Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Will Democrats Follow John Edwards On Trade--And Win Elections?" ..LINK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:48 PM
Original message
"Will Democrats Follow John Edwards On Trade--And Win Elections?" ..LINK
John Edwards has been on the forefront advocating real change in our trade policies.

Edwards has proposed four principles on trade that should be a very solid guide for the Democratic Party:
(1) Our multilateral and bilateral trade deals and unilateral trade preferences must help America; (2) Our trade policies must also lift up workers around the world;
(3) We must understand in negotiating trade agreements that "one size does not fit all"; and
(4) Our trade deals must be fairly and fully administered.

One telling quote in the Linked article " ...a nationwide poll that showed that a majority of REPUBLICAN voters oppose so-called "free trade." Do we need to put flashing lights on that fact for those Democratic Party leaders who would still prefer to side with the corporate insiders, as opposed to the voters?"

READ the full article a the LINK below. The case is compelling.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/will-democrats-follow-joh_b_70189.html

"Aside from the Iraq war, nothing is more important in this election than where the next president will stand on how the rules will be set in the economy, particularly when it comes to trade. There is no greater threat to average Americans--a greater threat than the budget deficit, or the admittedly awful sub-prime mortgage scandal--than the imposition of so-called "free trade" regimes on our workers and workers around the world. Over the weekend, John Edwards took another step towards cementing his opposition to so-called "free trade."

<snip>

"Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.


For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close - and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.

NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn't served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too - average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed."

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. So it shall be written, so it shall be done.
JE is our best hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. What are John Edwards SPECIFIC proposals regarding trade reform?
Edited on Mon Oct-29-07 01:56 PM by Romulox
I've read a great deal of John Edward's position statements on trade, but I have not come across any specific proposals as to existing trade deals, and in fact, I have come across statements of his supporting continuing MFN status for China (which he voted for) and NAFTA (before his time, IIRC.)

So it's great that he announced opposition to a free trade deal with Peru, but in reality, that deal is not the one that was hurting American workers: NAFTA and MFN for China are. And at the end of the day, John Edwards supports continuing NAFTA and "free trade" with China.

So where's the real reform? :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Read the LINKED Article you will see Edwards does NOT support continuing NAFTA and 'free trade" ....
There are people out there distributing disinformation about Edwards and his positions. But if you read the LINKED Article in the OP or go to his website you will find that Edwards has been the most outspoken against 'continuing NAFTA' and 'free trade.'

I summarized the four 'principles' Edwards set out --there is much more detail, which I think you are seeking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I read it; He says "NAFTA is bad" then gives no specific proposal to fix it.
He also doesn't mention MFN for China (for which he voted while he was in the Senate).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC