Obama Talks Tough(er) on Trade to Win Wisconsin

posted by John Nichols on 02/13/2008 @ 1:18pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (117)

Subscribe Now

JANESVILLE, Wisconsin -- When I talked with Russ Feingold last week about what the Democratic candidates for president should do to win Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, he suggested that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should go to the senator's hometown of Janesville and talk about trade.

Obama got the hint.

On Wednesday, the first full day of a Wisconsin primary campaign that he hopes will solidify his emerging lead over his once "inevitable" rival, the Illinois senator started in Janesville, where he delivered a rebuke to free-trade policies of the Bill Clinton and George Bush eras that sounded a little like a speech Feingold might have delivered.

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced," Obama told workers at the General Motors Assembly Plant in the southern Wisconsin city.

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years," continued the senator, who is suddenly very conscious of the need to appeal to working-class voters in Wisconsin and Ohio who have been battered by trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the decision the Clinton administration to extend permanent most-favored-nation training status to China.

In addition to proposing new infrastructure spending designed to "generate nearly 2 million new jobs –- many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis," Obama sought to distinguish himself from Clinton on trade.

"It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can--or should--stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in," Obama said, taking a swipe at Clinton. "You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election."

Then Obama declared, "(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate--we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."

This speech represents progress for Obama, who has not up to now been a particularly strong advocate for the fair-trade policies favored by labor and environmental groups and senators such as Wisconsin's Feingold and Ohio's Sherrod Brown. The cautious contender is still a long way from embracing the full agenda of the steel and auto workers union leaders and industrial-state senators and congressmen he has been talking with at some length in recent days. And there will be appropriate skepticism about whether Obama will continue to err on the populist side after Wisconsin and Ohio have finished voting – and after key players such as Feingold, Brown and former candidate John Edwards have endorsed.

But Obama's message at the GM plant was a good one--not just for the workers of Janesville and the other factory towns that will be voting in Wisconsin on Tuesday and Ohio two weeks later, but also for Feingold. The Wisconsin senator says he has not made up his mind regarding the Obama-Clinton contest, but he holds open the prospect of a pre-primary nod to one of the contenders.

Obama wants that nod, and the support of Wisconsin workers who have come to see their senator as a champion in the fight for fair trade.

Obama is not where Feingold is on trade and economic issues--the two recently split on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, with Obama favoring it and Feingold opposing. But the presidential candidate is listening to the Wisconsin senator, and responding. Heck, he was even talking Wednesday about how jobs at the GM plant created the prosperity that caused "homes and businesses (to begin) to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets" in Janesville – avenues not far from where Feingold grew up.

And what of Hillary Clinton? She was in McAllen, Texas, Wednesday morning--headed not for Janesville but for San Antonio.

Comments (117)

that was a particularly fine speech by Barry. he's the rill thing.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2008 @ 1:22pm
If you bet the farm on GM, you're in deep doodoo. The Owners are looking for corporate welfare & golden parachutes & asset stripping (quick, call Mitt!) ... but your prosperity? The nation's welfare? Suckers, get out of Our Way. Peddle that talk to the little people, We Owners have no time.

One might even do better looking for foreign investors than to The US Owners, the traitor/parasite class.

Posted by sloper at 02/13/2008 @ 1:27pm
Obama will benefit the healthcare industrial complex's corporate welfare. If not everyone is covered, the uninsured will continue to flock our Emergency rooms with catastrophic illnesses. The HMO's will continue to line their pockets with government subsidies. They also get huge tax breaks for taking care of the uninsured. An Obama presidency would continue to escalate healthcare costs. If we can't have One Payer, mandated prevention is a viable solution, the Hillary plan.

Posted by nursevic at 02/13/2008 @ 2:03pm
GM just decided to get rid of another 17,000 highly paid ($28.00 an hour?) by making them a buyout offer they can't refuse. Isn't it odd that the U.S. auto companies make these kinds of offers to ALL employees, thinking they ALL won't take them up on it. And if they did? GM would collapse.

And when they do, they'll be bringing in auto workers making $14.00 an hour. Historic gains of UAW gone. And who bet the farm on gas guzzlers?

Posted by ElyDog at 02/13/2008 @ 2:03pm
Oh my God! A candidate speaking to the plight of the middle class in this country??? What a concept! YES WE CAN!

Posted by ajdjr73 at 02/13/2008 @ 2:05pm
And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate--we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."

His populism is NOT sudden!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 2:05pm
Nice focus. Let us hope that it lasts past the election.

I would be a lot more comfortable with him on this issue if he didn't support and actively defend the Peru FTA. It is a small trade deal and only really important to the election because Obama seemed to be taken in by the Bush administration (the way the AFL-CIO wasn't) about its labor protections. Its NAFTA with some makeup.

Posted by dentedpat at 02/13/2008 @ 2:06pm
His populism is NOT sudden!

It is becoming comic.

Posted by dentedpat at 02/13/2008 @ 2:06pm
Russ better endorse Obama. Russ is probably my favorite Senator as far as voting records go, it is flawless, and as far as I can recall, we've never disagreed. Obama is the obvious right choice here, and I'd be shocked and dismayed if this was the first time Russ and I didn't see things the same way. He knows what the right thing to do is, I have faith in Russ (who, by the way, I want to run for president right after Obama leaves in 2016).

Posted by bridoc at 02/13/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/13/2008 @ 2:06pm

If community organizing in the South Side of Chicago is not populism, then you have a curious definition of populism.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 2:20pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/13/2008 @ 2:20pm

Unfortunately, with only Hillary and Obama, we're still stuck with one of two irritating outcomes...

1. FRANKGRITS becomes insufferable in his sychophanty

2. METTEYYA becomes insufferable in his sychophanty!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 2:27pm
Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 2:27pm

MASK,

Obama's entire approach to politics for his entire career is based on bottom-up grassroots populism. Anyone remotely familiar with his campaign knows this, so to suggest that he had an "Edwards sudden conversion" to the cause is plainly false.

I think what DENTEDPAT and Nichols are suggesting is that Obama's stance that not every free-trade deal is bad is somehow a retreat from populism. Fair-trade practices are something the grassroots community has fought for for a number of years, and fair-trade means that it is possible to engage in trade with other nations that is sensitive to the environment and workers.

Only a fool would continue to argue against ALL trade and pretend that jobs lost to China and India are coming back to the United States. These jobs are not coming back, so the only "populist" thing we can do is re-negotiate bad free trade deals to get as much environmental and worker protection as we can into these agreements and make sure any new agreements protect workers and the environment.

The other more important thing that relates to GM and these plant closings, is GM needs to be told to get off their duff, quit killing the electric car like they did with the EV1, and acknowledge that there is a huge demand for practical electric cars and become a leader in producing them. That's how you keep the plants open - lead in green energy vehicles rather than protecting the oil industry and their investment in the gas motor!

