Bart
Because I did not call him racist names like you did durring the election does mean I supported him durring his run.
Bart,
Aren’t you the same as bb, who has been ripping apart anyone who said anything bad about NAFTA?
And, now you’re annoyed that President Obama isn’t tearing up the treaty?
.
I get it: you don’t care about the issue; you just want to be against the Democratic Party!
Sheesh.
What criteria is used to determine that NAFTA is a successful trade agreement? Our shrinking trade deficit with NAFTA countries?
NOT.
DOR,
WTF are you talking about? I posted this in support of Obama’s decision…read post #2.
John,
Again I ask, You criticized Rush for saying he wanted the Obama agenda to fail. What say you now…do you still want Obama to succeed?
Bart
NAFTA is failed policy what is your point?
My point John is that you came out in support of Obama after he got elected.
Now that he has had a chance to make a few decisions, do you still support him? Or do you now agree with Rush in hoping the Obama agenda fails?
Bart
I wrote an essay against the Obama stimulus plan with Charlie Harper. Because I do not make racist comments and or hope he fails like you and Rush it does not mean I support the policy. What part of this do you not understand?
“do not make racist comments”…hmmm, except when it comes to profiling hispanics…just that one little exception.
Must be tough going through life wanting someone to succeed while opposing the outcome of the success…not quite sure how that works John.
John doesn’t profile hispanics – he speaks out against illegal aliens, which is not a race. You are skirting the issue.
Thank you GP!
You must have slept through that discussion GaP…John definitely supports profiling of dark skinned human beings in certain neighborhoods. It was called “Operation Wetback” under Eisenhower…don’t know what you and racist John call it.
Bart
I do not care about color but I do support having legal immigrants that pay taxes unlike you who wants tax payer subsidized foreign illegal workers.
So, we are not supposed to enforce our laws when the majority of people who break that law are dark skinned? That’s called profiling? If a light skin person breaks a law, should the light skinned person be forgiven if the majority of those lawbreakers have light skin? When any lawbreaker belongs to the majority racial group for breaking that particular law, they all get a free pass otherwise it is profiling? So it was okay to send back the white Nazi to Germany but we need to ignore 20 million illegals simply because most of them are dark skinned?
I have a headache. This logic sounds like it came from Al Sharpton.
Hoover rounded up illegals to preserve jobs after the depression. Truman deported illegals to preserve jobs for returning veterans of WW II. Eisenhower deported illegals to provide jobs for Korean vets. It is not racist – it is responsible governing.
Other countries such as Spain are also deporting illegals because they need those jobs to go to their citizens.
GaP,
Show me the law that says it is legal to randomly select individuals based solely on skin color for scrutiny of citizenship.
Bart
Are you against racial profiling even on the war on terror but for waterboarding?
bb,
You said it was about skin color. The law says it is illegal to be here without permission, illegal to work here without a visa/green card, illegal to use false ID, etc. The people commiting these crimes, according to you, happen to have darker skins in a greater proportion than those with light skins. You don’t get it – racial profiling does not exist simply because a larger proportion of blacks are in prison than whites, nor is it racial profiling when a larger proportion of Hispanics are charged with illegal entry than blacks or whites. It is reality – there are more of them in those categories.
Are you supposing that white people in prison are not identified to determine whether they are here illegally? Others are more easily identified because they are “documented”, whether they belong here are not is more easily determined. The sheriffs do not just check the citizenship of only Hispanics. 287(g) is a database that allows them to correctly identify the person and whether they have been arrested previously because they frequently have false ID’s – which has created the catch and release situation.
John,
Are you for racial profiling even in predominantly black neighborhoods? If no, please tell us an acceptable level of racial profiling.
Yes to your question….against officials going into predominantly muslim neighborhoods to check for bombs and other terrorist paraphenalia without cause….and absolutely YES to waterboarding with no discrimination based on race, age or sexual preferences.
GaP,
You should do some research before continuing in this conversation. There are areas in America where local police randomly go through hispanic neighborhoods to check papers of the residents. They don’t go through white or black neighborhoods, just those with brown skinned hispanics…that is racial profiling GaP.
Where are those areas? I am looking to move.
GP
Bart Only tells us what he feels!