Why Would Obama Push A Trade Deal That Would Cut Pay Of 90% Of Workers?
By Dave Johnson
April 26, 2014
Research concludes that if you're making less than $87,000 per year (the current 90th percentile wage), the Trans-Pacific Partnership would mean a pay cut. But that's fine for corporations who want this treaty.
President Obama is in Asia, partly to "reassure" partner countries that the U.S. is a strong ally and partly to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Both are to counter China's growing influence. While TPP is being sold as a "strategic" countermeasure to China, like other so-called "trade" agreements TPP does not help American workers; it hurts them.
Obama In Asia Pushing TPP
President Obama is in Japan as part of his "pivot to Asia" tour of Pacific countries. He is also visiting South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines. The trip is meant to demonstrate U.S. diplomatic and economic efforts toward Pacific nations to counterbalance China's increasing influence in the region. Part of this effort is a big push to get TPP negotiations back on track and completed.
TPP is a massive "trade" treaty between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. "Trade" is in quotes because only five of the treaty's 29 chapters actually deal with trade. Others set rules on investment, set limits on the ability of governments to regulate corporations, restrict a government's ability to spend its own tax dollars on goods made in that country (such as "Buy America" procurement policies) and other things well beyond the usual scope of what would be considered a trade agreement. This leads many to claim that the treaty is really about limiting the ability of governments to reign in the giant corporations. (For those not familiar with TPP, read all about it in ourfuture.org's TPP section.)
more
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/why-would-obama-push-trade-deal-would-cut
simple. $$$$$$$$ for his backers. $$$$$$$$ for him after he leaves the Presidency. Just like Bubba. And Shrub, and Poppy Bush….
= new reply since forum marked as read
The 3rd Way NeoLiberals ALWAYS include some crumbs for the Middle/Working Class.
That way, they can point these crumbs and pat each other on the back in front of the TV Cameras.
Eg:
1) The 2 year Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts included a 6 month extension for some whose Unemployment benefits were going to expire.
If you said, "Wait a minute"
you got attacked for hating the unemployed.
2) The Health Care Reform contained some good stuff for the Middle/Working Class/ and The Poor,
but it cost a MANDATE to purchase products from a For Profit Industry,
and a multi-BILLION Dollar yearly subsidy for the most worthless For Profit Industry ever established.
If you question the morality of subsidizing the Health Insurance Industry,
you get attacked for hating those with Pre-existing Conditions.
THAT is what the 3rd Way really means.
At least the 3rd Way NeoLiberals WILL include a few scraps for the 99% while giving the keys to the Public Treasury to the 1%,
which IS better than what the Republicans are offering.
What was WRONG with the Old Way Democrats?
You remember them...
FDR & the New Deal,
HST and Fair Deal,
LBJ and the Great Society.
Those Democrats built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working/Middle Class (99%)
that the World had ever seen.
Why do we need "New Democrats" and "3rd Way Democrats"???
As far as I'm concerned, they are just retread Moderate Republicans,
and I FOUGHT Moderate Republicans all through the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Why should I vote for them NOW?
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change"
without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
1 Prior to Cold War
1.1 Russia
2 During the Cold War
2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986
3 Since the end of the Cold War
3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present
3.11 Ukraine 2013–2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions
"Spreading Democracy" one coup at a time.
It's the carrot and the stick. If the "Free Trade" deals go south, there's always another way. Many Americans think that by ignoring these atrocities they somehow escape blame.
are different sides of the same coin. I know it is difficult to accept, but unfortunately it is becoming obvious. I am truly saddened and disappointed. 