Anyone who sees the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" cannot possibly have any sympathy for GM on trade, as it is their Republican corporate strategy of protecting big oil that is the chief cause of their demise.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 2:48pm
Hopefully he does stick to this. It would be nice to have a president in office who does what he says he will do.

Posted by NURSEVIC 02/13/2008 @ 2:03pm

Mandated healthcare doesn't work. If people don't buy it because they can't afford it NOW, why on God's earth are they going to buy when they still can't afford it in the future? Then you will be fining people because they can't afford healthcare instead of them just taking their own lives into their hands.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person

mandated car insurance seems to work. I'm not saying mandates are the best solution.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/13/2008 @ 3:10pm

Yeah but car insurance isn't as expensive as healthcare for one. Two not everyone owns a car and if you don't want to pay car insurance you can opt out of it by not owning a car. Three you don't get in accidents nearly as much as you go for check ups or emergency room visits.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/13/2008 @ 2:48pm

Look, METTE, can we just skip ahead to where, after curing lepers and turning Dasani into Dom Perignon....Obama rises on the third day?

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 3:23pm

I think he will do it on the 2nd. I'm pretty sure the goal is to be better than Jesus. Took jesus 3 whole days, what a slacker.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 3:32pm
Now if only he'd drop his "Chicago Boys" economic advisors.

Posted by Airamana at 02/13/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 3:32pm

True, plus Jesus didn't have the "netroots"!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 3:37pm
Only a fool would continue to argue against ALL trade and pretend that jobs lost to China and India are coming back to the United States. These jobs are not coming back, so the only "populist" thing we can do is re-negotiate bad free trade deals to get as much environmental and worker protection as we can into these agreements and make sure any new agreements protect workers and the environment.

Posted by METTEYYA 02/13/2008 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

METTEYYA,

This was not a legitimate compromise on behalf of workers or the environment; no labor group endorsed this bill. What worries us about Obama is his propensity to back down on certain issues in order to maintain the kind of mainstream credibility among the establishment types. He has done it regarding the cap on credit card interest rates, Tort Reform, Iraq War spending, copping out on the Kyle-Lieberman amendment (he, like Clinton also traveled to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman in the primary.) And many of his closest advisors are former Clinton hacks or laissez-faire mongers. Some of us worry that his most admirable days may have been left on the streets of Chicago's South side. He basically acknowledged that he voted for this so that he could vote against a future trade deal of more consequence. Why? These so-called ‘Free Trade' deals (really investor rights contracts) are bipartisan in their lack of popularity among the American populace. The crowd to please by supporting this deal was Wall Street, not the American voter. And it's not accurate to describe those opposed to this deal as universally 'anti-trade.'

I will say that the more Obama brings up the specifics the more I support him. He will need to quickly shed some of the empty 'Hope' and "Unity' talk and get technical, because McCain was starting to whip Obama with those silly slogans last evening, and though I'd rather bath in a tub of acid before consenting to vote for McCain, his criticism of Obama sounded pretty effective.

Here's Joshua Holland speaking out against the Peru deal:

"Obama said that he'd vote for the Peru deal because "it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO," but the AFL-CIO released a statement saying that, because of "several issues of concern to working families," the AFL-CIO "is not in a position to support the Peru FTA." "Labor and environmental protections" are a scam - Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that his members were "encouraged" by assurances that the deal's labor provisions "cannot be read to require compliance."

Obama went on to insult the intelligence of a crowd of New Hampshire residents by explaining: "We cannot draw a moat around the U.S. economy because China is still trading, India is still trading." But objecting to these new NAFTA-style deals has nothing to do with moats. We already have a treaty with Peru, and 150 other countries, that established a rules-based trading system, complete with a dispute-resolution process. It's called the WTO, and fair trade activists - many of whom also happen to make up a large chunk of the Democratic party's base - already object to that institution's consistently giving too much to investors without paying more than lip service to protecting other stakeholders. No real Democrat should talk about "moats" when we have binding trade deals in place covering 98 percent of the planet."

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/111307LA.shtml

Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 3:53pm
Yeah but car insurance isn't as expensive as healthcare for one. Two not everyone owns a car and if you don't want to pay car insurance you can opt out of it by not owning a car. Three you don't get in accidents nearly as much as you go for check ups or emergency room visits.

Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person

Health care costs are unsustainable and getting worse. We have no choice but to fix it because it negatively impacts all segments of society, and without everyone in the system the costs will never be leveled out. Consider the car insurance analogy further: you and I, who do not have accidents (hopefully) are paying for the people who have them. What we get for the money we pay every year is insurance for that potential car wreck. The healthy people pay for the sick, but we will all eventually get sick, so we're all in it together. If the low-risk people can opt out of the system, costs rise because the pool of sick people increases costs for all; these sick people are proportionally significant. The people who can't afford to pay get subsidized. Also, the goverment option will likely be more efficient and cheaper--costs are reduced and the government plan is not based on profit motive which also saves money.

Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 4:08pm
single payer health insurance is very much like social security, I giant pool of the insured, lowering costs for the individual.

health care is by no means unsustainable. perhaps our version of it is.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 4:08pm

I agree with you but I don't think mandates and fines for lack of coverage is going to fix ANYTHING. I know if I was poor and the government told me I could be fined if I didn't get health insurance I would take the fine over paying monthly for something I could barely afford.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 4:16pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

But the government is supposed to subsidize those unable to afford coverage. There are also ways for the government to lower costs, after all, governments have the ability to single-handedly alter or even create markets. And if you believe in the Obama plan which subsidizes lower income people, so does Clinton's to about equal value...but if you think that the government assistance is not enough to bring people in, well, then more money needs to be allocated to those people, otherwise what's the point? State-run plans are not a fair comaprison with what the federal government would offer by the way. If you're thinking of Mass.

By the way I wasn't peddling Clinton over Obama, though I do believe her plan is superior.

Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 4:28pm
State-run plans are not a fair comaprison with what the federal government would offer by the way.----Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 4:28pm

No, you're right. They're better.

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 4:28pm

I need to look more in depth at the plans I have only skimmed the surface but the fines are what throw me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 4:32pm
I need to look more in depth at the plans I have only skimmed the surface but the fines are what throw me.

Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person

By chance, there was an excellent program on the public radio show, On Point, hosted by Tom Ashbrook (the best radio moderator around), talking about healthcare in detail. It attempted to get into the weeds, so to speak. I thought it very informative. You might check it out when you have an hour to kill some time.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080213_a_main.asp

Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 4:52pm
No, you're right. They're better.

Posted by MASK 02/13/2008 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

Mask,

You need to include your trademark "HeHeHe" for this to be a credible statement!

Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 3:53pm

OUTBUSH,

FTAs are necessary to get some of the very protections that you argue for. The WTO has had a lot of resistance to "one-size-fits-all" provisions that may work well in one region or country, but not in another. A good discussion of the pros and cons of FTAs versus the WTO appears below.

I personally think the real long-term solution to worker and environmental protection is employee owned companies. Unions are an archaic adversarial way of dealing with worker issues, and have the same flaws as the adversarial process in American courtrooms concerning different bargaining power and unevenness in skill among those representing the adversaries. If every employee was also an owner, worker rights would be a given rather than something bargained for. And if employees had to decide whether to pollute the air, lakes, and rivers in their neighborhoods, what do you think that decision would be?

For too long, the labor movement has settled for less power. It is time to take the next step in labor relations and demand to be owners in the institutions that we rely on for our economic subsistence.

Since the end of World War II, U.S. policy has generally supported the liberalization of international trade--that is, the elimination of artificial barriers to trade and other distortions, such as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies, that countries use to protect their domestic industries from foreign competition. The United States has pursued the objective of trade liberalization primarily by seeking agreements among large numbers of countries in successive rounds of multilateral negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organization (WTO). In recent years, however, the United States and other countries have also begun to negotiate free-trade agreements (FTAs), which eliminate almost all trade restrictions and subsidies, with various individual countries and groups of countries. A number of such agreements are on the policy agendas of the Administration and the Congress.

Like the North American Free Trade Agreement--which was examined in a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper, The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexican Trade and GDP--the new FTAs should have a net beneficial effect on the U.S. economy. In most cases, all of their effects--good and bad--should be extremely small. However, the arguments for and against FTAs extend beyond their net economic effects on the United States to considerations of foreign policy and tactics for achieving multilateral free trade.

The net effects of the new FTAs on the other countries involved should also be beneficial but much more significant than the effects on the United States because of the much smaller size of those countries' economies. FTAs thus provide a way for the United States to help various countries for foreign policy reasons while having little effect on the United States. They also offer a way to continue making headway toward the goal of free trade in the face of difficulties that have slowed progress in the Doha Round of WTO negotiations. In fact, they may help stimulate progress in that round because countries not party to the FTAs may fear being left behind while countries that are party to such agreements expand trade with the United States.

Critics worry, however, that the pursuit of free-trade agreements could divert the world from multilateral negotiations and lead to the development of rival trading blocs centered on the United States, the European Union (EU), and Japan. Indeed, the EU has negotiated a number of FTAs in recent years. Critics also argue that because of differences in negotiating dynamics, FTAs between small developing countries and such large entities as the United States or the EU are likely to leave in place some trade barriers that multilateral negotiations in the absence of FTAs would eliminate. Foreign-policy and tactical considerations must be weighed alongside the economic arguments in determining whether the pursuit of FTAs is an advisable path to the goal of multilateral free trade.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 4:56pm
Also, if the employees owned GM, do you really think they would have killed the EV1, given the huge demand for practical and affordable electric cars?

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 5:01pm
When the Clinton's tried to disparage Obama's win in South Carolina because of his race Obama responded by winning Nebraska, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, and Minnesota, States with a less than 10% African American population. When an email somehow "surrepticiously" was sent to Jews across America alleging Obama was a Moslem who was anti-Israel Obama responded by winning the majority of Jewish votes in every single State except New York. When the Clinton's tried to dismiss Obama's appeal to working class people and White Americans Obama further responded by winning Virginia and Maryland and not only the working class and White vote but split the female vote with Clinton. Now Clinton, after playing the race card, the religion card, and the class card, is trying to pit Hispanic Americans against Obama in Texas. The vile, despicable Clinton's are practicing the art of gutter politics and in doing so are not only tearing Obama down they are tearing the Democratic party apart. The American people need to express their disgust with the politics of divisiveness and polarization. That kind of politics will not solve the problems with face with our economy, health care, the environment, immigration, and foreign affairs. I hope the voters in Texas and Ohio will vote for the candidate who most emphasizes the better side of our humanity and who is running an uplifting campaign of ALL Americans working together and that candidate is Barack Obama. Make your voices heard! VOTE!

Posted by mjkoch at 02/13/2008 @ 5:03pm
The operative words in the speech were "We can--or --should stop "Free Trade'. It means he still supports it and will support these agreements. He will be useless on trade issues, and he is not a Progressive. The only way this mess will be turned around is with Tariffs and withdrawal from all "Free Trade Agreements". I will not vote for him or Clinton. Even if they can't go to jail, this is economic treason. As long as these trade agreements are in effect, you will have increasing poverty in America and the world..

Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/13/2008 @ 5:04pm
The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 (H.R. 1462) was a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives that was drafted by Coronado, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher. The bill's stated purpose was to influence businesses (through tax incentives) to offer their employees ownership and control of the companies they work for. The bill states, "It is the policy of the United States, that by the year 2010, 30 percent of all United States corporations are owned and controlled by employees of the corporations." The U.S. Senate was considering a similar bill at the time.

Congressman Rohrabacher has been a long time supporter of Employee-owned corporation (ESOPs). This bill would have created a new kind of corporation under the law, the Employee Owned and Controlled Corporation (EOCC). The three primary characteristics of these EOCCs would have been:

* Employees would own at least 50% of all voting stock in the form of an employee trust. At least 90% percent of employees who worked more than 1000 hours a year would have to be allowed to participate in this trust. * Employees would be allowed to vote on all corporate issues, including board elections. * Distribution and valuation rules correspond to existing ESOP rules.

The bill had 36 co-sponsors in the House, which included members from both sides of the isle. These included Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Collin Clark Peterson (D-MN),Mary Bono (R-CA), Gary Miller (R-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and current Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul of Texas and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 5:22pm
It's amazing that BOTH Kucinich and Ron Paul agree on the need for employee ownership and control of US companies!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 5:24pm
Obama begins his own triangulation campaign.

Can he be all things to all people like Bill was?

Will Hillarys gay lover come out of the woodwork?

If any of these things happen, we'll tell you about it on the next episode of

SOAP

Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 5:25pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/13/2008 @ 5:22pm

don't you know that employees need the guidance of Supervisors and CEO's?

Only those born to lead can. Like Scrushy and Kenny boy Lay. Ad Chimpy, the CEO president.

Born leaders.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2008 @ 5:29pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2008 @ 5:29pm

The CEO and supervisors can make their pitch, but they get only one vote, just like all of the other employees. If what they are saying makes sense and is transparent so that all employees can monitor the success or failure of their initiatives, then I'm sure most employees would support these leaders. But if the corporate leaders want to operate in secret and benefit only a handful of employees at the expense of everyone else, employee ownership and control prevents this kind of abuse and ensures that the corporation works for the best interest of its customers and employees.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 5:41pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/13/2008 @ 5:42p

Or is the reason union numbers have been declining because of the assault on their right to organize and unionize?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/13/2008 @ 6:34pm

If Julian Bond wants to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan, he should urge both state's party apparatus to hold caucuses in June that comply with the rules of the Democratic Party.

