Obama hopes Nike speech turns tide on trade legislation in Congress

[Baruch]

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/05/obama_hopes_nike_speech_turns.html

In an announcement timed to hit hours before Obama's visit, Nike said that it would pour more money into developing U.S. manufacturing if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is approved. The promise of more jobs at one of the country's most well-known companies helped explain why the White House chose to highlight the firm despite critics who abhor Nike's reliance on overseas manufacturing.

Some may look at this and see Nike in a partnership to take advantage of new trade laws to strengthen the US. I mean, a Fortune 500 can't be wrong, ay?

What I see is that Nike and Obama envision a future USA where businesses can afford to ship jobs here, just like we have been shipping jobs overseas. What could make this a viable opportunity for Nike? If the US' economy tanks in relation to the global economy then it will be cheaper to do business here. Perhaps this is what Obama means by the Trans Pacific pact "level[ing] the playing field".

"The only thing weaker than sweatshop-king Nike's empty promises is the White House's willingness to hype them as a victory in its push for a trade deal that will make it easier for other huge corporations to ship more U.S. jobs overseas," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal group that has fought Obama on trade.

Of course, it could be that they are lying to us about the real intent of the Trans Pacific pact.

Notice the photo of Obama with his back to the camera and holding up the devil horns sign over the cheering crowd.

[Lou Newton]

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/05/obama_hopes_nike_speech_turns.html

In an announcement timed to hit hours before Obama's visit, Nike said that it would pour more money into developing U.S. manufacturing if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is approved. The promise of more jobs at one of the country's most well-known companies helped explain why the White House chose to highlight the firm despite critics who abhor Nike's reliance on overseas manufacturing.

Some may look at this and see Nike in a partnership to take advantage of new trade laws to strengthen the US. I mean, a Fortune 500 can't be wrong, ay?

What I see is that Nike and Obama envision a future USA where businesses can afford to ship jobs here, just like we have been shipping jobs overseas. What could make this a viable opportunity for Nike? If the US' economy tanks in relation to the global economy then it will be cheaper to do business here. Perhaps this is what Obama means by the Trans Pacific pact "level[ing] the playing field".

"The only thing weaker than sweatshop-king Nike's empty promises is the White House's willingness to hype them as a victory in its push for a trade deal that will make it easier for other huge corporations to ship more U.S. jobs overseas," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal group that has fought Obama on trade.

Of course, it could be that they are lying to us about the real intent of the Trans Pacific pact.

Notice the photo of Obama with his back to the camera and holding up the devil horns sign over the cheering crowd.

I remember Clinton telling us how good NAFTA would be for us all. He was lying through his teeth. That deal took many industries out of the nation and many jobs were lost.

When has Obama told the truth. I do not know of one time that Obama has done so.

I think Obama hates the people of the US and I would not trust him with ANYTHING.

I had a friend that simply could not tell the truth. Because of his childhood he simply was unable to tell the truth.

Even if Obama wanted to do this nation good, he has shown a total inability to deal with international leaders with any intelligence. Putin has made him look like a buffoon.

The really fearful statement that Obama made is "I will make sure this deal is good for us".

He always speaks like a dictator. Like he is the ONE in total control and no one else has any say. Leaders like Washington would have said, "We will try to make sure the deal is good for the people".

Notice Obama never gives the details, but always speaks in generalities.

Below is a key quote from the article:

For Nike, the trade deal is less about lowering trade barriers in other countries as it is about slashing U.S. tariffs on shoes it makes overseas and sells to American consumers.

This deal would be good for Nike, who makes it's shoes overseas, but it would not be good for companies in the US that still makes their shoes here.

[Lou Newton]

I remember Clinton telling us how good NAFTA would be for us all. He was lying through his teeth. That deal took many industries out of the nation and many jobs were lost.

When has Obama told the truth. I do not know of one time that Obama has done so.

I think Obama hates the people of the US and I would not trust him with ANYTHING.

I had a friend that simply could not tell the truth. Because of his childhood he simply was unable to tell the truth.

