Obama mailer on TPP...

[bluegopher]

I want to set the record straight.

Right now, we have an opportunity to set the most progressive trade agreement in our nation's history -- with enforceable labor and environmental protections we simply can't count on other nations to pursue.

Here's why this means so much to me: I want to make sure that any deal we reach reflects our nation's values, in a way that hasn't always been true in the past. That's why I've said I'll refuse to sign any agreement that doesn't put American workers first.

But as long as 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we don't have the option to sit back and let others set the rules. We need to take this opportunity to level the playing field -- because when we're competing on equal ground, American workers win.

If you agree it's important for America to lead on trade, join OFA supporters by adding your name today.

I've staked my presidency on middle-class economics, and fought hard for policies that ensure that anyone who's willing to work hard and play by the rules can get a fair shot.

We've made a lot of progress over the past six years -- rebounding from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, strengthening our manufacturing sector, and growing forward-looking industries like renewable energy.

We can't go back -- and we can't leave it to nations like China to write the rules for the global economy.

This is personal for me. I understand the skepticism about this, or any, trade deal. I've met folks across the country who still feel burned by agreements of the past. Those are the people I came to Washington to fight for.

That's what this is about for me. This is our chance to do better, to get it right.

I hope you'll agree. Over the last few months, OFA supporters across the country have stood up to ask the hard questions on this issue -- to make sure the outcome is good not just for our economy, but for working families.

If you want to see America lead the way to establish a truly progressive trade agreement, add your name with OFA today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Lead-On-Trade

Thank you,

Barack Obama

[corkhead]

1. Yup, I unsubscribed and deleted it when I saw it the first time.

[840high]

3. So did I.

[brooklynite]

8. It's always SO unpleasant to read a message you disagree with...

[Person 2713]

2. If you want to see America lead the way to establish a truly progressive trade agreement, add your

name to this sucker list so we can distract you away from any real activism on trade (unions, citizen.org etc) with more useless OFA bull

[okaawhatever]

4. Sorry folks. NAFTA didn't cause huge job losses. I'm sick of reading the lies. Here is some accurate

unbiased information. There are several reports from the Congressional Budget Office, The Economist a highly respected economics journal/magazine that is more than a little left, and FactCheck.Org who also verified the claims.


CBO: pages 2 & 3 have the pertinent information

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/report_0.pdf

From The Economist: NAFTA 20 Years On

The American and Canadian economies were already pretty well integrated before the creation of NAFTA, so there was no great leap in trade between the two. But America’s trade with Mexico increased by 506% between 1993 and 2012, compared with 279% with non-NAFTA countries. In 2011 America traded as much with Canada and Mexico as it did with the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), Japan and South Korea combined. The “giant sucking sound” that Ross Perot, a presidential candidate, predicted would be heard as Mexico hoovered up American jobs never materialised; if jobs have moved anywhere in the past two decades, they have gone to China, not Mexico. Industries from aerospace to cars have woven supply chains back and forth across North America’s borders. Some 40% of the content of imports from Mexico into the United States, and 25% of the content of imports from Canada, originated in the United States itself. Helped by rising energy production in all three countries, Factory North America is being created (see article).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21592612-north-americas-trade-deal-has-delivered-real-benefits-job-not-done-deeper-better

FactCheck.Org:
Q: How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
A: Actually, nearly 25 million jobs have been gained. Nearly all economic studies say NAFTA's net effect on jobs was negligible.
FULL QUESTION
How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
FULL ANSWER
NAFTA took effect on Jan. 1, 1994. Since that time, the U.S. economy has added just over 25 million jobs, of which nearly 20 million were added under President Clinton, who pushed for ratification of NAFTA and signed the agreement.
This chart shows the growth in total nonfarm employment in the U.S. since NAFTA's inception, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/

CBO: Summary of 4 Studies

NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment. NAFTA is at
the heart of a long-standing debate over the employment effects of trade because of fears
that trade with developing countries causes U.S. job losses and that trade deficits equate
to higher unemployment. None of the reports attributed changes in aggregate U.S. or
Mexican employment levels to NAFTA, but the author of the first chapter of the Carnegie
study suggests that changing the assumptions of a USITC model would allow for a net
gain in U.S. employment over the past decade of between zero and 270,000 jobs, a small
increase. For Mexico, it concludes that “the sum of the effects of the trade pact to date
has not been a strong net gain in overall employment.” The second chapter (different
author) argues for zero net growth in U.S. jobs. The USITC study demonstrates, contrary
to some popular opinion, that U.S. trade deficits tend to occur during periods of low
unemployment, and “vice versa.” This evidence supports well-established economic
theory that would suggest both the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and U.S. employment
levels over the past decade were responding to economic growth, not each other.9

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf

[Jesus Malverde]

6. "One million jobs lost to NAFTA"

[neverforget]

9. oops!

[Jesus Malverde]

10. heh

[okaawhatever]

11. Yes and if you read the FactCheck article you'll find that study was found to be flawed. I'm not

sure if that was the one that stated one million jobs were lost but didn't mention that other industries added jobs so the net effect was almost zero, or if it was the one with flawed methodology. Regardless, that study wasn't accurate.

[nationalize the fed]

12. NAFTA was less than popular at the 2007 AFL CIO debate

Talk about bashing! Even NAFTAMAN's Wife. Of course, they were trying to fool union members. And who would remember anything they promised a week later anyway.

Skip to 18:18

Obama @ 26:50 "Look- People don't want a cheaper t shirt if they're losing a job in the process"

[Generic Brad]

5. I tune all mailers out

Doesn't matter who sends them. I automatically delete and do not waste my time on them. It's nothing more than electronic junk mail.

[nationalize the fed]

7. Nike, Inc.

From the Nike, Inc. Wiki Page:

Nike has been criticized for contracting with factories (known as Nike sweatshops) in countries such as China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mexico. Vietnam Labor Watch, an activist group, has documented that factories contracted by Nike have violated minimum wage and overtime laws in Vietnam as late as 1996, although Nike claims that this practice has been stopped.



The company has been subject to much critical coverage of the often poor working conditions and exploitation of cheap overseas labor employed in the free trade zones where their goods are typically manufactured. Sources for this criticism include Naomi Klein's book No Logo and Michael Moore documentaries.

As of July 2011, Nike stated that two-thirds of its factories producing Converse products still do not meet the company's standards for worker treatment. A July 2011 Associated Press article stated that employees at the company's plants in Indonesia reported constant abuse from supervisors.

During the 1990s, Nike faced criticism for the use of child labor in Cambodia and Pakistan in factories it contracted to manufacture soccer balls. Although Nike took action to curb or at least reduce the practice, they continue to contract their production to companies that operate in areas where inadequate regulation and monitoring make it hard to ensure that child labor is not being used.


Philip Hampson "Phil" Knight (born February 24, 1938) is an American business magnate. A native of Oregon, he is the co-founder and chairman of Nike, Inc., and previously served as the chief executive officer of Nike. In 2014, Forbes named Knight the 43rd richest person in the world, with an estimated net worth of US$22.3 billion.