Anything less than this, is carrying water for the Clintons, and Julian wouldn't be the first black leader to but personal favors from the Clintons ahead of the interests of black folks or the Democratic Party.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 6:38pm
Typo...should have read "Julian wouldn't be the first black leader to [p]ut personal favors from the Clintons ahead of the interests of black folks or the Democratic Party."

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 6:42pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/13/2008 @ 6:34pm

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond endorses Clinton (basically)

From the Michigan Messenger,

A noted civil rights leader weighed in the Democratic race by calling on the Democratic National Committee to seat delegates from Florida Michigan.

The AP reports that "In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Refusing to seat the states' delegations could remind voters of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," he said."

The timing and thrust of Bond's letter is both interesting and disturbing. However, we should first examine the context of how the two major political parties allocate their delegates. Unlike Republicans, Democrats allocate their primary delegates proportionally rather than using a winner-take-all approach. Because of that, the Democratic primary has been remarkably close because unless the winner wins by large margins, the actual difference in delegate count will not be that dramatic. As of tonight, Senator Obama has been winning by large enough margins to be leading Senator Clinton in the amount of pledged delegates 1078 to 979, according to NBC News.

Since February 5th, Senator Obama has won eight straight contests. If Senator Obama is able to sustain his momentum into winning the delegate rich states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, seating Michigan and Florida's delegates could prove to be the critical margin of victory for Senator Clinton.

The disturbing part of Bond's letter is that could easily be interpreted as a backhanded way of endorsing Senator Clinton. By backhanded, I am referring to the notion that any attempts to not seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida can be boiled down to racial discrimination. The Michigan Democratic Party knew full and well that if they moved their primary before February 5th, their delegates would not be seated at the convention, but they did it anyway, thinking that they would be immune from the consequences. The MDP's bravado and arrogance has effectively disenfranchised not just minorities who are Democrats, but all Democratic voters across Michigan.

If Bond truly wanted to speak up for minorities' voting rights, he would have written a letter to the Michigan Democratic Party asking them to schedule a Democratic caucus so that Michigan's delegates could have a seat at the Democratic National Convention.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 6:48pm
So-called "black leaders" are losing power all across the country with the rise of Obama and his ability to connect directly to black voters with his bottom-up grassroots campaign.

Bypassing these leaders may make some of them angry and insecure, but the fact that black voters have become energized and motivated to vote in record numbers by Obama's candidacy should be a "good" thing.

It certainly feels good when white folks have to come to you to deliver the black vote, but losing this power because of the rise of Obama should be cause for celebration because it means that black folks have outgrown their black patrons and can now stand on their own.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 7:00pm
Bypassing these leaders may make some of them angry and insecure, but the fact that black voters have become energized and motivated to vote in record numbers by Obama's candidacy should be a "good" thing.

Posted by METTEYYA 02/13/2008

Interesting observation.....But then, that would make Obama the "Black" candidate, now wouldn't it? (heh,heh)

Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 4:54pm

What typically shows more response to its citizens and gets more efficiency out its programs? The states or the Fed?

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/13/2008 @ 7:52pm

Can you explain to me how they are Anti-Worker, Anti-American and Anti-captialism?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/13/2008 @ 7:54pm
"Progressive" means much more than saying something a vague "someone" might agree with. I've read Obama's books. He is progressive because he is not afraid to think, and he stands for something deep and permanent in his mind and heart. He honors our constitution! And is in politics to serve the people first! Now that is real change!

Posted by rumitime at 02/13/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/13/2008 @ 7:47pm

It doesn't make him any "blacker" than Bill Clinton, who also carried the vast majority of the black vote!

And unlike any "black candidate", Barack is able to carry the white vote as well, especially in the midwest, midatlantic, northeast, north, and northwest. The only place where he is losing the white vote is in the south, which says more about the south than it does about Barack.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2008 @ 8:08pm
Its NAFTA with some makeup.

Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/13/2008 @ 2:06pm

SHAFTA the piggie's got some lipstick.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 8:18pm
Mett,

While Obama's community organizing is a plus for him, it is worth noting that not all community organizing is populist, at least not when the word 'populist' describes a set of policy proposals. You can do community organizing for anything. You can, and some do, engage in community organizing to support the replacement of the income tax with a sales tax. And that is about as far from populism as you can get.

That said I didn't mean to be claiming that Obama is a new populist. I happen to think that he isn't a populist now, but really neither was Edwards. The media has shifted so far to the right that they mistake being a New Deal democrat for populism. What I was trying to do was hold up for ridicule your response. You are responding to any criticism of Obama like a five year old responds when someone takes their toy. Someone says 'Obama is bad in manner X' and your response is 'Obama is GREAT in manner X, and every real progressive knows it!!!!' It doesn't even annoy me anymore, its just amusing. Comic even.

Posted by dentedpat at 02/13/2008 @ 8:36pm
Barack Obama serious about protecting American jobs? Don't make me laugh. When growing up on Chicago's Far West Side, hardly a day went by when I didn't hear how Democrats "stick up for the working man." Now the Democrats, like the Republicans, are sticking it to American workers by allowing 2 million immigrants, half of them illegal, to enter this country each years. This at a time when 23 million less-educated Americans are looking for full-time work.

If you want to see where Obama really stands on this issue, visit the following site:

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/index.php3

While there be sure to check out the entire Wisconsin delegation, especially Feingold.

Dave Gorak Executive director Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration LaValle, WI www.immigrationreform.org

Posted by davegorak at 02/13/2008 @ 8:39pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/13/2008 @ 8:24pm

Would it be a good guess that those "bullet points" came from the Heritage Foundation website?

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 8:55pm
Just to be clear about my own position on trade, since Mett made a false attribution, I think the WTO and any region wide deals(like NAFTA) should be scrapped. I do not think we need international trade organizations, especially ones that lack transparency the way that the WTO does. I think all trade deals should be bilateral. I think further that written into every trade deal would be some core set of actual labor standards. By this I mean things like the actual labor laws we and the Europeans have on the books, not endorsements of vague principles like we had with the Peru FTA. That also requires transparency in the enforcement process. All tribunals or commissions charged with the task of enforcing labor law should have their proceedings and membership made public. I think there should be written into all trade deals provisions which set a schedule for our trade partners to move to a minimum wage that is roughly equal to ours in purchasing power parity. (you can't do this immediately or you would sink the domestic industries of poor nations and leave their markets wide open for domination by multinational corporations) I am against financial market liberalization in almost all its forms, it is nothing but a destablizing force. I think countries should get to protect certain core industries like agriculture, but that those protections should be reciprocal. So I am fine with keeping subsidies for small farmers in this country (no subsidies for Monsanto, ADM and Cargill though) but I think it is morally required of us that we stop pressuring poorer nations to remove their agricultural subsidies. When we make our agricultural goods cheaper and force them to make theirs more expensive, we promote starvation.

So am I against free trade? I am against lifing barriers to concentrations of capital. This just makes corporations more powerful and governments less powerful. When it is a democratic government being made less powerful that is just another way of saying that it makes corporations more powerful at the expense of the people in general. I see no problem with the old import substitution model, and think when such models are adopted by democratic governments they have a chance to succeed. That might count as being against free trade, or it might not. I am not suggesting, however that we jack up tariffs against Japan and Germnay to save GM and Ford or anything like that. I accept that trade between distinct domestic corporations in Mexico and the US, for example, is a good thing. If you can craft a trade deal that will allow for trade without also empowering multinational corproations at the expense of the people, I would support that trade deal.

I admit that there are risks to this. When all the trade deals are bilateral the risks of beggar they neighbour policies being enacted in harsh times goes up. But I do not see why we need a standing organization like the WTO to handle crises when its presence also means that governments lose almost all real control over their economy (except the US which ignores the WTO when we want to). Between the Great Depression and the formation of the WTO the national banks of the large countries, along with the World Bank and IMF got together to deal with economic crises, and they did a pretty good job (until the IMF turned into the home of neo-liberalism and fucked up Asia in the 90's).

Posted by dentedpat at 02/13/2008 @ 8:56pm
So I am fine with keeping subsidies for small farmers in this country (no subsidies for Monsanto, ADM and Cargill though) but I think it is morally required of us that we stop pressuring poorer nations to remove their agricultural subsidies. When we make our agricultural goods cheaper and force them to make theirs more expensive, we promote starvation.

by DP

and a whole lot of mexicans jumping the border.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 9:45pm
until the IMF turned into the home of neo-liberalism and fucked up Asia in the 90's).

Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/13/2008 @ 8:56pm

and mexico, too.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 9:55pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/13/2008 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person

It seems that your experience at the UAW is more of an indictment of your Union Leadership than the right for workers to organize. And I still don't see that corruption any more anti-american, anti-worker and anti-capitalism than the Bush administration.

Posted by BizarroRio at 02/13/2008 @ 10:09pm
1) Clearly, Obama is saying what needs to be said to people whose vote he is hoping to secure. This is always suspect, and is consistently among the most common criticisms of Clinton. 2) An infrastructure investment package should be targeted to areas where there is growing population and the greatest need for improved or new infrastructure. Implying new highway construction jobs to deadend rustbelt towns declining in population is disingenuous. He was clearly playing to a wider audience here. 3) Obama has gotten a tremendous amount of traction on the community organizer thing. Hillary did similar work, including legal aid work in Texas. What's with the double standard? 4) The Patriot Employer Act is a good idea, unless is includes tax breaks for his friends in the coal industry.

Posted by jhorner at 02/13/2008 @ 11:04pm
It's nice to see The Nation realizes Obama has not exactly been online with the working class - of all ethnicies, by the way. I wish the MSM would note this. I am from Ohio and I view this sudden interest by Obama in us working stiffs as nothing more than vote-mongering.

It's chilling to realize how conservative he sometimes can be after you get beyond his broad principles and populist rhetoric. He won't be getting this working-class (retired writer and editor) college grad's vote.

Posted by sallywally at 02/14/2008 @ 12:13am
And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate--we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."

Really? That long huh? so I guess we are going to elect someone who can point way, way back 2 whole years to show how much he has been trying to do, eh? OK then. Does anyone know what his stances are on Pro Choice? I keep hearing intimations of some kind of disturbance in the force in this area.

I have been an Obama supporter until very recently. Contributed, volunteered. Unfortunately his rhetoric about running a clean campaign, raising the level of the conversation, disagreeing without being disagreeable is becoming a little thin in substance as he goes on the attack and takes very pointed aim at Hillary with what can only be described as below the belt punches and using divisive innuendo and even some right wing talking points about Hillary. Sorry, that did it for me. I guess raising the level of conversation is for after the election... or maybe it just doesn't apply to Hillary.

Also, he just isn't a gracious winner and that is a turn off. Don't get me wrong, his oratory skill could still move me to tears but now I understand that I am seeing a performance. It took me awhile. I couldn't figure out why I was starting to get queasy as the crowds got bigger and bigger and the adulation and hero worship grew. It's entertainment. He is a great politician. He knows what to say and how to say it beautifully. He can slam somebody and it sounds like poetry.

Something about all those screaming adoring fans reminds me of a rock concert... or maybe a pilgramage into a religious frenzy. ewww. scary. Well, at least he has said something substantive today in between his elevated conversational attacks on McCain...(good) and Hillary, (bad.)

Posted by oh mercy at 02/14/2008 @ 12:27am
Yeah that is the reason to not vote for someone. They aren't sweet when they win. I noticed nothing wrong with any of his acceptance speeches when it came to graciousness, but I wouldn't care if I had. Can't understand why other people would. As for the abortion issue planned parenthood of Illinois backs him completely and went to bat for him on the present votes, so I really doubt he is a closeted pro-lifer (like Kucinich is).

As for the crazy adoration, it is disturbing. We have seen it on this board. But there are perfectly sane people who support him. My friend Nate was knocking on doors and making phone calls for Obama all the way up to and including Super Tuesday. He admits that the candidate has failings (unlike some people who name themselves after a buddhist deity, or whatever you call bodhisattvas. That should have been the first clue as to Metts shocking arrogance. Imagine a Christian naming themselves the Archangel Michael) but simply thinks he is overall a good package and the best to come around. And what are people who are excited about a candidate supposed to do at a rally? Sit on their hands?

Posted by dentedpat at 02/14/2008 @ 01:04am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/13/2008 @ 7:52pm

Can you explain to me how they are Anti-Worker, Anti-American and Anti-captialism?

Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/13/2008 @ 7:54pm

Because he still lives in the 1970's, and he said so.

Just like the State Dept and CIA are chock full of damn liberal commies.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:37am
Remember when the neo-cons, specifically PONTIFLOGIC, said he would like to Iraq look like Japan?

Thu Feb 14, 1:20 AM ET NAHA, Japan (AFP) - Japan's southern island of Okinawa on Thursday demanded the US military rein in the thousands of troops stationed there after a US Marine was arrested for allegedly raping a girl.

The prefectural assembly of Okinawa unanimously adopted a resolution asking the US military to take action to improve ethical training for its forces.

...The resolution also renewed the local government's call for a reduction in the more than 20,000 US troops stationed in Okinawa.

