Thread: Lou Dobbs is a weak debater

In his "debate" with Susan Schwab (trade negotiator) he clammed up and could not or would not make the killer comment to the effect that NONE of the Free Trade Agreements are: neither fair nor free for America
(that would take one paragraph instead of 100s of pages)

He barely mentioned the 28 years of consistent trade deficits, currently at $800B, but did not challenge SCHWAB to explain why that is GOOD for AMERICA....

She got her point out to the effect that US EXPORTS grew by more than 40% in most such deals.... but LOU failed to point out that it came at a steep price of VASTLY INCREASING IMPORTS. How the hell is that good for America.

In the case of NAFTA:

Pre-NAFTA 1992: Exports to Mexico: $41B; 2006 $134 B (3.3 times)
Pre-NAFTA 1992: Imports from Mexico: $35B; 2006 $198 (5.7 times)

So the US went from a SURPLUS to a HUGE DEFICIT. How the hell is that good for America?... It may be good for the particular "exporters", but America is left holding the "Current Account Deficit" bag....

The statement we keep hearing from the USCHAMBER is that TRADE quintupled.... true, BUT MEXICO is the winner, US is the loser....
The US had a positive balance of $6B, now we have a negative balance of $64B...

surely Lou understands this? but he can't seem to articulate this critical nuance...

Any reserve of US dollars held by the Mexicans or even by the Chinese and Taiwanese for that matter is eventually going to have to be spent here. It is just a matter of when it occurs. We have also long had a problem of over priced currency which we are now seeing a pendulum swing going in the other way.

Yes I saw this and was surprised at how easily he let her off the hook.

One point he should have mentioned is the infrastructure that would be needed to accomodate this new trade. Yet another would be that with the tanking of the US dollar, goods gain value in foreign markets. Companies sell goods abroad for more profit. It can easily be seen the connection between the rabid quest for trade changes with the current (intentional) tanking of the dollar.

Im starting to think that Lou goes very easy on the debate when faced with females.

W

After all of the comments and truth I have seen Lou lay it on the line with in the last 3 years, I am beginning to think he has been gotten to by the CFR media leaders. All of the comments that mdillon1172 is looking for were all stated by Lou at one point or another, but lately he has been lax, no doubt about it..not too much, but lax.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Im starting to think that Lou goes very easy on the debate when faced with females.

W

That must be it.....because from what I have seen, the OPPOSITE to the OP is true when Lou argues globalism/free-trade.

William wrote:

Im starting to think that Lou goes very easy on the debate when faced with females.

It's definitely starting to seem that way.

It seems more like he was not prepared for what she threw at him. Although, I, too have beeen disappointed in Lou lately. It sure looks like something is going on there.

He certainly was gentle with LaRaza President, Janet Marguia! He's also very friendly toward Luis Guitierrez!

I love Lou dearly, in spite of his shortcomings in certain areas, but I have been puzzled for years over the fact that Lou NEVER has answered one question: What would YOU do with the 12-20M illegals already in this country? His stock answer is: We have to secure the borders FIRST! I really think that Lou is pro-amnesty...and this is very disturbing! Or it could just be that he wants to keep his job.....

Dobbs did a good job against Villaraigosa when he debated him awhile ago, but Villaraigosa does not have much intellectual firepower if you know what I mean.