Even if Obama wanted to do this nation good, he has shown a total inability to deal with international leaders with any intelligence. Putin has made him look like a buffoon.

The really fearful statement that Obama made is "I will make sure this deal is good for us".

He always speaks like a dictator. Like he is the ONE in total control and no one else has any say. Leaders like Washington would have said, "We will try to make sure the deal is good for the people".

Notice Obama never gives the details, but always speaks in generalities.

Below is a key quote from the article:



This deal would be good for Nike, who makes it's shoes overseas, but it would not be good for companies in the US that still makes their shoes here.

We should consider the actions of past liberal POTUS in trade deals in thinking about this trade deal with Obama.

I remember it being reported that the Clinton's reported that they were worth 110 million when they left the White House. Now one may ask several questions concerning this 110 million:

1 - If they reported 110 million, how much were they really worth. Considering they both have hid much from the public and not kept their actions in the light. How much is in hidden accounts overseas etc.

2 - Where did they get this $110 million, or who knows how much more ? They were paupers when he first got elected. They were paid $400.000 per year for 8 years. That is $3,200,000 in total, minus whatever they had to spend.

Now if one is working full time for the people, it is hard to believe that anyone could turn 3.2 mil into 110 mil even of they were both very very good with money. BUT, if they were very good with money, why were they both paupers when he got elected.

I have to suspect that he was paid many millions for the trade deal he got through congress. The Congress was also liberal at that time.

The media reports that Obama wants to get this trade deal passed to have a legacy.

I DO NOT THINK THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I THINK OBAMA WANTS TO PAD HIS NET WORTH BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE AND CAN NO LONGER EARN BRIDES BY GETTING BILLS PASSED.

He is taking a lesson from the Clinton playbook.

What do you think ?

[Baruch]

We should consider the actions of past liberal POTUS in trade deals in thinking about this trade deal with Obama.

I remember it being reported that the Clinton's reported that they were worth 110 million when they left the White House. Now one may ask several questions concerning this 110 million:

1 - If they reported 110 million, how much were they really worth. Considering they both have hid much from the public and not kept their actions in the light. How much is in hidden accounts overseas etc.

2 - Where did they get this $110 million, or who knows how much more ? They were paupers when he first got elected. They were paid $400.000 per year for 8 years. That is $3,200,000 in total, minus whatever they had to spend.

Now if one is working full time for the people, it is hard to believe that anyone could turn 3.2 mil into 110 mil even of they were both very very good with money. BUT, if they were very good with money, why were they both paupers when he got elected.

I have to suspect that he was paid many millions for the trade deal he got through congress. The Congress was also liberal at that time.

The media reports that Obama wants to get this trade deal passed to have a legacy.

I DO NOT THINK THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I THINK OBAMA WANTS TO PAD HIS NET WORTH BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE AND CAN NO LONGER EARN BRIDES BY GETTING BILLS PASSED.

He is taking a lesson from the Clinton playbook.

What do you think ?

Hm. What you say here, Lou, makes a lot of sense to me. For some reason I was not considering the money angle for this president, probably because I didn't know this about the Clintons. According to the apostle Paul, the love of money is the root of all evil. How much is all? Is there anything below the root?

[Lou Newton]

Hm. What you say here, Lou, makes a lot of sense to me. For some reason I was not considering the money angle for this president, probably because I didn't know this about the Clintons. According to the apostle Paul, the love of money is the root of all evil. How much is all? Is there anything below the root?

Thanks for the reply Barry.

Well if this passes we can both hope I am wrong.

BUT, if Obama is telling the truth, it will be the first time I have seen him tell the total truth.

It will also be the first time I will have seen him do something good for our nation.

The closer the Clinton's got to the end of his term, the more dishonest they became.

He pardoned total criminals. He wrote some really bad executive orders. He sold national secrets to foreign powers. They sold favors to lots of people. At the very end they even stole many items out of the White House that had been there since Lincoln. They were made to bring some of them back.

I do not expect any better out of the Obama's. They both have used his office for their own personal gain.