Staff Sergeant Tyrone Luther Hadnott, 38, was arrested on Monday over allegations that he raped the girl in his car on the island. He has admitted trying to forcibly kiss her and groping her but denied raping her.

The incident rekindled memories of the gang-rape in 1995 of a 12-year-old girl by three US Marines, which set off major protests on the island and set in motion a process to reduce the number of US troops there.

US Ambassador Thomas Schieffer, who on Wednesday flew to meet to Okinawa governor Hirokazu Nakaima to express regret over the incident, promised to review ethical training for the troops.

But opposition assembly members demanded that Nakaima, a government ally, demand tougher action, noting that the US government has promised tighter discipline before.

The Okinawa police have reported to an assembly committee that 14 rapes allegedly by US soldiers have occurred in the tiny province since 1995.

"He has not shown enough anger," opposition assembly member Chosei Taira told AFP.

"We have adopted resolutions of protest over and over again, but they hardly have made any changes," Taira said. "We demand the entire withdrawal of the US military. Unless all Marines go, we wouldn't be rid incidents like this no matter how many times we protest."

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:41am
On balance, I'll take a $100 million inconvenience over a $100 billion federal fiasco anyday.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 07:40am

But you support the ongoing $1,000,000,000,000 fiasco in Asia.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:42am
Luvvy says he does not want theocracy, and I buy that, but it is amazing the things the neo-cons have in common with the Mullahs of Iran

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Frightened leaders of Iran beat up union organizer Amir Taheri:

ONE of Iran's most popular civil-society leaders was ab ducted in Tehran on Tues day after chairing a meeting of trade unionists. Mansour Osanloo, the 48-year-old president of the Union of Bus Drivers (SKSV), had just stepped off a bus when a group of bearded men emerged from a gray Peugeot and attacked him with clubs and knuckle-dusters.

Shouting, "You are an enemy of Islam," the attackers pushed him into the car and drove away. Witnesses said Osanloo was severely beaten, and his attackers continued to beat him even after they had forced him into their car.

In 2004, Osanloo helped create one of the first independent trade unions in Iran since the mullahs' 1979 seizure of power. He has led two successful transit-worker strikes, forcing the state-owned bus company to offer concessions.

Other workers have followed his example, creating over 400 independent trade unions with an estimated 1.5 million members. Earlier this year, the independent unions set up the Workers' Organizations and Activists Coordinating Council (WOACC) to foster unity of action. On May 1 (International Labor Day) the WOACC held the first independent workers' marches in Tehran and 11 other major cities since 1979.

Osanloo, regarded by some as "Iran's Lech Walesa," has been abducted by paramilitaries working for the government before. He's also been imprisoned twice, including a spell at Evin, the dreaded "Islamic Alcatraz."

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:47am
stronger Federal workers' rights legislation.

Buwahahaha. Yea, right!!

On Monday morning, April 9, 2007, 29-year-old migrant farmworker organizer Santiago Rafael Cruz was tortured and brutally murdered in the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC, AFL-CIO) office in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Santiago had worked for FLOC as a member-organizer for four years in Toledo, Ohio, and for one-and-a-half months in Mexico as a full-time office manager / grievance handler. Witnesses on the scene have confirmed that Santiago was tortured by more than one individual, and that the union's office showed no sign of forced entry or robbery. Santiago is survived by his father, mother, brothers and sisters in Mexico.

In 2004 FLOC won a historic collective agreement with the North Carolina Growers Association to represent nearly 10,000 farmworkers who travel each year from Mexico to North Carolina on H2-A guest worker visas to harvest tobacco, cucumbers and Christmas trees. FLOC's agreement cleaned up and systematized the recruitment of these workers in Mexico, jeopardizing the business interests of fly-by-night recruiters in rural areas of Mexico who previously overcharged workers by several hundred dollars to find them jobs in the U.S. Since FLOC established its office in Monterrey in 2005, it has been the victim of attacks in the media, deportation threats, several robberies and violent intimidation.

And in the free USof A

January 5 2007

A new study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that one out of five union organizers and activists are fired for their organizing work. The statistic was published earlier this week in a study titled "Dropping the Ax: Illegal Firings During Union Election Campaigns" and is based on numbers prepared by the National Labor Relations Board. The report describes that employers are more likely now than in the past to break the law in firing union organizers facilitating union campaigns, as the penalties for breaking the law are "slight" and are no deterrent to employers seeking to stop unionization campaigns (back pay for fired workers minus any earnings fired workers make after being fired). The probability of workers being fired for union activity has increased significantly since the 1990s, with employers frequently targeting union activists and firing them at critical points in unionization efforts. The study argues that the findings fit into a systematic attack by employers on existing unions and efforts to organize new unions that accelerated in the 1980s and has used legal support and coverage to undermine unions. The study's authors suggest that this attack has been responsible in part for the decline in union membership in the United States.

But don't let reality get in your way Darin, John and Larry.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:53am
Is the alternative relinquishing soverighty to the UN? I'll take the trillion dollar fiasco.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 07:50am

non-sequitor

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:53am
If Lib despised the union leaders using violence to gain power you can assume he despises the Mullahs using violence to gain power.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 07:53am

No I cannot, he advocated for the nuking of China or Korea. He is all for the bombing of Iraq and the leveling of Fallujah.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2008 @ 07:56am
Because he still lives in the 1970's, and he said so.

not so, he lives in the 1870s

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 08:20am
from our let's get it right dept.:

it's non sequitur.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 08:22am
Wow... I've been gone for a while, but it's good to know that "LOVELIBERTY", that old rightwing airbag biblethumper, is still around! (Actually he enjoys the intelligent conversation here as opposed to the rightwing sites.)He's a cartoon who is always good for a laugh. He always said that a Democrat can't win the presidency because they are soft on terrorism. We shall see... I believe Obama will win if the Democratic Party superdelegate mafia will do the right thing. Whether he is sincere or not, Obama is saying the right thing. The export of manufacturing jobs is destroying the middle class of this nation. I am an unapologetic protectionist for U.S. jobs. I am not interested in creating a middle class in China if it means destroying the middle class here, while enriching U.S. transnational corporations.

Posted by philbq at 02/14/2008 @ 08:53am
It is illogical to blame NAFTA for our current economic situation when the manufaturing capital of the world is China.

Posted by Zeddmen at 02/14/2008 @ 08:58am
Seems pretty ironic. Obama says he's for the Peru free trade agreement, but he's against NAFTA. Its all the same thing. Now how many of you think he's going to be against NAFTA once he's elected? FLIP FLOP!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by sara48909 at 02/14/2008 @ 09:01am
Union membership declined because businesses have been able to successfully fire anyone who tries to organize a union. Until there are protections for people who try to organize there won't be any changes. When workers get tired of watching their managers make 400 times their pay; when workers get tired of working overtime and getting paid straight time; when workers get tired of no benefits; when workers get tired of having to work two jobs to make ends meet workers will return to the unions just as they did when they first started unionizing.

Posted by sara48909 at 02/14/2008 @ 09:05am
He's for what one does and against what the other doesn't... If one did what was said it would do before the repub controlled congress took the teeth/funding out of it, it would just be another trade agreement that protected the workers on both sides and the environment-- but it doesn't. Get it? One way benefits greedy corporations; the other benefits the workers and their children, but they are both called trade agreements and they can be very different.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/14/2008 @ 09:16am
As long as one side has workers willing to work for substandard wages and no benefits there is no benefit to the US. It will always benefit the companies to move out of the US. There is no such thing as FREE TRADE. And if the US does anything to try and protect its workers we will be penalized by the World Trade Organization.

Posted by sara48909 at 02/14/2008 @ 09:21am
Posted by SALLYWALLY 02/14/2008 @ 12:13am

Posted by OH MERCY 02/14/2008 @ 12:27am

Finally...was wondering when the "one time poster" Hillary people would show up again. (I didn't figure with all the staff layoffs that he would get fired)

Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 09:22am
"We have adopted resolutions of protest over and over again, but they hardly have made any changes," Taira said. "We demand the entire withdrawal of the US military. Unless all Marines go, we wouldn't be rid incidents like this no matter how many times we protest."

Posted by CRABWALK 02/14/2008 @ 07:41am

when i read about that rape, i hoped the okinawans would get pissed.

good for them.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:42am
They aren't as useful as they once were.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 07:43am

yeah, because there are no jobs left!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:43am
Other workers have followed his example, creating over 400 independent trade unions with an estimated 1.5 million members. Earlier this year, the independent unions set up the Workers' Organizations and Activists Coordinating Council (WOACC) to foster unity of action. On May 1 (International Labor Day) the WOACC held the first independent workers' marches in Tehran and 11 other major cities since 1979.

by crabwalk

From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,

"Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:50am
Is the alternative relinquishing soverighty to the UN? I'll take the trillion dollar fiasco.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 07:50am

fuck the u.n.

LET AMERICA SQUISH!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:50am
Conservatives want political power at the lowest possible level.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 08:01am

so why do so many defend the interest of hyperpowerful corporations?

what happened to "for, of, by the people"?

now it's "over, on top of, astride the people"

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:55am
It is illogical to blame NAFTA for our current economic situation when the manufaturing capital of the world is China.

Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/14/2008 @ 08:58am

i'd blame consumer debt first and foremost.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 09:57am
Oh Mercy: I just wish more people would see through him sooner rather than later.

Posted by sara48909 at 02/14/2008 @ 10:15am
Conservatives want political power at the lowest possible level. *************************************************************** Unless they are the party in power at the highest possible level.

Posted by sara48909 at 02/14/2008 @ 10:22am
Posted by SARA48909 02/14/2008 @ 10:15am

See through...who?

Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 10:56am
I haven't heard a single candidate say anything about the fact that American corporations are sending trillions of dollars worth of jobs, technology and investment to China while China continues to be one of the primary suppliers of weapons and technology with military applications to terroism sponsoring, genocidal and highly repressive nations like Iran, Burma, Syria and Sudan.

Posted by cthullu at 02/14/2008 @ 11:30am
It is illogical to blame NAFTA for our current economic situation when the manufaturing capital of the world is China.

Posted by ZEDDMEN 02/14/2008 @ 08:58am

As busy as I'm getting during normal `work' hours.....I can't let this BS stand!

The US has a $14 TRILLION economy with manufacturing still accounting for something like 25~30%....means about ~$4 TRILLION!

The Chinese economy is grwoing rapidly, roughly 10% for a decade, and is now something on the order of $3 TRILLION. I don't know what % of the $3 T is manufacturing....but, do the math! The US remains the "manufaturing capital of the world"....even if we'll be surpassed in a decade or two.

Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 11:37am
Posted by CTHULLU 02/14/2008 @ 11:30am

That's because a majority in the Democratic primaries ...didn't vote for somebody to say that.

Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 12:14pm
I haven't heard a single candidate say anything about the fact that American corporations are sending trillions of dollars worth of jobs, technology and investment to China while China continues to be one of the primary suppliers of weapons and technology with military applications to terroism sponsoring, genocidal and highly repressive nations like Iran, Burma, Syria and Sudan.

Posted by CTHULLU 02/14/2008 @ 11:30am

sssssshhhhhhhhh..........

steroids, baseball, remember?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/14/2008 @ 11:37am

holy shit!

the u.s. has more debt than it entire gdp.

if i ran my household like that, i'd be next in line at the soup kitchen.

i guess that's what all those superduper guns'n'shit are for.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 12:39pm
I wish I could blame the politicians. But I can't. We get what we deserve.

Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 12:37pm

here's one just for you.

i think you'll "enjoy" seeing bernanke squirm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw

if madeinchina were to stop, where would we export our inflation to?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 12:42pm
I wish I could blame the politicians. But I can't. We get what we deserve.

Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 12:37pm

here's one just for you.

i think you'll "enjoy" seeing bernanke squirm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw

if madeinchina were to stop, where would we export our inflation to?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/14/2008 @ 12:42pm
Manufacturing is NOT 30% of GDP. These days it is about 12%. And that is a huge loss of good manufacturing jobs. No one can deny that. Those good jobs have been replaced by low wage service jobs with no benefits. If you take away Boeing and Caterpillar, U.S. manufacturing exports are puny. Manufacturing is what made this nation the greatest economic power in the world. And manufacturing is what is making China the next economic power. I am a protectionist. I believe in protecting domestic jobs through tariffs if nenessary. Our middle class is disappearing. It is being grown in China. And I don't like that tradeoff. I am an American.

Posted by philbq at 02/14/2008 @ 1:15pm
(unlike some people who name themselves after a buddhist deity, or whatever you call bodhisattvas. That should have been the first clue as to Metts shocking arrogance. Imagine a Christian naming themselves the Archangel Michael)

DENTEDPAT,

Metteyya is my real name, and, no, it is not based on some Buddhist deity like the "Aria Metteyya" that is supposed to appear a million years from now. My name is NOT Aria Metteyya, it is Metteyya Brahmana. "Metteyya" is derived from "metta practice" in Buddhism, which is a loving kindness practice in which you project good thoughts toward all living beings. The name "Metteyya" simply means "he whose name is kindness", so to try to project your own lack of understanding of Buddhism and Buddhist names as some ego-driven phenomenon says more about you than it does me.

I think you are struggling with your own ego, in which you think my disagreement with you on a few issues is somehow a personal assault on you. It isn't personal, DENTEDPAT; my opinions are based on my own experience and education, and have absolutely nothing to do with you.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/14/2008 @ 1:21pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=philbq

tariffs are so...

19th century. the whole world is dropping them, and you want to increase them? c'est impossible

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 1:22pm
Another note, what is so great about manufacturing?

ignorant or just plain stupid? manufacturing, like cars, paid mostly union wages, say $25 an hour. service wages? ten an hour. i'm keeping it simple fer ya.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 2:43pm
The trade policy you all want is insanity. What do you want to return to, Smoot-Hawley 2008? Protecting a bunch of outdated jobs at the expense of the rest of the economy isn't wise policy.

Posted by bdb08 at 02/14/2008 @ 2:55pm
I'd sure rather work at the air conditioned office where I do now than work at some steel mill, that I know.

Posted by bdb08 at 02/14/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 3:28pm

I'm sorry, we just "move on", after you tell an offensive ethnic joke?!?!??!

Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 3:52pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 4:03pm

No, but this guy might be [en.wikipedia.org].

Posted by Mask at 02/14/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person

Don't be so quick to disparage or marginalize manufacturing, Western Europe and Japan still retain much of their economic strength from their manufacturing sectors. The most pressing economic issue facing us and the world is addressing the long-standing market failure of energy production. Nor are unwanted effects of industrialization and our lifestyles alone in demanding our attention; public infrastructure will also require massive new investment. Manufacturers create more than ball-point pens. Besides, how arrogant and elitist for you to assume just because the work is not glamorous to those fortunate enough to have alternative options like yourself that many millions would not be happy to have such well-paying opportunities.

Below are some excerpts from a study called Renewing U.S. Manufacturing:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp212/bp212.pdf

"Manufacturing has long played a key role in the U.S. national system of innovation; as manufacturing becomes weaker, the capability to innovate is likely to become weaker, as well. Manufacturing was responsible for 60% of all U.S. research and development spending in 2003. Scientists and engineers make up 9% of the manufacturing labor force, a share that is nearly twice as large as in the rest of the economy (Scott 2008).

Over the last decade, the United States lost manufacturing jobs at a stunning rate: 16% of its manufacturing jobs disappeared in just the three years between 2000 and 2003, with a further decline of almost 4% between then and now.2 This had been some of the bestpaying work in the country. The average manufacturing worker earns a weekly wage of $725, 20% higher than the national average."

Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2008 @ 4:35pm
Forgive me for bringing logic into this, but WTF? How does preventing new unions cause existing membership to decline?

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person

whatta stupid question. folks retire.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 4:45pm
Emile, do you work on a line building cars?

it is not MY job we're talking about, nor yours. what we are talking about the job of those who were MAKING something.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/13/2008 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person

METTEYYA,

I agree with you concerning worker-owned industry, but in the mean time I think unions still remain crucial since they doesn't rely singularly on the political system. The relationship of unions can be more felxible than what we've tradtionally seen. Unions serve different functions from country to country, and I'd like to see ours have a more expansive role than wage and benefit guardians.

You say that FTA's would be the vehicle to deliver some of the worker and environmental protections but I have yet to see any evidence of this. Nafta has had more of a negative impact on our economy and Mexico's than the CBO portays and I could cite studies if you like. Besies, if our government fails to uphold their regulatory duties here at home, how would they ever act ethically on behalf of small nations targeted by these FTA's? You raise interesting points and I apologize for my brevity in responding, but I do not have as much time as I'd like here.

Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2008 @ 4:58pm
once more:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_middle_is_falling_out_of _the_economy

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 5:29pm
right to work laws, union busting, that's what happens.

Friehiet, let's talk when they move your job overseas. this is what has happened to MILLIONS of Americans. but you worry? only about the Fed.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 5:36pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 5:03pm | ignore this person

Bush made a difference, I have no reason to believe that Obama won't.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 5:37pm
Friehiet, don't like politicians. perhaps you would feel better in say Zimbabwe, one leader, no politicians.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 5:38pm
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-par t-i

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 5:45pm
one of the reasons GM is going bust, is because we DON"T have single payer health insurance, while Toyota and Mercedes do.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 5:46pm
Manufacturing is NOT 30% of GDP. These days it is about 12%....

Posted by PHILBQ 02/14/2008 @ 1:15pm

IF you're going to challenge somebody--my saying 20 to 30% of GDP--do actual research...like below, from the National Inst. of Occupational Safety and Health:

NIOSH Economic Factors Manufacturing

Input: Economic Factors

Between 1992 and 2002, the Manufacturing sector was the largest contributor to the U.S economy, accounting for 22%....

Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 5:54pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person

you have never said a kind word about ANY politician.

you can start by drawing distinctions, and voting for the politician who is just a teensy tiny bit better than the rest. that is the democratic way, and doing so you would be lighting a candle, instead of just cursing the darkness.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 6:11pm
How sad.

Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 6:41pm | ignore this person

that does it. shut the fuck up you patronizing son of a bitch.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2008 @ 6:48pm
Emile,...you tell me to shut the fuck up?

I am always amazed when liberals prove Ann Coulter is spot on..

Posted by FREIHEIT 02/14/2008 @ 8:46pm

They were schooled by Markos Zuniga...."F*%k them!", even when `they' are dead, burned and swinging from bridges....Kossacks...how charming!

Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 9:20pm
Forgive me for bringing logic into this, but WTF? How does preventing new unions cause existing membership to decline?

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/14/2008 @ 2:58pm |

Follow along Darin. Older union membership is retiring, being bought out or simply fired so we can seek lower labor costs elsewhere. . Look at the reduction in manufacturing jobs. Therefore there are fewer union positions. Add in the attack on union membership and ...wallah, reduced membership and shrinking membership. Also, shrinking wages.

But, you guys love shrinking wages.

And you are an actuary? Never ceases to amaze me how you are unable to put together 2+2, but are able to come up with 7 out of 14 +9. And somehow you get paid for this.

Freihaeit, speaking for myself, and I think many here, you need to get over this "Guvt run healthcare" idea. What most of us are calling for is for One entity to do the collecting of money and the paying of money. We have the highest overhead of any industrialized nation. It is hurting your precious business religion. Ask GM, they are in favor of evil "socialized single payer" too.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/15/2008 @ 09:05am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 09:09am
over one third of the expense of running a doctor's office is dealing with the over 150 different insurance companies, while they in turn try to wiggle out of paying claims.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 11:12am
The SEIU's recent endorsement of Obama is another indication that, while he is far from a perfect progressive, his candidacy represents the best chance progressives have at achieving serious change in this country. If you have come to the conclusion that we should unite behind Obama to stop the centrist wing of the party, I invite you to help me reach my fundraising goal at Obama's website. He will need all the help he can get against the Clintons.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/BlakeEllis

Posted by beellis17 at 02/16/2008 @ 6:18pm